The most common reason I hear for support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy is her electability in the general election. In a Washington Post/ABC poll conducted from July 26-31st, 500 Iowans were asked who, of the Democratic candidates, had the best chance at being elected in the general election the results went as follows: Clinton (35%), Obama (23%) and Edwards (22%). However, in the same poll, out of the top-three candidates, Clinton least "understands the problems of people like you", is the least "honest and trustworthy", least "closest to you on issues", and least "likeable." (Complete poll results are here) On the plus side for Clinton she is rated the "most experienced to be president" and "strongest leader." When asked whom these Iowa Democrats favor for the nomination 27% said Obama, 26% said both Clinton and Edwards. A statistical dead heat.
What this seems to say to me is that Democrats don't particularly like Clinton, out of the top three candidates, or trust her as a person; however, they trust her to win in November and that is all that matters after eight years of Bush. Competency before likability. However, Democrats, sadly, are not the only people who elect presidents in November. Republicans and independents count for something too. Therefore, it would be prudent to see what the polls tell us in presumed head-to-head match-ups for the general election. (It should be noted that these are national polls and reflect the supposed popular vote not the Electoral College, which is still the means of electing our presidents.)
Real Clear Politics is a good source for head-to-head results. They take the results of five to seven other polls and average them together to get an aggregate result. For simplicity's sake, I am going to just compare Clinton and Obama's results with the Republican field.
Clinton v. Giuliani (45.7% - 44.7% +1 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. Thompson (46.8% - 43% +3.8 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. McCain (46% - 43.8% +2.2 Clinton spread)
Clinton v. Romney (48% - 38.3% +9.7 Clinton spread)
Obama v. Giuliani (46.2% - 43% +3.2 Obama spread)
Obama v. Thompson (49.8% - 36.8% +13 Obama spread)
Obama v. McCain (46.5% - 40.8% +5.7 Obama spread)
Obama v. Romney (49% -36% +13 Obama spread)
In an election versus Giuliani, Obama does 2.2% better than Clinton
Versus Thompson, Obama does 9.2% better than Clinton
Versus McCain, Obama does 3.5% better than Clinton
Versus Romney, Obama does 3.3% better than Clinton
What is the cause of this? The cause is two-fold: 1) Clinton has a virtual 100% name recognition and most Americans have already made their mind-up about her, positive or negative, 2) Obama is still getting his name out there, so most Americans identify his party label, Democrat, as the overriding factor in their decision instead of their opinion about him. Clinton does worse than the "generic Democrat", while Obama does comparable to or better than the "generic Democrat." Every single candidate's unfavorables rise as the election goes on, so Obama's numbers may go down; however, every has their opinion on Clinton, so hers can't get much lower. (Clinton has a 47-49 favorable/unfavorable rating).
A couple of conclusions can be reached by looking at this data and it all depends on your bias. The Clinton bias would say that these are hard numbers, not likely to move because she has spent the last 15 years deflecting the Republican machine. Her favorables can only go up. Obama's numbers are soft because he has yet to be introduced to everyone in the nation, we have no idea what will happen to his numbers if that happens. Like her or not, she is the most capable Democrat to be elected president.
The Obama bias would say that there is very little wiggle room if we nominate Clinton. Obama's numbers, even if they fall, have a longer way to go than Clinton's until they are in the negative. Plus, Iowans who have met the candidates like Obama more than Clinton; we should, hypothetically, expect the same of the nation as a whole. Clinton is a national polarizing figure and America has had enough of polarizing figures. She will invigorate the right and likely increase Republican turn-out in a nominally Democratic year.
However, even Clinton supporters worry about the effect of a Clinton nomination. A recent article from the Associated Press tells of anonymous Democrats (everyone is afraid of the Clinton wrath) who worry that nominating Clinton will hurt down-ballot Democrats in close races. (read the article here) Clinton's polarizing persona will likely incur a groundswell of Republican opposition who turnout on election day just to oppose Clinton. These Republicans may not be able to defeat Clinton, but they could have a large effect on congressional and senatorial candidates.
EDITORIAL ALERT:
It is in my humble opinion, as a member of the Obama bias, that Clinton would surely win in November. I do believe she is electable, but she does not have much of a margin of error. Republicans at this juncture hate their choices for their nomination. They pleaded for Fred Thompson to enter the race, but he has already started to drop in the polls, had a major campaign shake-up, a poor financial showing the in the last quarter, and all this before officially declaring his candidacy. Thompson is a flame-out and it is still doubtful that Gingrich will enter the race. Republicans hate their choices, so why should we give them a reason to turnout on election day? Karl Rove had a successful strategy in 2004: turnout the base by putting hot-button issues on the ballot (abortion and gay-marriage). To conservatives Hillary Clinton IS a hot-button issue. Rove is hoping for the Democrats to put her on the ballot because it effectively fires up their base as much as gay marriage does (mostly because the far right sees her as a lesbian, anyway. A stupid claim). I worry about the effects on the Senate race in Colorado, the Senate race in Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, etc. if Clinton is on the ballot. Obama still has room to grow, whereas Clinton only has the margin of error. I don't want to give any more reason for conservatives to turnout on November 4th, 2008.
-Wyatt Earp
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Thursday, August 9, 2007
The race for Cabinet
While voters throughout the next year will be electing the Democratic nominee, who they elect will correlate to who is in the cabinet. The behind-the-scenes race for such hot-bed positions as Secretary of State is on. While there are no polls for this sort of thing, who is winning?
According to the whispering class if the election were held today the high-level cabinet would look like such: President Hillary Clinton, Vice-President Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Joe Biden.
Bill Richardson has not laid a hand on any of the other presidential candidates and it has been suggested that the nominee will be more forgiving of the squeaky-clean Richardson, so forgiving so as to appoint him Vice-President. Even in the AFL-CIO debate from this week where it seemed like everyone was taking hits, Richardson's name did not appear in coverage of the event because he avoided all attacks. He merely defines himself by his record as governor of New Mexico, a strong record at that. He is strong pick of VP. The Mountain-west is the linchpin of the Dems' '08 strategy and the governor of NM would have a lot of appeal. He is Hispanic, a large voting bloc that will help shape the race in many swing states (CO, FL, AR, NM). He has a record of experience if that is called in to question for the nominee (Obama, Edwards, even Clinton).
Joe Biden's chief campaign message is that "He is the only one with a plan for Iraq." The debates have been Biden's strongest suit because his blunt, in-your-face style has appealed to voters tired of pontificating and posturing. And at the debates if a question is asked about Iraq, I'm just kidding, when a question is asked about Iraq Biden stands in the face of public opinion and says that we need a plan to stabilize Iraq not just withdrawal. Visit his website www.planforiraq.com for more information about his intended policy. He has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for three decades and his relationship with Richard Lugar (R-IN) defines the moderate internationalism opinion of the Senate. He is a perfect fit for Secretary of State; however, he said in a recent Newsweek article, "I promise you, I don’t want to be secretary of State. I’m going to be taking sharper and sharper exceptions with my colleagues. And it won’t be easy to then turn around and ask to be secretary of State." However, that does not answer the question of: If you were offered Secretary of State, would you accept? Plus, it's simply impolite for presidential candidates to discuss desires for cabinet positions.
It should be noted that Bill Richardson is probably in second place for Secretary of State. However, this post is relatively inane, because the cabinet depends solely on the president-elect and cannot be gaged on the campaigns presently being waged. However, this is the opinion of those currently making noise.
VICE-PRESIDENT
In the past week both former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani were quoted saying that the Democratic ticket will likely be Clinton- Obama. I am quite sure that this will not happen. I don't take exception with Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, but I disagree that she would ever, in a million years, select Obama as her running mate. There are a few reasons why.
Sheer Bitterness - Clintons are a grudge-holding people and as time goes on Obama will take more specific shots at Clinton. She will certainly not want to reward this behavior by making Obama the presumptuous 2016 Democratic nominee.
Took much voltage at the bottom of the ticket - Clinton's negative persona is perceived as cold, calculating and political. Obama is perceived as young, fresh, electrifying and inspiring. It could be said that they're the perfect foil for the presidential ticket, but that is why Clinton won't take the deal. Obama will be holding a rally for Clinton, yet a crowd of 20,000 could leave being inspired and wondering why the names weren't flipped. Just like her husband, Hillary would be cautious to hold a joint-rally with Obama because his introduction might outshine her speech. Don't let the coin outshine you.
No geographical significance - Obama is the Senator from Illinois. Clinton is going to carry Illinois without a shadow of a doubt. However, Vice Presidents are rarely ever seen to actual sway their own state. Yet geographical disparity is a quality sought after in VP candidates (notably, the 1960 Boston-Austin ticket).
Those are just three reasons why Clinton will not ask Obama to be her Vice-President. So, who should Clinton ask to be her Vice-President, if nominated? In my opinion she should ask Senator Evan Bayh.
Evan Bayh is a first-rate centrist with a long history of public service. He is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic centrist organization founded by Bill Clinton. He has served as Indiana's Secretary of State, two terms as their governor and now is in his second term as their junior Senator. He received over 60% of the vote twice for Senate in a Republican state. While he will not put Indiana into play, especially with Clinton heading the ticket, he can help swing Ohio or Missouri in the Democrat's favor. He is a strong pick and will likely be on every nominee's short list. I see it as likely that she would pick Bayh over Richardson. However, the two will surely be competing for the position. And the race is on.
Opinion makers have to make news if none exist and so the race for cabinet positions is a good way to do so. I thought I would add my opinions on a non-existent race.
-Wyatt Earp
According to the whispering class if the election were held today the high-level cabinet would look like such: President Hillary Clinton, Vice-President Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Joe Biden.
Bill Richardson has not laid a hand on any of the other presidential candidates and it has been suggested that the nominee will be more forgiving of the squeaky-clean Richardson, so forgiving so as to appoint him Vice-President. Even in the AFL-CIO debate from this week where it seemed like everyone was taking hits, Richardson's name did not appear in coverage of the event because he avoided all attacks. He merely defines himself by his record as governor of New Mexico, a strong record at that. He is strong pick of VP. The Mountain-west is the linchpin of the Dems' '08 strategy and the governor of NM would have a lot of appeal. He is Hispanic, a large voting bloc that will help shape the race in many swing states (CO, FL, AR, NM). He has a record of experience if that is called in to question for the nominee (Obama, Edwards, even Clinton).
Joe Biden's chief campaign message is that "He is the only one with a plan for Iraq." The debates have been Biden's strongest suit because his blunt, in-your-face style has appealed to voters tired of pontificating and posturing. And at the debates if a question is asked about Iraq, I'm just kidding, when a question is asked about Iraq Biden stands in the face of public opinion and says that we need a plan to stabilize Iraq not just withdrawal. Visit his website www.planforiraq.com for more information about his intended policy. He has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for three decades and his relationship with Richard Lugar (R-IN) defines the moderate internationalism opinion of the Senate. He is a perfect fit for Secretary of State; however, he said in a recent Newsweek article, "I promise you, I don’t want to be secretary of State. I’m going to be taking sharper and sharper exceptions with my colleagues. And it won’t be easy to then turn around and ask to be secretary of State." However, that does not answer the question of: If you were offered Secretary of State, would you accept? Plus, it's simply impolite for presidential candidates to discuss desires for cabinet positions.
It should be noted that Bill Richardson is probably in second place for Secretary of State. However, this post is relatively inane, because the cabinet depends solely on the president-elect and cannot be gaged on the campaigns presently being waged. However, this is the opinion of those currently making noise.
VICE-PRESIDENT
In the past week both former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani were quoted saying that the Democratic ticket will likely be Clinton- Obama. I am quite sure that this will not happen. I don't take exception with Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, but I disagree that she would ever, in a million years, select Obama as her running mate. There are a few reasons why.
Sheer Bitterness - Clintons are a grudge-holding people and as time goes on Obama will take more specific shots at Clinton. She will certainly not want to reward this behavior by making Obama the presumptuous 2016 Democratic nominee.
Took much voltage at the bottom of the ticket - Clinton's negative persona is perceived as cold, calculating and political. Obama is perceived as young, fresh, electrifying and inspiring. It could be said that they're the perfect foil for the presidential ticket, but that is why Clinton won't take the deal. Obama will be holding a rally for Clinton, yet a crowd of 20,000 could leave being inspired and wondering why the names weren't flipped. Just like her husband, Hillary would be cautious to hold a joint-rally with Obama because his introduction might outshine her speech. Don't let the coin outshine you.
No geographical significance - Obama is the Senator from Illinois. Clinton is going to carry Illinois without a shadow of a doubt. However, Vice Presidents are rarely ever seen to actual sway their own state. Yet geographical disparity is a quality sought after in VP candidates (notably, the 1960 Boston-Austin ticket).
Those are just three reasons why Clinton will not ask Obama to be her Vice-President. So, who should Clinton ask to be her Vice-President, if nominated? In my opinion she should ask Senator Evan Bayh.
Evan Bayh is a first-rate centrist with a long history of public service. He is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic centrist organization founded by Bill Clinton. He has served as Indiana's Secretary of State, two terms as their governor and now is in his second term as their junior Senator. He received over 60% of the vote twice for Senate in a Republican state. While he will not put Indiana into play, especially with Clinton heading the ticket, he can help swing Ohio or Missouri in the Democrat's favor. He is a strong pick and will likely be on every nominee's short list. I see it as likely that she would pick Bayh over Richardson. However, the two will surely be competing for the position. And the race is on.
Opinion makers have to make news if none exist and so the race for cabinet positions is a good way to do so. I thought I would add my opinions on a non-existent race.
-Wyatt Earp
Monday, August 6, 2007
If they're shooting at you, you must be doing something right
In the past couple of weeks all the presidential candidates, it seems, are shooting criticism at Barack Obama. Obama, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, gave what has been called a "major foreign policy speech" this past week where he outlined his intended terrorism policy, if elected president. The highlights are as follows:
Obama proposed that we are fighting on the wrong front in our war on terrorism. Instead we need to be focusing our attention on Pakistan and Afghanistan, where terrorism runs deepest. To Pakistan, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." Iraq is the wrong war to be fighting if we are to succeed in the war on terrorism, Obama claims. However, in a later question and answer session, Obama claimed that nuclear weapons were "off the table" in dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Both of these claims: fighting Pakistan and the no-nuclear option have provoked reactions from all sides of the presidential race. Pakistan, naturally, had the strongest reaction. Protests where the American flag was burned raged in the Pakistani capitol, while President Musharraf called Obama's remarks "irresponsible." Hillary Clinton said that, if the U.S. were to attack Pakistan, a president should never take the nuclear option off the table. Edwards agreed with Clinton's assessment.
It has been suggested numerous times that Obama only came out with this speech to rebuke Clinton's suggesting that he was "naive" in foreign affairs. The casual reporter nearly only look at the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs to find out that Obama has been calling for this same foreign policy strategy for some time. Barack Obama, himself, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, viewable here, where he said that America must "refoucus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan- the central front in our war against al Qaeda- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest." While he did not go in to as great detail as in his recent speech, the strategy remains the same: Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror and to see the war to success we must bring justice to all terrorists, even if they lie in ally territory.
What does all of this squabbling and definition ultimately mean? It could mean a lot or it could mean very little. However, on the Democratic side, Obama's policies have become the leading headline, positive or negative. There is an old adage: say what you want about me, just spell my name right. As far as I can tell, everyone is spelling Obama's name right. Clinton, Edwards and even Mitt Romney in the most recent debate have used Obama's policies as the barometer for their candidacy. If Clinton's day is spent deciding how she feels about Obama's foreign policy credentials, then that is a victory for Obama. However, distortions of Obama's main points could go far to hurt his campaign. For instance, Republicans like McCain are saying that it is a bad idea to "announce to the world we're attacking another country." Even though that is a distortion of Obama's central point.
The fact remains that Obama has given two major foreign policy speeches, Edwards has given one and Clinton has given none. Edwards has called the war on terrorism a bumper-sticker war with no true guiding policy while Obama has called for greater focus in the war on terrorism to root out terrorism where it runs deepest. Clinton, in typical incumbent fashion, has let her perception as the "steamroll candidate" continue and is running a reactive campaign. As far as I can tell, Clinton believes that the war on terrorism is not a bumper-sticker; however, disagrees with Obama's plans for conduct of it.
This episode could go a long way to develop Obama's rapid-response team. He will need it, because it will only get worse.
-Wyatt Earp
Obama proposed that we are fighting on the wrong front in our war on terrorism. Instead we need to be focusing our attention on Pakistan and Afghanistan, where terrorism runs deepest. To Pakistan, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." Iraq is the wrong war to be fighting if we are to succeed in the war on terrorism, Obama claims. However, in a later question and answer session, Obama claimed that nuclear weapons were "off the table" in dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Both of these claims: fighting Pakistan and the no-nuclear option have provoked reactions from all sides of the presidential race. Pakistan, naturally, had the strongest reaction. Protests where the American flag was burned raged in the Pakistani capitol, while President Musharraf called Obama's remarks "irresponsible." Hillary Clinton said that, if the U.S. were to attack Pakistan, a president should never take the nuclear option off the table. Edwards agreed with Clinton's assessment.
It has been suggested numerous times that Obama only came out with this speech to rebuke Clinton's suggesting that he was "naive" in foreign affairs. The casual reporter nearly only look at the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs to find out that Obama has been calling for this same foreign policy strategy for some time. Barack Obama, himself, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, viewable here, where he said that America must "refoucus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan- the central front in our war against al Qaeda- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest." While he did not go in to as great detail as in his recent speech, the strategy remains the same: Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror and to see the war to success we must bring justice to all terrorists, even if they lie in ally territory.
What does all of this squabbling and definition ultimately mean? It could mean a lot or it could mean very little. However, on the Democratic side, Obama's policies have become the leading headline, positive or negative. There is an old adage: say what you want about me, just spell my name right. As far as I can tell, everyone is spelling Obama's name right. Clinton, Edwards and even Mitt Romney in the most recent debate have used Obama's policies as the barometer for their candidacy. If Clinton's day is spent deciding how she feels about Obama's foreign policy credentials, then that is a victory for Obama. However, distortions of Obama's main points could go far to hurt his campaign. For instance, Republicans like McCain are saying that it is a bad idea to "announce to the world we're attacking another country." Even though that is a distortion of Obama's central point.
The fact remains that Obama has given two major foreign policy speeches, Edwards has given one and Clinton has given none. Edwards has called the war on terrorism a bumper-sticker war with no true guiding policy while Obama has called for greater focus in the war on terrorism to root out terrorism where it runs deepest. Clinton, in typical incumbent fashion, has let her perception as the "steamroll candidate" continue and is running a reactive campaign. As far as I can tell, Clinton believes that the war on terrorism is not a bumper-sticker; however, disagrees with Obama's plans for conduct of it.
This episode could go a long way to develop Obama's rapid-response team. He will need it, because it will only get worse.
-Wyatt Earp
Thursday, August 2, 2007
PA-03 is a targeted 2008 race
Good news for all progressive minded northwestern Pennsylvanians (there are so many of you): The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has listed the Pennsylvania's 3rd District as one of its targeted 2008 races to unseat a Republican incumbent. The 3rd District includes Erie County and parts of Armstrong, Butler, Crawford, Mercer, Venango and Warren counties. Including Allegheny College (my alma mater). Hooray.
Representative Chris Van Hollen (MD-08), the head of the DCCC, released a memo, available here, where he expressed confidence in the recruitment of candidates in Republican districts. One of which is the seat currently held by Phil English, PA's 3rd District. English was elected in the Republican wave of 1994 and has not had a serious challenger since 1996. He defeated perennial office-seeker Steve Porter by a margin of 53%-42% in 2006. And it looks like English might have a fight ahead of him in 2008.
At least three Democrats have stepped forward to challenge English. Kyle Foust is the DCCC's hand-picked candidate, it seems. Van Hollen says of Foust, "Foust is an Erie County Councilman with a reputation as a leader who reaches across party lines to get things done for his constituents." Phil English was an Erie Councilman before running for Congress, so this would make for an interesting match-up if Foust were to get the Democratic nod. Both men were born in Erie and will be battling for it's heart and soul. Check out Foust's campaign website here.
Another credible challenger is Erie lawyer, Tom Myers (no known website found). Lastly of the known challengers is Mike Waltner, a religious leader from Erie. You can check out his campaign website here.
It is also assumed that Steve Porter will try again to vacate Mr. English from his seat. I wish he wouldn't, but he will anyway.
The Democratic Party primary will be an exciting one in Pennsylvania's 3rd District. The heightened competition will bring national attention, and money, to the general election race. English will have his hands full and it should prove to be an interesting race to watch. Western PA saw an exciting race in 2006 in the 4th District with Democrat challenger Jason Altmire defeating incumbent Melissa Hart. Altmire ran solely on a campaign of change and that same theme will likely be used to oust English. Phil English was actually Melissa Hart's chief of staff when she was in the State Senate. Let's see if 2008 brings the same treatment to English as 2006 did to his boss.
-Wyatt Earp
Representative Chris Van Hollen (MD-08), the head of the DCCC, released a memo, available here, where he expressed confidence in the recruitment of candidates in Republican districts. One of which is the seat currently held by Phil English, PA's 3rd District. English was elected in the Republican wave of 1994 and has not had a serious challenger since 1996. He defeated perennial office-seeker Steve Porter by a margin of 53%-42% in 2006. And it looks like English might have a fight ahead of him in 2008.
At least three Democrats have stepped forward to challenge English. Kyle Foust is the DCCC's hand-picked candidate, it seems. Van Hollen says of Foust, "Foust is an Erie County Councilman with a reputation as a leader who reaches across party lines to get things done for his constituents." Phil English was an Erie Councilman before running for Congress, so this would make for an interesting match-up if Foust were to get the Democratic nod. Both men were born in Erie and will be battling for it's heart and soul. Check out Foust's campaign website here.
Another credible challenger is Erie lawyer, Tom Myers (no known website found). Lastly of the known challengers is Mike Waltner, a religious leader from Erie. You can check out his campaign website here.
It is also assumed that Steve Porter will try again to vacate Mr. English from his seat. I wish he wouldn't, but he will anyway.
The Democratic Party primary will be an exciting one in Pennsylvania's 3rd District. The heightened competition will bring national attention, and money, to the general election race. English will have his hands full and it should prove to be an interesting race to watch. Western PA saw an exciting race in 2006 in the 4th District with Democrat challenger Jason Altmire defeating incumbent Melissa Hart. Altmire ran solely on a campaign of change and that same theme will likely be used to oust English. Phil English was actually Melissa Hart's chief of staff when she was in the State Senate. Let's see if 2008 brings the same treatment to English as 2006 did to his boss.
-Wyatt Earp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)