How They Match Up
- 02.11.2008 - 9:49 AMBarack Obama is making the argument to superdelegates and adoring groups of voters that he is more electable of the two Democratic candidates and that he will match up better against John McCain. For now, the polls agree, but less dramatically so than one might expect. But is this right?
Hillary Clinton’s “high negatives” are legendary and, if the Obama campaign has proven anything, it is that there is a hunger among Democrats and Republicans alike to jettison the Clintons from the national stage. However, there are several disadvantages which Obama has.
First, we vote, of course, by the electoral college. So the real issue is which states, if any, does he put in play which she does not. Yes, he has run well in red states, but no one seriously believes that he will beat John McCain in Nebraska. At least for now, Clinton polls better among Hispanics and would therefore have a better shot at states which actually are in play, such as Florida and New Mexico. In the habitually important state of Ohio with the famed Reagan Democrats, some of whom are socially quite conservative, there is a good argument Clinton, not Obama, is the stronger candidate. (We’ll find out on March 4 who runs stronger with Democrats, but in the fall Independents and Republicans will be at issue also.)
Second, there is something to be said for Clinton’s argument that she will not be blown off the stage by McCain. Watching Obama’s campaign speech in Alexandria yesterday on CSPAN, I was struck how little there is still there. The vast majority of the speech was utter fluff, lovely and soaring fluff, yes, but still fluff. The rest was rather bland aspirational liberal fare (”give our kids a world class education”). In an election that season that will last six months or more will this wear thin? (Quite possibly. And now that Saturday Night Live writers are going back to work we can expect some delightful spoofs of his video and political messaging.) On foreign policy the problem is more acute. In a debate will he sound credible, with McCain ready to pounce, that our real problem internationally has been our failure to visit with the world’s tyrants?
Third, his ranking by the National Journal as the most liberal Senator reveals a basic truth: for all of the “bringing together” and “reaching out” rhetoric he remains an unblemished and uncompromising liberal–on foreign policy, on judges, on taxes, on everything. I can think of no issue in which he has bucked the Democratic liberal establishment (other than a meek suggestion that merit pay for teachers might not be such a bad idea). If McCain can break through the din of music videos (or wait until they seem strangely stale) he might just make the argument to the great middle swath of the electorate that there is a reason other than soaring rhetoric why Teddy Kennedy endorsed him: he is an attractive spokesman for the platform of the Left that the country has repeatedly rejected.
So, although Clinton has fallen on hard times and is resorting to all manner of silly argument to retain her hopes for the nomination, we should give the lady her due: she may, in a general election, be the stronger of the two candidates.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
February 11th, 2008 at 10:54 AM
It’s a fun game to figure out who is the worse candidate against John McCain, but I see neither one of them winning in any of the big states that were red in 2004. At best Hillary can peel off maybe NV, maybe IA. The vote may be closer in some in the south if Obama is the nominee, but McCain has an appeal in the south that goes beyond convervative v. liberal: he’s a military man of strong convictions who I think will ultimately garner enough support in a region that likes the military. Hillary may be competitive in FL, but I don’t see that state going blue in ‘08. And, if the dead vote in Philly can finally be bottled up and remain in the graveyard, the Reagan Dems in PA may well carry the day for McCain there — it’s at least doable. And if PA goes red, then how can the Dems win?
February 11th, 2008 at 11:15 AM
McCain is quietly licking his chops at the prospect of running against Obama. You’re right, Barack strings cliche to high-sounding platitude and finishes it off with a good dose of boilerplate, but sooner or later people will realize it is all empty calories.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:15 PM
“…she may, in a general election, be the stronger of the two candidates.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Hillary Clinton will have to run a very nasty campaign to beat Barack Obama. This most assuredly will result in a a sizable number of blacks staying home on election Day. A drop of even five to ten percent should prove disastrous for the Democratic Party.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Mr Thomson, I have always enjoyed your contributions - both in recent days when I’ve encountered them here, and also at other sites over a longer period - but I think you overstate the issue, or at least the certainty with which we can regard it. For all we know, African Americans, propelled especially by their spoils-seeking leaders, may return to a victorious Hillary in droves, in mighty genuflection aimed at overcompensating for their followers’ indulgence in identity-voting.
It’s also not clear at all whether Hillary a) needs to go nasty and b) will go nastier whether or not she needs to. Since the California debate at latest, she seems to have been aiming instead to co-opt Obama’s optimism and nicer-than-thou approach (even to the extent of mimicking the “yes we can” cheer at one recent rally), adding her own “I especially can” message to it. We don’t know yet whether her demonstrated strengths among Latinos, the elderly, the poor, and women will carry her to a quiet “comeback” victory after all. In the meantime any nastiness is likely to be perpetrated by lower surrogates on the trench warfare level.
In the old Democratic Party, that would probably have been enough, but the shiny new version is something else again, more given to rhetorical and policy excess, less forgiving of what up until very recently was approved Clintonian triangulation. That Hillary has been unable or unwilling to go after Barack in this classic Clintonian fashion also underlines how her own strategic position and therefore her strategy have been weakened. Nowadays, it’s as though running to the middle is for Democrats virtually the same as “getting dirty.” It’s not just as an apology for his ill-received remarks on the trail that she’s had to half-divorce her husband - politically if not legally - and turn to a kind of triangulation by subtle implication rather than in the open. In so doing, she has allowed her connection to the last period of Democratic presidential governance into a negative (the return of Bill the person and perpetuation of so-called dynastic politics) rather than a positive (let’s do what worked for us in the ’90s).
Much more could be said on the subject, but I’ll instead point out that Hillary’s been trying to counter Obama’s thin argument of greater electability in various ways - in particular by stressing her supposed greater toughness and greater effectualness. She’s trying to set up the rest of the nomination fight as a self-fulfilling prophecy in which, perhaps not as oddly as you might think on first glance, Obama’s campaign and its horde of media flunkies and brainwashed Barry-boppers together take the role of “Republican Attack Machine” by proxy: If she’s truly more “real” than Obama, so much more admirably harder of nose, then she should be able to win out, even though he’s been cheating all along by oh so unfairly exploiting his greater attractiveness, charisma, and skill - not to mention a ca. 80% hold on voters who happen to share his skin color more or less, but otherwise probably would not be his primary constituency in this struggle.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:29 PM
CK MacLeod - Clinton was ahead in the black vote until Iowa, so it isn`t like they haven`t given her any support or thought. If you decry blacks for voting for Obama then surely white people or women voting for Clinton would also earn your wrath. Be consistent.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Guy, I don’t decry, I just descry.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:33 PM
I have no doubt that in a general election McCain would attack either Hillary or Obama hard. Question is which could he do the greater damage to. I have a lot of respect for Hillary, but she comes with a boxcar full of baggage. Yea, Obama comes across as fluff, but he is not a stupid person, and has already shown the ability to learn from his mistakes in the campaign.
In any one debate, I might take McCain over Obama, but over a series of debates, I don’t think so. McCain can easily be attacked and deconstructed over the war, tax cuts, and his support for various Bush proposals. He may be a maverick, but he still sticks to the Republican party line 60% of the time, and the country does want a change.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:02 AM
It kills me as a democrat to see fellow democrats taken in by a feel good candidate who has specifically employed speechwriters to make him sound “a little JFK, a little MLK, a little RFK.” He may say the right things but there’s nothing, no record whatsover to back it up. Each of those great men had great accomplishments and sacrifice. Sorry folks, Obama does not. I can only hope that democrats wake up and realize Clinton is the best hope for the White House. You can’t run against a military hero (or so he will be portrayed) without an ounce of foreign policy experience. I want to dream to, but I also want to make sure we have no more of the republican nightmare this country’s been subjected to. Whether you like her or not is not the issue, the issue is whether or not she can get the job done - and that’s why Hillary must prevail. If it isn’t in 2008, then she’ll be McCain’s opponent in 2012. Think about it.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:35 AM
Samantha Power may be right to point out that “there are several disadvantages which Obama has” but Hillary’s general election challenges are worse than Obama’s. Powers brings them up (“Clinton’s “high negatives” are legendary”) but then strangely acts as though they need not be weighed in the balance. There are many reasons Democrats might chose to support Clinton, but the question of who could carry our water best in the general must clearly go to Obama.
1) THE NEGATIVES - Hillary’s negative poll numbers can’t be simply igmored. They aren’t just a high, they’re historically high. A year of campaigning hasn’t changed them much. She is a known quantity about which most of the country has long since made up its mind. Voters that are actually open to changing their opinion are disturbingly few. EVEN IF her debating skills were superior to Obama’s, her debates with McCain would be less productive for Democrats because a much larger number of people just wouldn’t listen. Simply put, for every enthusiastic Hillary voter, there is at least one other voter that is determined to vote AGAINST her…her personally, not just any Democrat. Not only could her negatives energize conservative voters - otherwise lukewarm to McCain, they may also represent a ceiling to possible support. NOT a good choice for any Democrat interested in growing the party and expanding its future.
Obama doesn’t have this problem. In fact he shows a rare ability to open new ears and to inspire converts. These new supporters not only to vote, but become politically involved, donating and volunteering in huge numbers. Lacking Hillary’s baggage, he is much better situated to take advantage of GOP weakness this year, and to maximize long term Democratic gains. He presents Dems with a real chance to claim the majority of a new generation of voters. Obama’s strength lies not only in the numbers of his supporters but in their levels of commitment and enthusiasm. Critics who belittle Obama’s inspirational style as ‘empty’ miss the point. His policy mind is as keen as any, he can talk issues when needed, but he makes broadly inclusive speeches about ideals and hope on purpose. He’s expanding a coalition. Hillary pooh-poohs this at the expense of the party.
2) THE ELECTORAL ARGUMENT - Ms. Power dismisses Obama’s current lead against McCain in national polls (and McCain’s lead against Clinton) by pointing out that electoral votes, not popular votes, will decide the contest. She dismisses Obama’s victories in “red states” and argues that Clinton’s appeal among Hispanics and the working class should carry more weight. Her analysis is flawed. Exit polls indicate that Democratic voters across demographics are willing to support either candidate, despite their personal preference. Hispanics, for example, who vote Hillary are not by extension anti-Obama. He may just be the less familiar candidate. (Obama’s ability to close the gap in Texas over time may be a good test of this.) There is little to indicate that Hispanic voters wouldn’t accept a Democrat other than Hillary, apart from supposed “divisions” between Blacks and Latinos which haven’t kept Black other candidates from flourishing in many Latino-heavy districts. Note that this same logic might not apply in reverse to the African-American voters who trend toward Obama. Large numbers of them formerly supported Clinton and know her well. They have willingly left her for Obama, Many feel that her campaign has affronted the Black community. She probably has a bigger job of bridge-building in those voters than Barack does among Latinos.
Obama, who is the son of an immigrant, has lived abroad, and has taken a political risk to support licenses for the undocumented. could match Hillary among Hispanics, even against McCain. While McCain has stood up to his party on immigration, he still represents the GOP which is unwilling to compromise here. Bush too supported ‘amnesty,’ but was rebuffed by his party. Comprehensive reform supporters will be leery of trusting another Republican.
The reality this year is that the GOP is handicapped. Either Hillary or Barack would be favored. Both have proven competent enough to have a good chance of turning some purple states. (Samantha Power invokes Arizona for Clinton, I counter with Virginia for Obama…and so on.) Democrats then shouldn’t focus on who does better with Dem voters, but on who can compete for Independents (McCain’s bread and butter) and bring first-time voters to the tent. Obama.
3) COATTAILS! - In the scrap over who Dems like better for President, we forget that there are other elected offices which Democratic candidates might like to win. A candidate for President isn’t just a party’s choice for that office, they’re the top of a ticket. A President has a better chance of governing if he or she has Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and others officials from their own party able to give support. Power dismisses Barak’s victories in red states which he probably can’t win in November. This argument gets it absolutely backwards. ANY Democratic candidate will likely be able to deliver the blue states in November. Either candidate could plausibly swing some of the battlegrounds. It’s in close races within those red Obama states where a margin of majority lies. The enthusiasm for Obama’s campaign among long neglected Dems in the deep red heartland may not move many of those states into the blue column for the President this year, but all those newly energized Dems who turn out to vote for Obama will also be more likely to vote for Dem candidates down the ticket. That, combined with the fact that fewer GOP voters will turn out to vote against Obama than would do the same against Hillary, could make the difference in a lot of close races and affect the balance of power from capital hill to City Halls across the country. It just might also weaken the GOP’s future in some of those states by recruiting young voters to the blue column.
4) IRAQ, DUH - Finally, Obama is right to point out that McCain’s Achilles heel is the Iraq war. His advantage in security matters is undermined by it. He may be a centrist in many ways and a potential crossover candidate, but he’s on the dead wrong side of public opinion on Iraq. Barack’s early and consistent opposition to the war can put McCain’s feet to the fire and chain him to Bush’s unpopular positions. Hillary will have trouble attacking McCain while defending her vote. Democrats should remember that Kerry lost largely because of his Iraq vote and the “flip-flop” label which it exposed him too. His argument on the war was too complicated to fit in a sound bite. Obama’s record avoids this pitfall.
Democrats have a rare window of opportunity. Our aim should be to secure the largest possible gains, while we can. Movements that energize new voters and young voters in Obama numbers are very rare too. They can’t be replicated or put off for future use. All those fired up young voters may be less dependable than their proven parents and grandparents, but if they can be brought into the fold now, they are statistically likely to be lifelong Democrats.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Mrs. Hillary Clinton needs to do TWO things immediately to hold any credibility for the White House/President of the United States race:
1. Release her tax returns immediately so voters can see exactly where she got an easy $5 Million to dump into her own campaign fund. Was the source of these funds like the mysterious $100,000 she ‘earned’ in the past in so-called commodity futures trading, which was a mysterious aberrational source of money for her that looked like a structured political payoff?!? NO ONe just jumps into the futures market for the first and only time and walks away with a clear $100,000 profit — never to return to play again! Either this was a secret payoff, or Hillary is an irrational gambler. Commodities futures trading for non-professional traders is sheer gambling/speculation! Not what you want in a president of the US. Of course, the secret money payoff theory is much worse. Once again, Hillary says she wants transparency in gov’t, BUT NOT for HER! She desperately doesn’t want you to see her sources of money, so she tries to turn the request for info into an unprovoked attack on Obama. No spurprises here! Don’t let her and Billy get away with this, if you want to trust her with the top post in the world. Since owning the White House last time, the 2 of them have become exceedingly rich. They now look NOTHING like the little people like us they are supposed to champion.
2. More importantly, Hillary and Bill need to immediately release all their White House papers they are hiding from the public, so that the public can see for itself what all this ‘experience’ is that she is claiming as a First Lady in the White House. Normally, serving as the spouse of a president, handling tea parties and receiving gifts from foreign and domestic dignitaries, is NOT considered policy experience (except for the infamous Hillary-Care healthcare debacle, no single initiatve of national importance was EVER attributed to Hillary). Therefore, either all this talk of 35 years of ‘experience’ is total bunk — or the top-secret papers the Clintons are so afraid to release must be aired to the light of day so you and I can judge for ourselves what serious policy role(s), if any, Hillary had in the White House. The greatest lie of this campaign to date was Hillary’s assertion that the National Archives can’t release her papers yet. That release is totally in the Clinton’s hands! What a cop out and an insult to the intelligence of you and me and all Americans!
We had enough of Slick Willy! I had sincerely and truly hoped we would not have a Slick Hilly. Now is your chance, Mrs. Clinton, to prove otherwise!