From Politico.com:
One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.
Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.
Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.
I completely agree with that. I have a hard time envisioning Clinton winning the nomination. Perhaps if she wins every remaining Primary, but even then it's unlikely.
So at this point, given that my not-quite-favorite John McCain has won the GOP nomination, I'm mostly just an interested observer of the Presidential race. And it's actually been quite fun. The Dem primaries have been fantastic political theater, and I've said that the national conversation we've been having about superdelegates and proportional representation and the like have been very good for America.
Which is really a long-winded disclaimer: I don't think that I am basing my analysis of the general election based on any strong preference for the GOP nominee.
So here goes: At this point, I agree that Obama is the most likely Democratic nominee. But, contrary to what seems to be the conventional wisdom, I don't see him as any kind of favorite against John McCain. I just don't anticipate that Obama adds anything to the coalition that John Kerry assembled in 2004, other than perhaps a greater margin among voters under the age of 30 (Kerry got 54 percent).
I actually think it's likely that Obama loses chunks of Kerry's voters. For example, looking forward, I think Obama will do worse than Kerry among white voters (Kerry got 41 percent), voters aged 60+ (46 percent), Catholics (47 percent), Jewish voters (74 percent), veterans (41 percent), and gun owners (36 percent).
First, do you think Obama will almost certainly win the Dem nomination?
Second, in a McCain-Obama matchup, who has the advantage and why?
Of course, McCain's biggest problem may end up being money.
Which is delicious since he's so self-righteous about it.
The hope of the Republican party, and the Nation, is that McCain would develop some problem, medical or otherwise, that would force him out before it is too late. Otherwise it is a slam-dunk for Obama that will sweep many other Democrats into office.
The election will be decided in part on which candidate better delivers his/her message and has advertising which demolishes the other candidate.
It is silly to speculate who is more electable at this time.
Michael Fuerst
McCain will look older and older as the next six months roll by. He is in fairly good shape, but he is in his seventies and he looks it. That fact may be a plus for older voters, but he is from another world for the voters who don't remember the Beatles.
All McCain needs is another melanoma for his health to move to the forefront, or the untimely death of a politician younger than him. It also seems likely that Obama has more to choose from to find a popular running mate. McCain may be searching for another Dan Quayle, the unknown Republican that GHWB thought America would fall in love with.
Hillary's inability to get a revote in MI and FL shows that Dem leaders are not trying to prop her up, and she will wither and die after Pennsylvania.
Then some gaffes from each side during the summer, some high school buddy of Obama's will turn out to be a racist, reprises of the Keating 5 scandal, the media always favoring the underdog, it will be a close contest by design.
McCain closes the gap but cannot close the deal. Obama by a close margin, predicated by the networks in mid-evening.
Any questions?
Gordy, We are in complete agreement there. McCain simply cannot win unless he raises more cash. And I don't think anybody in the party is willing to give him that cash. I think Republicans, at this point, are willing to throw McCain under the bus and wait four years to see if something better doesn't come along. Whatever Obama or Hillary pulls, America will be damn tired of it in four years.
"McCain simply cannot win unless he raises more cash. And I don't think anybody in the party is willing to give him that cash."
That may very well be. McCain isn't raising much at all, whether because he's not really trying or because he's not appealing. But the RNC is raising like gangbusters. Maybe that's people hedging their bets? Maybe its donors who are unwilling to give to someone who for so long has said that the very act of contributing is corrupt?
Either way, if the RNC doesn't rescue McCain and if he's unwilling or unable to raise any case himself, he's going to lose a very winnable election simply because the Democrats will define him first.
Disclaimer: I'm for Obama. I think Obama will win in the fall,if he gets the nomination, which is still a big IF in my mind. McCain is tied too closely to the most unpopular president in recent history. He wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He predicts staying in Iraq for 100 years. People are fed up with Washington and McCain has spent most of his adult life there. Then there's age. Not to mention ethics. Remember the Keating Five? John Q. Public doesn't either, right now, but will by November, particularly after it is pounded into his head that McCain's campaign is being run by lobbyists. Literally. If Obama gets the nomination, I predict Richardson will be his running mate. I think there is a reason Richardson made his endorsement now, and I think the reason is he's been promised the Vice Presidency. Obama was desperate for some good news to keep the super delegatesgoing his way.
It still seems to be Obama's to lose in November. He plays his cards right he should be able to pull it off given the advantages of the unpopularity of the Bush Administration and what seems like endless funds to equate McCain to Bush in the minds of voters, the vast fundraising gap so far that may persist or could eventually even out, though possibly too late, to effectively respond, and Obama's ability to bring out new voters who believe he is the real deal they've been waiting for.
Hillary, while having raised quite a bit of money herself, has blown so much of it in the primary battle and racked up enough debts that she doesn't start off much stronger than the GOP with McCain when looking both at party+candidate totals... not to mention the likeliness of fundraising to drop like a rock up if she won through what I can only imagine would be the ugliest convention battle in 40 years, tearing the party loyalty to shreds on top of the late start to focus on the general. It's hard to imagine that the party elite wouldn't see that as a devestating blow to the huge gains the Dems have made with voter association, fund raising, turn out, etc. If they start getting it in their head that Obama just can't win enough electors come November, they might, but it's hard to see how Hillary could do much better if they pull such a demoralizing move.
The "Era of Good Feelings" appears to have come to a complete end between Obama and Hillary, and it seems like they and their supporters are digging in for some trench warfare at least for another month going towards Pennsylvania... it seems pretty unlikely they will be anywhere near as cordial as the recent past, given their latest litany of barbs thrown at the other. If we believe Hillary, Obama is working to disenfranchise more blacks than the Dems ever accused Bush of, with nothing of substance behind his "lofty rhetoric," would apparently imperil the nation because of his lack of experience, and apparently a sure bet to lose because he's an amatuer in politics. If we believe Obama, Hillary has misreprested hersefl as having any relevant experience, especially with foreign policy, is a habitual liar, who is also a sure bet to lose in the general. They both argue that the other is hiding their records in what can only be meant to imply that each has a pile of potential "October Surprises" that could doom them.
As much money as they've raised, they seem to be spending it by doing McCain and the GOP's work for them, and spending it hard and fast. They're not just tearing each other down, but doing so on issues where McCain is touting his strengths. Experience generally, experience on foreign policy, honesty/integrity, unity/bipartisanship, etc. It's theirs to lose... which so far has this McCain supporter pretty optimistic.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
McCain's "100 years war" will cost him. It wll be played over and over again. That alone will get me to vote for anyone but McCain and I suspect I am not alone in that sentiment.
Plus, the oldest person to be elected President (1st term) cancer, actually physically demonstrates confusion (did you see him cluelessly wandering in France?) , needs Joe Lieberman to explain, in public for gosh sakes, that Iran is NOT supporting Al Qaeda, Sunni and Shia are different, and he will apparently continue the legacy of GWB, or perhaps better put, what are his domestic economic plans? The Presidency is more than, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", another lovely clip and quote that will surely hurt his chances.
McCain will lose by a wide margin. He'll lose New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, probably Ohio and Pennsylvania, maybe lose Colorado, and lose California. He'll win Texas and over half the remaining, mostly rural states, but that won't be enough.
Americans are sick of an endless war going nowhere, sick of 3.50/gallon gas, sick of 3.50/gallon milk, sick of the fear of foreclosure. As to foreclosure, most Americans have nothing to worry about, but Americans are an easily intimidated bunch full of fear (ask FDR what he had to say about shoring up American confidence) and those people are afraid they could be next.
The economy is tanking, or at least it appears to be and appearances are enoug, the war is going on and on and on and it doesn't matter if we are winning or losing, people are sick of being there while it seems America is crumbling like so many bridges in Minnesota, and anyone who doesn't disassociate himself or herself from GWB will lose. He, and his policies, are poison.
Of course he never said "100 years war" and every factchecking organization and media outlet has noted that Dean, Obama, and Hillary are all misrepresenting his comments by dropping the very next words. I'm waiting to see them bring that up in the first big nationally televised debate as McCain points out their dishonesty on the line, and turns it around on them that implying that a presence after the fighting is over somehow equates to never winning would mean we lost against both Germany and Japan, or even more absurdly that by leaving Vietnam during the ceasefire we actually won.
I'll have my popcorn ready for that one. I can't wait.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock21, about the 100 years comment. You confuse reality with the perception of reality. Most Americans operate by perceptions, and not reality. Most Americans are pop-culture sound bite driven, not deep analysis driven. American Idol is more popular than American politics. And he said it. Maybe it was taken out of context, but he said it.
One must be careful to avoid even phrases that can be taken against you. And besides, the rest of the concerns expressed above are valid, and will cause his political doom.
Germany and Japan, losers in WWII, do not equate with this action, which isn't even a war. You could say we are still at war with N. Korea and that would be true, but the public doesn't see it that way, just like they don't see staying in Iraq after the fighting is over is justfied, and it's scary to think about. staying there 100 years. Also, while we may have initially been seen as occupiers in Germany and Japan, we quickly became protectors. I don't see it that way in Iraq, where the fighting will NEVER end against the US so long as we are there, because it is, like it or not, a religious war, at the very least as seen from the other side's point of view, a point of view which must be reckoned with, if not agreed with.
But my feelings don't matter, I am but one voter. And right or wrong, the people are sick of this war and concerned that a doddering old man with cancer will not be able to bring this nation to where it should be. Obama is untested, but it's why people buy lottery tickets. A chance at success is better than the same-old same-old, especially when it's very old, very expensive, and has no benefit whatsoever to your average American.
I don't think that soundbite will sell as well you think. Sure it makes anti-McCain folks giddy because it seems to confirm their war-mongering view of McCain. But if the candidates and their supporters mislead people in such a calculated and easily debunked way, it's going to upset the undecided voters who believed it and then learn that you guys are being dishonest. Especially on something trumped up to be a very serious problem... which they'll learn was just a partial quote that implied nothing of the sort. Things like these work great for the base on both sides, but they can easily backfire with the undecided voters out there if they feel like they've been taken for chumps.
As far as Iraq or any other war not being won or lost on the basis of whether we maintain a presence after the fighting, I agree and I accept your apology. (Colbert moment)
"Obama is untested, but it's why people buy lottery tickets."
Heh, couldn't have put it better myself. But I'm one of those folks that considers the lottery a tax on people who are bad at math. Very fitting analogy.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I, too, don't buy lottery tickets, except once in a while when the super duper mega multi state lottery gets over a quarter billion dollars, then, it's worth a buck to dream. But you and I are in the minority. We know the lottery is a sucker bet, and we know Obama is, so far, an empty suit, and that McCain isn't a war-mongerer. But we are in the minority.
Those who watch American Idol, those who fret about Brittney, those who think salvation is just around the corner of a scratch off ticket, those are the majority, and Obama appeals to them. An old man with tired, unsuccessful recycled ideas does not.
BTW, don't try to guess my politcs or lump me in with "you guys". Not to mention that all the "guys" are incredibly dishonest when it comes to campaigns. As it is said, "It ain't beanbag".
"McCain will lose by a wide margin. He'll lose New York, Massachusetts, Georgia,"
Ahahahahahaha!
He could lose forty-eight states and still not lose Georgia.
He'll lose Georgia to Obama, win against Clinton. GOTV for blacks, especially Atlanta, will go for Obama.
I guess the Reverend Wright will be the one to administer the oath of office.
Well Barack Hussein Obama will definitely be the 44 president of the United States. GOD HELP US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For anon 2:18
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Yeah, but you used Star Trek graphics, so you are 100% right, but dorky :P
"He'll lose Georgia to Obama, win against Clinton. GOTV for blacks, especially Atlanta, will go for Obama."
Are you aware the whole state of Georgia swung Republican in 2006? And that Obama polls pretty terribly?
In recent polls McCain beats either Obama or Hillary. I am not sure about the money issue for McCain; it could be some plan of the RNC. Of course Obama and Hillary are in a big battle and that normally draws a lot of money. The question will be if the winner can continue to draw that kind of hard money for the general election after they have sucked all the money out of the pool? I think most people are waiting for the Dem's to decide who their candidate is and then the General election will start leaving those independents to decide the next President. McCain seems to have as the recent poll said 78% of the GOP behind him already. Except for maybe Gordy and he is mad about McCain Feingold most general election voters are not so specific about issues. They seem to be more interested in things like the economy. I guess they could blame the congress (Obama or Clinton) for not voting to continue the Bush tax cuts or they could blame the current President either way McCain is in a better position.
"I am not sure about the money issue for McCain; it could be some plan of the RNC."
Or it could be that he's a self-righteous overregulating jerk who for years has been telling all donors that the very act of their giving is corrupting, yet now he wants/needs their money.
"McCain seems to have as the recent poll said 78% of the GOP behind him already. Except for maybe Gordy and he is mad about McCain Feingold most general election voters are not so specific about issues."
He's good about some things and not so good about others. I cannot envision a scenario where he ever gets my enthusiastic support. Not that it matters or he cares, of course.
"In recent polls McCain beats either Obama or Hillary."
Because Obama and Hillary are busy beating each other up. As soon as the Dems get a chance to focus on McCain rather than each other, expect McCain's numbers to tumble.
I guess we will have to see if that is true or not. McCain has come though relatively unhurt by his opponents in the GOP primary. Obama and Hillary are far from done; they have not even decided to seat Florida and Michigan’s delegates yet.
Just to tag onto that last comment, in recent tracking polls Obama has pulled back ahead of Clinton, 48-45. Looks like that speech helped after all.
In other news, "satisfaction" with the "way things are going" in the US has dipped to a mere 19%.
And finally, my wife (the bellweather for this kind of stuff) said today, "who cares about Obama's Pastor anyway?" and "I like John McCain". Honestly, she might be the only true independent I know.
Should make for an interesting summer.
I think people were concerned that Obama was associated with the Pastor and his words which were harsh and he was only now speaking out against them. (Pastors say a lot of things). There are a lot of independents besides your wife voting and they might disagree with her.
"Should make for an interesting summer." This is true but it will be mostly Obama and Hillary making it interesting.
"In other news, "satisfaction" with the "way things are going" in the US has dipped to a mere 19%." Just remember as I said it is the Democrats that control Congress and so it must be Obama and Hillary’s leadership that has got us here.
Yes, because Bush being the true non-partisan leader that you voted him into office as has not been standing in the way of any of Congresss' attempts to change the course of "the way things are going".
Seriously, if you like this political side or that one, it's all good, but can we stop just playing BS polemics?
Is Bush running again? The Dem's voted to raise taxes on everyone they will have to live with it now.
What are you talking about? Bush if you were not aware is the current president of the United States. Being such, he has a great effect on both what a Congress with a small majority can accomplish and on how people feel about "how things are going".
Those polls have nothing to do with whether he is running again or not.
Xian-Did you go back and read the previous posts, your right Bush as I said is president and has some responsibility for the economy, but in a discussion about Presidential candidates he does not count he isn’t a candidate? The short answer is that leaves the other group responsible for the economy the Congress and it is being run by the Democrats. Obama and Clinton as members of the Senate have had an opportunity to lead on the economy and have an impact on that poor economy discussed in the polls and they have done nothing except they have voted to raise taxes on everyone including the poor. The polls impact Obama Clinton more because they have had more of an opportunity then McCain to impact the economy.