An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Hillary’s Bittergate (UPDATED)

NPR: 2 families, 2 approaches to gender identity »

Do the Democrats Deserve to Win in November?

Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Politics.
May 8th, 2008 | Comments

Today I was reading a wonderful piece of snark from Oliver Willis, who provides the following dire warning to the Democratic Party should they be foolish enough to award the nomination to Senator Obama.

More people are voting for Sen. Obama and that’s a huge problem in the fall. If we extrapolate this trend, it’s possible that he could, in the general election, have more votes than any other presidential candidate in history! The nomination process will be a mockery of the highest order if Howard Dean and the DNC sit back and allow the person with the most votes and most supporters to walk away with the nomination. This isn’t what we all signed up for.

While I enjoy a good bit of satire as much as the next person, following the link trail led me to an exchange between Atrios and Big Tent Democrat (BTD) at Jeralyn Merritt’s wonderful Talk Left blog. Duncan Black raised the following issue regarding Clinton supporters who are saying that Obama will lose in the fall and their candidate should be nominated regardless of the results of the primary elections.

What the Clinton campaign is doing is saying that Obama has electability problems, and using their support from white voters as evidence of that. That’s a wee bit problematic, and not just because it doesn’t follow logically any more than the other electability arguments such as Obama can’t win the election because he can’t win the primary in big states.

BTD responded with additional questions.

Why is it problematic? Why does it not follow logically? Atrios does not explain.

Allow me to field that one, if I may be so bold. First, there are some fundamental problems with these predictions about Clinton being able to beat McCain in the fall and Obama falling short.

Any polls conducted this far in advance when the Democrats don’t even have a nominee yet are pure fantasy at best. In July of 2004 it was common knowledge that John Kerry was going to beat George W. Bush like a rented mule. Also, one of the most quoted resources I see Clinton supporters pointing to in backing this claim is a recent article by, of all people, Karl Rove. Oh yes… if you’re looking for good advice and information on how the Democrats can do well in November, the first person you would look to is obviously Karl Rove.

Second, and more to the point, is the fundamental fallacy in comparing primary races to general election results. In the first case you are talking about offering Democrats and Dem leaning independents (in some states) a choice between two Democrats.

In order for this theory to operate effectively, this means we must assume that Democrats who don’t vote for one of the candidates will immediately turn around and vote Republican in the fall. Tagging along with Atrios’ comparison to the big state analogy, this is like saying that since Hillary won New York in the primary, if Obama is the nominee then the GOP will carry the Empire State in the fall. I would hope it is fairly safe to assume that Democratic leaning voters will react differently when presented with a choice between a Democrat and a Republican than they will when selecting one of two Democrats.

And what of these exit polls showing numerous Clinton supporters who say they will either stay home or vote for John McCain if Obama is nominated?

The most likely scenario, one would hope, is that this is largely a case of overheated, passionate supporters of each candidate responding vigorously in defense of their choice. Assuming Clinton and Obama make nice when Hillary finally calls it quits and strongly endorses the party’s choice, her supporters will hopefully step back from the ledge and realize that Obama’s proposed policies are virtually identical to hers and he is a strikingly different choice than John McCain. If that is the case, the Democrats may have little to worry about in terms of damage to the party from the primary process.

The other option, of course, is that a significant portion of Hillary’s supporters are serious about this stance and follow through on it.

Such a reaction – effectively a school yard recess ploy of taking one’s ball and going home – would indeed be serious and have a big impact. But perhaps this would be a natural phenomenon demonstrating Darwinism in politics. As I have previously written, the Republicans have one platform explaining their plans for the country’s future and the Democrats have another. The two could hardly be further apart. If a serious number of Hillary Clinton’s backers can look at her candidacy, decide that this is the future they want, and then turn around and vote for the Republican platform if Obama is nominated, the results are predictable.

The job of the parties is to get their message out there, marshal their forces, and get the largest number of voters to support them. If the Republicans can manage that while the Democrats splinter off into intra-tribal warfare, then the GOP will have gotten the job done and they deserve the victory. The Democrats will then get to effectively sit back and enjoy a third term of George W. Bush.

And who knows? Perhaps having spent so long in the wilderness since the 2000 elections they are simply more comfortable arguing from the cheap seats?

Cartoon by RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Holly_in_Cincinnati

1) President McCain will be superior to GWB.
2) McCain is better qualified than Obama and is, in my opinion, a far better choice for President.
3) It's about what's best for America - something my Democratic Party seems to have forgotten.

EyeDoc

A few problems with the original post. For one, Democratic candidates tend to poll well earlier on, and lose steam as the election becomes closer. Carter and Dukakis were perfect examples of that. If Obama is already polling behind McCain, that's a very bad sign. Sure, he'll get a bump in the poll when he locks up the nomination, but it still looks really bad. That'll be his peak, and then it'll be downhill from there.

Also, polls are showing many more Democrats crossing over to vote for McCain than Republicans crossing over to vote Democratic in November. If Obama is the nominee you can pretty much guess that those numbers will be more skewed because very few Republicans will vote for a candidate that liberal. It makes no sense to say we don't like McCain because he's not conservative enough, so we'll vote for Barack instead. But, there will be significant numbers of Dems voting for a moderate John McCain, especially socially conservative Democrats from the South and other rural areas. Even if the polls overstate all of this, McCain is going to pick up a good number of Democrats, and win the majority of swing voters.

And if you want to assume McCain is another Bush (which is way to pat in my book) then let's be fair and assume that Obama is another Jimmy Carter. I'll take Bush over Carter any day of the week. The question of whether the Dems deserve to win in November is easy to answer. The answer is no. Nobody "deserves" to win. Whomever has the better candidate should win, and that would be the GOP.

vwcat

If it was broken down in age groups you'd see Obama doesn't have a problem with white voters or even those much talked about blue collar white voters.
I never saw this as a race thing. It's age. generational.
Hillary attracts over 60 voters whether they are blue collar or retired or whatever. Partly because she is their age. And those are most likely the ones going to McCain because he is a peer and they look at Obama as a kid.
Sure, there are racists. But, most of those voting for Clinton and saying they'd vote McCain do not hate Obama. They are nervous because they think he is too young.
Change is uncomfortable for those older people. Even blue collar middle aged. They go with the brand name over the fresh face everytime.

vwcat

Holly has never given a reason why she has so much dislike of Obama.
If she bothered to learn some things she would know that Obama's time as a state senator, 8 years, is comparable to a governor. He knows the problems facing individual states and working in tandem with federal.
As a constitutional scholar and professor, Obama is one to respect and restore many of the things that have been thrown out or stomped on by Bush.
As a woman, I wonder if Holly, in her resentment, thinks about what a completely conservative supreme court will do for women.
Also, compare the 2 campaigns. How was Clintons run, with all the advantages she had and compare with Obama who came in as a real underdog.
Sometimes experience leads to entrenchment and not understanding of the needs and wants of a country moving forward.
Sometimes you need a fundamental change and overhaul of ideas and thinking.

Jazz

We seem to be skewing a bit off topic here once again. I'm not criticizing Senator McCain. In fact, I've had the pleasure of talking to him. He has always struck me as a genuine, likable person. He has a great amount of experience in elected office. His service to his nation, both military and civilian, is highly admirable. And if he and I saw eye to eye on more of the issues and the direction I'd like to see the country going in, I would be gladly voting for him. In fact, many fine people with excellent personalities and depth of experience have sought this office. Many have qualifications which are simply beyond question. However, if their plans for the country are opposite what I, as a voter, would like to see, then I still can't support them.

For anyone who supports the war in Iraq and wants to see it continue on, for anyone who feels that the current national economic policies are the best way forward, who wants to see more conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court working towards overturning Roe v. Wade, among other major, generational issues, McCain is an ideal choice. And I don't fault anyone for thinking that. Those are all completely valid points of view held by many Americans. And if you hold them, you would be foolish indeed to vote for Obama over McCain.

But my quetion remains... if you *do* hold those views, why would you have been supporting Senator Clinton in the first place? She has pretty much the exact opposite positions on those issues. None of the candidates are making any secret of what their plans and positions are... you can find them all on their websites or youtube any of their stump speeches.

aba23

A bit off-topic, but I was caught up by EyeDoc's statement: " I'll take Bush over Carter any day of the week."

I find this amazing. For all the ineffectiveness of Carter's administration (and the difficult times in which he governed), he did not leave the country on the precipice of imploding economically (once the foreign investment keeping our government running squeezes the last drops out of the US financial markets, we're in for more hardship than an hour's wait in a gas-line on odd-numbered days), weakened militarily, or shedding its long-earned national reputation for upholding human rights (having terrorists thumb their noses at you is nothing next to losing the moral high ground to them); nor did he or seek to drive a wedge not only between Americans, but also erect barriers between the branches of government that threatens to render the very idea of separation of powers meaningless.

The fallout from Bush's administration will last generations. The fallout from Carter's lasted two years.

ChrisWWW

A few problems with the original post. For one, Democratic candidates tend to poll well earlier on, and lose steam as the election becomes closer.

And Bill Clinton? And Kennedy? And FDR? By picking just losing candidates, you're skewing the data.

If Obama is already polling behind McCain, that's a very bad sign.

Statistically he is tied with McCain in just about every poll. The only one outside of the margin of error (The NYTs poll) has Obama winning by ~10 points http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

If Obama is the nominee you can pretty much guess that those numbers will be more skewed because very few Republicans will vote for a candidate that liberal.

What's so liberal about Obama? He seems pretty centrist to me. You perhaps have never heard of Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold, the really liberal Democrats.

Even if the polls overstate all of this, McCain is going to pick up a good number of Democrats, and win the majority of swing voters.

What gives you the impression that he is going to win swing voters?

And if you want to assume McCain is another Bush (which is way to pat in my book) then let's be fair and assume that Obama is another Jimmy Carter.

That'd be fair if you can prove a linkage between what Obama is proposing and what Jimmy Carter did as president. McCain *has* linked himself directly to the policies of Bush. More and permanent tax cuts for the wealthy as the backbone of his economic policy and continued war and aggression in the Middle East for his foreign policy.

Whomever has the better candidate should win, and that would be the GOP.

What does McCain propose that you find so appealing?

Davebo

For anyone who supports the war in Iraq and wants to see it continue on, for anyone who feels that the current national economic policies are the best way forward, who wants to see more conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court working towards overturning Roe v. Wade, among other major, generational issues, McCain is an ideal choice.

Bingo! That is it in a nutshell. And anyone who doesn't want all these things but still votes for McCain because their preferred democrat lost the primaries is acting like a 10 year old.

waldo

aba,
I think you have forgotten how bad a president Jimmy Carter was we are still suffering from the 100,000 criminals, mentally retarted, and sick people Fidel Castro tricked him into taking. He gave away the Panama Canal which took thousands of American lives to build. He allowed the US to look weak and inefective and allowed Americans to be imprisoned for a year in Iran and to this day he meets with terrorist groups
And sorry to say I voted for him

aba23

Oh, the humanity!

DLS

"In July of 2004 it was common knowledge that John Kerry was going to beat George W. Bush like a rented mule."

Common knowledge to whom? Not to those of us who are informed. Nobody, anywhere I've been in the USA, considered Kerry strong, much less as good as Bush. The nation was still pro-GOP (pro-security) in 2004 and Kerry was another McGovern. He's a liberal from Massachusetts! That made him instantly alien and offputting. The question was by how much he was likely to lose to Bush in 2004 -- it was very likely he would have lost every state but Massachusetts [snicker] that November.

DLS

"He allowed the US to look weak and ineffective and allowed Americans to be imprisoned for a year in Iran and to this day he meets with terrorist groups"

That's what the pro-"peace" (anti-US-success) crowd sees in Obama's anti-war stance as well as his willingness to meet with the government of Iran and Hamas, for example. Decent, normal Americans have serious concerns about this.

ChrisWWW

That's what the pro-"peace" (anti-US-success) crowd sees in Obama's anti-war stance as well as his willingness to meet with the government of Iran and Hamas, for example. Decent, normal Americans have serious concerns about this.

And we look oh so strong now with our military crumbling under the weight of the occupation of Iraq.

Advocating for war does not equal strength or smarts.

runasim

Reading the comments here made me realize how little the issues really have to do with choice of president.

People who admire the shoot-first-and ask-questions-later agpproach will like candidates who embody that, regardless of whether or not there is evidence that it works. The same is true for the reverse.

People who adore Reagan have wiped his shorcomings from theri memores.
People who dislike Carter, remember only his shortcomings, and disregard his visionary ideas.

It's rather wonderful that anyone at all is swayed by clear -eyed analysis.
So much of history, in today's view, is revisionist, one way or the other.

TomGrey

I voted for Carter. I'll never vote "anti-war" again, and accept Killing Fields and genocide and massive gov't human rights abuses that lead to boat people.

Whenever a great sounding "vision" leads to a horrible reality, the vision must be somehow flawed.

"The moral high ground" was lost when the N. Viet commies violated the Paris Peace Accords they signed in 1973. It was lost in 1979 as Iranians took Americans hostage. It was lost in 1991 when Bush followed the UN lead and stopped the US military from overthrowing Saddam, instead asking the Shiites to revolt -- which lead to Saddam's helicopters killing thousands.

Well, maybe the moral ground wasn't lost as much as real people were lost and murdered. But moralists, who usually hold a double standard against America, don't care so much about real people. The vision thing is more important.

blog comments powered by Disqus