home
about
archives
|
ELECTABILITY 101
04/21/2008
Hillary has tried everything in her kitchen sink approach to knock Obama off message and out of the race.
The song her campaign is singing to super delegates this month is "Obama is not electable."
Taking her at her word, that she really thinks Obama isn't electable and hasn't just chosen this accusation as the "theme of the month," someone (George Stephanopolous perhaps?) ought to challenge her to say why exactly she thinks Obama is unelectable.
Maybe we can start by asking the question in a broad sense. What makes a candidate unelectable?
Here is a list of reasons someone might be considered unelectable, with commentary on whether or not Obama fits into the category:
High negatives. When a candidate's poll numbers are more negative than positive, in things like honesty, trustworthiness and even likability, it is possible a candidate might have a hard time getting elected. Hillary Clinton has been polling much higher in negatives than has Obama. So we can conclude that Obama doesn't have the high negatives that would make him unelectable.
Lack of money. When a candidate can't get sufficient campaign contributions to match his or her opponent, it is a problem for two reasons. The candidate can't buy enough advertising, and it is an indication of lack of support and enthusiasm. Obama consistently raises more money than Hillary, from far more donors.
Lack of base of support. All successful candidates have strong bases of support. McCain has middle of the road republicans and some independents. Hillary has older women, Latinos, and slightly more of the white vote in some states. But Obama has the young vote, 90% of the black vote, and the white male vote in many states. Obama's base is active, energized and shows no sign of tiring.
No enthusiasm for candidacy. Candidates who have enthusiastic supporters are at an advantage because that enthusiasm is contagious and results in large numbers of volunteers. Both Hillary and Obama have enthusiastic supporters, although it could be said that Hillary's supporters are older democrats who are quieter in their support while Barack has brought millions of new, young voters into the process. Both Hillary and Barack have more enthusiasm behind their campaigns, it seems, than does McCain.
Losing primary elections. When candidates lose many primary elections, they are usually forced out of the race because they cannot win enough delegates, and because it becomes apparent they simply cannot win the support they need. Barack has won more elections than Clinton and has more pledged delegates.
Lack of appeal to independents. Every presidential candidate knows that they must win over independents in order to win the presidency. That is even more true in this election when the republicans have nominated someone who has a broad appeal to independents. Barack Obama does far better with independents than does Hillary, as evidenced by his big wins in states where independents can vote in the democratic primary and in polls that measure this support.
Losing the popular vote in primaries. Even if a candidate won more primaries and/or caucuses, but lost by an overwhelming number in the popular vote during primary season. he might be considered unelectable. Obama not only leads Clinton in primary/caucus wins as well as delegates, but he has won the popular vote as well.
Basic flaw in character. Even if a candidate was popular, but reasonable people could see that he had a huge character flaw that most of America would find repulsive, like womanizing, violence, alcoholism, cowardice, or cruelty, to name just a few examples, he might not be considered electable. However, we have already elected to the presidency a womanizer (Bill Clinton) and an alcoholic (Bush II). So the rule isn't an ironclad one. As for Obama, he has never been perceived to be a womanizer, an alcoholic, or a cruel or violent person. In fact, even his opponents consider him to be a good and decent man with enormous political gifts.
Being associated with a huge scandal that lowers poll numbers. Most presidential candidates have been carefully vetted and have no real skeletons in their closets. At the same time, all candidates are imperfect and will face scrutiny over something or someone from their past. Bill Clinton had Gennifer Flowers and his letter to the draft board. Bush II had his DUI's. McCain is gaining some scrutiny over his temper. Hillary has had to fess up about her phony sniper fire story. And Obama is having to account for his membership in Rev. Wright's church and his tangential acquaintance with a former radical, whose misdeeds occurred when Obama was 8 years old. So far, these "scandals" have not really hurt Obama, while the manufactured scandal against the 2004 democratic candidate, John Kerry, by the swift boat morons did hurt him. Scandals can bounce off some people, and stick to others. One thing is certain. If the republicans can't make a scandal out of real events, they will make them up. They proved that with John Kerry and they will do the same to either Hillary or Barack. There is no difference to republicans. A democrat is just a scandal waiting to happen, or be created, as far as they are concerned.
Being emotionally unstable. Voters tend to prefer presidents who are emotionally stable. They want their presidents unflappable, like Obama. Hillary, on the other hand, has shown a personality that ranged all the way from angry ("shame on you Barack Obama!) schoolmarm, to tearful ("I just care so much) empathic and wounded victim. I don't think Obama comes close to being as emotionally volatile as Hillary is.
So that leaves what? What could be the real reason Hillary thinks Barack is unelectable?
Of course, one possibility is that she doesn't really believe that he is unelectable, and in fact is actually terrified that he could be elected and spoil her chance to come back in 2012. But assuming she really has convinced herself he is unelectable and she is offering herself as the candidate that will save the party and the election, what could be the real reason she says he can't win? One thing she stresses is that he can't win the big states that she is winning, like New York, California, Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Barack did win one big state – Illinois – but Clinton doesn't count that, as it is his home state. So let's deconstruct her argument state by state.
New York: New York is a democratic stronghold and will go for the democrat no matter who it is. The only way New York might not go for the democrat would be if Bloomberg ran as a republican or independent.
California: California too is a democratic stronghold and will go for the democrat. Latinos may like Hillary, but they will not choose McCain over Obama. McCain knows that and will spend very little time and money on California. The only way California votes for a republican is if the constitution is amended to allow foreign born citizens to run and Arnold declares his candidacy.
Michigan and Florida: Since Barack was not on the ballot in Michigan, it is really impossible to know whether or not he can carry the state. A similar situation exists in Florida where neither candidate campaigned but Hillary was much more well known. There is a large Jewish population in Florida, and viral emails spewing lies about Obama being a Muslim may have influenced some to reject his candidacy, but that can easily be fixed if Hillary campaigns for him there and enough democrats disabuse the voters of the lies they have been told.
Ohio and Pennsylvania. These are two swing states that seem to favor Hillary, partly because they have large populations of older voters who tend to favor her, and also blue collar voters who are – let's be honest – disinclined to vote for a black man, no matter who he is.
This leads us to the only possible reason why Hillary thinks Barack is unelectable, and while she will never say it publicly, it is possible she is saying it or implying it to the superdelegates. In fact, by process of elimination, it is really the only reason left. Hillary thinks there is still too much racism in this country to elect a black president. Hillary thinks Barack is a doomed candidate because of the color of his skin. Desperate to win at all costs, Hillary is turning her back on the opportunity to overcome the last vestiges of racism in this country, and is counting on that racism to defeat a black opponent who dared to challenge her.
This line of thinking – that a candidate is unelectable - has been tried before on other candidates for other reasons.
John F. Kennedy was thought to be unelectable because he was a Catholic, until he made that speech.
George H.W. Bush was thought to be unelectable because he was a wimp, until Dukakis out-wimpified him in that ridiculous tank picture, and was painted as a bleeding heart wimp who let Willie Horton out of jail.
Bill Clinton was thought to be unelectable because of constant "bimbo eruptions" in the campaign, but he went on to win two terms.
Even Ronald Reagan, the great saint of the conservative church, was considered unelectable at first because of his acting background.
Every candidate who doesn't fit a certain stereotype is considered unelectable, until they are the first one of a particular category to be elected. Barack could easily be that candidate, the one who breaks the white stereotype, especially if the entire party, led by the defeated Hillary Clinton, get behind him as the inspiring and brilliant candidate that he is. If Hillary campaigns for Obama, and convinces her voters that he is going to be a terrific president, she could be one of many forces that makes him electable.
On the other hand, a powerful member of the party saying Obama is unelectable could make his defeat a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially if she secretly doesn't want him elected.
Is that what is really going on here? Hillary Clinton predicts that Obama is unelectable, then she makes sure he doesn't get elected, thereby raising her popularity as someone with good judgment and excellent analytical skills within the party, someone who becomes the inevitable candidate in 2012.
How could she ensure his defeat? By only half-heartedly campaigning for him. By damning him with feint praise. By not encouraging her loyal supporters to actively campaign for Obama. By whispering inside information, whether true or false, to her new buddies in right wing media, Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdoch, the kings of slime-ball journalism.
Obama may be the presumptive nominee, but Hillary Clinton has a lot of power to make or break him should he win the nomination. She can be a hero and campaign her heart out for him, putting the good of the country before her own personal ambitions, or she can hold back, thus doing all she can to ensure his defeat, putting her desire for power and glory before anything else. She can be part of history by helping to put the first black man in the oval office. Or she can sit passively by, bitter because the voters didn't choose her to be the first female president, and then say "I told you so."
Isn't it a shame that the biggest obstacle to Democrats taking over the White House, and the biggest obstacle to electing the nation's first black president, might be someone who calls herself a Democrat, someone who is married to the white man who - because of his popularity among African Americans - was once dubbed "the nation's first black president?
All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com
|
