Good questions being ask on the blogs today. Taylor Marsh
wants to know why so many Republican pundits seem to be backing Obama over Sen. Clinton.
Why are so many Republicans touting Barack Obama? It started with Karl Rove, then Peter Wehner, then David Brooks, and now Peggy Noonan. Sorry, but the scent of rat is getting more intense. Others are smelling it too. David Seaton:
In today's Wall Street Journal, she joins such arch-conservative pundits as George Will and David Brooks in praising Barack Obama and favoring him for the Democratic nomination.
... .. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to smell a rat here.
To me it's perfectly obvious that the right wing is licking their chops in anticipation at facing Obama. ... .. I think it would be childlike to believe that Karl Rove hasn't done his homework already.. They are drooling in anticipation.
Why do they "like" Obama so much?
Because they are terrified of Hillary Clinton, that's why. ...
And Jerome Armstrong at MyDD
is asking:
Obama's General Election strategy is... ?
I really don't know, do you?
I'm not talking about the national polls either, but how does Barack Obama put together a winning electoral advantage over John McCain?
I have heard Clinton's many times, and its been played out in the Democratic nomination battle. She'll take an unprecedented high level of women and Latino majorities into winning all (or nearly all) the states that John Kerry (and/or Al Gore) won, and add in: Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Florida. Maybe there are some other states, but if we just add those 42 electoral votes to the Democratic column, Clinton would win.
I really only have a single issue: winning. I believe that if more Democrats win, a more progressive agenda will be enacted, and we can make democratic-stronghold challenges in primaries with more progressive candidates (Donna Edwards is gonna beat Wynn, for example).
But what is Barack Obama's winning coalition of states that puts him over 270 electoral votes?
The Obama campaign makes the case:
On Super Tuesday, in six red states that had primaries or caucuses for both Republicans and Democrats, Obama won and got more votes than the top two Republicans combined. These states - Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota and South Carolina - account for a total of 53 Electoral College votes. In Idaho and Kansas, where there was no Republican primary, Obama won at least a three-to-one victory over Clinton.
That's not serious. To quote North Dakota, where a total of 18,000 or so voted in the Democratic caucus, as proof that Obama could win the state is laughable. That sort of logic puts Nebraska, which had a similar total, and voted for Obama, also in the Democratic column for Obama in November.
Seriously, how does Obama get past 270, state by state? Independents you say, then where, which state?
Good questions.
Good questions being ask on the blogs today. Taylor Marsh wants to know why so many Republican pundits seem to be backing Obama over Sen. Clinton.
10 comments:
...why so many Republican pundits seem to be backing Obama over Sen. Clinton.
Reverse psychology?
:)
I was just over at Taylor Marsh's blog and put some comments in. Obama doesn't have a plan for the general election. He's naive enough to think that the media won't touch him, that the Republicans are going to roll over. It's too bad the media is just figuring this guy out, I'm afraid he has too big of a cult following to stop him now. I hope they all enjoy the rapture before he cuts them down at the knees with a conservative judge on the Supreme Court and a few extra years in Iraq....or worse yet, Joe Lieberman in his Cabinet.
Dean - I think Karl Roves knows something that we don't know. Hillary's history is out there. The Republicans have nothing to surprise us with regarding Sen. Clinton. Obama is a relative unknown to the general public. Maybe the smoking gun has something to do with Rezko. Who knows?
Mary Ellen - don't toss in the towel just yet. TX, OH and PA all look good for Hillary. She has been winning all the big states, while Obama is winning in states the Republicans will carry in the fall.
BAC
Thanks for that BAC, I really needed a boost. Everywhere I go I'm hearing gloom and doom for Hillary. I'm also hearing everyone saying that if the super delegates decide it for Hillary that she will be stealing the election. At this point, it will have to be the super delegates, there's no other way. Apparently, if Obama wins it because of the super delegates, that's ok. I've even heard that if Hillary wins the nomination, it will be the same as Bush winning the presidency because of the Supreme Court!
Honestly, I've never seen such hatred for any one, short of Bush and Co. in years....and all coming from our own party!
BTW, who do you think has a better chance in Wisconsin?
Where are you getting New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and especially Arizona? If your only hope for November is that Latinos go strongly for the Democrat, we are in much deeper trouble than I thought. McCain'r record is just as strong among Latinos as Clinton, and if the evangelicals go strongly for him - almost a certainty - Clinton and Obama both will lose that block.
Our only hope as far as that goes is that McCain, in pandering to the conservative right, will push some of them away, but I expect he is too smart for that.
Not to mention that Arizona is McCain's home state, making the likelihood of Clinton or Obama of taking that state's 10 electoral votes very low. This gives Clinton maybe 32 electoral votes over 2004, compared to the estimate you have given of 53 electoral votes switching to Obama, 50 if you take out N. Dakota. I'm not a math genius, but if these two scenarios have the same chance of panning out, that definitely gives the edge to Obama. Even without removing these questionable ones, Clinton's estimates give her 299 electoral votes, and Obama's give him 305.
But this shouldn't be a primary reason to vote for a person. I don't care how well a candidate would do in the general election, if they don't agree with my views I will vote for the other person (if that person shares my views, otherwise nobody).
As far as the Republicans "praising" Obama, they did the same thing for Clinton when she was winning. Republican pundits recognize the current leader, plain and simple - no conspiracies, no Rovian theories.
In the national polls I keep seeing, both Obama and Clinto will have a close margin in the general election with McCain. Neither of them really seem to have a clear advantage, the man that did, Edwards, is now out of the race. But I do think that Obama may be able to steal away some independent away from McCain that Clinton may not, but really I have no idea what is going to happen in a general election with either Democratic candidate.
John - McCain barely won his own state in the primary, so that should say something! Hillary Clinton is a much stronger candidate within the Latino community than is Obama.
Boxer - Right-leaning independents are going to break for McCain. They are his base. He's NOT going to get left leaning independents. They have no interest in staying in Iraq for 100 years. Either Clinton or Obama will get the left leaning independents in a general election.
Clinton is tested, there will be no surprises, she is the stronger of the two to face the Republicans in the fall. My concern about Obama is what do Republicans know about him that we don't. They clearly would rather run against Obama than Clinton -- and that says a lot!!
BAC
48% to 34% (to 9%) is barely? And that 34% largely far right... Yes, Clinton is stronger among Latinos, but I don't expect that strength to count as much when it is Democrat vs. McCain - call me pessimistic.
As far as Republicans and independents, yes, McCain is strong among the independents. However, if you paid attention to (or maybe it's gave credit to) any call in political program on NPR, you would hear about the Republicans seeping over to Obama; in some primaries, they are running out of Democrat registration forms because of the numbers. I don't see or hear this for Sen. Clinton.
There will be few surprises with Clinton, most of the dirty laundry is already out there ready for tossing. You can say these things don't matter because she has been dealing with them for 16 years, but they are still there and Clinton has higher negatives than any candidate in the running because of this. Clinton (technically both of them) has already tried the dirty laundry attacks against Obama, and has had to apologize for them.
We are tired of the politics of fear, if you can't give us someone to vote FOR, you will not be able to convince us to vote against.
I really think the question of who has higher negatives or who would have a harder time against the Republican slime machine is irrelevant because so much of what we assume as Democrats/ progressives is that it will at least need to be focused on actual, existing weaknesses demonstrated by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or whomever happened to be the Democratic nominee.
In actuality it just doesn't matter. If we were to nominate Mother Teresa they'd still trash her as a socialist, drug-abusing scumbag. If anything the last twenty years of watching Republicans has taught me is that reality will never, ever be an impediment to their narrative that Democrats are scum.
You can say Hillary Clinton has an advantage because her negatives are known. Fair enough. That still assumes that they'll attack her solely on the basis of what she's done. I think they'll just make up more stuff. Why would they care if it works or not?
In the last election they took a war hero and turned him into a traitor that ran away from a fight, faked reports in order to get a medal of valor and purple heart and was actually preparing his presidential run while in Vietnam 30 years ago. These people will stop at nothing.
Ultimately the real question will be how the candidates respond to this bullshit. You may say advantage Clinton because she'd dealt with it before. I think that's a fair argument to make. But don't argue that they've already taken there best shot at her and come up short. They'll find something new to throw at her. Even if they have to make it up.
John - when you look at the much wider margins others have won their home state's by I will stick by my comment of "barely". And yes, I do think Clinton is stronger amoung Latino's than McCain or Obama. And that gives her an advantage.
And if you think the politics of fear is going away if Obama becomes the nominee you're crazy. Read what Dean says below. The Republican slime machine will make mince meat out of Obama.
And Dean, I do think they will have a harder time against Clinton, becasue they have already thrown so much against her and SHE'S STILL STANDING. I think that is ABSOLUTLEY why they don't want to run against her in a general election. She is NOT going to roll over and play dead the way Kerry did when they went after him. She will fight back immediately, and just as strong.
And finally, for John, I've given you plenty of reasons why I'm voting for Sen. Clinton. So far you have given me NO reason why I should support Obama. Again, give me ONE accomplishment, ONE reason to think he's not going to cave on issues of importance to me as president, when he caved on them as a State Senator?
There is nothing you could say that would make me think he is a better/stronger candidate than Sen. Clinton.
BAC
Post a Comment