It seems the longer the presidential nominating contest goes on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the more idiotic the pontificating and candidate spinning -- especially when it comes to the so-called "electability" argument.
The Clinton campaign, as exemplified by surrogate Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) this morning on Meet the Press when he said:
"She's clearly the strongest candidate in the states that Democrats must win to have a chance. Look, it's great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states. Whether he gets 44 percent as opposed to 39 percent doesn't matter, but we're not going to carry those states. We do have a chance to carry the big four. We've got to in three of the big four. Hillary Clinton's the strongest candidate to do that. That's been proven by the voters in the -- those states and hopefully by Pennsylvania as well."
Let's put aside the fact that the Clinton campaign is insulting the importance of a huge swath of the American heartland -- a talking point that has been repeated throughout this campaign by Clinton surrogates. Let's just take a look at the two questionable assumptions inherent in this "electability" claim.
Assumption 1: The Map Can Never Dramatically Change
The first assumption relates to the topography of the national electoral map. In talking about states that are "significant" and "insignificant" based on how they voted in previous elections, the Clinton campaign is assuming the basic map of the last 16 years automatically has to stay the same, and that there cannot be a map-changing candidate. This argument comes despite periodic elections in our history that have seen such shifts. For example, take a look at this animated image derived from Wikipedia's maps - it shows how the national political map changed between the 1976 election and the 1980 election (note - on the maps, Dems are blue and Republicans are red):
Yes, those parts flashing between red and blue are the regions of the country that shifted in just one election cycle. Perhaps even more relevant to the Clinton argument today is the map change between 1988 and 1992 -- the year that one Bill Clinton benefited from a major map change:
So, in other words, Hillary Clinton -- the person who became First Lady because of a major map change - is nonetheless arguing the map can never change, and her campaign is making such an argument at the very moment one of history's most unpopular president is atop the Republican Party. The logic is positively ridiculous.
Assumption 2: Primary and Caucus Victories Directly Relate to General-Election Viability
The other assumption in the Clinton campaign's "electability" argument is that that because Clinton is winning Democratic primaries in big Democratic states like California, New York and New Jersey and other big states like Ohio, it means that she is the best candidate to win those states in the general election.
This rationale makes positively no sense at all, because it suggests that Obama in a general would do worse than Clinton in already Democratic states -- and there's no proof of that. Winning a Democratic primary among Democratic voters says almost nothing about the candidates' abilities to win general elections as we unfortunately saw in the Connecticut Senate race in 2006.
In fact, looking at what evidence we do have -- general election matchup polls -- we see that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate than Clinton, racking up more electoral college votes than Clinton. Though the polls show Obama losing Florida, New Jersey and Arkansas where Clinton would win, it shows Obama winning Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota and Michigan where Clinton would lose (the latter of which the Clinton campaign continues to hilariously insist it "won" in the primary, despite no other major candidate being on the Michigan ballot).
The differences, of course, go back to the underlying argument about maps. Right now, polls show Obama picks up electoral votes in states that the Clinton surrogates say "don't matter [because] we're not going to carry those states." And what's particularly absurd about the Clinton campaign making this argument is that former President Bill Clinton is insisting that in a general election Hillary Clinton can win back "the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president." In other words, the Clinton campaign is arguing that the map has to remain the same as it has been for two decades -- with the same states in play and not in play -- at the same time they argue that Hillary Clinton is the candidate who can win back Reagan Democrats that created that map in the first place.
I never thought I'd see the day when someone could say with a straight face that Hillary Clinton was the Democrats' best candidate to win back the Reagan Democrats alienated from the Democratic Party by, among other things, a job-killing lobbyist-written trade policy that Hillary Clinton championed for a decade. It's just a ridiculous assertion on its face - and it's even more ridiculous when you look at what evidence we have, which is current public opinion polls.
More generally, the attempt to cite the geography of primary wins as proof of general election viability is straight-up silly. And yet, the whole meme has bled into almost every analysis of what is going on in the race. As I said to start, the longer the presidential nominating contest goes on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the more idiotic the pontificating and candidate spinning.
Because he doesn't have the credentials he is weaker than his words suggest.
Obama has lost all the big states and most of the primaries to Clinton
His cucaus wins do not reflect general sentiment or support.
I think McCain will win by a hair if he is the nominee.
Here is a more relevant question since they both beat McCain. Which states have more opportunities for the dems to pick up Congreesional districts, Senate seats and Governors? Are there more seats for us to pick up in FL, PA, NJ where Clinton does better? Are there more seats to pick up in VA, MO, CO where Obama does better?
Another thing you might want to look at for BOTH candidates. Is there any effect at all on the down ballot races based on which candidate is the nominee? REally how smart does an Indy or cross-over repub have to be to figure out how to vote a split ticket and vote dem for president and republican for everything else?
-Obama/Clinton - Clinton/Obama '08
Let me provide an example of what is going on on one of the Red States that challenge this idea (ahistorical if there every was any) "that what is now has always been and always will be" that seems to be forwarded by the Clinton campaign.
I live in Idaho, one of the Reddest of the Red. However, the state has a record of strong and prominent and very successful national (as well as local) Democrats. First, this is the state of three six year term US Senator Frank Church (who died of cancer in the 1980s). Second, this is the state of two term governor Cecil Andrus (his last term ending in 1990s) who also served in the Carter administration. Third, the notion that despite Church and Andrus (as well as many others), that today, Democrats cannot win in this state for any national office is simply not true.
In the last congressional election, Bill Sali's run for the 1st congressional district was so threatened that Vice President Cheney, the freakin' Vice President came twice to the state as did other prominent national Republicans to raise money for Sali. Similar to what happened on Saturday in Illinois, the Republicans had to dump a lot of money into an election that they assumed was theirs. The Democrat did not win BUT the election was much closer than anyone expected and Democratic challenges to these Congressional seats are continuing, they are very real and very much viable.
So what does this all mean? Having been largely ignored and passed over for years, Democrats in Idaho are mobilized and organized as a result of what is going on right now. Sen. Obama had people on the ground here for nearly a year. This fact was not lost on the Democrats. This is the reason why when Sen Obama came to Boise, there were over 14000 of us in the stadium and another 1000 or so outside. Boise also held the single largest caucus in the entire country. The fifty state strategy and the fact that Sen. Clinton brushed the state off and continues to call us insignificant and now "boutique caucus state" is why Sen Clinton almost did not make the threshold of 15% to gain any delegates (final tally was ~80-20 in favor of Obama).
It is short-sighted to say the least to emphasize only the presidential election. The President can do little without an effective Congress of like-minded members. The more Democratic Senators and Representatives we can get elected from ALL of the states is and should be the other goal. Many of us Democrats in Idaho, galvanized and excited about what is happening in the primaries, are prepared and ready for a election fight for Congressional seats--we may not get those seats this year, but then again we might. Which Democratic candidate is ready to help us? Sen. Clinton certainly has not shown any desire to do so.
Perhaps Senator Clinton, if elected, may be content to only to work with Democrats from the Big "Blue" States to pass her Health Care and NAFTA Reforms..... Unfortunately, we are a representative Republic and not a dictatorship. The President cannot make legislation, the President cannot do much (other than bomb other countries) without Congress. This is why the fifty state strategy is critical.
I love the 50 state strategy, and can't stand the red state / blue state dichotomy that was established by the Clintons, that has been so detrimental to the Democrat party and to American morale/unity in general. I admit, many states may be difficult to poll off in the general election the first year the strategy is conducted, but with time, it will happen.
RED FLAG: Bill has too many ties to other nations for his “charitiesâ€, so why isn’t it ruled a conflict of interest? Don’t non-profit organizations need to provide yearly returns with donors, donation amounts, payments, payees and amounts? RED FLAG: The charitable “donations†from foreign countries, but no disclosure. Red flags, in triple, for these ventures.
Hillary often demonstrates her self-centered arrogance that “rules†only apply if she benefits. She proved while in the W/H how deadly she could be with “revenge†as her weapon. She has no soul, and tries to crush any opposition using any available means. When will the Clintons provide complete documentation of her years in the W/H? This time, will a lie detector test be required to guarantee that no documents were removed?
RED FLAG: Sandy Berger had unrestricted access to highly classified terrorism documents at the National Archives. Their failure to follow extremely strict security guidelines was a bonus for Berger. He was eventually accused of stealing documents, but claimed that he borrowed a few copies to study, which he later returned. At his trial, the DOJ let Berger off on a misdemeanor charge and surrender of his license. He didn’t even submit to a lie detector test.
RED FLAG, RED FLAG: It was later learned that the top- secret original NSC documentation, with hand-written notes (no inventory, no copies existed) covering the Clinton Administration handling of the terrorism threats were “missing†from the National Archives. The entire 9/11 Commission report was a waste of time and money, due to incomplete data.
RED FLAG: We will never know the full truth about how 9/11 could have/should have been prevented.
Guess whom Hillary has picked to be on her National Security Team? Give that man a cigar! It’s Sandy Berger
TIME FOR A NEW TYPE OF GOVERNMENT, WITH A NEW TYPE OF LEADER. OBAMA 08
This grassroots 50-state strategy is exactly why Obama would significantly alter the map in the general election. I'm not sure that any state would be out of reach for Obama. I live in Texas, and I'm not convinced that he couldn't win even here. Combine Obama's passionate grassroots organization with the traditional Democratic power base, add a Republican opponent who does not inspire the faithful, and you've got an Obama army that could win Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Iowa, maybe Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia.
The irony, of course, is that even though Hillary and Bill haven't embraced the 50-state strategy, she too would benefit from it in the general election. The fact that Hillary is such a polarizing force makes it an uphill battle for her, but she might win a couple of recently red states too. An Obama candidacy, though, would not only change the map, but would change the presumptions we have about which states are red and which are blue.
But it doesn't matter that we know that. It's the people who make their voting choices from 2 minutes on the evening news; and in typical fashion, MSM is giving this nonsense credence. All she needs to do is chip away at Obama, one tiny cut at a time.
There is absolutely no question that Obama carries some purple states. That, by its nature will invigorate the party and make the democrats the party of the United States again, not just the coasts. It has the look of a mandate because it cuts deep into the heartland and the West. That would have great implications for his ability to govern effectively.
And then why do the Republicans need money with Hillary as their fundraiser?
God, I wish Obama had decent surrogates. There's all her positive free press, right there. There have to be some passionate, articulate and quick witted spokespeople out there. While I welcome the support of Daschle and Kerry, we need a few firebreathers who can make entertaining mincemeat out of these ridiculous arguments.
That would make the evening news.
Even if she eakes out a nomination on these falsehoods, that doesn't make them less false. It's a house of cards, led by two dysfunctional narcissists who thrive on personal risk. All of the traits laid bare in this campaign are the traits that will make her a lousy president. Peggy Noonan said today, a "painful president." God, I can't believe I'm quoting Peggy Noonan.
Hillary will never have the circle-the-wagons machine to protect her. Fully 50% of the Democratic party, most of us who defended the Clintons for years, will never expend our energies that way again. She will arrogantly assume we'll fall in line (and we might at election time but not throughout her personal dramas as president), and she will see no reason for fighting to win us back. She is incapable of undersanding the consequences of the anguish she has caused.
Just like another president sitting in the White HOuse right now.
She is unfit. Let's stop rewarding her.
And Obama -- get better surrogates!
A vote for Clinton is a vote for McCain.
.