In the wake of Hillary’s astounding victory (and by that I mean functional tie - 9 delegates for Clinton, 9 for Obama, and 4 for Edwards) in New Hampshire, one issue that seemed to help her was the electability factor. In the days following Iowa, Clinton garnered support by attacking Obama from the right, saying he was “too liberal” to win in the general election. This is an interesting critique in the primary season, though it does make some sense in light of McCain’s resurgence, who, as a high-profile GOP critic (at least when it’s politically convenient) of Bush, is perhaps the only Republican candidate who can still draw significant support from independents. However, even though her attacks were overshadowed by her crying, I think we are nonetheless obliged to examine whether there’s any truth to these assertions.
Barack Obama - Known Pinko Commie
First, the “too liberal” criticism. There are numerous measures of the “liberality” of a legislator’s voting record, but most are computed the same way. I’ve picked one metric from the left (Americans for Democratic Action) and one from the right (the American Conservative Union). In the ADA rating, Senators are given a “liberal quotient” - the higher the percentage, the more “liberal” they are. In 2006 (the most recent data available), both Senators scored an identical 95%. What’s more, they were both dinged on exactly the same vote - they voted for the Oman Free Trade Agreement (someone will have to explain to me why voting against free trade makes you liberal and/or progressive; as I understand the terms, opposing free trade makes you a reactionary - but that’s another issue). This seems to imply that the “too liberal” label is unwarranted - at least in comparison to the one making the charges - but let’s look at the ACU rating.
Here again, both Obama and Clinton scored an identical 8.0 (Senators are ranked from 0 to 100; higher means more conservative) in 2006. For their lifetime voting records the picture is different; it becomes apparent Obama would start nationalizing industries, burning American flags in the Rose Garden, and offering free abortions in the Lincoln Bedroom: she scored a whopping 9.0, compared to commie Obama’s 8.0. In other words, there’s little, if any, veracity to the implication that Hillary is more moderate than Obama, at least with regards to their respective records in the Senate.
Things get more complicated when we consider other issues besides votes cast; for instance Senator Obama has a much better record on earmarks - declining them for private contractors, but accepting them for public infrastructure. Clinton, by contrast, has been shameless on the issue - since taking office in 2001, she’s earmarked over $500 million for private companies, which have benefited 35+ corporations that have donated to her. She delivered nearly $250 million last year alone. I don’t think earmarking is a liberal or conservative issue anymore than theft is (but I repeat myself), but it is indicative of the type of irresponsible leviathan government that many still associate with the left. Attacks aside, Obama is also arguably more moderate in his rhetoric, which is far from irrelevant.
Numbers
Now onto the polls. I’ve included the four Republicans that I think still have a viable path to the nomination. I tried to contact the Thompson and Paul campaigns for comment, but Thompson was back in his coma, and Ron Paul was too busy race baiting to get back to me. I’ve also excluded John Edwards since he - barring a 3-way sex scandal between Hillary, Obama, and Dick Cheney - doesn’t have any real way to win the nomination. In addition, I think the polls reflect most people’s recollection of sunny, optimistic, moderate 2004 John Edwards; not angry, populist 2008 John Edwards. Anyways, here are the most recent RCP Averages (Dem Var means the difference in the margin of victory between Clinton and Obama):
Rudy Giuliani 45.2% vs. Hillary Clinton 47.0%
Spread: Clinton +1.8%
Rudy Giuliani 41.5% vs. Barack Obama 48.8%
Spread: Obama +7.3%
Dem Var: Obama +5.5%
Mitt Romney 44.2% vs. Hillary Clinton 49.0%
Spread: Clinton +4.8%
Mitt Romney 39.2% vs. Barack Obama 51.4%
Spread: Obama +12.2%
Dem Var: Obama +7.4%
Mike Huckabee 43.5% vs. Hillary Clinton 48.3%
Spread: Clinton +4.8%
Mike Huckabee 39.0% vs. Barack Obama 49.4%
Spread: Obama +10.4%
Dem Var: Obama +5.6%
John McCain 48.8% vs. Hillary Clinton 43.8%
Spread: McCain +5.0%
John McCain 45.0% vs. Barack Obama 45.0%
Spread: Tie +0.0%
Dem Var: Obama +5.0%
Average Dem Variance: Obama +5.9%
My personal views aside, the conclusions are fairly obvious - Barack Obama wins by a substantial margin against all Republicans but McCain, with whom he is tied. Hillary is within or barely out of the margin of error in contests with Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee; she loses to McCain by a statistically significant margin. On average, Obama is 6% ahead of Hillary in general election match-ups. Perhaps more importantly, Obama has room to move up amongst undecideds, while Clinton’s polarizing nature means she can’t expect to move up much, if at all, against the GOP nominee. Only 37% of likely voters would never vote for Obama, compared to 50% for Clinton - the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate of either party.
One advantage Hillary does have is that she might be able to turn out Dem-leaning women in higher numbers than Obama; however, Obama would likely offset this by turning out minorities and young people in higher numbers (especially if he picks my original favorite for the VP slot). The final issue is money; it’s quite well known that Hillary is the favorite of Wall Street - which has dumped the GOP, and now seems willing to put up with a modest tax hike to deal with the fiscal mess and weak dollar - but that has likely been due to her status as the inevitable nominee until recently. Obama is at least as pro-business (contrary to John Edwards’ claims, the interests of business are not opposed to the interests of ordinary Americans, in my opinion) as Clinton, so, like Hillary, he’d have no problem slaughtering the GOP candidate in fundraising.
All of this seems to point to an obvious conclusion: the Republicans are salivating to run against Hillary Clinton. OK, maybe not salivating, but there’s no doubt they feel she’s their best shot at holding the White House.
I think a better question is: who does the GOP want as their nominee?
After the initial disappointment of last night’s result, this is turning into a hell of a race. Political geeks everywhere are going to be glued to their television sets on February 5.
Indeed we are. Stay tuned for the other side of this, whenever I get around to writing it.
What do we, the voters of NE want????
What is Ben Nelson thinking? Our esteemed Senator has made some staffing changes in Washington and in doing so has brought on board a member of planned parenthood who also happens to be a homosexual. I don’t mean to be discriminatory, I only ask because I voted for a man who is pro-life and does not support gay marriage, so what’s going on?? We can only guess what kind of agenda this new scheduler, Amy Cotton, will have.
Bob, their is no reason to discriminate against Homosexuals in any senario. Sen. Nelson has said he is against Gay Marriage and I take him at his word. Hiring someone who happens to be gay only means that the person is qualified for the position and will hopefully do a good job.
What ever happened to America? It is supposed to be the land of the free, but everywhere I turn I hear people raging on those that are different for no good reason. No one has ever been able to argue for discrimination because it is inherently bad.
National news is interesting but does any Democrat in Douglas county know we are going to caucus for a presidential canidate in about a month? Does anyone know if there is a plan to get out the word on campus and through out DougCo?
Tyler,
Just wondering why there are no nubmbers for Edwards. We do still have three candidates running for President. Also there are several things going on to get the word out about the caucuses. There have been press conferences and a number of articles in the OMW and the LJS.
Also a non partisan coaliton in north Omaha is holding caucus informational meetings at north high school from 9:30 to 10:30 am every saturday until the caucus. I have done cable access shows on channel 22 and will do more to get the word out.
I encourage everyone to write letters to the editor. Also another group that I work with are planning to a lit drop to several thousand homes in north Omaha a democrat stronghold to get the word out. As well as visibilty the day of the caucus.
Actually Robin, we have 5 candidates still running. As I said, I’ve excluded Johnny Edwards because he doesn’t have any real shot at winning the nomination. He’s far behind in SC, he’s very low on cash, and there are no big southern states on Super Tuesday where he can put his remaining resources and hope for a surprise win, which would then allow him to… what, bow out while saving face? That doesn’t even begin to cover how he torpedoed his campaign from the start by accepting matching funds.
Also, I hate him with a passion. I think populism is pure demagoguery; it sets up a false dilemma, appeals to the lowest common denominator, causes social divisions, and is overall an embarrassment to the party and progressivism. Not one good thing has ever come out of populism, but lots of poverty, misery, death, and despair have been produced by populist regimes throughout history. Honestly, if he makes one more reference to “corporations,” as if the word is an epithet, I’m going to punch a kitten. Yes, corporations have too much political power. The surest way to end the power of corporations is to take away the pie the government puts out there for them to get their sticky little fingers in, not to bash those that make the perfectly logical, legal choice of taking a bite over the head.
He’s also disingenuous; if he really cared about the people he’s supposedly “fighting for,” he’d sell his aircraft carrier-sized mansion and donate it, not insist that others pony up their cash so he can pacify his latent guilt. And I’m sure he has plenty of that - spending your career taking money from others will do that to you. Maybe if he’d actually earned anything he has (or even just taken the time to read a few chapters in an economics text), he’d be more concerned about lifting up the poor, rather than destroying the rich. But that doesn’t matter to him. Socialists - particularly champagne socialists - like Edwards don’t and never have given a damn about the plight of those that have too little; they care only about making sure no one has too much.
Finally, his knee-jerk opposition (likely due to his own latent insecurities) to trade and “outsourcing” make it impossible for him to see the bigger picture on this extremely important issue. His position can be summed up as follows: “look, I know what I know, I know about the mills and the factories that shut down - don’t bother me with the facts.” This can only be indicative of 1) pure, unadulterated economic stupidity, or 2) Machiavellian cynicism of the highest order.
So yeah, there’s a very brief description of why I didn’t mention Edwards. I hate him and demagogues like him, whether they’re on the left or the right - what else is there to say?
hey everyone check this out.
I tend to agree with Keith. I don’t think that we will have a clear leader by Feb5. My personal preference is for Edwards. I think that any politican that isn’t talking about poverty and the growing infuence of corporations is being disingenous.
I also think calling labor organizatios and 527 lobbyist and the problem with washington and then agressively going after their endorsement is disingenous. I am hoping that there is no clear winner on the 5th. It can only be good news for the Nebraska Caucus.
And one last thing Edwards is good for politics why because the other two candidates were measuring polls and checking every little thing they said it was Edwards that dared talk about universal health, care and the plight of the impoverished. He at least decided to take a chance and introduce his policies and brought the other two top tier candidates along kicking and screaming.
While Obama was giving nice speeches about change, Edwards was actually telling Americans what change looked liked.
enjoy the link.
Robin, my problem with Edwards isn’t that he talks about poverty, my problem is that his proposals would increase poverty. Good intentions don’t automatically lead to good results. His rhetoric implying that producers need to be “beaten” is particularly distressing. Corporations are not the enemy of the American people; quite the opposite, in fact. A good example of this is when crude oil hit $100 - Edwards remarked that it’s another example of “how corporate greed is squeezing the middle class.” Apparently, surging world demand and static supply doesn’t have anything to do with it. What. A. Joke.
As to your point on 527s and labor, I’m glad Obama has had the courage to be honest about the flaws of the left. I don’t see how replacing a President beholden to his corporate cronies with one beholden to trial lawyers and labor unions is any improvement. We have a choice - we can focus on the things that build up Americans of all classes, or we can degenerate into populist class warfare - which won’t help anyone, save a few cynical politicians like John Edwards.