Turkana,Edwards looks the strongest in the polls you reference. He's been given the short end of the stick in every debate and on every pundit's list. But he polls the strongest. Why is it that he finishes behind Clinton and Obama in primaries...yet in national polls outdoes them? What's going on?
Posted by T2 at January 22, 2008 01:36 PMThank you for this post. I was just over on another blog and I keep hearing argument after argument on how Hillary can't win because everybody hates her, and the Republicans hate her even more. As if they won't hate and Swiftboat ANY Democrat.
Christ, look at the turn-out in these primaries. I don't know if the (mostly) youngish men that write in the comments section of progressive blogs realize just how scared people are of the economy, jobs, the housing crisis, the price of gas and groceries, student loans they can't pay, losing social security, losing their health care in middle age, the price of prescription drugs, etc. It's obvious to me why women, middle and working class people, the elderly, and Hispanics are responding to her message. They don't write many comments in blogs, but they are going to turn out to vote for her.
McCain isn't going to do anything for America but get us into another war in Iran, while keeping our troops in Iraq forever. He'll run on fear and national security. I am so much more afraid of losing my home and my job than getting hit by a terrorist attack. Honestly, I think I'd rather die than watch everything that I've worked for all my life slip through my hands.
I hate this constant fear of Republicans. I also hate this tired, worn-out "Hillary is a bitch" crap. As if we haven't tolerated a constant parade of nasty bastard males in public life from George W. Bush to McCain to Donald Rumsfeld. I'm so tired of the so-called "progressive" hypocrites.
We win in '08, especially if it's against McOld.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 22, 2008 01:45 PMMaybe one of the reasons Edwards polls so well in cross comparisons is that voters already know he won't be the nominee, so their pick is more a nod to liking him and seeing that his heart's in the right place. Knowing that this choice never will have to be made may make a difference in what people tell pollsters. No one with any credibility believes that Edwards is going to rise like a phoenix and eclipse either Hillary or Barack no matter how much the most strident Edwards supporter thinks it so.
I like your assessment Turkana, and I'd like to see what you think of Obama's attempts to enlarge the Democratic coalition, which so far has led to record turnouts in every state. I've maintained that both Hillary and Edwards should embrace bringing new voters into the Party because in doing so many of the obstructionist Republicans can be swept out of Congress along with a Dem winning the White House. I'd truly like to see Edwards and Hillary make the case why they're better positioned to lead this emerging coalition than Obama is. Now thats the campaign I'd truly like to see, not one based on personally trying to destroy the viability of fellow progressives.
Posted by tonyroma at January 22, 2008 01:47 PMI believe the GOP was Sir John Harington's main inspiration for inventing the toilet.(No, it wasn't Thomas Crapper, although he improved it.)
I still think if Obama and Hillary quit, with everyone behind him, the Southern white boy would be dam good dem insurance. Unbeatable.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 22, 2008 01:49 PMxht, I've been reading them too. The hand-wringing over electability goes hand-in-hand with the constant refrain of "I'll vote for McCain before I vote for her!"
It's not a concern. It's a threat. This particular group of Obama supporters (and I do NOT think they represent the majority) are so pissy and immature that, not only are they going to take their ball and go home if they don't win, they're going to actively promote the election of someone who is completely opposed to everything they stand for, just to get revenge. It's a repulsive display, and I hope it stops very soon.
Posted by merciless at January 22, 2008 01:52 PMAfter yesterday's debate spectacle, I am not surprised that voters are tired of the bickering between Clinton nad Obama and Edwards looks more promising. If these two keep it going, McCain is shoe-in for the Whitehouse. Why it is that the Democrats are so dumb that they do not realize that they are about to blow the best chance they have to win the Whitehouse.
Posted by suresh at January 22, 2008 02:07 PMIf Edwards or Hillary wins, will all of these "threatening to vote republican" Obama crybabies hold their collective breath until they turn blue and form a powerful new ultra sensitive minority?
Posted by TIKI AL at January 22, 2008 02:15 PManother reason to doubt the real strength of mccain is that so far he hasn't really been looked at. money and publicity-wise, he was almost out of the race before it started. he seemed to pop up again out of nowhere because republicans simply had no one else to vote for. the republican debates have been pathetically easy on their candidates, especially mccain. i think mccain's headed for a fight he isn't ready for.
i love this collection of mccain "straight talk"
oops, my post didnt include the link. youtube "mccain vs mccain" for a reminder of what he means by "straight talk"
Posted by cdo at January 22, 2008 02:21 PM"Gender and race just won't pay with the majority of Americans".
Probably true, we hope.
But restoring another tired family dynasty to the WH does appear to play, probably with just enough people. The polls cited indicate that McOld may beat every Dem, but he beats Hillary pretty soundly.
Deciding to just "ignore" that and rationalize it away isn't exactly a feather in the "reality based" cap, is it? Lord knows polls are discredited enough. But all these arguments about the certain weakness of McOld (Iraq war lovin' Bush hugger) apply today, yet there he is, crappy conservative Repub-Warmonger brand and all, beating everyone, according to the (worthless) polls.
Bush was a shallow and superficial buffoon as well--didn't matter to a slight majority of BushAmericans.
But we're sure to win, no matter what!
Posted by euzoius at January 22, 2008 02:30 PMall McOld has going for him is name recognition amongst the GOPers and the idea that being shot down in a fighter makes him an authority on our national safety. The reason he's still in it is that the rest of them suck a lot worse, and that's saying something.
Posted by T2 at January 22, 2008 02:31 PMOne overlooked reality concerning McCain on Iraq has been the fact Sens. Hagel and Webb opposed McCain on Iraq policy. As I heard Hagel tell it, McCain saw the Vietnam war from thousands of feet in the sky while both Hagel and Webb were on the ground in the mud and jungles. It was a different war for the ground troops than for the flyboys sleeping comfortably in carrier billets eating hot food and taking daily showers. (No disrespect to McCain's captivity) If any Democrat needs foreign policy surrogates, Sen. Webb stands at the ready to eviscerate most of McCains less than popular notions on war strategy.
Posted by tonyroma at January 22, 2008 02:42 PMeuz,
the polls have had hillary beating mccain, and they now have him up by an average of 4. no big deal. his many present advantages won't last. this is his high point.
Posted by Turkana at January 22, 2008 02:43 PMTiki Al, I'd vote for Edwards in the general election without any hesitation.
Merciless and Tiki Al and others, relax. I'm sure enough of the current anti-Hillary/pro-Obama voters will vote for her in the general election that she'll win. I mean, her campaign and you guys -- Clinton supporters -- say she has it covered, so she must.
Me? I'm not voting for her. Against McCain? If it's close in the polls, I might vote for her. Against Romney? I probably wouldn't vote for her. And don't tell me I'm selling out my ideals. What do you even know about my ideals? One of my ideals is I believe in republican democracy, not hereditary titles and positions. That's a pretty basic one.
Face facts, the woman is going to win the primaries. It's not in doubt anymore. If she wants my vote in the general election, it's incumbent on her part to convince me to give it to her. She is not entitled to my vote.
You want to harangue on people like me, tell us we're not real Democrats or liberals? Okay, that's easy. I'm not a real Democrat anymore, or apparently liberal according to somebody's definition. I'm one of those people I would like to think the party counted on the last eight years. Since and including 2000, I have pulled that Donkey lever in general elections. I didn't even look at the candidate names, I just went straight ticket Democratic. I won't likely be doing that this year when Hillary's at the top of the ticket.
No amount of scare tactics are too likely to dissuade me from voting what I feel like, either. We're almost through 8 years -- 8 LONG years -- of George Dubya Bush. You think Romney scares me? Hah! Even McCain doesn't bother me like Dubya did from the very beginning. Maybe Hillary's campaign ought to be factoring in what the lack of boogeyman Bush will have on her in the general election.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 22, 2008 02:53 PMbrian,
enjoy four more years of war, 2 more right wing supreme court justices, and continuing denial on global warming. your purity must feel very nice.
Posted by Turkana at January 22, 2008 03:10 PMAnd Brian Bell makes my point.
Posted by merciless at January 22, 2008 03:10 PMTurkana, yes, those are the very things I expect a Hillary presidency to produce.
Merciless, and you're proving my point. If the race is close -- and I don't think it will be, I think she'll do fine -- then you do need my vote, but Hillary is doing nothing to earn it from me. Maybe she could make Obama her running mate. That might do it.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 22, 2008 03:17 PMbrian,
thanks for demonstrating that your hatred of hillary is neither rational nor reality-based.
Posted by Turkana at January 22, 2008 03:20 PMA ba-ba for the kids with poopy diapers
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j125/sarahfdavis/Obamasippycup.jpg
Posted by sarahfdavis at January 22, 2008 03:22 PMAnd yet it is. Brian's not on my side, yet he has that dislike of HC. A lot of America has that dislike. Her negatives are her negatives, period. Put her in the general and she'll lose. Democrats will lose....again.
Posted by peter at January 22, 2008 03:30 PMSarah, that's wonderful! Clinton and Edwards ought to hand them out at rallies.
Brian, I think I've discovered your problem. You seem to think this entire election is about you! No wonder you're perpetually disappointed.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 22, 2008 03:30 PMIf Hillary gets the nod don't vote for her if:
1. You want 2 more Scalias in SCOTUS.
2. You want abortion banned on a national level.
3. You want Intelligent Design taught in public schools.
4. You want prayer in public schools
5. You want Atheists tattooed on the forehead with American Flags with "In God We Trust" on them.
6. You want the 10 commandments posted in public
7. You want bigger tax cuts for the rich
8. You don't want people to have health insurance
9. You want to stay in Iraq for 100 years
10. Your name is Brian.
You guys should be really scared. The Washington Redskins have picked 17 of the last 18 presidential candidates correctly. And the Redskins are predicting a GOP win.
Posted by Jay at January 22, 2008 04:08 PMHillary's electability increases notably if she chooses General Clark for Vice-President
Posted by Herman at January 22, 2008 04:30 PM"Put Clinton, Edwards, or Obama up against the increasingly shallow and superficial John McCain, and the American people won't have much trouble deciding.
Oh, you mean like the 2004 elections. Don't fool yourself.
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2008 06:09 PMMaybe the reason Edwards is polling so well is that people are realizing that they didn't vote for him (and JK) last election and look at what we got. Maybe they want to make amends. I can only hope.
Posted by the professor at January 23, 2008 06:04 AMThere's trouble using polls as a basis for electability. The trouble is, those polls are not getting the young voters who do not have land-lines. (And yes, I know pollsters are trying to use fudge factors to factor them in, but the phenomenon is so new I hardly expect they can have it right.)
Obama had twice the young voters (18-29 yr olds) than Hillary did in Iowa, and three times more than Hillary in New Hampshire.
These young voters could take the Dems over the top in a tight race (which I think it will be if it's McCain vs HRC). Unfortunately, I don't see them coming out at all for Hillary.
Putting Hillary on the ticket tells young voters that the Dems are not ready for change. It tells them the status quo is just fine. They will stay home.
That's how I see it, at least. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
To presume that Obama supporters are just pissy and whiny and just have no legitimate complaints about Clinton, or to more generally rephrase it, that there is no legitimate complaint about Clinton, is the weakest part of the Clinton supporters' dismissal of alternatives.
People really dislike Clinton. They dislike the way that she and her husband operated when they were in the White House. There are real problems with her political stands and her votes.
To just shout down people who don't like Clinton isn't going to win votes for her. I think she's probably going to win the nomination. If she wins it and forty percent of the Democrats are alienated from her you cannot presume that people's distaste for Republicans is going to pull her and a wave of Democrats into office. The distaste for her could do the opposite.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at January 23, 2008 07:33 AMWhat is this "dynasty" stuff all about?! That is one arguement that I think is REALLY hallow. It basically just comes down to "I want someone neeeeeeewwwwww!"
Yes, Hillary's husband was president. Her HUSBAND. They were the talented, intelligent, ambitious, progressive people they are WHEN THEY MET and JOINED FORCES. Like minded people tend to do that. Most people in the US political machine know each other and make deals and work together. In this case, the two friends involved were of the same age and the opposite sex. They dug each other and got married. Personally, I think that's kinda cool! I don't understand why everyone is SO FREAKING BENT OUT OF SHAPE over it.
Is is because they have the same last name? Is that a dynasty?
Actually, you know, never mind, it's a GREAT point. That FDR really sucked! What a terrible mistake that dynasty was. And it's a good thing we stopped RFK in time, too! GOD COULD YOU IMAGINE THE DYNASTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by lima beans at January 23, 2008 01:57 PM