Or is it a conundrum? I dunno, I’m really not all that bright. Whichever it is my question is this: How is Obama a viable candidate for the Democratic party during the general election if he can only take two of the nine (the 10th hasn’t been decided yet) most populous states in his own party’s primary? If he grabs the 10th, it doesn’t look any better. And it seems to be that whichever of the two remaining Democratic candidates fail to get the party nomination, many of their caucus voters refuse to side with the winner, some going so far as expressing interest in voting for McCain.
The more I watch this the more it seems like this Presidential election is John McCain’s to lose.
But, then, I voted for Fred Thompson knowing full well he’d never be the GOP nominee. I’m probably wrong.
{ 6 comments }
I also voted for Thompson, and I will say that the more I hear from Obama and Clinton, the better I feel about voting for McCain this November.
I couldn’t vote for Thompson because, amongst other things, he was barely more qualified for the office than Obama is. Being a state’s attorney for a few years and a two-term Senator is a *little* better than Obama’s resume, but not a whole lot.
McCain’s isn’t all that sterling either–it doesn’t look to me like he’s ever managed more than a few dozen people–but he’s still arguably more experienced than either of the Dem frontrunners (although it’s closer in Hillary’s case).
Despite what the national polls have said, I’ve been saying for the better part of a year that I think McCain will have a much easier time with Obama than with Clinton. Why? Because Obama’s record is too weak, plus he came out of a city and a political climate, Chicago, that I know a lot about, and it’s *impossible* to rise up in politics in that city and *not* have connections to a large number of shady people. Just. Can’t. Be. Done. It frankly strikes me that Team Clinton’s biggest mistake was being too gentle on Obama in the early going; they probably calculated that going negative on him would be more risky in the early stages, and that may have been right, but in hindsight it sure looks like a bad bet now. Now it’ll be up to Republicans to run wild on the shady characters in his background and his thin resume.
This is probably why following Reagan’s so-called “11th commandment” is tricky. You don’t want to be unreasonably negative, but, the whole reason we have primaries and debates is to vet the candidates for both who they are and what their proposals are. In a President (or any executive) both are just about equally important, and it’s foolish to think otherwise.
“Quandary” is fine until the day the Democratic Party nominates Obama. Then it becomes a conundrum. (Check it out.)
Maybe Obama’s backers think that 20 percent of the Republicans will dump candidate McCain and vote for their walking, talking phenomenom, less the same percentage of Clinton Democrats who will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee of the Democrats.
In any case, starting some time in August, if Mr Phenomenom gets the nomination, I can visualize the television ad campaigns cranking up their 2008 Willie Horton 30-second spots, starrring Revenue Jeremiah (God Damn America) Wright, along with other such political spot ads starring additional Chicago personages whom Barack and Michelle probably have reason to wish they had never met, to say nothing of having done Chicago-style business with.
Hot damn, do love negative political campaigns! Make me feel warm all over on a chilly autumn. Just as they always did in those Chicago years.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Here’s a tidbit, I found interesting. Including Fla and Mich, Hillary actually leads the popular vote.
However, excluding FLA and Mich, Obama leads the popular vote by about 600K.
The difference?
Illinois: Obama wracked up a whopping 650K more votes than Clinton. The Daley machine in full force!!!!!!!
No wonder Hillary is pissed and won’t quit. She gettin’ beat by dead voters in Cook County:)
HankB
I don’t think that performing worse then Clinton in the most populous states matters too much. Does anyone doubt that Obama, if the nominee, will win CA and NY?Â
What I think is more signifigant is that Obama has pretty much lost all the battleground states, in the states where the presidency will be decided, FL, OH, PN, MN, he hasn’t done as well as Clinton, which will undoubtedly make it harder for him, then for her, to win those states in the General.Â
That said, anyone who thinks this is McCains to lose is crazy. Democratic primary participation and voter registration is very high. Fund raising is very high, and Democratic support and interest is huge. Despite the polls, most of the 15-20% of Democrats who say they won’t vote for the ‘other’ candidate will change their mind after a candidate is selected, just as most Repubicans who couldn’t stand him have become willing to stand by McCain.Â
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Zimbabwe election recount
That said, anyone who thinks this is McCains to lose is crazy. Democratic primary participation and voter registration is very high.
I think this is right. Whatever the day-to-day, ups and downs, the terrain in this election still remains Democrat.
HankB
Comments on this entry are closed.