Comparing Electability

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:23:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

(Speaking for Me Only)

What Tristero said, mostly:

I'll say it only once. I don't have a favorite between Obama and Clinton. They are both excellent [NOTE: I do not think either is even a particularly good political candidate but both will be good Presidents, but I think Obama is more electable] candidates (which is not to say I'm necessarily in favor of a joint ticket). Neither are manufactured manly-men-with-their- straight-shooters-shooting-straight-at -you-can-you-take-it. By comparison with St. John - all image to obscure his consistent behavior as a rightwing operative - both Obama and Clinton invite critical examination (please read the first clause of this sentence before ranting about Candidate X's deviousness and willingness to hide his/her true agenda/earnings/actions). So I think it not surprising, nor terribly important, that I find it easy to support them both while at the same time often disagreeing with the particulars of their platforms. The point is that even when I think they are wrong, I recognize they are both serious people, not clowns who want to inherit the dubious mantle of George W. Bush's codpiece.

< Open Thread | Obama vs. Obama On NAFTA? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Comparing Electability | 52 comments (52 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Go Tristero (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:30:45 PM EST

What a breath of fresh air. Pretty much my position, give or take. The only thing I disagree with is that I think a joint ticket would be great.

Well, I'm afraid I don't agree. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:32:20 PM EST

Obama's experience in no way prepares him to be President. Yes, he's intelligent---much more intelligent than Bush---but that's not enough.

Hahahaa (none / 0) (#5)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:36:06 PM EST

From reading your one note HRC fanclub comments, I do not think you are in a position to judge BHO's intelligence... just saying. And yes I voted for HRC.


BTD (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by auntmo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:34:28 PM EST

Isn't this post an unwarranted personal attack on another poster? I see no reason why this one didn't get deleted immediately.


: i agree, though i have to admit i've (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:17:08 PM EST

had my comments deleted for saying things that aren't too far off. it reminds me how very easy it is for the conversation to devolve--and i'm just as susceptible as anyone else to contributing to it--without the civility rules and moderating that jeralyn and btd enforce here.

: Ditto (none / 0) (#52)
by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:59:30 PM EST

I cringed when I read the comment.

Yes, that is being consistent (none / 0) (#30)
by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:09:44 PM EST

The reality is that Obama will need to be on the ticket....

From a campaign perspective, he could really play hardball by saying now he would never accept a VP slot--and he could get that word out through selective leaks to the press from anonymous sources...

But Obama doesn't play rough like that...


VP would be fine. .. and (none / 0) (#33)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:11:36 PM EST

before someone accuses me of inconsistency: if Dan Quayle's inexperience was not an issues, then Obama's won't be.


That doesn't look so (none / 0) (#37)
by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:17:54 PM EST

hot to the AA community--calling Obama a nitwit like Quayle.....A token...

The problem is that Obama would have to be more than window dressing in Hillary and Bill's fashion show.....And Bill doesn't fade into background well at all.....

Obama would try to find a way out of the VP slot if he could....

But, let's see--he still has the delegate lead....


: Did you mean fashion show? (none / 0) (#43)
by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:33:21 PM EST

Or Jerry Springer show? That's one of my big worries about a Clinton restoration.

Not trying to be sarcastic (none / 0) (#39)
by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:19:29 PM EST

about consistency--perhaps I misread your comment....


"doesn't play rough like that"? (none / 0) (#65)
by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:43:04 PM EST

you've got to be kidding me.


What if (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Saul on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:43:04 PM EST

Obama had only run as a referendum against Bush like Hilary decided to do in lieu of running not just against Bush but running against all those politicians as usual that have come before him and everything that has been wrong with politics since day one. I feel he set the self righteousness bar too high IMO and its hard not to look hypocritical because you will probably not be able to live up to your own rhetoric as you go through the campaign. I wonder what the figures would look like.

Holy Cow! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by phat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:46:12 PM EST

What on Earth is going on?

phat

Clinton consistently wins Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by MMW on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:10:02 PM EST

Democrats need to stop being afraid of being democrats. The two candidates are not the same.

My fear is that Democrats are going to make the Republicans vet their candidate, because they refuse to.

Electability is a delusion, how well did it work with Kerry. It's like we do not learn.

: Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:02:34 PM EST

You would never guess listening to Obama (until recently) that he was running as a democrat.

Any group that rates Feinstein... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Dadler on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:24:30 PM EST

...as more progressive than ANYone is automatically DQ'd from relevance. I may not be an Obamaniac, but DiFi is one of my senators, and she's a war-profiteering coward of the highest order and a disgrace to the Democratic Party.

Why Hillary is more Electable (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by catfish on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:14:09 PM EST

She's got the middle-class temperament, he comes across as elitist. For Myers-Briggs, she falls into same category as Harry Truman, a Democrat many Repubs are fond of.

He is wearing thin, by November he'll wear even thinner.

In Ohio she got more Independents - is this a trend?

She is growing onto the white male crowd as we speak.

(That's what the thread is for, comparing electability?)

Sorry, BTD, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:52:28 PM EST

I cannot imagine how anyone would think Obama was more electable after the way he handle the minor bumps in his campaign over the last week.

October is going to be much, much rougher than that and he simply does not have the ability or temperament to deal with it.

I agree (none / 0) (#3)
by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:32:32 PM EST

except that I don't think Obama is more electable.

I agree with you. Obama and McCain (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:33:53 PM EST

have more overlap in their bases, which makes him riskier, IMO.


For that reason you could also say. . . (none / 0) (#11)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:44:28 PM EST

that Obama offers a chance to cut into McCain's base.

The biggest hits on Obama's electability, I think, are the degree to which McCain will draw hispanic voters and the extra juice Clinton would give to the turnout of women (of course, Obama would have the same effect on the turnout of African Americans -- but there are more women).


but people like the familiar. (none / 0) (#16)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:47:39 PM EST

Why should voters change from McCain to Obama? In my experience talking with voters, I have never seen a candidate who engenders more affection than McCain.
He's VERY likable, believe it or not!


This _is_ a change election. . . (none / 0) (#24)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:56:24 PM EST

and a half-way skillful campaign is going to have the electorate asking which one is Bush and which is McCain by November.


It Is A CHANGE Election RIGHT NOW (none / 0) (#29)
by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:08:46 PM EST

Bet that if Obama is the nominee the emphasis will change at least in the media from the need for change to the need for experience. It will be interesting to see how much the public follows along or ignores the MSM this time around.


: Iraq is changing on the ground (none / 0) (#35)
by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:13:48 PM EST

There will most likely be fewer than ten U.S. combat deaths in Iraq this month, and the civilian violence is also down....
If U.S. deaths are reduced to basically nothing in the near future.....the Iraq war would have been won in many people's eyes....I think that would actually help the Democrats because the stakes would have been lessened regarding a pull-out from Iraq....

AAs would vote Democratic (none / 0) (#64)
by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:13:07 PM EST

no matter. Hil's power is in attracting Latinos away from McCain.


umm... (none / 0) (#13)
by mindfulmission on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:45:09 PM EST

... what? what is the overlap?

And how is the overlap more than between Clinton and McCain?

Clinton has been winning older voters and Latino voters, both of which will be McCain's base.

The one overlap between McCain and Obama is the independent/GOP vote, but even that has been relatively split recently between Clinton and Obama.


In my own opinoin (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:51:21 PM EST

which should be as accurate as any other media person's predictions...

Obama loses more Clinton supporters than Clinton loses of Obama supporters.

I think the "youth" movement is weak. Obama supporters go nuts when their candidate finally gets a little bit of negative attention - the frenzy can't keep up until November.

Democrats come home to Hillary - she's already beating him among Dems, and they (And left-leaning independents) will realize that McCain is a disaster waiting to happen and if we truly want a progressive direction in this country - she's the best bet. Obama wants to "reach across the aisle" - great in theory, but I don't think that magically the Republicans are just going to roll over and give him his way because he speaks nicely. As a minority party in the Senate, they'll be even more brutal and stubborn.


That's not just opinion: Clinton does (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:53:08 PM EST

much better holding Democrats than Obama, according to polls.


But (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:59:21 PM EST

The point of Tristero's comment is that both candidates are full real people and not some cardboard GOP cutout. How refreshing is that? The issue is that we have something to offer as a party. America is sick of GOP cartoon characters.

So why not start pointing out how bad Mr. 100 year war McCain, third term Bush candidate is. He is unacceptable.

Leave the trash talk to the GOP.


Squeaky (none / 0) (#46)
by auntmo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:38:23 PM EST

Too bad Obama's advisors are not following your adive, eh?


: OK (none / 0) (#49)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:52:39 PM EST

So if that kind of behavior is repulsive it is not an example to follow. The voters will decide, and the fanclubbing is convincing no one but the choir. So why bother putting a fellow dem down. It just does not make sense to me.

Polls (none / 0) (#54)
by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:03:35 PM EST

New polls show this trend from Clinton to McCain growing just a little. Clinton's working class shifts to McCain too. I'll be trying to find Fox's poll tomorrow for exact details.


Context Is Everything (none / 0) (#8)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:40:09 PM EST

McCain. Most of us agree (including Tristero), no progressives are in the race. But given the choices....

Whaddaya gonna do.

Yep (none / 0) (#25)
by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:56:40 PM EST

they're way out of hand. I don't know if Digby will turn off the comments again, but she'd be well justified IMO.

: Digby's commenters (none / 0) (#40)
by wasabi on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:23:17 PM EST

Her commenters generally are most reasonable in how they raise concerns about either candidate. It is a refuge from the BoysBlogs. I've been gone from there for one day and it's back to flaming. What happened?

You don't mind (none / 0) (#28)
by Coldblue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:05:09 PM EST

if I disagree with this, do you?

I see a difference in how each candidate addresses the problems on an urgency scale. One is dealing near term, one is dealing long term (imo)

Personally, I'm looking for near term solutions.

You mean for Iraq, global warming, etc? (none / 0) (#32)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:10:31 PM EST

Compare with the this
comment.


Who is "big puppy"? Obama? (none / 0) (#38)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:18:53 PM EST

Ok, I found it (none / 0) (#42)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:32:58 PM EST

Bill Clinton promising clean coal in WY.
That's unfortunate.


Actually Clean Coal (none / 0) (#47)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:46:48 PM EST

Is viable. It is expensive but when you are a state like Montana and have a lot of coal it does not seem like such a bad idea. Governor Schweitzer has been touting it for a few years now.


Clean or not, it contributes to (none / 0) (#48)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:49:17 PM EST

global warming, unless they are not burning the end product.


Actually It Does Not (none / 0) (#50)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:53:40 PM EST

There are zero CO2 emissions. That is the point of it all.


: Oh i see. Thanks for the info. (none / 0) (#56)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:07:33 PM EST

No, not really (none / 0) (#45)
by Coldblue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:38:10 PM EST

I see Clinton as the short term specialist.


So . . . "hope" and "change" (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:55:03 PM EST

are long-term goals, in MBO terms, and would take decades. (And without specificity and chronology, it's hard to know when you've gotten to whatever your goal is.)

Specific objectives and for the next four/eight years are Clinton's focus. Have I got it? (If so, that is an interesting way to think about it -- and that if he's of the "creative class," she's a whiz in administrative management classes.:-))


: You've got it (none / 0) (#57)
by Coldblue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:07:52 PM EST

Women voters are not progressive (none / 0) (#60)
by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:17:40 PM EST

you say. How silly of them to vote so strongly for a progressive woman Senator.

(1) Define progressive, and (2) provide evidence, please, that women voters are not progressive.

True (none / 0) (#61)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:23:42 PM EST

But ironically the main thing stopping the plan, is that there are no restrictions on CO2 emissions to date, even though the SC has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant under the clean air act.

It is a step in the right direction... solar, wind, geothermal, etc are also great.

yes, in fact, clinton has repeatedly (none / 0) (#66)
by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:02:15 PM EST

said that she WANTS us to hold her accountable. i've never heard obama say anything like that. i also recall hillary mentioning an idea a while ago that i liked a lot: having bloggers inside the white house to promote better information flow with the public. apparently, unlike obama, hillary loves blogs. even the "progressive" ones who stab her in the back.

wer fuxed (none / 0) (#68)
by TheFuture on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:47:24 AM EST

Obama looks bad this week, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is less electable, both senators are misleading and will be called out on it by the right

Obama can build a winning campaign he has proven this and in November the election is only one night, Obama's advisors will be less likely to run their mouths in frustration

will either look electable if Fl and Mich are redone? by most counts of the math Obama still wins but Hillary could finish with the pop. vote (not counting caucus states) and the momentum and we'll be left with 2 losers