Rooting for candidates has become superfluous

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

There are only two candidates who can win.

There will not be a brokered convention.

Clinton and Obama have almost exactly the same policies, and not by accident. They have been matching policies for a year making sure no daylight appeared between them.

Their candidacies are equally historic. They have the same money. They are equally smart.

Between Clinton and Obama, the best candidate is going to be whichever one wins the nomination. If Obama cannot beat Clinton, what good is he? If Clinton cannot beat Obama, what good is she?

I don't know which will win, and I don't care any more. The collective wisdom of the millions of people who will cast ballots in the primaries is superior to my gut or intellect.

In a situation like this with two good candidates and 48 states to go, the primaries are a calculating engine. The puzzle is, "Who will millions of ordinary folks vote for?" The most rigorous available method of solving the puzzle is to ask millions of ordinary folks. So they will sort it all out.

Bon chance, voters!

[TwilightGardener]

1. Can't help but root. I care who wins.

[billbuckhead]

2. The media will constantly try to put their finger on the scale to get the weaker candidate

The media is clearly trying to manage the election in :tinfoilhat:bamas favor. Even NPR was doing it this morning.

[robbedvoter]

3. I don't think it will be a brokered convention. But it's a 2 people race - open

Any one can take it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. As of today, this is about as close as a two person race can be

flip a coin.

I suspect that Clinton will win and that the intrade market numbers are about right, 60-40 Clinton. But that is amazingly close.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. .

[Renew Deal]

4. Logic and Reason

:D

[Bread and Circus]

6. In some ways your post is brilliant but in one way I'm

not quite sure this holds water:

If Obama cannot beat Clinton, what good is he? If Clinton cannot beat Obama, what good is she?

I think what you are talking about is the ability to win a campaign, basically political leadership. I get it. However, winning the primaries and winning the GE are two very separate ballgames. What might hold an advantage in one contest, may not in the other.

Other than that much of what you say is very reasonable.

I'm still going to support Obama as I think he would make the better President overall. Winning the primaries is not the test alone.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. You are quite right that Democratic primaries are an imperfect predictor of GE performance

(A massive understatement!)

But the electoral grind of the Democratic primaries is, at this point, probably the best predictor of GE performance we've got. The Democratic party, and cross-over independents where applicable, offer a decent test of things like likability and race prejudice... not as good as the general election, but better than punditry.

Since the Democratic party has never nominated a woman or a black person before, there is resistance to overcome that mirrors, in some way, the national tone. Independents are probably not much more sexist or racist than Dems. (One could argue that white independents are more open to a black candidacy than white Dems. Not saying it's true, but at least one could hold up Iowa and NH as evidence. Of course, the same evidence would suggest that independents are more sexist, which may well be true also... I think more men are indys.)

After just two contests we have already learned that white people will support a black national candidate in some circumstances, and also that aggrieved women are, in the privacy of a voting booth, a more potent force than we thought.

And Dems will win the GE if Dem turnout is good enough (we are the majority party, after all), so primary turnout trends say something real about the GE.

And crafting effective strategy and implementing it with discipline is the same skill in the primaries as in the GE. It's just that the strategies are different.

[The Magistrate]

7. Pretty Sound Analysis, Sir

[robbedvoter]

8. The more I think, the more I share your feelings ...I tend to go back and forth

I was happy with both Iowa and NH....Won't vote for either in the primaries, and I can see myself voting for either in GE - easier than I had to in 2004.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. It hit me after NH that it makes little personal sense for me to have a preference

It's just a gratuitous opportunity for me to be disappointed.

I only care about electability, and there are so many variables in play that there's no way to assess the question any more.

That might change during the month...trends could develop that would show one of the other to be clearly more electable, and then I would one again have a strong rooting interest in the outcome.