Clinton/McCain vs. Obama/McCain. My analysis: don't sweat it!

[Silent3]

Obama probably has a slightly better chance against McCain than Clinton, but I'm feeling fairly confident that his advantage won't be that large in real-world voting, and that it doesn't matter much anyway because either Democrat will (in my opinion) easily beat McCain in the fall. Consider:

• If Obama gets the nomination, right wing media WILL demonize him until his negatives are in the same neighborhood as Clinton's are now. Clinton has been been "pre-demonized" and is probably maxed out in that department.
  
• McCain hasn't won big anywhere yet -- he's only gone slightly above 50% in a few blue states. That will change now that it's down to McCain and Huckabee, but it's only because Republicans mostly use winner-takes-all delegate apportionment, where a mere plurality is enough to win all, that the Republican primary season has essentially come to an end already. If not, they'd still be fighting it out because McCain is a bad fit for a large portion of the Republican base. Republicans don't have a clear candidate due to mandate or collective compromise, they have a clear candidate due to funny arithmetic.
  
• Despite the frenzied in-fighting here on DU, real-world Democrats will find it much easier to collectively line up behind either Clinton or Obama. These two aren't really very different on matters of policy, whereas the Republican candidates have had some pretty substantial policy differences, representing clearly different factions.
  
• James Dobson just endorsed Huckabee, at a time when it's clear Huckabee has little chance of winning. I take this as a sign that a non-viable Christian Right candidate (probably not Huckabee himself) coming forward, siphoning off Republican votes, is a very distinct and real possibility. Strong emotions are at play here, not the clear, cool reasoning of trying to work for the most favorable outcome (as seen by a Republican) among poor choices.
  
• Voter turn-out (almost 2:1 in favor of Democrats and Independents voting for Democrats) and fund raising shows Republicans are fractured, dispirited, and not very energized by their available choices. The ability of Republicans to get in line behind their candidate, based on past performance, is far from guaranteed this election. Many will stay home -- and I doubt that even Hillary Hatred will rouse enough Republican voters out of their despondency.
  
• Some Republicans hate McCain as much or more than Clinton. The hatred in these cases is so strong because, unlike Clinton, McCain is "one of their own", therefore his differences from Right Wing orthodoxy feel like betrayal to many Republicans. (Plenty of the current Right Wing infighting and gnashing of teeth over McCain has already been referenced elsewhere on DU.) For Republicans who see their situation as only being given a choice between an Evil Democrat and Republican Traitor, they'll likely insert a third choice (write-in or non-viable third party candidate) or stay home.
  
• Even though he's been around for some time now, McCain isn't nationally known anywhere near as well as Clinton. Neither is Obama, for that matter. Both McCain and Obama currently enjoy the benefit many less-known figures enjoy, that voters don't know their faults yet, and voters often project their hopes and desires onto lesser-known candidates. If you doubt this, just look at the early polling favoring Fred Thompson, who turned into a complete wash-out.
  

For the above reasons, I think it's safe to say that recent polls showing Obama doing better vs. McCain than Clinton will do are nearly meaningless, not much more valid than those early polling results for Fred Thompson were compared to real election results. Obama's advantage over McCain is quite likely to shrink, McCain's advantage vs. either is very likely to shrink, and Republican fund-raising and voter turnout will further reduce any real voting-booth advantage McCain sees from looking at political polling, where turnout is a difficult-to-calculate factor in weighting of polling data, often based on prior elections -- likely a poor predictor for Republican turnout in this election.

[villager]

1. Nicely done -- glad to have a post to K&R in this forum...

[AX10]

2. K & R!

[TwilightGardener]

3. I love discounting hard numbers in favor of assumptions, theories, predictions and psychoanalysis.

Good thinking.

[Silent3]

6. The numbers aren't at all hard, however.

My God, if this election hasn't taught us anything about the lack of reliability of polling data, I don't know what will. Polls aren't totally worthless, but they have to be taken with a huge grain of salt and a lot of consideration of the variables at play.

Voting itself is an exercise in "assumptions, theories, predictions and psychoanalysis". That fact cannot be avoided. We're always dealing with unpredictable human beings (both the voters and the candidates) and less than complete knowledge of the voters and the candidates. Educated guessing is the best we've got.

Latching onto something like a current public opinion polls about hypothetical voting match-ups, months before the general election, and acting as if that constitutes "hard data", hardly gives one any special claim to an objective stance.

[TwilightGardener]

7. We don't choose our nominee in October. We choose now--

that's why I've been looking at head-to-head polls since last summer, and they've been remarkably consistent.

[Silent3]

9. And the general public's knowledge of McCain and Obama...

...as candidates has also been very consistent -- meaning very limited -- over those many months. The inevitable Right Wing tear-down of Obama (should he win the nomination) hasn't really kicked in over that time period either.

There's a lot of voter thinking that simply does not happen until the actual need to make a decision draws very near, as well as a lot of information (and, unfortunately, disinformation) for making those decisions that doesn't become readily available until votes are about to be cast.

Besides, I'm not discounting that Obama might still have some advantage vs. McCain that Clinton doesn't, just that the size of that advantage in likely very exaggerated right now, and that McCain is much more likely to weaken and suffer from poor voter turnout than either Obama or Clinton would have to worry about.

[TwilightGardener]

10. If I were a fencesitter and liked both candidates, I'd choose the one

with less dirt, more excitement, more appeal, more of a flattering contrast to the R nominee, and better poll numbers, all other things being equal. Few are going to make their decision based exclusively on poll numbers, but they would factor in to an impending decision, I would hope.

[Silent3]

17. I wouldn't blame you for going with Obama as a safer choice...

...for victory in November vs. McCain. I even agree with that to a limited extent. But since I feel pretty good about a Democratic victory in either case, I'm willing to back Clinton, the candidate I like marginally better as a potential President, while I stand fully ready to donate money to and pound the pavement for Obama should he get the nomination.

[Silent3]

4. One more point about independents...

More independents have gone for Obama than Clinton -- this is true. But again, I'd guess that a large part of this advantage has come from simply being the lesser-known, less-demonized, more tabula rasa candidate in voters minds -- a luxury Obama won't have as the nominee by time November comes around.

To the extent that Obama's appeal to independents is issues based, issues-based independents who like Obama over McCain will also largely prefer Clinton over McCain. A few who are more hawkish might even like Clinton better than Obama in that comparison. For those who are merely responding to the emotional and personality side of the comparison with Obama, McCain's not going to rouse them much either. They'd could go over to Clinton in the general election, or they might just stay home. Plus, after a few months of general election campaigning, Obama wouldn't be as shiny and new as he is now either.

The Independents who are eager for change might not be as enthusiastic about Clinton as they are for Obama, but clearly Clinton represents more change than McCain, so Clinton should be able to carry most of them too.

For full disclosure, by the way, I voted for Clinton in NH, and I've contributed to her campaign since, but I'll still be happy to support Obama if he wins the nomination. My favorite possible scenario is a Clinton/Obama ticket for 2008, and a later Obama Presidency.

[dazzlerazzle]

5. McCain debate with Hillary

If the moderator had the guts to bring up the filthy tasteless joke about Chelsea Clinton that McCain uttered (back in 1998?) he would be hard pressed to hold his temper. He may have apologized to the Clinton's but the same sort of joke today would end your career, just ask George Allen.

[Silent3]

8. Even without bringing up anything embarrassing like that...

Clinton vs. McCain: the economy
Clinton vs. McCain: health care

McCain's already admitted he's not very strong on domestic issues. Barring some terrorist attack between now and November (which would not play very well for Obama's chances either), the country's attention has turned back to domestic issues, and to the extent that people are still thinking about Iraq, everyone but the Republican base McCain has had to play to so far wants to hear the candidate who talks about getting out of Iraq as quickly as can safely and responsibly be done.

[Cant trust em]

12. Check out this article grading the proposed stimulus packages

Mr. McCain gets a D Plus.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012202614.html

[Cant trust em]

11. I agree with nearly your entire analysis, except for the first point

I don't think the fact that Hillary's existing baggage is old news means that they won't be able to rehash it. I guarantee that they won't hesistate to bring up Vince Foster, Whitewater, Lewinskygate or anything else that we thought was dead and buried in the 90's. You can still talk about those with republicans who hate her and still get the same Pavlovian response.

[Silent3]

16. It's not that I don't realize Clinton baggage will be rehashed...

...I do realize that. But like you said, "You can still talk about those with republicans who hate her and still get the same Pavlovian response". If it's still remembered so strongly, rehashing can't change things that much.

On the other hand, if Obama wins, it will only take a few months for the Right Wing Noise Machine to turn Rezko into Whitewater, and to turn Obama's middle name into proof that he's an Islamic terrorist mole. That's not counting whatever unfounded smears will simply get pulled out of the collective Republican ass without even the slightest connection to reality. There might even be a real skeleton or two in the Obama closet waiting to surprise us all -- you never know. That's less likely for Clinton, who's been dug into much more deeply already.

[Hoof Hearted]

13. K & R! Either one of our candidates wins in the GP, of that I have no doubt at all.

Thanks for this wonderful post.

[Neo-wobbly]

14. Hmmmm

given a choice between an Evil Democrat and Republican Traitor

While we're given a choice between an Evil Republican and a Democratic Traitor; I think this one evens out.

[Silent3]

15. Only a few DU-types think...

"While we're given a choice between an Evil Republican and a Democratic Traitor; I think this one evens out."

Fortunately, for the good of the country in the upcoming election, most Democrats don't think so badly of either Clinton or Obama. (You seem to favor Obama over Clinton, but don't forget some of your fellow DU-ers dismiss BOTH as "DLC Democrats" and are ready to stay home, or write in Kucinich or Edwards, or even vote for Ralph Nader. This will be something like a 1% effect.) Democratic dislike of Clinton, from all signs I've seen, is nowhere near as strong as Republican dislike for McCain. These factors do not even out.

[Neo-wobbly]

18. Not quite

First, I wouldn't say that I favor Obama over Clinton, let's say that I disapprove of him less. I don't dismiss Obama as a DLC'er, I dismiss him as a conservative, and while I won't stay home, unless I see a radical shift in his platform, Obama won't be getting my vote. Of course, Clinton won't get my vote, whatever she does.

And I think it's a lot more than 1%; Nader pulled more than that in 2000, when we had an almost-liberal candidate. I would love to vote for Kucinich, and I had just convinced myself that Edwards was good enough to get my vote when he dropped out.

I think that Democratic dislike of Clinton is just as strong as Republican dislike of McCain, we're just (usually) more polite about it; the reasons are different, too. McCain is a "traitor"; he and Bush didn't get along, and McCain only grudgingly toed the party line, so he is, ironically, a "maverick", and Republicans don't like that.

Clinton has two problems: first, she is owned by special interests (especially insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies); and second, what I call the "Lurleen" effect. Lurleen Wallace was the only female governor of Alabama, and was simply her husband's proxy so he could continue to run the state. Now, I think that Hillary is a little more independent than that, but at the same time, I think that she shares many of Bill's (we call him "Bubba" down here in the South) attitudes, and the last thing we need is another four years of Bill Clinton.

A third problem is her gender, but I honestly don't believe that enough Democrats are so sexist that that would even come into play.