Saturday, March 01, 2008
|
|
Hillary's Compelling Argument
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
5:25 PM
|
For a long time I have believed that Hillary Clinton's electability arguments were nothing more than sophistry. After all, I reasoned, John McCain would have an easier time defeating Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama for two reasons: 1. Hillary would actually turn-out the conservative base to defeat her, and 2. She would lose independent and swing voters to McCain.
However, I am now beginning to believe Hillary Clinton actually has a legitimate argument to make to the Democratic Super Delegates -- that she is, in fact, the best chance the Democrats have to elect a president this year.
Let me explain ...
The conventional wisdom that Obama is tougher to defeat is based on a false premise; that national popularity matters. In fact, rather than having a national General Election where national popularity might matter, we instead have fifty individual state elections in November. This, of course, is common knowledge, and not in any way a new or sophisticated argument. Still, it is profound in the sense that it is so often overlooked by those doing political analysis. How often are we given national polling numbers by the media to prove, for example, that Barack Obama would beat John McCain? Of course, these national polls are completely irrelevant, but they give them to us anyway.
This is where Hillary's argument comes in.
Though Obama is, no doubt, more popular, Hillary has a legitimate argument to make that when the electoral map comes into play, she can actually win states that Obama cannot win.
While it is certainly true that Barack Obama has won many more states than Hillary, it is important to examine the "quality" of the states he is winning. For example, Obama won North Dakota, a state with few delegates that will be easily won by John McCain, in any event. It sounds harsh to say this, but it doesn't really matter how popular Obama is in any Red State. He could have ten times more supporters in Alabama than Hillary, and it won't matter because Republicans are going to win that state anyway. What matters are the big swing-states.
Obama has also excelled at state caucuses. One example of this is his victory in Maine (where fewer than 5,000 Democrats cast ballots).
Conversely, Hillary Clinton has done well in states that have a lot of delegates, such as California -- as well as Michigan and Florida (both large swing-states where delegates won't even be seated at the Democratic convention).
You may be thinking that the Democrats have such an advantage right now that it simply does not matter whether the nominee is Obama or Hillary. Again, this would be true if there were a national election.
But, as John Fund recently described, when you start actually taking the time to look at the electoral map, John McCain looks a lot better. McCain probably wins every state Bush won in 2004, and he also puts other states in play. This, of course, buttresses Hillary's argument:
The assumption has been that Democrats have an advantage because they can supposedly win every state John Kerry took in 2004 plus Ohio, which has fallen on hard economic times and seen its state Republican Party discredited. That would give the Democratic nominee at least 272 electoral votes. But Mr. McCain's rise to the GOP nomination throws that calculation out the window. He is the only potential GOP candidate who is clearly positioned to keep the basic red-blue template of how each state voted in 2004 intact and then be able to move into blue territory. Let's assume that Ohio goes to either Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton. It's at least as likely that Mr. McCain could carry New Hampshire. The Granite State went only narrowly to Mr. Kerry, a senator from a neighboring state, and Mr. McCain has unique advantages there. New Hampshire elections are determined by how that state's fiercely independent voters go, and Mr. McCain has won over many of them in both the 2000 and 2008 GOP primaries. He spent 47 days in New Hampshire before this year's primary and is well-known in the state. If Mr. McCain lost Ohio but carried New Hampshire and all the other states Mr. Bush took in 2004, he would win, 270-268.
As you can see, this election will be close (electorally speaking, of course). The Democrats will need to win every state they possibly can, and this will be Hillary's argument to the Super Delegates.
It is important to note that Hillary has been endorsed by the Democratic governors of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio -- because they presumably believe that Hillary will win their states -- and that Obama will not.
The reason for this belief is unclear, but Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Hillarly votary, has gone so far as to imply that latent racism may hurt Obama in his state (James Carville has said Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between). In fact, Gov. Rendell reportedly told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." Aside from possible latent racism (as Rendell implied), it's also reasonable to assume that the voters in these "blue collar" states may be less inclined to vote for Obama because he appears to be a young, inexperienced, academic. Regardless, when you begin looking at the electoral map, instead of national popularity, Hillary's argument makes a lot more sense.
Super Delegates may ultimately face a very difficult choice. They may determine that only Hillary can win in 2008. At the same time, they may realize that snubbing Obama -- after he has received the most popular support -- would be a devastating blow that would ultimately tear their coalition apart.
This, of course, is an "inside baseball" argument that Hillary could never use to persuade voters. It is, however, an argument she will use to attempt to persuade Super Delegates. (I might add that this is precisely the sort of argument that Super Delegates were intended to consider when making their decisions.)
It may be a moot point, though. If Hillary loses both Texas and Ohio on Tuesday, none of this will matter, anyway. But if she wins Ohio -- and then Pennsylvania -- even though she will be way down in the popular delegate count -- Hillary will have a legitimately good argument to make to the Super Delegates.
And then, they will have a big, big choice to make ...
|
|
Matt,
I'm not sure I even understand what your argument for Hillary as the 'more electable' Democratic candidate is.
Are you asserting that Obama would not be able to win certain 'blue' or 'purple' states (such as Pennsylvania) in November due to "racism" ?
|
|
There is a ZERO percent chance that the super delegates will side with the candidate with the least pledged delegates. This will NOT happen. The hysteria about this question has been driven by the media.
Hillary has to have TWO BLOWOUT wins on Tuesday in order to continue. If she doesn't beat Obama by 20+ in Ohio and Texas, she has NO realistic chance of getting the nomination. |
|
|
Not long ago, the RINOs were screeching that we had to vote for Rudy because he was "the ONLY ONE who could beat Hillary!!!". The McCainiacs were screeching the same thing. Well, Obama beat Hillary and the McCainiacs are in a panic. Even Rush is campaigning for Hillary in TX. This would never have happened had the GOP stuck to its traditional principles and message. The intellectually bankrupt "electability" factor trumped all else. Now all you guys are doing mental contortion to get everyone energized to beat.... I don't know anymore.... why are we supposed to vote for McCain again? Don't you wish we had agreed to a party message instead? Electability doesn't do it for me. That is how the Whigs disappeared, "Anyone but those Andrew Jackson Democrats", "Yeah, our guy is bad but theirs is worse!!!" Isn't embarassing for you guys? Me? Thanks for asking! I'm fine. |
|
In Pasadena Phil's utopian universe, electing someone who will fight Islamic Jihad is "no better" than electing someone who promises to cut and run.
And electing someone who will lean on Ted Olson for advice on Supreme Court nominations is "no better" than electing someone who will lean on Ted K-e-n-n-e-d-y for advice on Supreme Court nominations.
I'm afraid that if anyone on these boards is a champion of espousing "moral equivalency," it's my friend, Pasadena Phil. |
|
The Democrats just nominated McCain for you dumb RINOs! In pursuit of "electability", you guys got lost! Now that your Democratic pals are going back to the mothership to vote for THEIR candidate in November, you RINOs are STILL insulting us conservatives. If you can't follow that line of reasoning, then I have no respect for you.
You know, I had an uncle who once demonstrated to me just how dumb chickens really are by drawing a chalkline on the pavement and holding the chicken's head face down on the pavement so it could see the line through both eyes. After holding its head for a few seconds, he let go. That chicken stayed transfixed there as if it was glued to the pavement for at least ten minutes before we got tired of watching. That is what you RINOs are like. It's all about your cartoon world of electing a Republican, even if that Republican is picked by the Democrats. You guys are dumber than that chicken. There is only one way to fight a one-party system, vote against it. Vote for an independent candidate. Obama is going to win anyways. By voting independent, you not only crush that Trojan horse McCain, you deny Obama his mandate. That's a two-prong victory for conservatives. But people like you are too "smart" for that. |
|
|
I just got another fund raising letter (census they call it) from the RNC with a questionnaire listing all of the conservative principles that McCain is enemy to. Guess what I did with it? I wrote all over it with a final comment of "Build the damn fence!!!", put it the post-paid envelope (I would have trashed it otherwise) and mailed it back. The only people who would send money have to be the dumbest people on the planet. They call people like that RINOs. I take that back, they aren't RINOs, that IS what a true Republican is all about. You can't have a Stupid Party without having stupid members. |
|
"Me? Thanks for asking! I'm fine."
Oh yeah, other than sounding like a candidate for a padded room, you are great. |
|
|
WTF. How about advocating for a serious alternative? Last year Neal Boortz mentioned a study (I'm still looking for the reference (365 days is daunting ;-),) that indicated that 44% of the population leaned LIBERTARIAN! The only thing missing is the one thing that would get them motivated to not just lean, but MOVE!!!!!!!! Any ideas? |
|
Don't make it complicated. There is a big difference with people leaning libertarian and the Libertarian Party. Our freedoms keep eroding because as we keep proving that we can't handle freedom responsibly. Libertarians want to simply eliminate government without worrying about the consequences. That is anarchy, not liberty. We HAD serious candidates early in the primaries but the RNC made it impossible for Republicans to select their own nominee. I just don't know how to make it simpler. Before we get a better system, we will need to do something drastically different to undermine the one-party system. Don't vote for it! There aren't enough Republicans to stop Obama from being elected. Get used to it.
The only way to make a difference in this election is to shrink the percentage of the combined vote for Obama and McCain and make sure the winner fails to get a mandate. That's what happened in 1992 and it worked! Read my last blog. We all agree that we can't vote for Obama and the majority of us also agree McCain is unacceptable. It's not complicated. The way to fight a one-party system is to vote AGAINST it by voting for ANYONE ELSE. Obama is going to win, get used to it.
The ballot is not a weapon of mass destruction. The world won't end if you vote "other". Votes are counted, not evaluated. Keep it simple. You can't change the outcome but you can throw a monkey wrench in the system. |
|
Good stuff here, Phil, about the RNC and how to fight a one party system. Except you don't seem to really understand Libertarianism so your argument there is a staw man. Jeffersonian Limited Government taken to a logical conclusion is NOT by any stretch, anarchy--you need to read L.Neil Smith.
Right now I am voting Hillybama's Socialism Straight over McSame's Socialism Lite because Socialism Lite is the slow poison that kills more surely by accustoming the victim so the fatal dose is absorbed. With Hillybama's Socialism Straight there is the hope America will choke on it and puke it up! More reasoning at my blog--click on the underlined name.
I'm open to other possible Resistance Movements, however. Personally I think we ought to start a movement to get "None of the above" on EVERY ballot.
But your BASIC premise is right ON--not one more step down the "follow the moderate" road to Socialism we have been HERDED down since Reagan.
Time for a massive resistance. Oh, and a Conservative DIVORCE from our unfaithful abusing spouses in the GOP.
the big mick |
|
Pasadena Phil,
You have my permission to call me "dumb" as often as you like.
But my hysterical friend, here is the fact; either John McCain or Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
That is the choice facing voters.
In the primaries, we had an opportunity to choose between John McCain & someone MORE conservative (Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson).
But with a general election, the paradigm will change, and it will be a choice between John McCain & someone LESS conservative (Barack Obama).
I'm not as emotionally invested in what's best for the Republican Party as you seem to be, rather, I'm interested in what's best for the nation.
Therefore, I will be calmly voting for the better available choice, and his name is John McCain.
I happen to believe the sanctity of human freedom is worth protecting, and I wish to see Islamic Jihad defeated.
I also believe that it is important to nominate more Supreme Court justices in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.
You believe that electing someone who will fight Islamic Jihad is "no better" than electing someone who promises to cut and run.
And you also believe that electing someone who will lean on Ted Olson for advice on Supreme Court nominations is "no better" than electing someone who will lean on Ted K-e-n-n-e-d-y for advice on Supreme Court nominations.
Even blithering idiots such as myself can see that you are espousing "moral equivalency."
|
|
Sorry, but Obama sounds like he is going back to bed in his reply to Hillary's Ad. I associate his "can do" with his time in the Il. State House like gettng O'Hara to operate like a real airport. 8 years and no one even mentioned it.
Now he wants to come into my house and take over raising my children. Isn't a Trillion dollar debt, and a war enough to keep his nose out of my business???? |
|
Sorry, but Obama sounds like he is going back to bed in his reply to Hillary's Ad. I associate his "can do" with his time in the Il. State House, like gettng O'Hara to operate like a real airport. 8 years and no one even mentioned it.
Now he wants to come into my house and take over raising my children. Isn't a Trillion dollar debt, and a war enough to keep his nose out of my business???? |
|
I do believe that in a general election Hillary Clinton could defeat John McCain. However, I am also quite certain that if Barack Obama is the one to go up against McCain, McCain will take it. I AM SURE OF THIS.
The "quality" of the states B.O. has won do indeed need to be taken into consideration. Hillary Clinton did win Mass. Florida, California,Michigan, New York,New Hampshire etc...AND YES, THAT ACTUALLY DOES MEAN SOMETHING.
|
|
I also agree with the article's contention. The general election outcome in the solidly "Red States" and "Blue States" will not be affected by the choice between Senators Clinton or Obama, only the "Swing States".
Given that neither candidate will have enough primary delegates to win the nomination outright, then if Senator Clinton wins all of the "Big Four" states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan) that will undoubtedly decide the general election in November, then she is the strongest Democratic candidate, and she should be the nominee. ( Senator Obama could then be the VP. There would be no stopping this team.)
The one thing I disagree with is the article's insinuation (at the end of the article) that Democratic voters outside the beltway wouldn't be able to grasp this argument. After the last two elections, I think we all know the importance of the big four "Swing States" (also known as the "Battleground States"), and especially Florida and Ohio. |
|
Before Super Tuesday, Senator Clinton was the presumed nominee.(just going thru the motions)....after Super Tuesday, (had to loan herself $5M) Senator Clinton needed reasons to stay in the running for president. With many talking heads/pundits/print, MSM commentators being for Senator Clinton before they were against her all of this is so very confusing. After her 11-0 lost each and every MSM/pundits etc., started trying to find ways in which she could win, starting every program with the "How can she win" rountable, so very sickening.
She will win ultimately because of Civil Rights, but it has been totally enjoyable to beleive, hope that America had in fact changed, and a Black American, with impecable creditentials had a chance. The voting public for the most part has changed, but the powers that be have not, and that is what will make Senator Clinton the Democratic nominee. |
|
Pasadena Phil,
Sorry, but if you select other than what exactly are you proving. If you did not like your choice, seem to me that the energy would be better spent finding a choice many would agree with.
QUESTION:
If Rush, Ann, Lars, Bill C., Sean, Bill Oreilly actually had so much power than why is Senator Mccain in the running at all, almost the nominee. Why was he not stopped in his tracks. Powerful huh? These Patriotic Americans should have been able to find someone, but wait, they could not even do something about the Conservative in office now, so why are these people getting so much attention? |
|
At this point, McCain will prob win the Pres.
BTW found some brilliant analysis on Obama’s campaign. I haven’t seen anything like this anywhere. Check out “Al-Qaeda Gets Offended” http://www.savagepolitics.com/?p=162 and “Predatory Lenders and the Red Phone” http://www.savagepolitics.com/?p=158
Here is a news bit: “...the start of the Tony Rezko case in Illinois..The case has plenty of new prosecution witnesses and novel evidence that are prone to certainly embarrass the Presidential hopeful. Recently the head magistrate in the case, Judge Amy St Eve, declared that the presentation of evidence regarding the finder’s fee ($375,000) which was allegedly skimmed from investment quotas paid by the Illinois state teachers’ pension fund, must include the $10,000 which ended up in the Obama campaign through the donation of a man called Joseph Aramanda. The prosecution has found that many of these “redirections” of funds to Obama (and others) were done at Rezko’s direct behest and not on their own accord. Additionally it has been found that Mr. Aramanda’s son, John Aramanda, was able to land a ‘highly coveted’ internship in Barack Obama’s Washington Senate office a year after said funds landed in the Senator’s campaign bank account. As the Times UK reports, neither Joseph Aramanda nor his son have been accused of any wrong doing, and the Obama campaign denies that the internship was ‘bought’ for with the donation. Nevertheless, what is quite interesting regarding this new development in the Rezko case is, that there was apparently a lot of money from the ’slum lord’s’ coffers that did not arrive directly from him into the Obama campaign but that were instead “redirected” through other individuals...What he has NOT done is provide true transparency regarding his other business relations involving Rezko and, he has not provided satisfactory information regarding what has happened to all of that money..."SAVAGEPOLITICS.com offers brilliant writing & analysis. |
|
You wrote, "that she is, in fact, the best chance the Democrats have to elect a president this year."
My edit would have read, "that she is, in fact, the better chance the Democrats have to elect a president this year." Since there are TWO Dim candidates, you use BETTER. Were there three, then you would use BEST. |
|
Of course I've been posting essentially this argument for weeks. Hillary has a "chance" of winning, based on the previous red/blue electoral history + Ohio. But Obama does not. His emotional appeal is not sustainable over time, and his substance borders between weak, and frightening.
Moreover, in Northern/Mid-western States like PA. Ohio, with a large elderly population; youth is no advantage, change is not good, and black people are not Presidents. Sorry folks, Rendell is right. Obama would lose to the other Democrat in the race, John McCain (barring a major Mac screw up) - in a 40 state landslide. |
|
I don't believe Hillary's argument is that compelling. I know that conservatives want to see Hillary win because they think she is easier to beat; and Rush and Laura are even encouraging conservatives in primary states to cheat and vote for Hillary to sink Obama. I'm not sure how this reconciles with conservative Christians but I don't think Hillary is all that better than Obama.
I believe that the Clinton's are just as scandal ridden as ever. I'm sure there are a stable of women waiting in the wings to drop the sexual harassment bomb, and then there's the question of the $5mil.
Dick Morris recently said that the Clinton's may have laundered $5million from an Arab business partner and funneled it into her campaign. I think this is much more serious and deserves some real investigation. |
|
|
|