The Top Ten Reasons Republicans Shouldn’t Fear Barack Obama in November
The Big Rock Candy Mountain Candidate Has the Odds Against Him
By Ben Domenech Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Barack Obama is like Jesus but cooler | Branding | John McCain | Obamafiles — Comments (119) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Barring a shocking turn of events, Barack Obama will effectively seal the nomination of the Democratic Party on March 4th. While Hillary Clinton may still pull off victories in Ohio and Texas, she would have to win by large margins to have a realistic path to victory – which seems unlikely given the increasingly desperate nature of her on-trail performance and a growing impression that her moment of opportunity has passed, if it ever existed.
Republicans are now confronted with a Democratic candidate who, as Fred Barnes has pointed out, is a candidate of a consensus party for the first time in more than a generation. With a delicate coalition that must come together around the controversial John McCain in order to win, the odds are strongly against the GOP in November.
But should they be?
As we all know by now, Obama comes equipped with many innate gifts that make him the most appealing and pop culturally significant Democratic candidate since John F. Kennedy. As recently as six months ago, I believed it was impossible for anyone other than McCain to have any hope of beating the young Illinois Senator. Yet the primary results led me to reevaluate my opinion, and I now believe that Obama presents not just an inherently flawed candidacy, but a kamikaze leftist candidate, whose out-of-step views will not last the duration of a general election without full exposure, and whose mawkish storytelling can't carry him to the White House without some serious good fortune.
Read on, then, for the top ten reasons Republicans should not be afraid of Obama in a general election:
1. No McGovern has ever won
The Democratic Party has a long history of choosing candidates whose liberal views and ability to inspire their upper class white and lower class worker voting base make them ideally suited for caucuses and primaries, and terribly suited for general elections. They’ve proven that they can win when they choose triangulating centrist Southern candidates like Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992, but candidates like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis all went down in the general. While Obama is certainly a more inspiring figure than Dukakis, it’s worth remembering that the Massachusetts Governor emerged from the DNC Convention with a 17 point lead in 1988 in large part because George H.W. Bush was a known quantity, while Dukakis was a bright unknown immigrant talking about change. One wonders whether Obama will be smart enough to avoid any tank incidents, since the modern equivalent would get six million views on YouTube in short order. In the end, the historical path just isn't there - a fact which makes a win not impossible, but less likely.
2. Latinos
Barack Obama has yet to prove that he can perform well or even consistently compete for Latino voters, who have been a key swing bloc in past elections. McCain is the best candidate out of the Republican field in terms of performance among voting Latinos – he has a long history of winning them in Arizona, and a good deal of cachet among the community – and Obama will have to overcome significant racial divides to compete among them, which is one of the reasons he has a distinct disadvantage in point 3.
3. New map is better for McCain
A McCain-Obama contest effectively throws out the Bush 2000/2004 maps. The battlegrounds shift, and in nearly every case, they shift in a way that plays to Republican advantages. Obama has raised money with an ease unlike any candidate in American political history – even George Washington had to buy scads of alcohol to cater his first campaign – but he will have to spend a large amount of those resources in traditional Democrat states to shore up his base after a divisive primary. On the other hand, McCain will run strong in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, and he is already running even with Obama in western states like New Mexico thanks in large part to Latinos and another key bloc, which leads us to a fourth point.
4. Veterans
The so-called “older belligerent men” vote that granted McCain his come-from-behind victory is in large part a result of emphatic, overwhelming support from veterans and military families. This is no Kerry-Bush race where veterans could be split – McCain's loyalty runs so deep, he wins both anti-war and pro-war vets. Yes, turnout for African-Americans will be at its highest point ever with an Obama candidacy – but on the other side, strong veteran communities plus Latino voters will enable McCain to realistically compete in states like California, which a Republican presidential candidate hasn’t had a shot at since 1988. It’s notable that Obama couldn’t pass Clinton there, despite his fundraising prowess in the state – but in the end, it’s less important that McCain actually wins in the Golden State than it is that he keeps Obama’s resources tied up there, allowing for gains in other contests.
5. Single Issues Matter This Time
On several hot-button issues, Barack Obama has views that are considerably to the left of both Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000 – and unlike those two candidates, his views have yet to be exposed on the national stage. Take this recent column from Stu Rothenberg on Obama’s gun problems, emphasis added:
Even more telling, possibly, was a recent interview Obama gave to television anchor Leon Harris and journalist John Harris. In it, Obama tried to have things both ways.
When he was asked by Leon Harris how he reconciles his support for the D.C. gun ban, which was declared unconstitutional by a federal court last year and which bars all handguns not registered before 1976, with his statement that he has "no intention of taking away folks' guns," Obama launched into a confusing explanation of "conflicting traditions in this country."
He ended his monologue by saying, "We can have a reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respects the Second Amendment and people's traditions." But the D.C. gun ban is based on the premise that the Second Amendment doesn't give individuals the right to own a gun.
This isn’t just leftism – it’s incoherent leftism. The idea that “reasonable, thoughtful gun control” is somehow not “taking away folks’ guns” might fly now, but just won’t play after every gun-toting middle and lower class white male in the Midwest has heard about it. Gore essentially ran as a pro-gun candidate in 2000, and even Kerry tried to soft-pedal the gun issue, but Obama simply can’t – any more than he can soft-pedal his views on partial birth abortion and other associated issues. Leading pro-lifer Gary Bauer recently sent an email to supporters pointing out that Obama gains roughly 10 percentage points over Hillary Clinton among pro-lifers in states like Wisconsin, Iowa, and Virginia. Some may view this as a problem, but in reality, it’s a huge opportunity for Republicans to completely define a candidate who struggles to define even his own positions on the matter. As we saw with Rudy Giuliani this cycle, when ignorance ends on a candidate’s views on life, the percentages swing.
6. Weakness among typical Democrat voting blocs
Obama’s success among groups like the young professionals, wealthy whites, and poor blacks have been unsurprising – but he’s been less consistent with a key demographic that he needs to win in November: union voters. While I don’t think there’s any question Obama will ultimately win them over, doing so is going to take more sustained outreach, and more attacks along the lines of his anti-NAFTA assault last week. And even after endorsements from the Teamsters and others, there’s a strong undercurrent of union voters who are unenthusiastic about a candidate they view as a weak advocate on their issues, and fundamentally out of step with their experience. You need only look at this recent rant by Tom Buffenburger of the machinists’ union to see the problem:
“Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter.”
Reaching out to union voters is going to force Obama to take more divisive anti-free market positions, ones that McCain can absolutely exploit.
7. The New Southern Strategy
While Gov. Ed Rendell's controversial comments about racial politics don’t reflect the situation in most states (if anything, this cycle has revealed it’s more a problem in New England than in the South – not even the Kennedys could deliver Massachusetts for Obama!), they do reveal another problem for Obama. He’s won throughout the primary season by having enormous turnout from African-American voters in places like South Carolina, where they made up half the voting electorate at the polls. It’s not going to be like this in the general. In fact, Obama has only won the votes of white Democrats in a total of two state primaries: Illinois, his home state, and New Mexico. There is not one Southern state where Obama did not have the advantage in a Democratic primary, and not one Southern state where Obama has the advantage going into the a general election. He must expand his base in the South in order to hope to win, and efforts to do that will be stymied without moving right on several issues – issues like guns, marriage, and immigration, all areas he can’t afford to move on. And how many incidents of rank racial politics of the sort Sean Wilentz (no conservative he) details here have the potential to backfire in a general?
8. The Experience Gap
This race has the widest experience gap since Wendell Willkie took on FDR in 1940, never having held elective office. While many members of the mainstream media are eager to make Obama-JFK comparisons, younger voters may forget that the war hero Kennedy had spend 13 years in Congress and the Senate by the time he ran for President. Obama’s inexperience and naivete have already revealed themselves in small moments when it comes to foreign affairs, and this is obviously McCain’s strength. As I noted earlier, McCain’s maverick tendencies are so ingrained that he wins independents and moderates who oppose the war, as well as those who support it and believe it was poorly waged.
If this election is about pop culture and style, Obama wins; if it’s about who is best suited to be Commander in Chief, McCain wins. In one of politics little ironies, the Democrats now have to hope that the surge in Iraq is so successful over the coming months that Iraq is essentially a non-issue: if foreign policy is a priority, either way, it plays to McCain’s advantages.
9. The Barack Obama is My Shiny New Bicycle
The “Building a Religion” cult of personality that has grown up around Obama has certainly propelled much of his success and fundraising. But anecdotal evidence suggests it’s now reached a point where it’s genuinely off-putting to some voters – certainly if it’s reached the point where Hillary Clinton herself is mocking it. Think John Edwards’ “Christopher Reeve will walk again, but only if you vote for Kerry-Edwards!” comment in 2004, but maximize it as the note hit by an entire campaign’s following. As anyone in Hollywood can tell you, all it takes is a few TMZ segments, and one day you go from being Hannah Montana to being Britney Spears. This is the kind of “Obama’s made voting chic” strategy that draws in susceptible young voters, but has massive potential to backfire in a general election where true believers are outnumbered and where a political novice is pitted not against a sluggish partisan candidate like Hillary, but an experienced campaigner who’s proven he wins Independent voters consistently.
10. Even if he wins, it’s not over
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that none of the previous eight factors break Obama’s way. Say the Republicans don’t come together, and he wins a narrow election over McCain, winning states like Missouri, holding onto California, and carrying Ohio and Pennsylvania. Now the hard part begins for the political left: how do you govern successfully as a liberal in the White House? How do you actually make this thing work? It’s not going to be easy to pull off Great Society Redux and post-partisanship at the same time, particularly if Hillary is Majority Leader as some expect. The problem for Democrats is that Obama is so unique, so fresh and new, and those he surrounds himself with … aren’t. They don’t have the farm team to support him in office – just the tired old partisan lions of big government and scandal, known quantities all.
If Obama is elected, his presidency may ultimately resemble Jimmy Carter’s: a candidate who convinced voters that he was nice and good, and then discovered that these good intentions just weren’t enough to actually run the country for four years.
The basic rule of branding still holds here: once you get the candidate out of the box, regardless of how good the branding is, it still has to work.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Would An Obama Victory Prolong The Racial Divide? — Comments (3) »
The Top Ten Reasons Republicans Shouldn’t Fear Barack Obama in November 119 Comments (0 topical, 119 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Well done. All of this is correct.
It is clear there are a number of key blue states that McCain could win -- Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, even New Jersey. There are fewer key red states where it is obvious Obama could win.
I still believe Obama's #1 Achilles heel is -- Drivers licenses for illegal aliens. He is totally unnuanced in his bear hug of this issue. Typical, middle-of-the-road voters are appalled by this position.
If McCain moves too far that way on illegals doesn't give Obama an easy ride in this constituency AND they can attack him for a flip-flop.
I take no. 10 to be the most important point.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
11. Hillary Clinton doesn't want to wait until 2016 to run for President again. Any help her and Bill could give Obama with Hispanics and blue-collar union folks will not be forthcoming. Sure she will make a faux effort, but with a wink and a nod to these groups as in "don't forget me, I'll run again". Hillary would much rather take on McCain in 2012 and will be able to push aside one-time loser Obama as not being able to get the job done the first time.
If either nominee wins the general, there is a good chance that they will face a primary challenge as a sitting President. Seems like one term for either.
But I think a challenge from McCain is likely to come from the social conservative wing. He can prevent that challenge with his Supreme Court nominees. He replaces a Stevens and Ginsburg with a Roberts and Alito and I am very confident that potential social conservative primary challenge won't get off the ground.
That's one of the best posts we've had in a very long time here on the site.
I think it provides solid fodder for those of us arguing with quasi-conservatives who are mad at McCain (over immigration, McCain-Feingold, etc) or the GOP in general (pork -- suey!)
Another good article would be a similar top ten on why McCain is worthy of our support that does not include simply 'better than barak.'
I'm already on that band wagon, but it would be good to see a list.
The two lists taken together would make a nice starting point for talking about McCain vs Obama.
and what I should have said is people who are generally conservative, but don't feel a strong tie to the Republican party even if they tend to vote with it on a regular basis.
These are people who are conservatives, but not anti-liberal at the same time.
If it is people who are conservative but not strongly tied to the Republican party, 'quasi-Republican' would be a much more accurate term than 'quasi-conservative'. And you can hold this position and still be strongly anti-liberal.
You're calling the guys 'mad at McCain over immigration, McCain-Feingold, etc'
QUASI-CONSERVATIVES
Just stop it.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
This is anecdotal, but telling.
My wife and I come from large Catholic families, hers Scotch/Irish, mine Italian. We have scads of extended family now. In-laws, nieces, nephews, more in-laws.
Now, we don't know everyone's politics(they all know mine, however), but, we do know some that we are fairly close to that would be considered "swing".
They might have voting patterns that look like Carter/Reagan/Bush/Bush/Clinton/Gore/Kerry or Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Gore/Bush. Let's call them Reagan Democrats.
In any case, I believe these are the kind of voters that do decide elections. Well, my wife and I were talking about it last night and in discussing the dozen or so of thes folks that we are pretty sure we know how they think, we came up with McCain 12, Obama 0. And these people will vote.
And no, Michelle, it's not because he's black. He is far too liberal for these people and they will have serious doubts about his ability to be CinC in a time where the world is very dangerous.
If McCain runs an aggressive, while respectful, articulate campaign, he will win in a landslide. Can he do that? God, I hope so.
I think he definitely helps Republicans in blue states like Maine, Minnesota and Oregon. With his moderate/"maverick" image, I don't anticipate "swing voters" in Oregon, Minnesota and Maine will fear sending Collins, Coleman and Smith back to the Senate to work with a President McCain (now social conservative might...but that's a different story, and we are about unity now!).
But, what I wonder is if McCain will help in states like New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia and Louisiana? Obama will turn out the black vote in Louisiana and Virginia which will inevitably help Landrieu and Warner, but there are a good many blue collar voters in Louisiana that may feel comfortable with Kennedy. I would hope McCain's western roots will help in neighboring Colorado and New Mexico?
because Kennedy was a Democrat six months ago in a state of very conservative Democrats.
I think McCain CAN help in Colorado and New Mexico especially if he really campaigns there for the Senate candidates.
in Louisiana who are absolutely not going to vote for Obama. I think Landrieu will beg Obama to come campaign in Louisiana for her to get the black vote to turn out, but that could backfire if she is seen as being too close to Obama with some blue-collar white voters in Louisiana who have traditionally voted Democrat, albeit not as consistently in Presidential and national elections.
He still has a tought time keeping his seat I think, but NH does like McCain and they like him a lot.
I think a Sununu loss would be bad for the senate and bad for the GOP, and I hope that the GOP understands this and does what they can as a party to support his reelection.
But McCain as the GOP nominee will help him, because he will need some coattails this go around.
I agree these are all good points. In the end it all comes down to is John McCain willing to point these differences out or will he be too afraid for fear of being branded.
In your #10 reason. I believe Obama would be a one-term president. I also believe that Republicans would gain the House and Senate back in 2010 because of Obama's ineptness. I also believe Obama would want to surround himself with experienced professionals and would take a lot of the old dinosaur democrat senators like Biden, Dodd, Durbin and Kerry.
I could see the following happening if Obama would get elected:
Joe Biden - Secretary of State
Christopher Dodd - Secretary of Labor
Richard Durbin - Secretary of EPA
John Kerry - Secretary of Defense
John Edwards - Attorney General
These types of choices would open the senate up for new people and offer Republicans a chance to gain seats that may not otherwise be open.
1. No Dem McGovern Type Wins: True, however, in this age of hyper-media the average American is far more informed about candidates then even 20 years ago when Dukakis went from a huge lead to massive defeat. Plus, Bush is the single least liked President leaving office since polls tracked such information and McCain is a ardent supporter of his biggest policy, Iraq, that Americans happen to oppose by a clear majority.
2. Latinos? Really? When Karl Rove is telling us we are in big trouble because of how Latinos are responding to the GOP immigration policies I don't see how this is on your list.
3. New Map: First, Latinos will go strong for Barack. Second, most of the red/blue states will stay that way and true swing states often rely on latinos (Florids/New Mexico/ Colorado) or blue coller moderates who are swinging left by a large margin.
4. Veterans. Not enough in swing states to make an impact on the race.
5. Single issues this time: You mean putting gay marriage amendments on the ballots in swing states in 2004 wasn't highlighting a single issue? I don't see single issue voters being any different this year then any other GE year.
6. Weakness Among Union Voters: Let's see how Obama does in Ohio on Tuesday. If he truly is weak on Union voters it will certainly show in Ohio.
7. New Southern Strategy: Any Democrat would be in the same position. Plus, with the Latino vote in Florida that state is very much in play. Not to mention a growing Democrat Virginia which has a significant african american population, two blue Senators after this election, and a blue Governor.
8. Experience: A factor for sure, but not as big as you think. Obama will talk about Lincoln having less experience and saving the Union while the alleged lifetime of experience of Cheney/Rumsfeld produced horrid results.
9. The Obama shiny new Bicycle: Your best point. The rose will fade, but how much.
10. It's Not Over: Well maybe for 4 years it is. But we'll have two new and young liberal justices to replace Ginsberg and Powell (and possibly Breyer as well); and if one of the conservatives should happen to leave the bench then the liberals will have a workable majority for a good decade.
Anyone who believes that Obama will not nominate someone to SCOTUS who is to the left of Stevens and Ginsburg is deluding themselves. With a probably majority in the Senate, the GOP's only hope may be to fillibuster which will inevitably give rise to the hypocrite cry from the media and elsewhere. So, when I say that SCOTUS nominees are crucial, I am not saying its the most "important" issue, but with lifetime appointments there may be no way to reverse the social engineering of an Obama court, wherease in matters of economics and foreign policy, the results may be more immediate but we at least have the opportunity in 4 years to replace Obama and in 2 years to replace the Dems Congressional majority.
....is stronger than other Democrat when it comes to Latino voters. Bush got the biggest share of any Republican (40%), and I see no reason to suggest that McCain would get any less, and there is a strong case to be made that he will get more. The fact that Obama has been consistently losing Latino voters to Hillary by big margins only comfirms this fact.
I expect McCain to be very strong amongst Latinos in this election.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
The latino vote is getting strong for Obama for each primary and nationally latinos favor Dems more now then in '04 or '06.
McCain is in a box when it comes to immigration. If he talks about a path to citizenship the far right will stay home. If he doesn't the latinos will vote even more heavily for Obama.
There's no evidence to suggest that Obama will trounce McCain amongst Latinos.
I predict that McCain will do AT LEAST as good as Bush, if not better.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Karl Rove has noted how the Latino vote has been deserting the GOP in droves, over the appalling nativism voiced by such as Tom Tancredo and Michelle Malkin.
Polls of Latino voters are showing about a 14 point drop in support for the GOP by Latinos in the last few years, from 40% down to only 26%. And that will be enough to tip states like Nevada into the Democrat camp.
McCain can make up that deficit only by distancing himself from the nativists in his own party. But it's that issue that has done the most to split McCain off from his own party. There are many conservatives who won't vote for McCain unless he starts talking like Tancredo.
....moderates and anti-war Republicans back McCain by pretty strong margins. I'm not exactly sure why this is, but I would guess it is because he has a compelling personal biography that instills a great deal of confidence in his war leadership, even amongst those who are not very hawkish.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
"anti-War" Republicans and moderates support McCain is 1) McCain is a decorated war veteran and accurately perceived as understanding the military better than Bush & Cheney 2) I do think the majoirty of Americans want to win in Iraq, but don't have confidence in Bush & Cheney successfully doing so and 3) McCain criticized Rumsfeld and the initial planning of the War.
Bottom line, McCain is perceived as someone who can win the War in Iraq, which is the "third way" compared to the 2 choices the American people are typically given in polls either to withdraw now or stay the course.
from a family with a long military history, he also has two children who are currently in the US military-one already a veteran of Iraq, the other in his (third I think) year at the Naval Academy.
Cries of chickenhawk won't work with him, and I think somebody whose butt has been there, and whose children's butts are at risk can be expected to be very careful in the decisions he makes with regards to the military.
McCain is pragmatic with regards to the war-there are things he totally is against, but he isn't promising pie in the sky, we will pull out in X months and all will be well, because everyone will love me.
On issues military at least-McCain does sound smarter. Obama comes across as somebody running on the coulda, shoulda, woulda, but vote for me and all will be perfect promises campaign, and only the naive would swallow that pill.
If you're center-right and pro-war, you think McCain is focused on winning. If you're center-right and anti-war, you've come to the conclusion that McCain's form of winning is actually the quickest way to get everyone home.
Over the years, I have been sharply critical of the way that Bush and Rumsfeld chose to prosecute the War on Terror. I was banned from the Little Green Footballs blog for saying so. (They only allowed Bush worshipers on that blog till Bush even alienated them over the immigration bill last year.)
In this primary campaign season, I supported first Rudy Giuliani; and then when he dropped out, I switched my support to McCain.
Precisely because I believe that both Giuliani and McCain possess both the skills and the guts to fix Rumsfeld's mistakes and put the war back on the right track.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I agree with #10 for the most part. If Obama is elected and serves out his term he becomes the black Jimmy Carter. If Obama is assassinated partway through he becomes the black JFK.
Well I'm just pointing out that in that scenario regardless of how poor a job he may have done prior he would be forever martyred in the minds of most people and would take on a mythical status. Four years of poor performance however would take away the mythical status he currently enjoys in the minds of many of his followers. I actually don't think he will be in any more danger than any other president and am sure the secret service will do a successful job of protecting him as they have every president since JFK (although we had a good scare with Reagan...).
The conventional wisdom is that Barack has no experience in foreign affairs. I disagree in part, but the experience that he has in campaigning for people in other countries is not going to be favorable for him. Atlas Shrugged has blogged on this here.
If the rules are transparent and clear, and if the state has no authority to license businesses or restrict exports and imports, there will be no opportunities to pay bribes in those areas. Mart Laar
I agree with most of the points you've made, but I disagree with the electoral map point. In fact, I think the map will be tilted heavily against McCain and Republicans. At this point, Obama has strength in Virginia, Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, and several other western states. Those were all states Bush won. On the flip side, I don't know of a Kerry state where McCain is strong and has a great opportunity to win. I know the polls are close in Pennsylvania, but I doubt, as things stand today, McCain will win that state.
I want to make one other point as well. All of the arguments made are resonable and sensible. Still, they may mean nothing. Sometimes, things take on a life of their own and defy all known logic. I'm just not sure people are going to care about the old rules this year. At no other time in our history, could a man with so little experience become the nominee of a party. Yet, here we are with Obama.
I love it and some great points. My favorit is number 9. The line alone is worth remembering, The Barack Obama is my shiny new bicycle.
Classic.
keithjonesblog.com
Hillary actually won New Mexico after a long vote count, so Obama only won the votes of white Democrats in Illinois.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225997
Obama still won among white Democrats (Men:59, Women:51) in the state, despite losing it.
Ben: To what extent do you think Obama can shore up any of these weaknesses with his VP pick, for example, a moderate southerner to offset the McGovern image, or Wesley Clark in regard to veterans and the experience factor?
Veeps don't matter as much as we think they do. They really only functionally prevent a political attack, as opposed to helping out.
Obama needs a Cheney-type from the left, IMHO. But none of the potential options will outdo McCain on foreign policy or among veterans, and we should be praying for the Wes Clark choice.
Latino.
Governor.
Governor of a border state.
Governor of a swing state.
Solid foreign policy experienece.
Solid experiece in federal politics.
Won't upstage the chosen one.
Richardson is the perfect Dem VP pick. You literally couldn't make a better one if you were designing one from scratch.
But maybe that's the problem. He's so perfect that he's too obvious.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
I think that's just a rumor. Can't be sure though.
Although, however, we don't all like them. Barney Frank doesn't like them.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
I know that sounds pompous, but Obama's biggest weapon is economic populism. I intend to write a more detailed blog in the near future.
All these points are great, accept that they don't matter. Barack will fight for the middle class, tax those evil oil companies to kingdom come, regulate CEO salaries, bring back American manufacturing jobs, etc. All of us here know it is nonsense, but most people will fall for it.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
That doesn't guarantee they win. There is absolutely nothing new in the Democrat playbook since LBJ. Absolutely nothing.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Populism is far more likely to meet with success when the economy is hurting, gas prices are through the roof, and foreclosures are everywhere.
The economy was a LOT worse in 1984 than it is today. Mondale ran on an unapologtetic liberal populist platform and went down in flames. Even downscale union types (the target audience) didn't buy into Mondale's populism because they trusted Reagan and he was far stronger on national security. I can see that same dynamic in a McCain/Obama race.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
an incumbent that had a 60% approval rating.
Granted no incumbent in the race, but McCain is from a party whose incumbent president is polling in the low 30s.
If the rules are transparent and clear, and if the state has no authority to license businesses or restrict exports and imports, there will be no opportunities to pay bribes in those areas. Mart Laar
But not nearly in the same way that it was a downer for Carter. Surely you knew what I meant.
And incidentally, Iran will be in issue largely in terms of people NOT wanting to see us do in Iran what we did in Iraq. Too many people view Iraq as a mistake to invade for an accused soft stance on Iran to serve as enough of a detractor for Obama.
I think Obama will run into exactly the same kind of Iran problems Carter did, only more so. The nutcases running that country will read him like a book and play him the same way they did Carter. At that point the only question is does he go Desert 6, or Missile Crisis. And I'm not sure we come out well under either of those scenarios, because I expect the nutcases to call the bluff if he goes Missile Crisis.
Obama just seems to naive and pie in the sky-everyone will love me so much that I can gut the whole defense, and we will still be okay. I will make the world love America again.
It's all just hokum, and it will rear its ugly head and bite him on the butt.
I see so many parallels to Jimmy Carter it is almost like Obama has stolen his play book.
The playbook may be old, but the field has changed. And not to our benefit. In 1976 Republicans stood for lower taxes and fiscal restraint. They blew that away in the first 6 years under W, and now for the most part Republicans seem to be running on the "We're just like Democrats only less so" slogan.
Here are McCain's positions:
1. Make tax cuts permanent
2. Win in Iraq
3. Free market health care
4. School choice
5. Reform entitlements
6. Cut spending and shrink government
If you think that is "Democrat-lite", you need to think again. For all McCain's faults (and I was not a supporter of McCain's in the primary), the differences between him and Obama are as wide as the Grand Canyon.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
1) I don't believe him. He voted against them on every previous chance.
2) One of the few places I both believe and agree with him. Unfortunately, 70% of the country disagrees with us.
3) OH-BOY! I just can't wait for the McCain-Kennedy-Clinton Health Care plan.
4) See #3. Oh wait, he already did that one.
5) With a Democratic Congress underneath him? Right. I've got a bridge investment project you just might be interested in. It's located in Brooklyn, NY so it can't possibly lose money.
6) The one item the Gipper couldn't deliver and you expect McCain to? Sure you're not interested in that fine investment opportunity I mentioned earlier?
Sorry, this year the choices are between worse, worser and worsest, there are no lesser evils.
1. He's pledged his support for their extension. If you don't believe him, that's your choice. The alternative is Obama who has been upfront about wanting to raise taxes. I should also note that McCain has never voted for a tax increase.
2. Yet polls and primary results show McCain still wins support from those who were against the invasion and are anti-war. People just trust McCain on national security far more than Obama, regardless of whether they agree with him on Iraq.
3. McCain has a free market record on health care. He's never given any indication to the contrary. Your statement here has no basis and is just plain false. The alternative is Obama who is totally in favor of socialized health care.
4. See number 3. McCain has a long history of being a school-choice proponent.
5. I'm not saying he'll be successful with a Democrat congress, but entitlement reform has been a position of McCain's for quite a while. Again, the alternative is Obama who will expand them - McCain will veto any expansion, just as he voted against Medicare Part D.
6. See number 5. McCain will at least stop a Democrat congress, while Obama will grow government.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
And it is different from 1980 because Carter was rightly seen as primarily responsible. This time, Bush is seen as responsible.
I might also note that nearly all establishment republicans seem totally unaware of this problem.
McCain is not going to have as much success arguing for further tax cuts, or even maintaining current tax levels. Obama will counter by pointing out that they haven't worked so far-a statement that elicits laughter from us here, but will resonate with the general public.
Free trade-same thing. It is a political loser.(I believe that if we had a candidate with the vision and gumption, we could turn this into a winning political issue. I'll detail how later.)
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
I imagine if we delved into it, you and I would disagree on TONS of things politically. But as for how the issues will play for Obama and McCain in the election, we agree completely. Throwing which side is right or wrong completely out the window, the populist stance will play very much in Obama's favor with lots of voters who have been negatively impacted economically in recent years.
Hope I catch your more in depth pose on the topic. Sounds like it could be quite an interesting read.
OK, so there are some pressing flaws which bugged me about this.
1. This election has a pretty large difference in that Democrats are excited by and large about EITHER candidate. So pointing to the fact that Clinton is getting more support than Obama in certain groups only really matters if those Clinton supporters would be unhappy with Obama and thus turn McCain. Every poll has shown the vast majority of Dems to be happy either way.
2. Second is the issue of voter enthusiasm. A simple chart of a poll to demonstrate the point:
http://www.pollingreport.com/images/GALenthused.GIF
Democrats are way more excited about voting. Nose-holders do not turn out to vote as readily. Happened to Kerry for sure. Turnout is a huge factor in who wins any election, and at least as of today, that favors Democrats huge.
3. The Latino vote is an interesting one. If McCain keeps his position on immigration the same, it's not terribly different from Obama. But he runs the risk of alienating the base and creating more nose-holders at least (see #2). If he tacks right on immigration, he lessens number 2, but will lose some Latino votes. Tough spot.
4. New Map stuff. You point to the fact that McCain has the ability to turn some blue states into purple, citing his strength in states like PA and OH. But Obama has polled strong in red states like KA and MN. I don't think either candidate is going to pull a shocker on any states, but my point is that Obama can have the same shifting effect on red states.
5. Single issues look to favor Obama. Economy is #1, and McCain's statement about not knowing much about the economy...true or not...will hurt. The war is opposed by 60% give-or-take and is the number 2 issue out there. The 60%...would appear to favor Obama's stand. I could continue, but the point is several single issue are going to hurt McCain.
6. African American turnout, which you pretty roughly dismiss, will be a big factor. Turns Georgia and some other deep south states into a little of a question mark than they were for Bush. Could bolster support in more urban areas too.
It'll be an interesting race, but I think you're taking optimism too far here.
"But Obama has polled strong in red states like KA and MN."
Minnesota is a blue state.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=28
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Minnesota went Red in 2004.
There is plenty of purple in Minnesota for the savy GOP candidate to tap into.
Plus, the convention is in Minnesota which can only help McCain.
"Minnesota went Red in 2004."
No, it did not. Kerry won Minnesota in 2004. Check out one of the many links that I have provided you with either in this comment or in my previous comment.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/MN/
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONRESULTS_GRAPH...
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/nationalelection...
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Point still stands about Obama having at least the same potential to turn red states blue as McCain does to do the reverse. Deep south may actually be the most likely Obama spot given the large potential African American turnout.
...from a stone? AA turnout is already pretty high during presidential elections because of the "civil rights" coalitions driving voter turnout. Given that Dems already get upwards of 90% of the black vote, I don't see how Obama will flip any southern states. The increase in turnout would have to be enormous.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
The increased turnout among African Americans is only part of the equation. Democrats in general are energized, and Republicans are not. Unless that dynamic changes, that means increased turnout across the board for Ds and decreased for Rs. And if the original author here can claim California as a legitimately competitive state for McCain, I can claim most any state for Obama.
Aggie, with all due respect, those high primary turnout numbers show nothing. As I have said before, and as others have said, the Dems have had significantly bigger primary turnout since 1972,with the GOP having bigger turnout only twice (1996 and 2000). This includes years in which the GOP won the general - 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2004. There is just no connection.
You are also wrong about some of your other points.
I will agree with you, however, that the state map currently favors Obama. He has shown surprising strength in a few states that they shouldn't be strong in - KY, for one example, and he currently leads in the normally tossup states like NH and NM. (Although not KS - please.) Interestingly enough, though, McCain has been doing well in some states he shouldn't be doing well in, like OR, PA, and even MA (although he won't carry MA - he is just doing surprisingly well there - over 40%). But still, most people don't know much about him, except he is "change," so we will see what happens in the end.
Don't get to over confident.
The nation is really looking for change from GWB and is tired of the Iraq war and the financial drain it represents even if troop losses drop.
As the economy slides watch Obama's poll #s go up.
but there is something to be said for the voter turnout that the Dems are seeing in their primaries. I think a lot of young people who normally would not vote (for instance, if the race were b/t Clinton v. McCain) are now going to vote solely because they are getting caught up in Obama's supposed message of CHANGE and HOPE, aka, the status quo. Let's be honest, Obama is a dynamic candidate. I actually even like the guy as an individual. But the fact is that his platform is virtually identical to that of Hillary Clinton. And dynamic candidate or not, quasi-socialism sucks.
This is why I make a point of explaining to my peers (20s-30s) that Obama's platform consists of everything BUT change. His platform is nothing more than reinforcement of the status quo. Change would involve scrapping our current tax code. Change would be scrapping the ridiculous amount of farm subsidies that we dole out each year (ethanol for starters). Change would be school choice/vouchers. Change would be serious social security reform (not simply raising caps). Change would be anything that challenges the status quo. I can go on and on, but I know I'm just preaching to the choir.
Pardon the stream of consciousness rant. Long story short, I'm just sick of being told that a generic democratic presidential platform can somehow be translated into a message of hope and change.
there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress
--AuH2O--
The health care plans proposed are status quo?
Withdrawing troops from Iraq is status quo?
I agree with you to a point, but to say that Obama is proposing NO change from the status quo seems a bit off. It seems to me that it is precisely that change that Republicans fear.
And yes, voter turnout will be a big issue for Republicans this time around.
"The basic rule of branding still holds here: once you get the candidate out of the box, regardless of how good the branding is, it still has to work. "
If an administration cannot adequately govern..handle the ecnonomy, handle foriegn policy, accurately plan and handle foreign conflicts, control the budget, control the borders, maintain competency in domestic affairs by responding to emergencies....well then, what good IS it?
A couple of points:
-I've always thought the fact the Dukakas held a 17 point lead over GHW Bush in 1988 to be overplayed. It was ephemeral and no one at the time thought it was any indicator on how the race would play out.
-McCain will not carry California and would be a fool to spend resources there.
-As noted above, just because Hillary beats Obama in a certain demo in a primary means nothing in Nov. unless they either a)stay home, or b) won't vote for the eventual Demoratic. I don't think that will happen.
and no nominee who hasn't already sewn up his base has ever won.
The fight between Obama and Hillary may be mean, vicious, and nasty, but whichever of them wins will have his base sewn up. McCain still has to make nice with social conservatives. On the other hand, whichever D wins their nomination will be a McGovern, and the one issue on which even social conservatives give credit to McCain is his stance on the war.
Either way, at the end of this election, one perennial truth about the winner of US Presidential elections will have fallen by the wayside. Right now, I don't think I'd bet against McGovern.
First, let me state I am not making predictions that McCain will win.
Second, you can't just make sweeping assumptions like "either D will have the base sewn up". Who's to say that Obama will keep elderly voters in the D column? Or middle class white union voters?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Here are some things that make it much more difficult for McCain:
1. Not since 1876 has an unpopular incumbent President been succeeded to the White House by someone from his own party. In every election since 1876, whenever the incumbent was highly unpopular with the voters, they punished his party by voting against that party's candidate in the next election. 1952 and 1968 are recent examples.
Knowing this, Rahm Emanuel has said that the Democrats intend to make Bush, not McCain, the issue in this election. If they can frame the election as "Obama vs. Bush," Obama wins.
2. Ohio, whose electoral votes provided the margin of victory for Bush in 2004, is now a solidly Democrat state. It finally fell into the Democrat column over all the GOP scandals there. In 2006, Ohio elected an ultra-liberal Democrat Senator, Sherrod Brown, who is pro-union, populist and protectionist to the core. That's not a good sign for McCain. If McCain won all the same states that Bush won except for Ohio, he still falls short in the Electoral College. That means he has to win some states that Kerry won in 2004. Can he do it? Are there any Blue States which are not screaming bloody murder over Bush's Iraq War policy?
3. When the incumbent President and his policies are unpopular, it puts that party's candidates (such as McCain) in a bind. They can't run on the President's record ("Four More Years!"), because the voters won't accept that. But if they distance themselves from the President's record, they run the risk of splitting their party by alienating those who are still loyal to the President. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey faced this same trap. He dared not defend the track record of Lyndon Johnson or his Vietnam War policy; but he dared not break with Johnson and split his party wide open either. And in the end, he lost.
McCain still hasn't figured out what to tell the American people about Bush. How much of the Bush legacy will he try to preserve? What, if anything, does he intend to change?
for the DNC to run against Bush and hang Bush around his neck.
McCain has spent the last 8 years playing maverick and does have on record stated oppotition to some of Bush's policies and decisions.
I do think McCain will have it tough, but it is going to be tough to hang a Bush albatross around McCain's neck, they can try, but I think McCain has the goods to throw it back at them.
Although, in the end I am not convinced McCain is going to win, but I am pretty much in agreement with number 10, if Obama wins, he will spend the next four years proving he can't deliver on every promise, but delivering on the ones people in the end will realize they want the least.
Obama can promise all he wants, but I don't see an abiity to deliver, and I pray he doesn't.
True that Obama has charisma, and will get virtually all Afro-American votes, large majority of college votes, and other usual Dem folks.But he has some glaring weaknesses. For starters, his record in the Senate(most liberal last year), his stand on driver's licenses for illegals, being in favor of abortions including partial-birth ones, and his ignorance of foreign policy and military matters.
I simply do not believe the majority of American voters is with him on these issues. John has his work cut out, but it can be done.
1> Lumping McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis together amounts to a meta-functional anecdote.
2> If you really wanted the Latino vote in 2008, you should have heeded Rove and Bush.
3> The New Map spoiler is first time voters, and record numbers of same.
4> Veterans care - recent scandals regarding such have been, fairly or not, tied to the current administration.
5> The God/Guns/Gays dynamic has been divisive rather than uniting. But I guess that depends on who you ask.
6> Teamsters endorse Obama?
7> Don't be surprised at being reminded of the OLD Southern Startegy.
8> Debatable. Up until now, the GOP hasn't exactly been The John McCain Experience, has it?
9> Look over there! Shiny!
10> Those grapes were sour anyway.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
You don't know what you're talking about.
"4> Veterans care - recent scandals regarding such have been, fairly or not, tied to the current administration."
That's your response? There's no question veterans are breaking for McCain, even over other GOPers. I'd know, I'm one of them. McCain is a champion of veteran care. He will make it one of his issues, and he's earned his spot there.
"5> The God/Guns/Gays dynamic has been divisive rather than uniting. But I guess that depends on who you ask."
Yes, well exactly. Divisive. Meaning, causing division. Meaning, people going this way or that based on the issues. That's the point. Issues will make people decide this or that way. Do you think that being unified is more important than abortion to abortion voters? Your objection to 5> amounts to nothing more than a reiteration of Obama's number 3 favorite talking point. Unity doesn't sell so well when it requires one side abandon everything in favor of the other.
"7> Don't be surprised at being reminded of the OLD Southern Startegy [sic]."
Cute. Are you saying that people ought to play on racial anxieties? Or are you implying southerners are racists? Or just implying that the Ben Domenech is saying something racist? Care to elaborate?
"8> Debatable. Up until now, the GOP hasn't exactly been The John McCain Experience, has it?"
Meaningless. Approximate translation: nuh-uh.
"9> Look over there! Shiny!"
Couldn't think of anything, eh?
absentee
"That's your response? There's no question veterans are breaking for McCain, even over other GOPers. I'd know, I'm one of them. McCain is a champion of veteran care. He will make it one of his issues, and he's earned his spot there."
More of a factual observation really. I'll believe "There's no question veterans are breaking for McCain, even over other GOPers." when you cite specific polls.
"Yes, well exactly. Divisive. Meaning, causing division. Meaning, people going this way or that based on the issues. That's the point. Issues will make people decide this or that way. Do you think that being unified is more important than abortion to abortion voters?"
If abortion meant jack to anyone these days, McCain would not be the presumptive nominee. Prove me wrong.
And I intentionally spelled Southern "Startegy" that way for reasons you should be ashamed not to admit.
Get over it.
And I intentionally spelled Southern "Startegy" that way for reasons you should be ashamed not to admit.
It's a site moderator asking, so please do that in your next post.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I was referring to that strategy which had the specific intention of segregationist Democrats retiring or switching to the GOP. It was in all the papers, I'm surprised you missed it.
To me, anyone who brings this up should be:
1) Smart enough not to bring it up
2) Even smarter to defend it.
...on voter demographics in the American South, 1964-2004. Please cover state legislatures as well as national (hint: examination of, for example, the Alabama state legislature should prove fruitful). Write it up, send it in, and we'll think about turning your account back on.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Are you aware that McCain has a 100% pro-life record? He's not a vocal culture warrior as Huckabee is, but for a pro-lifer, McCain/Obama is not a hard choice. Not one bit.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
and his leftist propaganda machine. He has three of the wealthiest businessmen in the country opening their checkbooks to every scheme to avoid campaign finance laws. He has a staff of public relations who's who at his beck and call. He is willing to say and do anything, and as soon as he seals the nomination, he will start pandering to the independent voter.
Larry Flynt and George Soros and Peter Lewis will have untold Republican scandals to pop every week until the election. Thousands of private investigators and moles have been at work for years. I would never underestimate what the CFR has wrought.
Kate
“It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd.” Henry Miller
Yesterday McCain was asked if he was saying that Obama is too inexperienced in foreign affairs to be President. McCain replied that he would not presume to say whether or not Obama lacked the foreign affairs experience to be qualified for President. Well, now that's odd, since McCain had no qualms about suggesting that Mitt Romney was too inexperienced in foreign affairs to be President.
The whole argument is bogus anyway: Experience is no guarantee of success or expertise. Madeline Albright had loads of foreign policy experience. Don Rumsfeld had plenty of foreign policy experience. Zbiegniew Brezinski had lots of foreign policy experience. All three contributed to foreign policy disasters. In contrast, Ronald Reagan, like most governors, had precious little foreign policy experience--yet, needless to say, he did very well in foreign affairs.
Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
That's what HRC did and she is paying for it big time. Some of these same things were said about Reagan (too conservative to win) and just look at his two landslide margins. We shouldn't fear Obama but we should fear our own complacency.
2) We still need unity to win.
3) I am so offended by the "floating window-pane cross" behind Obama. Look how shamelessly he panders to both sides of the aisle! LOL
Let us be cautiously optimistic about our chances in November. If we work hard and don't get complacent, things look good. Obama is green and so are his most ardent supporters. A mature well-reasoned challenge and a steady focus on achievement will allow McCain to command an ever-increasing margin of victory. Look at how McCain is using his prominence to bring about earmark reform (change) before November. What is Obama doing besides double-talk and angering our Canadian allies (reopening NAFTA).
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.
-Attributed to Yogi Berra
You don't get unity with a steamroller. If you read my other comment in this thread, you'll see why I think unity is lost. A fair game, and decent due process, is required for unity. Treating other Republicans as the enemy is divisive. But that's what's happening, all across the nation.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
....via a strange cast of characters.Catch it here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/01/jack-nicholson-films-ad-f_n_893...
First clip is from the Joker (Batman), a psycho killer if there ever was one. Jack Torrance from "The Shining" weighs in with "things could be a lot better...." or could they be worse under Hillary's health care plan that would turn everyone into an insane potential murderer as this character? We also hear from Col Jessup in "A Few Good Men," initially a highly professional and patriotic Marine, but ultimately a criminal arrested at the end of the film. He chimes in about "....nothing sexier than a woman you have to salute in the morning...." But when the Clintons take away the uniforms of the White House Marines - AGAIN, they won't be saluting while in civvies. Throw in the kooks Bobby Eroica Dupea from "Five Easy Pieces" and Jake Gittes from "Chinatown" and you have a fine cast of nutcases endorsing HRC for President.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
you can use the initial -- just don't spell out the name.
**to borrow from GC
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
And help him get on the Ballot in your state. If we can get Nader a few bucks $$$. He can help us in states such as Ore,Wa,NJ,Minn,Wis,IA,Penn.
John McCain.
I just came back from the county caucus, in a deeply republican county, and there was not one McCain sign in the room. Huckabee, yes, Paul, yes. No one stood for John McCain. The nominating committee put up a slate of delegates, and floor nominations were made, roughly equal in number. All of the floor nominations declared for Huckabee or Paul. All of the nominating committee nominations *apologized*, said they would have voted for Romney or Giuliani if they could, but now they *had* to support McCain. Motions to suspend the rules were defeated, and the rules were well-designed. The nominating commitee delegates made it to the district and state, while the floor delegates did not.
The Republican voters hate John McCain, but the Republican Party has dictated that only McCain delegates are permitted. If I wanted to be told who to vote for, I would become a Democrat, or move to Russia.
Not only has the party Royally ticked-off long-time supporters such as myself, it has permanently soured all of the fresh blood which this contest has brought in. It will take a generation to forget yesterday's convention in Ottertail County. I think we just sacrificed a generation of Republican voters on the altar of adultery, corruption, incompetence, hypocrisy and cynicism called John McCain.
Norm Coleman's days in office may be over soon.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
entry in the "I Want My Picture Next To 'Stupid' in the Dictionary" contest.
It may not be the winner, we've some real classy entries lately, but it will certainly make the top five.
We know you'll keep striving toward your goal though, like any good *bot would.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Presidents can do lots of things. And with a Congress of his own party, Obama will. Maybe not huge legislative initiatives, but doing nothing raises incomes, capital gains and dividend taxes. And the ability to let regulation run rampant actually is pretty straight forward.