In the New York Times today, there’s fairly prominent links to a video discussion entitled, “Who Can Beat the G.O.P.?: Mark Schmitt of the New America Foundation and Matthew Continetti, above, of the Weekly Standard debate who is more electable, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.” Once again, we see framing in action.
You only see questions about electability for Democrats. Why is this? There are occasional articles about how weak the field of Republicans are, but they are framed a different way, that the GOP hasn’t yet found a candidate they’re in love with. Electability is assumed. This is very odd, since the country is tilting more and more towards the Democrats every month. Every poll for years has shown every important issue going towards the Democrats, and indeed pretty much all the major Democrats beat all the major Republicans in every poll.
Yep, all the Democrats beat all the Republicans. But one name stands out. John Edwards absoultely creams the GOP, and is far and away the best of the Democrats for head to head matchups. So why is there no mention of him? He’s obviously the most electable.
I think McCain could easily win the nomination. I think the last week has shown that:
1. McCain is starting to run more like he did in 2000, with a WTF mentality. I read that his 2000 NH campaign was as much fun as political reporters have ever had on a campaign, and his buzz is starting to heat up again — witness rising poll numbers as proof.
2. Huckabee is not a serious candidate. The Republican establishment does not want him to win, because he is not electable. When Rush spends all 3 hours of his show trashing a Republican, you know it doesn’t look good. He may win Iowa, but that’s it.
3. Romney is a serious candidate, but losing steam fast. This guy is such an easy target for anyone who wants to focus on him, it’s ridiculous. Does the man have a core issue that he can stand on without serious questions — immigration (illegals working on his front lawn), social issues (flip flop from a few years ago), frequent exaggerations that are catching up with him (e.g. having to explain the term “saw”, touting his crack-down on meth, etc.). As a Democrat, I hope this clown gets the nomination — easy pickins. In this case, maybe I do agree that the popular vote difference will exceed 5%.
4. Giuliani — if you saw him on Meet The Press, you realize that this guy is even too creepy and sleazy for Republicans to nominate. Keep laughing, Rudy.
So why not McCain? Consider the field he’s up against, throw in the fact that he is a good debater, not to mention a war hero. Huckabee wins Iowa, weakening Romney. McCain takes advantage of Romney’s weakness to win NH. Momentum carries him to SC. By then Romney and Giuliani, the two guys with the most cash, are on life support after a series of disappointing primaries/caucuses. McCain uses his strong national presence to do well on Super Tuesday, and voila, a McCain nomination. It would be bad for Democrats, but I think it is a very possible scenario.
On the spread: sure. I think it will be less than a 5 point total spread. National popular vote. $100 can buy some serious Huggies.
Here’s some quick finds on immigration:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/immigration_obsession_blame_io.php
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=242
“Immigration divides both parties. Liberals overwhelmingly believe immigrants strengthen American society, and most Enterprisers agree. Majorities of other groups in both parties say immigrants threaten traditional American customs and values. ”
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm has more than I can absorb, the answer’s probably in there somewhere.
Paul: Paul has made it clear several times he’s not running as an Independent. I’m inclined to believe him, seeing as how he’s the truth-telling type.
Iraq: Yeah, none get us out in time. Hillary’s probably the worst here, Edwards the best. (Of major candidates that is, Richardson says pull them all out day one.)
McCain: I’m still torn on him. He was so promising until the last few years. And given the field on the GOP side, he doesn’t seem so bad. In my opinion, only him and Romney are even reasonable choices. He sure is doing a lot of sucking up, but compared to the rest of them, he might be the best still.
Graphs: I suppose it is kind of bullshit, but it’s better bullshit than you got!
Osama: I feel the same way. I just ignore coverage of him, I feel like I get the idea I don’t need any more detail.
The gap: What are the terms here? If one side wins 52.5% to 47.5%, is that a win? Are we talking national popular vote, or electoral colelge?
Immigration: Absolutely. I think I’ve seen some polling on that, I’ll see if I can dig it up.
Logic: It’s fine logic to say you don’t support Hillary. It’s fine to say you’d vote for GOP over her. It’s dumb to say that you don’t support Hillary because she’s not electable, and if she gets the nomination you’ll punish people who did vote for her by voting for the other guy. That’s the crazy part.
The results of ’04 are all that is necessary to say he ran a poor campaign. He was running against an alcoholic clown. It was the perfect opportunity and he simply didn’t get the job done. Your French pussy lost under those circumstances, Muttrox, and that’s all that need be said.
On my logic, it’s not really that flawed in light of my issues. Things I care about:
1. The war. I’ll confess complete self-interest on this one. None of the leading candidates, Dems included, will be able to get us out on a timeframe that could keep the wife out of Iraq. So from my narrow perspective, it’s a toss up. Some talk better than others, but functionally it likely isn’t going to matter in the next few years.
2. Fiscal policy. I’ve always been conservative on spending. Pick your poison.
To be honest, that’s all I really care about. Immigration? Don’t care one bit. Health care? Nothing meaningful is likely to happen, certainly not with Hillary. Abortion? Tired of hearing about it–do whatever. Give it back to the State…I don’t care. Jesus? Not voting for him. I don’t care if you like him or not or if you think he lived in the Middle East or Missouri (ok, that’s a little queer).
A few other things.
*The graph is bullshit. Things invariably get close in a presidential election; McCain would definitely get closer if he got the nomination (he won’t). I’d bet $100 right now (and be happy to lose) that the race will be within 5% or less nationwide regardless of the candidates.
*The Paul Factor. Not sure who he’ll end up helping, but he’s got enough cash to take points from someone in the general election once he announces an independent run. I tend to think he pulls more from the anti-war dems and dems with protectionist trade policies than anything and probably helps whoever the R is in the general election. Possibly a point or two taken away from the D? I could be wrong.
This being the case, T-Shirt Hell (great site) does an admirably tasteless job of summarizing my sentiments on the nomination process: http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=902
Let me know what size you wear, FunkSoul, and I’ll send you one 🙂
*Lastly, a completely random thought for a blog post that the wife and I have discussed. Have readers rank a list of crimes ranging from jaywalking to murder and everything in between. Throw “immigration violation” in the mix. I’d be interested to see where people actually rank this crime among all others. It probably would have the highest variance and would be one of the only ones that would vary as a function of political affiliation.
Kerry’s campaign made two big mistakes:
1. he didn’t want to fight dirty. No matter what the shills for Bush said, no matter what mud they threw, Kerry refused to fight back. Lets face it, he was up against an alcoholic coke head who had never succeeded at much of anything. And while I admire Kerry for NOT doing that, it really screwed him.
2. Like so many people in the Dems these days, he tried to make himself into something he really wasn’t. He wanted to be all down-homey, and bush was always going to beat him in that.
There’;s a great line from West Wing when Bartlett is running for re-election. They decided that, no matter what, he was going to come across as an elite intellectual. So they just went with it.
McCain shouldn’t even be discussed anymore. He doesn’t have a chance at getting the nomination because he keeps backing away from the image he worked so hard to cultivate, that he was a maverick, his own man. Now, not unlike Mitt, he’s just sucking up to whomever will listen (fewer and fewer these days)
I think Sid is really not giving Ms. Clinton enough credit. But, Sidney seems to have a personal gripe with her so who knows.
That said, I’m voting for Gravel. He doesn’t care what anyone thinks about him, and thats a pretty attractive quality (yes, I know, he hasn’t got a chance…is he even still running?).
I find Edwards’ stance on gay marriage abhorrent, and his reasoning (that his religion doesn’t allow him to support it) deeply concerning.
Hillary isn’t progressive enough for me (and seems awfully interested in being a pro-war Dem…which, imho, is a sign of being afraid of the Republicans…even though all the polls show being pro-war is a bad idea), but I think she’d do the job OK, but not memorably.
Obama I don’t have any feelings on, whatsoever. Which is strange.
Sid –
#1 & #2 – Yep, you’ve always been an Edwards man. I’m a little late to your party I guess.
You persist in saying that Kerry ran an awful campaign, but where’s your evidence? Don’t just babble about he’s a french pussy or something, show me some solid thinking, or some quantifiable numbers, about how bad it was.
On #3 you are incorrect, as the graph shows. Although McCain is popular, you can see Edwards with a 7.5% lead already, and Obama at even.
#4 – That’s the stupidest logic I’ve ever heard. She can’t win, so I’ll vote for someone I hate? And by the way, your premise is flawed. Every poll and research says she can win, and as you saw above, she already beats everyone except McCain.
#5 – Huckabee benefits from no one knowing him yet. He’s like Guliani, the more you learn the worse he sounds.
OK, I just read your second comment, it’s just as bad. Who is this other mysterious candidate that you think the Republicans will give a honeymoon period to? They’ve been obstructionist the whole time to everyone. In fact, even though I like Edwards, there is no question in my mind that Clinton would work better with Congress than him. She’s more willing to compromise, she’s not as leftist, she has been working with or in Congress for over 15 years, she has shown willingness to work both sides of the aisle. She is campaigning as someone who can work within the system, and she’s right. See this sumup from Atrios, it’s dead on.
Which philosophy do you think will accomplish more? And by the way, don’t forget that the Dems will certainly have more Senators and Representatives. Filibuster and veto-proof? Who knows, but certainly a lot closer.
On #4, yes. We would have at least 4 years of nothing getting accomplished. There wouldn’t even be a honeymoon period during which the Senate Republicans (they’ll still be a substantial minority, at least) would back off enough to allow her to have the opportunity to sign any meaningful legislation. And I hate to tell you this, but I’m not alone. There are a bunch of Democrats like me out there who feel the same way. In the “getting things accomplished” category, I can’t think of a single main stream candidate who is less likely than Hillary to be able to actually implement the platform that has been articulated. There’s just too much hatred of her out there. It may not be fair that the legislative branch would react in this manner, but it’s reality and I think logical voters will ultimately see this. She’ll not be getting my vote. And I think McCain would ultimately end up trouncing Hillary. My predictions: Obama takes Iowa and South Carolina, then comes in big on Super Tuesday. I’m not sure what happens on the Republican side–R’s aren’t too fond of Romney’s brand of Jesus, and I think we can count on them to hold that against him enough to make it difficult for him to get nominated. I see SoCons giving the Huckster a big boost and propelling him to the nomination, money–and several core pieces of their platform–be damned. Obama over the Huckster by 4% nationwide in the general. If McCain gets the nomination, however, Dems lose–he’ll kiss and make up with independents enough to carry the day.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am currently employed by Hillary Clinton for President, and coming to you live from Iowa. That having been said…
The problem with this is that it’s based on a national poll, which is meaningless, because there is neither a national primary nor a national general election.
A key caveat that is missing:
1) Against Hillary Clinton, all three of the leading Republicans (excluding McCain) lose their home state. If the Republican nominee is Giuliani, and the Dems nominate anyone other than Hillary, the Republicans have a serious chance of winning New York, and its 35 electoral votes. If you can figure out a way for the Democrats to lose New York and still win the election, you’re a better man and/or woman than I.
In response to #4 above: you plan to vote for the Republicans because the Democratic nominee is someone who Republicans really dislike? George W. Bush was awfully divisive if you ask me, didn’t seem to make many Republicans vote for John Kerry.
My prediction: Romney v. Clinton, she wins the Kerry states plus Arkansas and Florida, (benefiting from her AK roots and the senior vote in FL)and wins the election.
Go Patriots!! (The football team, that is.)
So a few comments.
1. First, I like John Edwards. You’ll recall he was my choice in 2004 and to this day I think Dems would have beaten Bush if he had been the nominee. Kerry was simply a poor candidate.
2. I feel as if Edwards suffers from a Kerry hangover in the eyes of most Democratic voters. He has a hard time dissociating from the horrendous campaign that Kerry ran. It was a laughable campaign and I think there’s a (perhaps false) perception that Edwards would do the same.
3. If McCain gets the nomination, the Dems are toast regardless of who gets nominated. So long as Iraq doesn’t get worse, he’ll be able to deflect that criticism. Plus, he’s a good debater and I think he’ll close whatever gap exists. I think he’d end up winning a head to head match against any of the candidates, regardless of what this poll shows.
4. As I’ve said since the 2004 debacle, the nominee can’t be named Hillary Clinton. She simply can’t win and if my party nominates her, I’m going to vote for the republican due to the fact that this wholly unelectable lady was nominated.
5. Huckabee’s numbers still suffer from the fact that people just don’t know him yet. He wouldn’t end up losing by 20+ points. Mid-single digits, at the most…..which would be fine with me 🙂