Electability: We will learn something we need to know too late

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

(Disclaimer: I support Biden with Clinton a distant second, and I have never liked John Edwards.)

I believe that John McCain or Mike Huckabee will be the Republican nominee, depending on whether they opt for viability or suicide. (Always a coin-flip with those guys) If Huckabee wins Iowa and McCain wins NH then the candidacies of Romney and the Ghoul are dead on the spot.

John McCain is FAR AND AWAY the strongest GOP candidate. He's the only one in their field that could beat a Democrat in 2008.

Of the top tier, I think Hillary has the best chance to win versus most of the pugs running, but I believe that John Edwards is our best bet to beat McCain. McCain is a bad match-up for Hillary. (Biden would whomp any pug, but I'm talking about the "likely" Dem choices.) If it were certain McCain would be the nominee, it would be foolhardy to pick anyone but Edwards. (Or Biden, of course.)

But the Edwards candidacy will be either alive or dead (probably dead) before we know whether McCain is likely to be the nominee! Assuming Edwards wins Iowa (no worse than 50-50 at this point) then his candidacy depends entirely on a carry-over momentum win in NH. (He will get hammered in SC no matter what.)

In practical terms, how John McCain does in NH is a very important datum to an electability minded NH Dem voter, but she has to vote before knowing the results.

I intend to vote for Biden in my state's late primary, even if he is out of the race by then. But if I lived in NH I think I would vote Edwards (if Edwards wins Iowa)

[XemaSab]

1. I'm not sure I agree with your handicapping

I think any of our people could beat any of their people, but only if we're willing to go on the attack.

And we won't know how good a candidate is about going on the attack until they are already nominated. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

2. Thanks for the post......

but could you please elaborate on this point you made just a teeny tad? "John Edwards is our best bet to beat McCain.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. A theory based in equal parts on:

1. head-to-head polling

2. My expectation that there is a certain built-in deficit for a non white male candidate, and that McCain appeals powerfully, and uniquely, to a category of independent men who need to be in play. McCain, the only military type in the race on either side, and wildly popular with the press, maximizes the white male advantage.

It is my opinion that Edwards' white-maleness would be of particular value vs. McCain.

Others can (and doubtless do) disagree

[FrenchieCat]

17. So in other words, run Edwards so that we can compete for the White male vote.....

otherwise the Repugs win it? Well, I've got to believe that this is the CW.

But White men have lost more general elections than any other group.



-----------
In fact, women of all races and men of color — who together form an underrepresented majority of this country — have often found themselves in coalition. Both opposed the wars in Vietnam and Iraq more and earlier than their white male counterparts. White women have also been more likely than white men to support pro-equality candidates of color, and people of color have been more likely to support pro-equality white women.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/opinion/07steinem.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
-----------

Just remember that White Women and Minorities are the majority in this country.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

23. Its as sound as all the

Run Hillary to pick up the Womens vote comments around here...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. Yes, but a majority well practiced in voting for white males

When you have a 100% trend going back 230 years that doesn't mean for sure the trend will hold next time, but it's certainly suggestive.

[Stop Cornyn]

15. Head-to-head polling shows McCain beating Hillary, tying Obama, but losing to Edwards by 8%. Graph:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Perhaps Looking At A Collection Of Polls Would Provide A Clearer Picture

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html

[Stop Cornyn]

20. In the only Edwards v. McCain head to heads since October, Edwards wins by 7% and 8%

CNN's poll from December 11
Rasmussen's poll from December 17

Both CNN and Rasumssen have McCain beating Hillary.

Both CNN and Rasumssen have McCain tied with Obama.

If you are aware of any other head-to-head polls with Edwards and McCain since Halloween, feel free to post a link.

[demnan]

3. I would like to see you elaborate your points

1. Why is John McCain the strongest GOP candidate?

2. Why is Edwards the only one who can beat him in a general election?

3. Why is this not the scenario if Romney is picked?

I know its all speculation, I'd just like you to speculate in greater detail than you have done so I can follow your reasoning.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. McCain is not perceived as a bible thumper and is the only miltary guy in the race

so he has high appeal to independents... particularly independent males. Edwards populism and white-maleness off-set that disadvantage, in my view.

Against a Repubican base candidate, Hillary is moderate enough to pick up independents versus a religious candidate or a Republican weakling or crack-pot. Edwards may be too far from the center for an optimal run against someone like Romney.

Just a thumbnail of my thought process... not facts, just conclusions.

[Clark2008]

11. White males don't much care for Edwards, though.

Even my very liberal white male husband thinks he's a, well, I won't repeat what he said because of the PC Police. Let's just say he doesn't consider him very "male."

[Stop Cornyn]

16. Notwithstanding your homophobic bias, among male highly likely caucus participants: Edwards 32%,

Obama 22%, Hillary 21%. In terms of second choice support, male highly likely caucus participants: 49%, Obama 28%, Hillary 23%.

It's anyone's race, but to suggest that the "PC Police" won't let you use the phrase you'd like to use in order to suggest that some oaf "doesn't consider {Edwards} very 'male'" is both factually incorrect and a clear reflection of your (or your oaf's) homophobia.

[K Gardner]

5. Evidently you didn't get the DU TPM: Edwards has no chance

to win because he took matching funds. I'm surprised you're so far behind on this, K&H !

:sarcasm:

I agree with your assessment, btw. And also feel that if we end up with HRC,we might as well kiss another 8 years goodbye. And no, I don't have a link to back this up, just a gut feeling from 40 years of following this chyte !

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. I disagree with your pessimism, re: HRC

In a bad economy, which is where we are going, she has the strongest possible brand-name. Everyone in the 30-50 age bracket that decides all elections remembers that a Clinton turned around the last Bush recession, and people vote their pocket-books more often than not.

By election day she will devastate anyone other than McCain. And could probably whip McCain also, but not enough for my satisfaction.

[incapsulated]

6. Wha???

Kurt you used to make so much sense.

McCain would destroy Edwards. McCain, regardless of what we may think of him has experience up the wazoo, is a war hero and a lifer Senator.

He will destroy Edwards with his single term in the Senate and zero experience otherwise, unless you count 4 years of campaigning as political experience.

McCain with his sarcasm will also tear him to shreds over his switching nearly every major policy stance he formally had in a few years.

Edwards is a lightweight and has no clue how to deal with someone like McCain. I would take anyone other than Edwards *anyone*.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. As you know, I can't stand Edwards

But I can see that McCain presents terrible problems for Clinton or Obama.

I am not saying McCain doesn't present problems for Edwards. I just don't think they are so pronounced. (You and I know a lot about these things, but Edwards' support is mostly moderate and male... voters are good at ignoring policy positions.)

Versus anyone other than McCain I would take Hillary, but he is the one guy who can do a red-meat partisan anti-clinton re-run without alienating independents in the process.

People do not associate him with the overall Republican fiasco. They SHOULD, but I don't think they do.


And, of course, Biden is the strongest candidte in all scenarios. A vote for anyone else is political mapractice.

[incapsulated]

10. I've always feared McCain

Against any on our side, they all will have a battle with him but I think it would take a tough ass to beat another tough ass. I think he would kill a candidate like Edwards.

Sure, he would be the toughest for Hillary but he would hardly be a walk in the park for Obama, either.

He has weaknesses. He can be rattled and goaded into blowing up. I honestly think Hillary would have the advantage there. Obama would make him look like a nasty, negative fuck, personality-wise. With Biden, lol.... it would either be a total bloodbath *or* the fact that these guys have worked together for so long it would be a velvet glove deal.

[1corona4u]

26. I have to agree....

I think Ewards would get creamed. Also, JE lets his facial expressions give away what is really going on in his head, so that would show any frustration when faced with McCain...not good.

[penguin7]

12. I watched one of the GOP debates

Just from watching I though Giulliani was the strongest.

He has the tough DA thing going and the mayor thing going.

He also seems the most liberal on social issues.

I don't think people really care if he had a mistress.

[cali]

13. no, I think you're wrong about McCain and Huckabee

In a top down party there's little support for either. The people at the top are supporting Romney: Odds are good he'll get it. They're going all out to stop Huck, and they'll do the same to McCain if they feel he's a threat. SC in 2000 was a prime example of what they can do.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. I am assuming top down desperation

The powers that be don't WANT McCain, bit if Guiliani, Romney and Thompson flame out, they have little choice.

As it stands, they appear to want Romney, which is odd. The Mormon thing is no small obstacle.

(Thompson was supposed to be the conventional republican compromise, but it hasn't worked out.)

[TwilightGardener]

14. Remember that YouTube of "the REAL McCain"? All of his flip-flops

and contradictions? That will come back to haunt him, I think. I also think he's just too damn old, and too gung-ho over the war. He loves and believes in Iraq more than GWB, if that's possible, and what's sad is that you can make a direct connection between his fanatical "victory" BS on Iraq and his delusional view that we could have/should have won Vietnam. He's really kind of messed-up psychologically, too temperamental, too forgetful, and too old. I used to think the rumors about him being unstable in 2000 were just unfair Rovian/swiftboat smears, but now I suspect they were right. I'm not too worried about him, despite what the head-to-head matchups say now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. DSB's Electability Power Rating

1) McCain

It's a big drop off

2) Romney

3) Giulian

4) Fred Thompson

5) The Huckster

Any of the leading Ds can beat the Republican field but McCain is problematic....

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. Dodd can beat McCain

I can almost guarantee it. He's the only Dem with military service. He's got age and gravitas.
He's the real deal, as was Kerry.

[Think82]

25. McCain can win against the front-runners. Biden is out best ge candidate agaonst McCaiin