Aren't your grandparents in some crucial swing state?
the only thing that could make him reconsider was if Hillary Clinton won the nomination
I fear this attitude is more widespread than is apparent from our internet seats.
2 is exactly right.
Clinton won the nomination because the most important thing going on right now was the situation in the Middle East with all of those Arabs and they'd never listen to a female U.S. president because of how they treat their own women.
I expect this attitude is more common than one might expect as a justification for their own quiet sexism. See, it's not me, it's just those terrorists won't take a woman seriously.
1 - Their primary is on Super Tuesday. Their state went for Kerry last time but can swing.
My other grandfather is in a crucial swing state.
And to piggyback on 2, the hatred of HRC is strong enough that I think that, should she win the nomination, it precludes the dreamy scenario of 1) Guiliani taking the Republican nomination and 2) the religious right throwing their support behind some third-party wackjob.
Republican message discipline is pretty good anyway, and it's easier for the powers that be to keep Dobson and co. from running if they can explain that they know that Guiliani wasn't their choice, but do they want Clinton-era depravity, with our children learning to put condoms on bananas, back in the White House?
This doesn't mean she shouldn't be the nominee, of course, just that one happy scenario is probably gone if she is.
The problem is that Hilary is aware of the "not tough enough to handle the terrorists" tag, and perhaps partially as compensation, is a genuine hawk. As Yglesias has said, she's in some ways the worst of all worlds -- all the baggage of being a liberal without actually being one.
I never understood that particular objection from the religious right. Our children are going to fuck bananas anyway—they should be safe about it.
There's really something bittersweet in the final line of your post. Maybe I'm just in a sentimental frame of mind or something this morning, but that combination of his recognizing his own mortality and the concern about the future he leaves behind for you was touching.
Why Obama and not Edwards, Becks?
8: My dad said something similar, except it was more along the lines of how this damn country wasn't his problem any more. I'm not sure if he'd vote in this election, but he probably would if Obama was the nominee. He saw Obama give That Speech at the convention and said 'That young man is going to be President one day.'
The irony is that many of us who find ourselves in such conversations are reluctant to share our own, much better reasons for opposing HRC because 1) we don't want to undermine her if she is the candidate, even if we really don't want her, because the Republicans would be worse and 2) because we're never completely sure that our reasons for opposing her—hawkish foreign policy, particularly on the ME, lots of money from defense contractors and other forces of darkness—might not make her more attractive to them.
8: I agree. Reminds me of my most recent visit to the grandparents.
I'm most definitely feeling sentimental, though.
My own "one voter" stories: my neocon, Federalist Society brother says he'll be happy with Clinton because she won't be squeamish about killing foreigners. My more paleoconnish dad seems to be equally pleased with the prospect of a Clinton or a Giuliani presidency. My religious conservative, crunchy-con brother says he'd be open to voting for Edwards or Obama because he hates the war.
12 -- The way I put it talking with Republican parents is that the nomination of HRC will draw every toothless redneck out of the hills just to vote against her.
10 -- Speaking for myself, Edwards can't run against the South. And although I've not enamored of the politics of identity, the election of Obama (or HRC, for that matter) would mark an important milestone. I don't think this should be underestimated. (Especially since the substance of an Edwards Administration would be similar enough to the substance of an Obama Administration that it's hard to see favoring one over the other on the merits).
Speaking for myself, Edwards can't run against the South.
What does "running against the South" mean in this context? And Edwards has been pretty consistently to the left of Obama - on Iran, on Iraq, on health care and domestic policy. He's also been leading Obama in criticizing Clinton's hawkishness, in tacking left on foreign and domestic policy, etc. The past month or so of the Obama campaign has seen Obama mouthing statements Edwards made weeks previously. I like that Obama opposed the war from the start, but he hasn't shown me much since then. And "first whatever president," while important, isn't important enough to trump what someone will actually do as president.
5 months ago, I heard a guy (obviously an air marshall) on an airplane chatting with the stewardess, and he made the exact same point, and she nodded in agreement.
This is going to be a VERY destructive argument, especially with Hillary's base of low-knowledge voters. It's the old "I'm not a sexist, but other people are, so we can't hire that woman." It's been used to excuse not hiring qualified women for decades ("Sure, she's an auto expert and masterful sales person--I'd buy a car from her, but really, you naive liberals don't understand the world and most people aren't as enlightened as I am--no one will buy a car from a woman!"). Isn't there a word for this? Ascribing a higher degree of sexism or racism in the general public than actually exists?
What's frustrating is that there will be no chance for her to insulate herself against it in the primary, because it would be suicide for a Dem to hit her with this attack. But Republicans and sexist pundits like Chris Matthews will be THRILLED to make it, again and again and again.
She's the only top-tier candidate running who can lose in a general election. I'm amazed that the Democrats are going to blow it again. Mark my words, Giuliani will make Bush look like a walk in the park.
16 -- I don't think the differences in the approaches Edwards and Obama offer -- differences which have a significant temporal dimension, as you point out -- would survive inauguration day. Executive power, especially on issues that are essentially legislative, like health care and domestic policy, is too blunt an instrument to the details of the policies to matter. The composition of Congress is terribly important.
On Iran, Obama isn't more likely to start a war than Edwards. If either inherits a war, they'll be, as they will with the occupation they inherit in Iraq, more hostage to events than master of them. On Iraq, both will head for the exits as quickly as the military tells them it can be safely done, continually re-assessing the timetable as the ground shifts one way and the other.
I have nothing against Edwards: I'll certainly limit out, vote, and work for him if he's the nominee. I just don't think the minutiae of the differences in their positions is material wrt governance.
She's the only top-tier candidate running who can lose in a general election.
This strikes me as a the pundit's fallacy. HRC is the worst of the major Democratic candidates on policy, but really, I'm just not seeing the data that suggests she's that much less likely to lose than Edwards or Obama. She's currently thrashing Giuliani in polling in Ohio, for instance, and I believe does best of the Big Three against Giuliani in Florida. (There's a separate but distinct argument to be made, which is that Edwards and, to a lesser extent, Obama help Democrats downticket in places like the Carolinas and Kentucky, but that's not the same.) She's got enormous stores of good will among a lot of low-information voters, and asserting that she's somehow got weaknesses that we well-informed few just can't see strikes me as exactly backwards. I'm not looking forward to President Clinton II: Electric Boogaloo in the least.
less likely to lose s/b less likely to win, obviously.
Mark my words, Giuliani will make Bush look like a walk in the park.
true.
I'm just not seeing the data that suggests she's that much less likely to lose than Edwards or Obama.
Search Nyhan's blog for (I think) "undesireables." Hers are really, really high, and Nyhan claims that you can't really move them down for an election. It may well be that it won't matter, and any Dem will win; I happen to think so. But it's not crazy to think HRC has the worst shot, and can do the least with a win.
On Iran, Obama isn't more likely to start a war than Edwards.
Obama is more hawkish on Iran than Edwards. Obama supports unilateral sanctions; Edwards doesn't. It's not just a matter of "bomb or don't bomb?" Once you've decided on engagement, there's still the question of how you engage with other countries. If "diplomacy" just becomes code for "I'm going to use my economic power to bludgeon your country into submission," than that's not going to fly, either.
1. Unless it does.
2. Are you really taking candidate statements as Holy Writs, stras?
One other data point, my Republican boss is excited about voting for Clinton in this ellection, because he's watched the Democratic debates, was impressed by Clinton, and sees that as a vote for manegerial competance (partially because of a retrospective fondness for Bill).
He will probably vote for any democratic candidate in this election, but he's much more excited about Clinton than either Edwards or Obama.
For all of the reasons that IDP lists in 12, I haven't tried to argue against Clinton, I'm just happy he's planning on voting democratic.
I dunno, Tim, I thought Ezra Klein's argument (that people have already been exposed to attacks on HRC) was pretty plausible. Both Klein and Nyhan are arguing on common sense grounds, not, as far as I can tell, any actual historical or poll-based analysis.
Unless it does.
Not going to fly as good, intelligent, effective policy, Timbot. See Cuba, Iraq in the 90s, etc.
Are you really taking candidate statements as Holy Writs, stras?
I'm taking candidate statements as indications of where candidates stand on various issues. As Yglesias has pointed out umpteen zillion times, it doesn't matter whether Clinton or Obama or Edwards "really" supports Issue X or is only endorsing Issue X because various political factors are pressuring them into it; if the latter is the case, those political factors will also be present when they're president. If Clinton is pandering to hawks during the campaign, she'll probably continue pandering to hawks as president; if Edwards thinks playing the die-hard labor advocate is the effective route to go right now, he'll probably continue being a die-hard labor advocate in the Oval Office. Positions staked out during political campaigns actually do matter.
27: I reconcile them by understanding that HRC's going to start with 47% of the country voting against her, and only needs to lose 3+% to lose the election, but is much more inured to the attacks of the GOP than Edwards or Obama. At that point, you have to decide what is likely to make voters' minds up. And who knows? But it might be much more likely that 10% of the population will be moved by attacks on Edwards or Obama than that 3+% will be moved by attacks on HRC.
if the latter is the case, those political factors will also be present when they're president.
You mean like "humble foreign policy"? It is, I think, a true truism that candidates run with slightly different postures in the primaries and the the general, and govern with greater freedom once they've been elected. What matters most, I think, is who is in the room when the decisions are to be made. See also Kerrey's claim that Bill Clinton was an unusually skilled liar, Nixon's "secret plan," etc.
At that point, you have attempt for some reason to decide what is likely to make voters' minds up. And who knows?
It's easy just playing the one note over and over!
I lurve me some Stirling Newberry.
"2008 is the least important election in your lifetime." ...SN
I think that the candidates will most likely be as bad or worse than their most explicit statements oof their positions, at least on the Iraq War. I see no reason, during the primary season, for them to pretend to be worse than they really are. Even during the general election, I suspect that the more anti-war candidate will have an advantage.
Candidates are members of the political leadership group, and their job is to recruit voter support for a policy acceptable to the leadership group. "Opinion contractors" is what I call tham (and all Democrats, Republicans, and media talking heads.)
Just wait until the MSM proves unable to stifle the story that HRC fathered an illegitimate half-black child with her lesbian partner.
Seriously, you folks misunderestimate the stupidity, gullibility, bigotry, and ignorance of the murrican electorate.
As you know pertfectly well, SCMT, no candidate needs 50% of the vote nationally to win. The key questions are how HRC is polling in Ohio, Iowa, NM. I don't care if the entire state of Texas turns out for the sole purpose of voting against her.
Actually, what I'm more interested in is what Ohio is doing to correct the registration and machine issues we saw in 2004. It wouldn't be a tragedy if people in rural Ohio had to stand in line this time around, while inner city folks could just drop in and get it done quickly. Any chance of that, Clevelanders?
As you know pertfectly well, SCMT, no candidate needs 50% of the vote nationally to win.
Come to that, to the best of my knowledge, no candidate needs 50% of any state vote to win the election. I simplified.
It would be great to see state by state numbers.
31: ????
I haven't read Newberry lately, so I may be missing the context but that column is seriously odd.
We need higher interest rates, combined with a government willing to invest in the industries of the future?
With the popping of the secondary bubble - predictable because it was predicted - comes the end of the ability of local units to raise small scale capital. With the stagnation of the IPO market, the middle tier of capital development is also hobbled. Hence, this economic expansion should be allowed to die. The Fed chief can't tell you want to do, but he can say that he isn't giving you any free money until you figure it out.
His argument is that Bernake isn't willing to let the economic expansion die? Because the "middle tier" is losing access to capitel that's a reason to raise interest rates and make capital even harder to access?
Objecting to 33: Part of that is the willingness of media to relay misinformation and media spin. People who trust the Republicans or who trust media people (e.g. Kaus, Brooks, or Sullivan, to say nothing of Will) are guilty of undue respect for ill-intended frauds in high and honorable places. Everyday people's normal and praiseworthy tendency to defer to knowledgeable, responsible people is harmful when these people are malefactors.
The loyal core Democrats I know love Hillary, but I also know people who would never vote for her but would vote for some other Democrat. The Bush magic is destroyed and his coattails don't exist.
Pretty irrational, but that's life. People who would vote for Hillary because they think she opposes the war are also irrational or at least, disinformationed.
In other words, the ordinary voter is too sensible and not paranoid enough. And among those responsible for this are the people making jokes about paranoid conspiracy theories. You can't understand American politics without understanding that there's been systematic disinformation from the free / cheap commercial media.
Mark my words, Giuliani will make Bush look like a walk in the park.
31:Uhh, going to far off topic? But Newberry does, in that post, explain the benefits of contractions ameliorated with Keynesian gov't capital projects.
The comment sections at the economic/trader blogs I survey, Rittholz, Roubini, Calculated Risk, pretty much support Newberry in contempt for Bernanke, opposition to Fed cuts, and general predictions of doom.
Mark my words, Giuliani will make Bush look like a walk in the park.
Like this?
35: State by state numbers for what? It's here for primary match-ups, but not for hypothetical general match-ups, which I think is what you're looking for.
23: I had heard that Hillary's polling negatives had already lowered somewhat. Am I mistaken? Anyway, those who are certain that Edwards or Obama would do better ought to consider the fact that Hillary's negatives are all out there, and she has extensive experience with hostile politics. So far, Obama is showing the same political instinct for non-confrontation that Kerry did.
18,22,39,43: It seems hard to imagine that the next U.S. president could be worse than Bush, but Rudy certainly seems to be trying to make the case that he can do it.
1,4: Voters who worry about whether or not they are in a swing state are missing the point. Your vote will not decide the election no matter where you live. I promise.
37, 38: n other words, the ordinary voter is too sensible and not paranoid enough.
I think I'm agreeing with you, just not expressing myself clearly.
I was trying to say that issues and positions and even reasons only matter to a small group of voters. Most of the electorate will believe any crazy thing if they hear it from or through some source with which they affiliate, or if they hear it repeated often enough from ostensibly different sources, no matter how unreliable each source is known to be.
Discerning the probabilities that a statement is true is a learned skill. Reasoning is a learned skill. Argumnt is a learned skill. Most Americans don't have these skills.That's why most Americans make poor consumer choices, poor electoral choices, poor financial choices. We're herd animals; dumb as individuals, and dumber as a mob.
(My grandmother was in the corner through all of this tsking and muttering "Well, I'm voting for her.)
Mrs. NCP laughed for a good long while when I read her that sentence. Just so great.
To 8 and 11 -- Agreed. It was extremely bittersweet and touching.
I don't understand why people say that Hillary polling well with low-information voters is a plus. Wouldn't those people be easiest to sway with something like Swift Boating?
Anyway, those who are certain that Edwards or Obama would do better ought to consider the fact that Hillary's negatives are all out there, and she has extensive experience with hostile politics.
This reasoning is incredibly naive. Do you really think there's nothing the right wing could do to push Clinton's negatives up any higher? When it all comes down to it, you've got a choice between two charismatic, telegenic campaigners with low negatives who are also better on the issues, and a stiffer, more wooden candidate who happens to have been the bete noire of the right for the last decade and a half, and is irrationally hated by a good chunk of moderate America, and is also a conservative hawk to boot. In any liberal party worthy of the name, this would be a no-brainer, and Clinton would go down in flames the way Joementum did in 2004. Yes, Edwards and Obama will both face plenty of smears from the right if they get the nomination, but they aren't going into the race with the added baggage that Clinton has. When Clinton gets slimed, there's a much larger chunk of the population already willing to believe whatever that slime is.
So far, Obama is showing the same political instinct for non-confrontation that Kerry did.
That's why your solution is to vote for Edwards. The man will punch back.
You mean like "humble foreign policy"?
Nobody cared about foreign policy in 2000, and so George Bush's positions on foreign policy at the time were entirely driven by his campaign narrative - i.e., a desire to distance himself from Bill Clinton. If you look at the big issues of 2000, though - taxation and fiscal policy, Social Security, etc. - Bush did (or tried to do) exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign. This is because the various pressures that caused him to endorse massive tax cuts for the rich didn't magically go away once he became president; hence, as president, he pushed for massive tax cuts for the rich.
Similarly, when Hillary Clinton adopts a stridently hawkish position on Israel and Iran, it's not just because she's dancing for AIPAC dollars. The influences pushing her to be hawkish will still exist under a theoretical Clinton presidency. The same is true for Obama, for Edwards, for Giuliani, for Romney, and on and on. This is why we do, in fact, take politicians' statements seriously on key issues (and thus find Giuliani particularly terrifying, for instance). This "it doesn't matter what they say" line seems to be applied awfully selectively here.
Y'know, I said this (and comment 48 there) last December, and it still looks accurate to me. I like Obama, but I've felt all along that he wasn't strong enough to get the nomination but just strong enough to clear the decks for Clinton.
A quick read of Frank Rich this morning:
1. Guiliani is maintaining some steam bc most republicans don't really care if he is a liberal on abortion, gays, or guns.
2. Guiliani and Clinton are the same on social issues.
The Rich piece is worth reading.
[T]he political clout ritualistically ascribed to Mr. Perkins, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Gary Bauer of American Values and their ilk is a sham. [...] If they really believed uncompromisingly in their issues and principles, they would have long since endorsed either Sam Brownback, the zealous Kansas senator fond of using fetus photos as political props, or Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who spent 15 years as a Baptist preacher, calls abortion a "holocaust" and believes in intelligent design rather than evolution.
But they gave Senator Brownback so little moral and financial support that he folded his candidacy a week ago. And they continue to stop well short of embracing Mr. Huckabee, no matter how many rave reviews his affable personality receives on the campaign trail. They shun him because they know he'll lose, and they would rather compromise principle than back a loser.
Backing a loser, they know, would even further diminish their waning Washington status in a post-Rove, post-Bush G.O.P. The more they shed their illusion of power, the more they imperil their ability to rake in big bucks from their apocalyptic direct-mail campaigns. They must choose mammon over God if they are to maintain the many values rackets that make up their various business empires.
I had heard that Hillary's polling negatives had already lowered somewhat. Am I mistaken?
I don't think so, but Nyhan's claim is that while you can drive negatives down, they rebound as the election gets closer and people start to make decisions. Perhaps another way to say it is that it's much cheaper for the side re-inflating the negatives than for the side depressing it.
In any liberal party worthy of the name
HRC's running for the Dem nomination, not the liberal nomination.
50: Examples of people going back on campaign promises--"No new taxes"--are legion. The coalition that matters is the one that keeps you in power, the President's freedom of action is going to be considerably greater than the freedom of posture available to primary candidates.
Backing a loser, they know, would even further diminish their waning Washington status in a post-Rove, post-Bush G.O.P.
That's one of those sentences that strikes me as exactly as true as one that directly contradicts it. If they back Giuliani in the general--who is very bad on all the culture crap they care about--they out themselves as a captured group. You could probably say the same, to a lesser extent, about backing the Mormon candidate.
The piece on evangelicals in the NYT Mag was pretty good, I thought.
The big-buck religious conservatives will back Giuliani, but there may be second-rank people who run a third-party candidate or decide to stay home. Weyrich has already ditched political Christianity, and Bauer has talked about it for awhile.
Weyrich is absolutely nuts, but he supports light rail. His ultimate attitude toward political Christianism is uncertain.
the President's freedom of action is going to be considerably greater than the freedom of posture available to primary candidates
I would have put this in exactly the opposite direction. It's the logic of events, not a change in constituencies, that drives candidates to disregard campaign promises/positions.* Suffice it to say that the pressures, and freedom, are completely different.
* EG middle class tax cut, no new taxes, no nation building. The only real notable exception to this I can think of offhand is 'uniter, not a divider,' a position that was ditched from the very beginning, while events would have favored it. From this, I infer that the statement was fraudulent when made. Unlike no new taxes, middle class tax cut, or no nation building.
60: Talk about an error compounded. Who is running his campaign?
This smacks of desperation.
Seriously, Obama's problem is that he overestimates the power and value of comity. In politics you have to be willing to have enemies. The big tent can't include everyone whatsoever.
Who is running his campaign?
A committee, it appears.
My biggest problem with Obama is his megachurch side. I had a negative reaction to his use of that language—awesome God, for instance—in that keynote that seemed to have wowed so many people.
I'd almost forgotten all that. This brings it back.
65--
agreed. the proper phrase is "awful god". in its archaic sense of "such as to inspire awe".
whereas "awesome" just inspires "like, totally!"
63: Yes, I agree. His "new politics" is based on the rather dubious assumption that the voters are hungry for unity. But some of the divisions in American political life are not just the invention of the pundits.
You can't please all of the voters all of the time (though you can fool a lot of them almost all of the time, sadly). And anyway, "unity" too often means major concessions from the Democrats, in exchange for nothing at all from the Republicans.
Why, oh, why is he attacking Hilary on Social Security of all things? Does he know nothing about the issue itself? Does he know nothing about the liberal blogosphere? http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102907.shtml
I was never a big Barack fan, but he's fizzled. 68 is the last nail in the coffin.
So now it's Dodd and then Edwards. I doubt that either has a chance.