.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Friday, February 01, 2008

Electability and the argument to come

As a broad question, not as an endorsement, with the GOP still somewhat split over McCain at this point, would a Clinton nomination act to rally "conservatives" behind McCain come November?

My hunch is that the Dem nominee won't make that big a difference on the question of whether the GOP faithful swings in behind McCain, that, by November they're going to show up to vote GOP no matter the Dem candidate.

I'm not trying to spin this. I'm just raising it because, I think, with all the reporting on the GOP's dissatisfaction with McCain, this question is about to hit the talkshows.

(I think the more compelling point is the idea that perhaps the grass roots "Christian" support might be less fervent leading to a lower and less passionate volunteer pool for McCain.)

Just throwing it out there because I feel this question coming.

(Later: Great thoughtful comments so far. Chip in.)

posted by mikevotes at 7:45 AM

18 Comments:

  • The dislike for McCain on the right is real, but the hatred of Hillary is even worse. If it's McCain vs Hillary I suspect most will bite their tongues and vote for McCain.

    Having said that, look at the electoral math. It's all about a handful of swing states. A little less enthusiasm on the right could easily hand Ohio, for instance, to the Democrats.

    That will be especially true if Ron Paul decides to run as as an independent or third party candidate. He will attract a lot more support than Nader did in 2000.

    By Blogger Patrick, at 8:15 AM  

  • I guess my question is, will Obama be equally villanized by November? At least enough to pull the GOP together? Is the McCain/GOP split a pertinent story that will last?

    There's a second question about the Clinton "dislike" among non-regular GOP voters/independents, etc.

    If Obama's the candidate, his inexperience will be played hard, and we're probably looking at the same "security" type campaign as 2004 targeted against him.

    I just don't know. I don't have a good sense of all this around the country.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 8:22 AM  

  • Oh, and, I don't know about Ron Paul. He's not going to get more in the general than he does in the primaries, and likely he'll get significantly less. Probably a 2 to 5% very much depending on the states.

    Enough to affect, definitely, although I think he may pull a little from the Dem side, too.

    His support is more about insurgency that his real policies.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 8:24 AM  

  • There are three things to consider regarding the electablity of a candidate:

    1. How well does s/he rally their own base.
    2. How much does s/he rally opposition from the other party's base.
    3. How attractive is s/he to independents.

    1. I think Hillary and Obama will have equal success and bringing out the Dem base in the general, regardless of who the Repub nominee is. In the primary, I think Hillary has more of the old guard party base in her corner.

    2. I think there's no doubt that Hillary is red meat to the Republican base. Obama, not so much. In fact, as a young family man he may even have some grudging respect (if not votes) for some "family values" Republicans. The question is, does the "Hillary" brand motivate otherwise unmotivated Republicans to come out and vote against her.

    3. Again I think Obama has the independents in his corner. McCain is on the wrong side of the war and economy to attract true independents.

    However, I think the gender issue has far greater pull than is currently realized by the largely male punditocracy. Hillary could pull in some measurable number Republican women. Exit polling and anecdotal evidence shows the "sisterhood" to be a strong, single-issue motivator among middle-aged and older women.

    ---
    The thing I see happening is that by the time November rolls around America's memory of all the personal ugliness of the Clinton years will be reawakened. "Clinton fatigue" will be back and Hillary will fail to energize enough voters to her side. And conversely she'll energize anti-Hillary voters to come out against her.

    By Blogger -epm, at 8:50 AM  

  • Actually, I give Clinton a slight edge in getting out Dems, but points 2 and 3 I tend to agree with you.

    2 I don't know how much "family values" he'll have after they dredge up his drug use.

    3 I wouldn't put it that starkly, McCain will pull some independents, but Obama wins the group.

    And I think your point on women is pretty solid. My GOP since Nixon mom has, at points, talked about Clinton as a woman. I think you're right that this is getting underreported.

    .

    How does this comment thing work if we agree with each other?

    (I'm out until after lunch.)

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 8:58 AM  

  • Hillary's been pushing the "sisterhood" hard -- or as hard as she can without sounding like a 1970 activist. In nearly every debate she's mentioned "I think having a woman in the White House would be a huge change."

    As a guy, I find it a little off putting. After spending my entire adult life living and believing in gender equality -- and raising three daughters to believe the same -- I'm a little insulted when gender is used as a reason to vote for one candidate over another.

    By Blogger -epm, at 9:17 AM  

  • No doubt some in the GOP will push their hatred of Hillary hard. But it could backfire and come across as sexist and mean-spirited. Similarly they have to be careful with attacks on Obama.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:30 AM  

  • I actually just got this question from a buddy, and here was my response:

    Who has a better chance of winning? Good question.

    First off, neither is likely to win hearts and minds of hardcore "red state" shit-kickers. Though there is a barely concealed racial hostility that runs through that demographic, I think the "Clinton Hate" among them is far stronger, and of the two, Obama has a SLIGHTLY better chance of winning over a few who are disenchanted with the direction Republican Rule has taken. However, I don't think it would be a significant enough difference to sway an electoral count.

    So the real question is, who has a better chance of energizing and unifying the Democratic voters, and motivating them to get off their asses to vote, while simultaneously offering enough reassurance to prevent any serious "third party" challenge that could threaten to split that vote (like Ralph Nader). Unfortunately, both run this risk. However, while on paper Hillary Clinton's liberalism is stronger and more likely to satisfy those voters at risk of defecting to a useless Nader candidacy, Obama comes accross as the more eloquent, consistent, and trustworthy of the two - a perception that cuts accross idealogical lines. The fact that he is the only candidate who has consistently opposed US involvement in Iraq from day one helps him greatly among a certain set of voters on both sides of the idealogical spectrum. Hillary has had a habit of talking out both sides of her mouth on important issues like Telecom immunity and the war, and her activities during Bill's administration earned her the enduring (and often irrational) hatred of the right. I believe her continued equivocation and lack of committment to real reform would end up deteriorating her base, while she would never stand a chance among moderately conservative voters with the deck stacked against her. I also believe Clinton has greater skills hammering out backroom deals, but Obama is far more accomplished as a speaker able to generate pressure from below by inspiring the rank and file.

    The way things are developing, I really think either one would have to really screw up to lose this election. However, for the above reasons and more, I do believe Obama is better equipped to weather the challenge of a Presidential Election Campaign, maintaining and/or growing his advantage as he nears election day.

    All that said, I'm neither an expert on predicting political winds, nor am I a neutral observer. It is very possible that I would come up with a case for favoring Obama no matter what. But I'm doing my best to remain neutral in evaluating and answering your question.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:20 AM  

  • EPM, I don't hold that against her as it is a powerful thing. Adn, despite the world you see and believe in, there's still that 75 cents on every dollar thing out there.

    .....

    Anon, I've been wondering about that. She has been villified within the right, but trying to translate that into something more mainstream could come across as awful.

    I would bet they'll do at least three tracks. The campaign will say how much they respect her. The talk radio/FoxNews hosts will go with "jokes" and political criticism that will carry the undercurrent.

    Then there'll be the third track circulated among "the base," bringing back Vince Foster, etc, and making the worst of the commentary.

    As you say, Obama will face something similar, sub Muslim/drugs for Vince Foster.

    .....

    DHSMD,

    I think Obama is a bigger gamble in some ways because I think Clinton will deliver a more steady Dem turnout, but I see the upside potential for Obama as huge. (It must be said I'm susceptible to his version of populism.) I see a very real possibilty that he could pull out new voters and get alot of independents to vote Dem.

    She gets you a guaranteed block which in this year should win, he gets you a shot at a giant, landslide type number.

    I also think one of the reasons we're seeing alot of endorsements for Obama is the lure of this turnout/new voters he's bringing to the primaries. If that gamble pays, and he brings lots of new Dem/near dem turnout, his coattails could lift the whole party.

    Thanks. Good comment.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:59 PM  

  • GOP attacks on Obama will backfire seriously...anti-clinton will not backfire as long as it is not seen as picky on a woman (see NH)...Obama is teflon as long as he doesn't show up in some video with Mayor Berry sharing a crackpipe...his admission to drug use will be seen as a negative only to core GOP as most of the ind and dems see it as real life and mature to admit it. The clinton-fatigue is huge (hardly see bill at all now...) and lots of indies will skip the election rather than vote for clinton (unless Obama is VP), me included.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:32 PM  

  • Obama has been absolutely BULLETPROOF so far.

    And that reach into irregular voters and independents is what Obama brings to the table.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 5:07 PM  

  • ".... there's still that 75 cents on every dollar thing out there."

    No, I get the whole 75c on the dollar, glass ceiling thing. But Hillary isn't running on women's issues any more than Obama's, as far as I can tell. She's not saying "Voter for me because I'll fix these problems." She's saying "Vote for me because I'm female." To the extent that she uses the sisterhood, it seems to be part of the broader victim, they're picking me, you hate women, undercurrent that I'm picking up form a vocal group of Hillary supporters.

    Do we really want this campaign to get into who's been wronged more my the white male power structure?

    ----
    " irregular voters "

    I like this term. I've been lumping these folks into independents, but that's imprecise. I don't think McCain will bring out the irregular voters to his camp.

    By Blogger -epm, at 10:41 PM  

  • This question is so complex that it's a bit of a Rorschach test: our answers may say more about ourselves than about the actual issue. But here goes.

    I do think right-wingers will hold their noses and vote for McCain, especially if he puts Huckabee or someone like that on the ticket. (Wouldn't it be wild if McCain chose a woman or a minority for his veep?--it's the kind of bold thing I can almost see him doing).

    I think the right wing will stir up nearly as much, if not more, insane hatred against Obama as against Clinton. After all this time they've surely dug up everything they can on her... but Obama is fresh meat. Will the attacks work? Huge question.

    With the base, Obama might have an edge--again, cause he's new. Also more exciting.

    With the independents, hrm, I don't know. Obama has done better with them in the primaries, but those are left-leaning independents. With the right-leaners and the true centrists, I've got to think Clinton will do better.

    In the end, I think it's a push--with the caveat that Obama has a bigger upside AND downside potential. And of course, it's not so important how the matchups play nationally--it's how they play in Florida, Ohio, and the other swing states.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:41 AM  

  • EPM, I wasn't trying to say that Clinton was running on women's issues, just that, although not covered by the press, they're still very real to those making the 75 cents on the dollar.

    I wasn't trying to say that that would be a core issue (although maybe it should be) I was trying to show that there are underlying issues that reinforce what you called "sisterhood."

    That the female vote for Clinton is not just about gender, it comes from a broader sentiment.

    .....

    Tom, Rorschach.

    I agree that the GOP votes for McCain, but do the religious right volunteer and become ground soldiers at the same level?

    I agree that Clinton's been vetted, so few surprises, but at the same time they also will not have to do too much work to find resonance with all the old charges. Obama's dirt will come as more shocking because it's new.

    I think we differ on centrist/right Republicans. I get your point that Clinton is more "serious" and this will appeal to that group. I'll have to think about that.

    And, as I started all this, Obama is the gamble.

    In this year that leans Dem, do you need the gamble?

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 8:46 AM  

  • "our answers may say more about ourselves than about the actual issue"

    Speaking for myself, this discussion has led to this conclusion. My initial reactions are probably more emotional the contemplative.

    Good stuff here.

    By Blogger -epm, at 10:10 AM  

  • "That the female vote for Clinton is not just about gender, it comes from a broader sentiment."

    I agree with you, and I'm certainly not saying the only reason women would voter for Hillary is gender. But... and don't get pissed... what I see in this "broader sentiment" is an archetypal gender identity some people have that transcends the individual, onto which their own very real trials and tribulations are projected. Hillary knows this and uses it to her advantage.

    I still find it a bit off putting personally. Like the over the top plugging for her Hallmark Channel "town hall," I find the lack of subtlety (vote for me, I'm a woman) to be bad form and verging on pandering. But I'm now willing to consider the "problem" may lie within me and not the candidate.

    Let me say I think having a woman president would be a plus for the country -- as would having an African-American president. I just don't feel it's a reason to vote for someone, any more than whiteness or maleness is a reason to vote for someone else.

    I have NO concerns with Hillary's competence as an American president. I'll sleep just fine knowing she's the commander in chief and in charge of the executive branch. My concerns, such as they are, are with the "vision thing."

    [End of hyper-defensive comment :) ]

    By Blogger -epm, at 10:56 AM  

  • I think Obama is the emotion candidate, and presidents are largely elected on emotion.

    As for gender identity, right. That's what I'm trying to say. My point was that although Clinton is taapping into that, she's not running a women only campaign. I think it was the word "sisterhood" way back there that threw me.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 11:41 AM  

  • I see. I meant sisterhood as one would say fraternal, not as a pejorative. Perhaps I could have found a better word.

    By Blogger -epm, at 12:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home