Want to Win in November? Obama is a Better Bet

On Friday, I suggested that the only thing we should worry about in choosing between Barack and Hillary is electability -- which one of these two knowledgeable and poised candidates has the best chance of beating John McCain, the all-but anointed Republican nominee? The ability to kick the Republicans out of the White House in November is far more important than their few notable differences on the issues.

This is not an easy choice to make. By now, we feel like we know these candidates. Both campaigns have done hurtful and regrettable things (as has the media), and we have suffered with -- and at the hands of -- each of them over the past few weeks. Despite all that, most of us personally admire both of these people. This choice feels very personal, even painful.

But it's not personal. We need to choose the one who gives us our best chance to win. That is all.

So... Who is more likely to win the White House for us? There are lots of arguments on both sides, but in the end, it's a pretty clear call. Consider:

- Rightly or wrongly, about 50% of American voters hold a negative view of Hillary. That leaves very little margin for error in finding enough swing voters to elect her.

- Many Republicans view Hillary extremely negatively (even the "moderates"). These people are crazed and irrational and deplorable and sexist. But they vote, and given the chance to vote against her, they will be first in line at their polling places and will bring all their friends too, guaranteeing a huge Republican turnout and hurting Democratic candidates at all levels across the country.

- Obama appeals strongly to independent voters, and even to some Republicans. His vote totals in New Hampshire show him significantly outdrawing Hillary among independent voters, a.k.a. swing voters, a.k.a. the voters who determine elections.

- Head-to-head general election polls at this stage can certainly be unreliable, but it is still notable that Obama does better against both McCain and Romney in head-to-head matchups.

- As many have pointed out, some in the mainstream media have seemed to be disproportionately critical of Hillary, and others seem to be less than fully critical of Obama. This may well be true, and to the degree it is, it is deeply unfair. But if that is how it's gonna be, we definitely want to pick the candidate the media likes. (It matters. Just ask Al Gore.)

Certainly, it's not impossible for Hillary to win, or sure that Obama would. But Obama clearly looks like the better bet.

That still leaves a big question unanswered: Why? Looking at this evidence, it is easy to conclude that our country is just deeply, depressingly sexist. But while that is almost definitely part of it, there is a more telling way to understand Hillary's problem. For although both the black man and the white woman look different than the typical presidential candidate of the past 200 years, each actually fits a very familiar Democratic mold.

On one hand, we have the policy expert who is less than thoroughly personable, even a little standoffish. We have nominated this figure before: John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, Adlai Stevenson.

And then we have the young leader who speaks powerfully and connects emotionally with people in and beyond the democratic base. We have nominated this kind of candidate before, too: think Bill Clinton circa 1992, and yes, as those closest to him have pointed out, JFK.

We know how each story ends.

Let me add a caveat. Hillary is tougher than the wonks we have nominated before, though because she is a woman in a sexist world that's actually a problem for her as well. Personally, I like her and admire her greatly. (I like Obama, too, though I sometimes find the hype as much annoying as inspiring.) I may also be the only other living Democrat who believes Hillary when she says her war vote was not just a political calculation.

But Hillary's basic case seems to be that after Bush, America hungers for a plodding but competent technocrat. I don't buy it. What Americans want is to feel good about our country and our president again, to believe that we still have great things ahead. (Thus all this vague business about hope, change, etc.) If that seems a little fuzzy and speculative to you, you should read Drew Westen's book The Political Brain: the Role of Emotions in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, which explains the substantial body of research that shows that voters make their decisions on exactly such fuzzy emotional grounds.

McCain will offer Americans a version of that brighter future. For all of her policy expertise, though, Hillary has trouble inspiring that feeling in most Americans. And whatever his shortcomings may be, Obama has that down.

We will always be grateful for everything Hillary has done, and endured -- and will do and will endure -- to make this world a better place. It's nothing personal. The stakes are just too high. We gotta win this one. And Obama is the better bet.

Comments

[itsnotmyfault]

This is a naive opinion based on a presumption of a static image of Obama that remains so through the November general election. With the leveraged power of race on his side, Obama has successfully intimidated anyone tempted to truly challenge his record. Hillary and Bill are routinely tainted with a myriad of unsubstantiated accusations of race baiting, extremist behaviors that is now the main stream media's conventional wisdom. You will note however that there is no need or effort to elaborate with specifics what their trespasses were. They would find that there is no substance to that portrait. Yet 80% of the press coverage for Obama has been positive vs 54% favorable coverage for Hillary. 76% of the coverage for Bill has been negative.

In the general election that will no longer be the case and Obama is a vulnerable candidate. His Rezko transaction related to the acquisition of his residence is ripe and highly suspect. Cocaine use will be a major player. Inexperience is a fact and even today new information of the ambitions of terrorists within the US is a featured story. True or not Americans are still swayed by those fears. Finally, his actual record and legislative success will be in full view. And the source for that will not be Obama's website. Sunday's story in the Times illustrates too much about the real Obama. While claiming a legislative success to control the nuclear industry, the real facts bely his assertions. Obama served the interests of the Nuclear industry, a major contributer of his and an employer of his campaign chief Axelrod.

Regardless of the claims of the strength of his candidacy, that assertion is based on the same substance as his assertion that he is the candidate of change or the candidate of unity or the channeler of JFK or the man from hope. It is pure poetry.

[WilliamGossett]

Absolutely

[lawyeredup]

John Neffinger post above should be an insult to all the so call educated Obama supporter; and if not, I wonder why not!.

"On Friday, I suggested that the only thing we should worry about in choosing between Barack and Hillary is electability" -- Wow!

which one of these two knowledgeable and poised candidates has the best chance of beating John McCain, the all-but anointed Republican nominee? The ability to kick the Republicans out of the White House in November is far more important than their few notable differences on the issues". another Wow!

Do anyone believed that Obama facing off against McCain will come down to likability or electablity? Or will it at that point comes down to who as the most experience to lead in a time of war and world wide uncertainities?. and the wisdom of the day will be; although McCain maybe old, but he's been around the block and using that famous line of not holding his youth and inexperience against; McCain and all the pundants will simply dismiss Obama as not ready to play at the grown up table.

"Rightly or wrongly, about 50% of American voters hold a negative view of Hillary" -- Yea! but would it as done some good if the writter above have try explained the reason behind that -- no; it wouldn't have serve his purpose of being an Obama's supporter.

"That leaves very little margin for error in finding enough swing voters to elect her.

Obama appeals strongly to independent voters, and even to some Republicans. His vote totals in New Hampshire show him significantly outdrawing Hillary among independent voters, a.k.a. swing voters, a.k.a. the voters who determine elections"

Are we talking about the same swing voters / independents that may end up supporting John McCain -- if and when the anyone but Hillary hater group are done with Obama?

If we elect Hillary there could only be an upside no matter what but, if we elect Obama and ended up with a dissapointment, it will be mounmental.

[peaceandfreedom]

Let's see: Hillary--Wellesley and Yale. Obama--Harvard. Hey, we're keeping it in the family whichever way we go...

[cynara]

"I like Obama, too, though I sometimes find the hype as much annoying as inspiring.­"

I agree, but I still voted for Obama, because underneath the hype there is a solid liberal voting record and a candidate with cross over appeal. An unabashed liberal winner? What more could we ask for?

[thegaygardener]

I couldn't agree more.
However I feel that Sen. Clinton's candidacy represents the triumph of feminism. Her gender is a moot point. I (we) have looked at her, listened to her ideas, watched her performance & votes & have opted for another candidate, Sen. Obama. Her vote on the Iraq War resolution was a deal breaker for me. Despite her high "negatives" & the possibility of revisiting some of the sordidness of the past Clinton administrations & my distaste for "dynasty" I was open to the possibility that Hillary could be the one. She has earned her place at the table & is certainly as capable & intelligent as any man & in fact more so than many. So her gender is beside the point. I'm voting for the man who was against the War from the beginning & who has the best chance of delivering a Democratic Victory in November..­.BARACK OBAMA!!

[longislandlol]

He is more electible- and the mo is astounding- the babyboomers who want to go back and freeze-frame 1968 to the day before Bobby died- deserve to and have every right to bring back the hopes they had -- the hopes that were dashed for them- and the entire nation-- that led to repub scandals, etc..

[clbrune]

I like both Democratic candidates. A lot.

In the general election, it is naive to assume that all the negativity, and irrational hatred directed at the Clintons would simply vanish if Obama gets the nomination.

The attacks on Obama will be like nothing he has ever experienced. Remember, the Republicans are the party that turned a decorated War Hero into a privileged brat who lied to get medals.

Obama will be attacked (fairly) for things like "present" votes and shifting from anti-war to war-enabling. But he will also be attacked (unfairly) on the basis of race, religion, drug use, and links to terrorists (he doesn't have any, but see how easy it is to slip that in?).

One advantage Clinton has in the general election is a proven toughness to survive the bat-crazy attacks

[GLBorchert]

Though strangely unexpected, I find myself believing like I did forty years ago, when I campaigned on the streets of Minnesota for Bobby Kennedy.
I'd suggest that the impact Barack Obama is having on many 1960's-era Boomers is a rebirth of the hopes and dreams we saw both kindled and quenched through the 1968 campaign and election. In that infamous and chaotic year we saw arguably the best candidate for President in our lifetime murdered, and arguably the worst candidate in our lifetime elected. The world changed that year, and for a great many people idealism simply gave way to cynicism. That lost idealism has been kept well under wraps these four decades, but is at long last catching a glimpse of light and life.
I will actively support Barack Obama if for no other reason but that this generation of young Americans must get a better outcome for their idealistic passions than we got in 1968. The wretched history of that era need not repeat itself.
The time has come to risk caring once again, and in doing so to support - at long last - a leader worth following.

[jmpurser]

I don't personally believe that most Americans are going to "win" in November. At best, the candidate they know will be a disaster won't get elected. HUGE difference.

[jonnie66]

Senator Obama going to say to republicans when asked why he favors granting drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants as Obama has admitted twice in debates? About Obama's present position that undocumented workers will not be covered in his healthcare proposal, yet when he was running for the Senate he said that children of undocumented workers should get the same healthcare benefits that citizens get? when they begin to ask him about negotiating in unstructured summits with the leaders of Iran, North Korea and Cuba without preconditions? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain asks him why he said in 2004 that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq war authorization and that his view of the Iraq war was not different from President Bush's? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain compares Obama's votes to fully fund the Iraq War in the Senate to Obama's rhetorical opposition to that war? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain questions Obama's claim to be "the most qualified person in America to conduct the foreign policy of the United States"? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain says that Obama is not one of the most qualified members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to lead this country in today's dangerous world but instead one of the most absent? Senator Obama has not conducted a single policy hearing as chairman of the subcommittee on European Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee?

[Lazslo]

John, I love your work. I don't think you're message is going to be heeded, just yet. After today, Hillary and Obama will still be locked in a tight struggle, neither side willing to concede to the other in the sake of unity. But after today, the dems will start that process of consolidating support around the overall winner. I think that's how it will play out. I just happen to agree with you, and that Obama will emerge the victor today and claim the mantle of frontrunner.

[Marrob]

Why Obama will LOSE in November if he is the Democratic nominee because:

1. Can't get the White Male vote.

2. Can't get the Hispanic vote.

3. Will lose majority of Independent vote to McCain.

4. Lacks experience on Economic issues.

5. Ted Kennedy and MoveOn. Org

6. Tony Rezko.

7. Lots of pepole will NOT vote for him because of race and name.

8. Will get caught up in the web of lies he has told from Rezko to PAC money.

9. His position on Iraq war. Most people now think it was a mistake but they don't want to just up and leave.

And

10. We really have no idea who Obama is. The republicans will define him for us which means, tons of people who liked him before they knew him will run to grandpa McCain.

This is just my opinon.

[Countess]

Not only is Obama a better bet to win in november but he will be a president to be proud of as opposed to the Clinton soap opera dominating the news and increasing bitter divisions.

[camb94]

Another example (though on the Republican side) is Ronald Reagan. He inspired Americans when most Americans felt bad both about the country and the President. I think you are right and the biggest difference I see between Hillary and Barack is inspiration. Not in a fuzzy way, but in a very concrete way. I am inspired to vote for Barack, if he weren't running, I may not have even bothered, and assumred that I would vote for the Democratic candidate in November. It isn't just me, that is what the youth vote is about. In general the young don't vote, but they are turning out for Obama. I actually think that he is not so much pulling people from Hillary as getting the apathetic to participate. That is key in November.