MyDD :: The Unity Schtick Is a Bad GE Strategy Too: Clinton Beats McCain, Obama Loses To McCain

The Unity Schtick Is a Bad GE Strategy Too: Clinton Beats McCain, Obama Loses To McCain

by Big Tent Democrat, Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:27:42 AM EST

In Monday's South Carolina debate, John McCain and who could beat him was a big topic. Both John Edwards and Barack Obama argued they could beat John McCain and Hillary Clinton could not. Sorry Barack, the polls do not support you:

Clinton 46
McCain 42

Obama 41
McCain 42

The interesting finding here is Obama simply does not have the type of solid support with DEMOCRATS that Clinton does. And he runs no better with Independents against McCain than does Clinton. The moral of the story? The Kumbaya Unity schtick is a BAD general election strategy. There is no reason for it. Obama needs to jettison it NOW. It hurts him in the primaries. And would hurt him in a general election against McCain. Let's go inside the numbers on the flip.

In a Clinton-McCain race, Clinton wins Democrats 83-11, loses Republicans 74-13 and splits Indies 39-39. Clinton's bond with Democratic base voters is the key to her lead here. By contrast in a Obama-McCain race, Obama wins Dems by only 74-18. He loses Republicans by an even wider margin than Clinton 81-12 and splits Independents 37-37. So the Kumbaya strategy garners Obama LESS Republican votes and no advantage among Independents. It seems clear now that Obama's Unity schtick is an utter failure, both in the primaries and the GE. The question now is is Obama even electable against McCain?

Tags: Election 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 67 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: The Unity Schtick (2.00 / 1)

He won't jettison it though. I think he's invested too much in that strategy to change it.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:59:28 AM EST

Re: The Unity Schtick (none / 0)

it has always been part of his campaign to win over the media, they love that post partisan bull crap.

his entire campaign has been about winning the media and getting and joining them in denouncing the clintons.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:56:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Unity Schtick Is a Bad GE Strategy Too: C (2.00 / 1)

The unity message leaves Obama competing with McCain for a very small slice of the electorate: the genuinely Broderite independents who actually do want us all to get along.

The Republicans who hate McCain because of his liberal positions on immigration, campaign finance, and working across the aisle will certainly have no interest in Obama's message.

Frankly, any Republican candidate is likely to adopt Bush's 2000 schtick about unity because they certainly don't want to run as a partisan Republican in this environment.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:10:03 AM EST

The Unity Schtick Is Just Bad (2.00 / 1)

Rec'ed because Obama's message and strategy are killers of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement.

But more importantly, John Edwards STILL beats the Republicans anywhere and everywhere. Edwards v. McCain or Romney delivers to us more new Senate seats and electoral votes than anything.

And it plants the seeds for, waters, and fertilizes a wholly vibrant progressive movement.

Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up

by Peter from WI on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:18:15 AM EST

Clinton is best for downticket races (none / 0)

she would bring women to the polls in record numbers, including brand new voters. She would bring loyal democrats to the polls who know they will be better off with Hillary in the White house.
Those people will vote for democrats downticket in a way that Edwards and Obama supporters will not.
Women vote for democrats. Partisan democrats are going to vote for democrats.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:43:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton is best for downticket races (none / 0)

Clinton is NOT best for downticket races. In Missouri, Republicans are just waiting for a Hillary run. She'll get killed outstate, and she'll drag down Dems in close races there.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton is best for downticket races (none / 0)

People keep saying that, but no one gives any evidence. I think it's crap.

by ColoradoGuy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:35:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton is best for downticket races (none / 0)

Women my friend, WOMEN. How many times do we have to say it and prove it?

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:42:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Unity Schtick Is a Bad GE Strategy (none / 0)

Of course Obama's unity crap is a bad strategy for the GE. That's what Edwards and supporters have been saying for several months - in nicer terms - beginning before SUSA began omitting Edwards in Oct. from matchup polls where he was winning against ALL Repubs - with the widest margins.
SUSA's explanation? It was in their best "judgment." ha!

Corporations rule!

But Obama's unity scam - assisted by endorsements from DC Dems who love donations from Washington lobbyists - has worked to defeat Edwards.
Mission Accomplished!

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:20:34 AM EST

it is not and has never been about Edwards (none / 0)

there was no plot against him. He just never picked up steam.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:32:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it is not and has never been about Edwards (none / 0)

The blogosphere's preference for Edwards only snapped into focus in the last few weeks before Iowa. I think bloggers wanted to like Obama, but he kept moving to the right.

They were willing to give Edwards a pass on his past votes because he's repented, but they weren't willing to forgive Hillary, who, admittedly was voting a certain way so as not to appear weak, which to me just makes her look weak, but, admittedly also politically savvy.

I'd also wager that a large portion of the blogosphere wasn't even of voting age in 2000, let alone politically aware in the early days of Clinton in 1992-1994.

Clinton takes a hit from people like David Sirota for NAFTA, Welfare Reform, "failing" on health care, and a number of other scores, and those are fair and honest criticisms.

But the fact that he had to deal with first a Judas Iscariot Democratic Congress and then an avowedly hostile Repblican Congress that he beat at every turn means that he could only do what he could do.

Does he bear some responsibility for that? Yes. But to assign ALL of it to him is just to basically adopt the MSM/GOP narrative of the 90s. Might as well say the 90s economy was thanks to Reagan.

If Hillary is going to be even half as effective as Bill, and Pelosi and Reid even half as pliant as Mitchell and Foley's group, we'll have universal healthcare and an Iraq withdraw strategy and no extension of Bush's tax cuts.

We'll also get more like Souter and Ginsburg.

by attorney at arms on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it is not and has never been about Edwards (none / 0)

Mollie - apparently you haven't heard.

The Corporate Owned Media & Press promote Corporate Owned Democrats -
and our Britney/Jerry Springer electorate obey - and vote against their own best interests.
Please make a note of it.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mr 4% shouldn't be making the 'electability' (none / 0)

argument.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mr 4% shouldn't be making the 'electability' (none / 0)

Surely you've heard about the corruption in the Nevada caucus.
Of course you have.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:07:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mr. 4% was polling (none / 0)

6% in the last poll. heading into the caucus. Mr. 4% or Mr. 6%, take your pick.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:31:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Blah, Blah, Blah (2.00 / 1)

Do you just practice in Bullshit?

How are you going to abstract 1 poll and call it fact. That's crap and you know it, BTD

by chicagogene on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:45:50 AM EST

N o Unitty Schtick from you (none / 0)

obviously. If only Obama had the fight in him that you have.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:11:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: N o Unitty Schtick from you (none / 0)

lol, he should follow the example of his supporters.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:37:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blah, Blah, Blah (none / 0)

Do you see the logical sleight of hand in this comment?

One poll showing Hillary beats McCain doesn't prove she's more electable, true. But Obamites have been pushing this whole "Hillary isn't electable" meme for months. This is some evidence that isn't true. Therefore, it's rejected by Obamites.

This poll muddies the waters for their argument, but it doesn't 100% prove that Hillary can win, therefore the Obamites discount it. That's ridiculous.

In reality nobody knows what's going to happen in November, because we don't know what the other side is going to do. If you're willing to roll the dice on a candidate who keeps getting outflanked in the primary and must rely on the youth vote, and who hasn't gone through the Republican smear machine yet, fine, say that.

But say it; don't make my brain ache with this kind of fallacy.

by attorney at arms on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:52:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Okay, I'll say it. (none / 0)

Obama has been attacked by the Republican smear machine, and he handled them deftly. Just to pick the best-known example: the right-wing media launched the 100% false story that the Clinton camp claimed Obama had been trained at a radical Islamic school as a child.

Obama immediately granted interviews to every TV news outlet except Fox, and told Fox they'd be shut out from his campaign unless they apologized. They apologized. Clinton, meanwhile, held a fundraiser hosted by Rupert Murdoch. Way to fight back, Hill!

And "must rely on" the youth vote? Haven't we been looking for a candidate who could get the youth vote out for 10 years? Didn't Bill Clinton get into office by "relying on" the youth vote? Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like a negative.

So, yes, I'd rather roll the dice on a candidate who the Republican smear machine hasn't been able to touch yet than roll the dice on one whose negatives have already been pushed up into the 40% range. Will Obama, once he's the nominee, be able to win over disillusioned Republicans? Maybe. Who knows. But no matter how much Republicans might dislike Bush, they hate Hillary more.

Now, that's totally unfair, and it's a product of a twisted, hateful RWNM that's destroying this country. But it's the sad truth. Too many people have already been trained to hate the Clintons, and women, and the intersection of those two groups in particular. I'll say it again - that's awful. But it's not going to go away in the next 10 months.

"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."

by schroeder on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:35:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay, I'll say it. (none / 0)

1. I don't think WE should let our guide be who the Republicans supposed hate the most. To me that is just one more reason to support Hillary.

2. When someone mentions "must rely on the youth vote" the context is that Obama is the weaker candidate with most demographics groups important to a Democratic candidate. The exceptions are the youth vote, AAs and Independents (and to an extent Democrats earning more than $100,000, although in NV that advantage has disappeared.) Due to Obama's lack of appeal to most demogroups it is indeed true that Obama has to rely on the youth vote exponentiall, and they have not been out in full force for him, except in Iowa. Obama can't count on Independents to carry the day for him in all states, because in several states they actually prefer Clinton (see CA where Clinton actually leads Obama with Independents) and in other states they are barred from participating in the Democratic primaries.

We would be rolling the dice on a candidate who we can see in poll after poll is not the preferred candidate by the party base, who DEMOCRATS don't look upon as their best choice. I assume most of us here are DEMOCRATS, so the preference some of us voice seems to match our party brethren nationwide.

by georgep on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay, I'll say it. (none / 0)

supposed=supposedly

by georgep on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:08:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay, I'll say it. (none / 0)

and

exponentiall=exponentially

by georgep on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay, I'll say it. (none / 0)

It shouldn't be about who the Republicans hate, but it should be about who's going to expand on the Gore/Kerry 51% minority. Are there people out there who didn't vote for Gore or Kerry who are going to vote for Hillary Clinton? I'm not saying there aren't; but I don't see it in large numbers.

I do see Obama picking up voters who aren't habitually Democratic voters. And honestly, the base is going to vote for whoever we nominate. Yes, we want to nominate someone who represents our interests, but I think you can make just as good an argument for Obama as for Clinton. Obama's been courting moderates; Clinton's courting corporate bucks - I'm not crazy about either. But I like Obama's better, because he's courting moderates to get votes. It's easy to get high-minded about a candidate and lose track of the fact that if they're going to do any good at all, people have to vote for them. Lots of people. Sorry, Kucinich supporters, but that's a cold, hard fact.

Now, your argument is that Clinton's doing better in the primaries, therefore she's the better candidate. But there are holes in that argument. She started out with a massive advantage - money, name recognition, support from the party establishment - and Obama's chipped away at all of that. She may yet have enough inertia to carry off the nomination, and I'll happily vote for her if she does. But I think it's just inertia. Like I said in regards to favorability - Clinton's hit her ceiling; Obama's still got a ways to rise.

Will Obama outpace Clinton? In the primaries, or in matchups vs. the GOP? Who knows. But I think he will. And frankly, I'd rather take a chance that he will, than go for someone who's going to attract the same amount of support our last two candidates did - ie. leave the election close enough to steal.

"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."

by schroeder on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay, I'll say it. (none / 0)

Taking the base for granted is something the progressive movement has been railing against for years. It hardly seems like the way we should go about selecting a progressive president.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:33:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blah, Blah, Blah (2.00 / 0)

This is FAR from the only poll that has shown this kind of result. Other than the obvious advantage Edwards has, there is no noticeable difference in dry-run results between Clinton and Obama against any Republicans, and when there is a slight difference, it has usually favored Clinton. This amounts to cognitive dissonance for Obama-ites.

by ColoradoGuy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Using a single poll to make sweeping (none / 0)

and definitive assertions (like your title, eg) is a bad idea. Properly worded inferences, fine, but conclusive assertions, no. You should know that by now.

Look at RCP GE Polls to get a better idea over a range of polls.

Also, Obama needs to campaign to get his GE numbers up. His pre- and post- IA GE polls in IA were ridiculously good. Inference: it appears that once he campaigns in a state, his GE #s might improve because people (i.e. GE electorate) get to know more about him (i.e. his name ID gets stronger and more favorable).

I think his unity is the right approach to win the general election.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM EST

how does the rcp average help (2.00 / 1)

your argument about Obama's superior electability? It seems to me it confirms the LATImes poll.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:09:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Seems to me, they show him doing best. (2.00 / 1)

The RCP poll average show that the race is tight w/ McCain for all three Dems. Obama has a tiny (statistically insignificant) edge vs McCain relative to other Dems. He has a clear cut edge vs other GOP rivals, compared to HRC and Edwards (but, they don't always poll Edwards in these, hence the comparison is not apples to apples in his case). I'll try to make a table shortly.

My argument is that AFTER he campaigns in a particular state, his GE #s seem to get strong. As of now, we have IA GE polls to confirm that.

Remember that Obama isn't very well known in many states and he is likely facing racial bias in some states. Both of these get addressed after campaigning extensively. Hillary may have gender bias working against her, but she is a well known. Biases become less acute once people get to know the person.

"Obama's superior electability"

His argument seems to be that he can bring more independents and new voters to the come to the polling booths and vote for him (and other Democrats on the ballot). But, even those results would be evident in numbers only AFTER people (general electorate) get to know him well, which happens to a higher degree (at the current point) where ever he campaigns in the primary.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:39:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No advantage that I see (none / 0)

I see a slight disadvantage for Obama in those numbers. As for campaigning in a state. You think Iowa means anything as a comparison with a national election? That is simply ridiculous.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:10:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No advantage that I see (none / 0)

"You think Iowa means anything as a comparison with a national election? That is simply ridiculous. "

Iowa is a "purple" state with some rural areas. Yes, an argument can be made that IA is a good test case for national GE performance.

Here is an observation:
-- Gore won IA and the national popular vote
-- Kerry lost IA and the national popular vote

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why are you fudging facts (none / 0)

about the RCP poll averages?

"I see a slight disadvantage for Obama in those numbers."

That's a flat out false claim.

Here is the table:

John McCain (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
RCP Average    01/09 to 01/22    -    47.2%    44.8%    McCain +2.4%

John McCain (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
RCP Average    01/04 to 01/22    -    45.0%    43.8%    McCain +1.2%

John McCain (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
RCP Average    12/12 to 01/12    -    44.0%    42.3%    McCain +1.7%

~~~

Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
RCP Average    01/09 to 01/22    -    40.3%    50.8%    Clinton +10.5%

Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
RCP Average    01/09 to 01/22    -    36.5%    51.5%    Obama +15.0%

Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
Poll    Date    Sample    Giuliani (R)    Edwards (D)    Spread
RCP Average    12/05 to 01/12    -    41.0%    47.3%    Edwards +6.3%

~~~

Mike Huckabee (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
Poll    Date    Sample    Huckabee (R)    Clinton (D)    Spread
RCP Average    01/04 to 01/22    -    41.8%    49.6%    Clinton +7.8%

Mike Huckabee (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
Poll    Date    Sample    Huckabee (R)    Obama (D)    Spread
RCP Average    01/04 to 01/22    -    38.4%    51.2%    Obama +12.8%

Mike Huckabee (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
Poll    Date    Sample    Huckabee (R)    Edwards (D)    Spread
RCP Average    12/12 to 01/12    -    36.3%    47.7%    Edwards +11.4%

~~~

Mitt Romney (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
Poll    Date    Sample    Romney (R)    Clinton (D)    Spread
RCP Average    01/09 to 01/22    -    39.3%    51.0%    Clinton +11.7%

Mitt Romney (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
Poll    Date    Sample    Romney (R)    Obama (D)    Spread
RCP Average    01/09 to 01/22    -    33.8%    52.5%    Obama +18.7%

Mitt Romney (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
Poll    Date    Sample    Romney (R)    Edwards (D)    Spread
RCP Average    12/06 to 01/12    -    36.0%    52.3%    Edwards +16.3%
RCP GE Polls

Obama's averages are the BEST vs each GOP rival.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:11:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Using a single poll to make sweeping (none / 0)

why would unity be a good strategy? When most of the country is rejecting republican ideas and the party, why embrace them?

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:34:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Honey attracts more files than vinegar (none / 0)

"why would unity be a good strategy?"

If people formerly voting for GOP are disenchanted, it works better to embrace them and then persuade them to vote for us.

Obama's approach is also to bring new voters to the polls.

A lot of people look at the divisive battles, are turned off by it and hence don't bother to vote.

Then there are younger voters who don't yet have hardened ideologies. An optimistic message and well made arguments will align them with the progressive/Dem side potentially for a lifetime.

We need to look to forge unity AND make good arguments to win the disenchanted and new voters over.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:53:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honey attracts more files than vinegar (none / 0)

That is the heart of my problem with Obama. Too much mushy coming together talk, not enough well-made arguments for progressive policies.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:03:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Going all wonky doesn't work well on (none / 0)

the campaign trail (even though I personally like details and specifics as you apparently do). Values (eg, his Ebenezer Church speech) should be promoted first with suitable doses of specifics.

I am not saying that he's getting the mix right. But, I do think that unity theme will be the best way, at the end of the day.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:12:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Going all wonky doesn't work well on (none / 0)

I'm not asking for wonkiness. I want him to sell the ideology exactly like Reagan sold his.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:26:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Going all wonky doesn't work well on (none / 0)

Did Reagan sell ideology or themes in his 1980 nomination race?

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Going all wonky doesn't work well on (none / 0)

I don't see Obama selling either, unless you count the "theme" of unity and bipartisanship.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Unity of purpose, common good (none / 0)

and rational foreign policy are Obama's themes, in my view.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:41:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unity of purpose, common good (none / 0)

I will keep holding out for the well-made arguments.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

General election is when they (none / 0)

will get better treatment because of the contrast we'd have between Obama (if he gets the nomination) and the GOP rival.

For example, McCain could say we should continue unilateral (and arrogant bunker-mentality) warfare as we did w/ Iraq (and HRC and JRE went along with the same) and extend it to Iran, Syria, NKorea etc. Obama can argue that while we should protect ourselves in the case of imminent threats, we should first use a multilateral, diplomacy-first approach to solving problem situations around the world that aren't imminent threats.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General election is when they (none / 0)

Since I see the primary as an audition for the general, I'm not prepared to take it on faith that Obama will start doing exactly what I want him to do once I make him the nominee.

I learned my lesson in 2004 and I want to make very sure that we nominate a candidate who has shown they will be able to campaign effectively against the Republicans.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama was beating all Republicans handily (none / 0)

before IA caucuses:

General Election Match-ups for President:

A new SurveyUSA automated survey of 539 registered voters in Iowa (conducted 12/13 through 12/15) finds:

McCain 46%, Clinton 45%
Clinton 46%, Huckabee 45%
Clinton 48%, Romney 45%
Clinton 47%, Giuliani 42%

Obama 51%, Romney 39%
Obama 51%, McCain 39%
Obama 52%, Huckabee 39%
Obama 55%, Giuliani 36%
link

as well as after the caucuses:

Today, 01/07/08 ...

Obama defeats McCain by 17 points. (+12)
Obama defeats Huckabee by 23 points. (+13)
Obama defeats Romney by 26 points. (+12)
Obama defeats Giuliani by 40 points. (+19)

McCain defeats Clinton by 4 points (within the margin of sampling error). (-1)
Huckabee and Clinton tie. (+1)
Clinton defeats Romney by 8 points. (+3)
Clinton defeats Giuliani by 16 points. (+5)
They love Obama in Iowa, by Kos, Mon Jan 07, 2008

Obama will likely campaign on his progressive platform under his unity theme, in the GE.

Also, only Obama can make a positive argument on Iraq vs McCain by saying that we should never have gone in, despite any minor or major improvements that may have been made by the surge (which McCain is claiming to be his baby). Hillary and Edwards can't make that argument having voted to go in, and hence McCain gets the edge over them on that issue and hence on national security.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama was beating all Republicans handily (none / 0)

These polls have nothing to do with whether Obama will be an effective campaigner in the general election. I wish you wouldn't stretch so hard to have the last word.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I gave those polls because (none / 0)

I was making the point in this thread all over (and so wanted that to be avialable to the readers) as well to reassure you that he has the potential to do well in the GE.

I probably should've attached the table to another comment on mine and pointed it to you. But, I did have a point to make on that front to you.

"whether Obama will be an effective campaigner in the general election."

Well, I think he will be an extremely effective campaigner in the GE because I think he'll get 90% of the Dem vote, a strong share of Indies, as well as, this is the key, turn in a large numbers of new voters and those that haven't been voting from apathy and other reasons.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:49:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honey attracts more files than vinegar (none / 0)

no, they are already attracted. They are rejecting republicans and their ideas. We don't need to attract them and polls show independents will vote for Clinton as soon as for Obama.
We have the voters, or I should say she does. We do not need to turn them off by embracing republicans?

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're mistaken because (none / 0)

while a generic Democrat beats a generic Democrat handily (in polls I had seen from time to time), actual named national matchups (Obama is doing best among them anyway. See above) show thinner margins than the generic matchup.

However, Obama was able to poll the best in IA GE polls in both before|after IA-caucus polls. In other words, Obama's message of unity resonates and makes sure that we tap into and attract the formerly GOP supporting free agents. Again, honey draws more flies than vinegar.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:38:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honey attracts more files than vinegar (none / 0)

How is Obama embracing Republicans? By voting for the war? By holding fundraisers with Rupert Murdoch? Oh, right, that was Hillary Clinton.

Obama's targeting Republican voters, and getting them to vote for a Democratic candidate and Democratic ideas. How on Earth is that a bad thing?

"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."

by schroeder on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Using a single poll to make sweeping (2.00 / 1)

We don't need unity to win a GE. The conservative movement is dead.

formerly bookgirl

by masslib1 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:38:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The why is McCain doing well? (none / 0)

Granted, McCain isn't conservative in some important ways. But, he does share the zeal on some even more important ones, like preemptive wars, which Hillary and Edwards agreed with him enthusiastically on, when it came to Iraq.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:48:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Using a single poll to make sweeping (2.00 / 1)

I disagree. The conservative movement is not dead unless we kill it.

As Paul Krugman pointed out the other day, unless we use this election as an opportunity to pronounce the failed ideas of Reaganomics once and for all, we're doomed to see them come back from the dead again and again.

The fact that we need to do this is the reason I am so critical of Obama's campaign style.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:39:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

its gonna be a BITCH to beat john mccain (none / 0)

he s a veryyyy likeable guy.

did you see him on SNL? He was funny as hell!

ive expected him to be their nominee since 1/21/01.

hoped it wasnt true, but ALWAYS expected it.

never believed that the gop would be dumb enough or put Rudy or Mitt oor he rest up against the clintons.

beating mccain is gonna be HARD. REAL HARD.

and the only weapons that will work against that funny , heroic fellow IS our ideology and the memory of the economic competence of team Clinton.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:10:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its gonna be a BITCH to beat john mccain (none / 0)

I loved when he sang the songs of Barbra Streisand.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:14:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its gonna be a BITCH to beat john mccain (none / 0)

So... running someone likeable and charismatic of our own wouldn't work? Because I think Obama's charisma and media savvy more than cancels out McCain's. Plus he's youthful and energetic, and not a "bomb, bomb Iran" raving lunatic who's spent the last 7 years licking George Bush's boots. In sheer terms of personality, I see that as a hugely favorable matchup for our side.

The thing Democrats don't seem to get, and the reason we keep losing when we shouldn't, is that not everyone votes for rational, intellectual reasons. Because on rational grounds, we win every time. The Republicans ideas are either evil, don't work, or both combined. But they use purely irrational emotional appeals - fearmongering and bigotry chief among them, but also Reagan-style warmth and optimism.

Hillary's got any Republican beat in a rational argument hands down. But so does Obama. Pretty much any credible Democrat can beat the Republicans on policy - the last 7 years have shown that every idea the GOP has had is an abject failure. But there are still those "think with your gut" voters who fall for the emotional appeal. And who's going to be better at winning those voters over? The policy wonk? Or the charmer? Bill Clinton succeeded because he was both. Gore and Kerry failed because they were only the first.

Now, I'll grant you, Hillary has Obama beat in the policy wonk department. But that doesn't mean Obama's got nothing. I think he still beats any Republican in the field in terms of policy. And I think he beats any Republican in terms of charisma and emotional appeal. Does Hillary? I've never seen her as someone with a transformative vision for the country beyond competence and good government. Whereas Obama makes people believe we can create a new, better America from the ashes of the Bush disaster. Can he actually do that? I don't know if anyone can. But I think people want someone who's going to try. That's the emotional appeal. He makes it. She doesn't.

"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."

by schroeder on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:02:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 1)

We have also seen Obama and McCain close in NY (within 5 points) while Clinton blows McCain out of the water. Of course, it is NY, Clinton's home state, but the point is that there is another example of us taking an unnecessary risk with Obama. McCain syphons off many Independents, the same constituency Obama is banking on the most. That overlap appears to create a somewhat poor matchup for us.

by georgep on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:20:00 AM EST

yup (none / 0)

very good point.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:36:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How about Hillary vs McCain in IL? (none / 0)

Any polls?

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about Hillary vs McCain in IL? (none / 0)

I haven't seen any polls out of Illinois. I assume Obama wins that state handily, but in the context of this diary, I don't think either Obama and McCain or Hillary and McCain are uncomfortably close in that state.

by georgep on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Don't forget the new SUSA poll that has McCain beating Obama by 6 in Massachusetts

and Clinton beating McCain by 4.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:28:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you kidding? (none / 0)

New York went for Kerry by 20 points over Bush. There's no way in hell New York would go for a Republican, no matter who the candidates are.

"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."

by schroeder on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Unity Schtick Is a Bad GE Strategy Too: C (none / 0)

Same thing in a poll a couple of days ago in Massachusetts, same thing in a New Mexico poll I showed earlier. The Obama supporters keep calling it cherry-picking, but Obama vs McCain is not a pleasant scenario for Democrats to win the Presidency in 2008.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:39:18 PM EST

So true (none / 0)

More evidence that Obama is actually our least electable Democrat. Republicans will not vote for him any more than they would vote for Hillary; in fact Hillary will almost certainly do better with Republican women. She would also do conciderably better with independent women, and of course among Democrats. Obama would perhapse do a little better with Independent men, but in a McCain matchup it wouldn't be by much. It's so true that this unity thing will mean little in the end.

by Christopher Lib on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:48:29 PM EST

Re: So true (none / 0)

Republicans won't vote for Obama, they just won't care as much if he wins.

conservatives won't vote for Obama either. They only come out for McCain if Clinton's the nominee.

If Obama's the nominee, they stay home, but moderate women who come out for Clinton go to McCain.

They both lose.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

actually, it's (none / 0)

Obama ...we need to jettison NOW

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:51:30 PM EST

Betting on Obama fairy tale is a roll of the dice. (none / 0)

There is a good chance McCain will put Barry Obama over his knee and give him a good paddeling in the general election.

Obama is a huge risk.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:45:39 PM EST

Re: Betting on Obama fairy tale is a roll of the d (none / 0)

Care to back that up with even a tiny shred of reasoning? McCain's more tied to Bush than anyone in the Republican field. He's so old Chuck Norris won't vote for him out of fear. He wants us in Iraq for 100 years, and is prone to saying things like promising another war to the tune of a Beach Boys song. And his campaign was a shambles before a surprise primary win. I really don't see this guy as a juggernaut. I think there's a chance he could do better than the other Republicans, but he's also got a better chance of completely imploding. If the country decides he's just a crazy, Bush-loving old man, will anyone vote for him?

"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."

by schroeder on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.