Why Do So Many...Insist on Ignoring Clinton's Obvious Deficiencies as a General Election Candidate?

babylonsister

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 07:39 PM
Original message

Why Do So Many...Insist on Ignoring Clinton's Obvious Deficiencies as a General Election Candidate?

Why Do So Many Smart People Insist on Ignoring Clinton's Obvious Deficiencies as a General Election Candidate?

snip//

That so many Democrats think this question is complicated suggests to me that maybe people aren't good at assessing the popularity of their co-partisans. To Democrats, it's perfectly obvious that the strongest Republican nominee is John McCain. He polls very highly, everybody knows Democrats and Independents who like him, and so on. But Republicans are constantly debating this. You see Republicans spinning horror scenarios of a McCain nomination leading to a splintering base or depressed turnout. To Democrats it's bewildering that they even debate this. Lots of Republicans feel the same way about the Clinton/Obama electability debate.

I couldn't agree more. As Chait points out, it is impossible to predict the future. But that doesn't change the fact that every relevant metric suggests that Barack Obama would be a far superior general election candidate than Hillary Clinton, and it is indeed maddening that so many smart people cannot seem to see this.

Consider this:

1) In every contest that's been held so far, Obama has done much better than Clinton among independent and Republican voters, a strong indication that he has more cross-over appeal.

2) Obama has MUCH better favorable/unfavorable ratings than Clinton.

3) Democratic members of Congress from red states and red districts are overwhelmingly choosing to endorse Obama over Clinton and are arguing that he will do better than Clinton in their states/districts.

4) Obama is a fresh-face who many Americans have not yet formed an opinion of and are willing to give a chance. By contrast, virtually every American has long ago formed an opinion of Hillary Clinton and--whether fair or not--for many that opinion is negative. Many otherwise persuadable folk will simply tune her out. If you doubt this, ask any disgruntled Republican you know whether he/she would ever consider voting for Hillary. Ask the same about Obama. Notice the different reaction.

5) Obama is--by leaps and bounds--a better orator and a more charismatic and likable figure than Clinton. Close you eyes and imagine them each delivering their keynote address at the Democratic Convention. Who do you imagine would be better able to inspire the electorate and win new converts to the progressive cause?

6) Obama has done much better than Clinton at attracting new people into the political process. Which candidate do you think will do a better job increasing Democratic turnout in November?

7) Obama matches up much better against John McCain than Hillary does. McCain is beloved by the media. Clinton is despised. But the media likes Obama and would root for his historical candidacy to succeed. Furthermore, Obama provides a much better contrast with McCain on foreign policy. If Clinton is the nominee, it will be 2004 all over again with Clinton constantly being accused of flip-floppery on the war and being forced to explain her initial vote for it. If Obama is the nominee, he can present a much clearer and more consistent critique of the war and McCain's foreign policy generally. Obama's youth and vitality will also contrast well with McCain's age.

8) Obama matches up much better against Mitt Romney than Hillary does. Romney's biggest liability is his perception as a phony, calculating, say-anything-to-get-elected politician. Clinton--whether fair or not--is perceived similarly. Obama does not have that reputation and would be able to contrast himself well in a race against Romney.

more...

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2008/01/why-do-so-many-smart-people-insist-on.html