Let me be absolutely clear on one thing; I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. She had an opening; Obama made it for her. But she was completely incapable of moving through it – her own ineptitude and tone-deafness in responding (Crown Royal?) have made her response to Obama’s gaffe as damaging to her as it is to him.
Her obvious inauthenticity makes her a candidate who will never be able to succeed in the modern media world.I do think there’s a meaningful risk that Obama will lose – but I was wrong about ’06 (the Democrats picked up far more seats than I thought they would, albeit with Blue Dog candidates)…so let’s watch the debates and see how the week will turn out.
But the impact on the general is seen as significant to Democratic thinker John Judis:
If you look at the upcoming presidential election in this light, the Democratic prospects do not appear to be good. McCain is an acceptable Republican–a war hero and a reputed moderate. (His greatest inherent liability, which could make him unacceptable regardless of his ideas or background, is his age.) Both Democratic candidates, whatever their protestations, are seen as coming out of the party’s liberal wing on guns and abortion.
Read the whole thing…
McCain is further to the left than previous GOP candidates, and Obama is further to the left than previous Dem candidates. Before 1963, McCain’s views would have compared to those of the average Democratic politician.
Thus, the center of gravity has strongly moved leftward, and so the left has already ‘won’.
However, by moving leftwards, McCain now resides smack in the middle of the fattest part of the bell-curve distribution of ideology. A strong majority of Americans find McCain palatable politically – more than the number of people who felt that way about Bush, Kerry, or Gore.
Thus, McCain is inherently a much stronger candidate than Obama. Someone as far left as Obama would not be doing this well if not for twin burdens on the GOP of a recession and unpopular incumbent President. This is why McCain’s dominance in 2008 is far less than it would be in any other year.
If the economy were moderate, and if Bush’s approval rating was 45% or higher, McCain would be so far ahead of Obama that the l-word (landslide) would be in order.
The twin burdens are the only reason someone as far from the political center of gravity as Obama is even being considered.
Democrat prospects in the coming general election are good.
It’s all about money, and the failure of elderly John McCain to adapt to the new age or pick subordinates who get it.
Patrick Ruffini explains: (link)
By the way, I think “tough love” from friendly critics like Patrick Ruffini does more good than any amount of “anti-idiotarian snark” or rah rah cheering. There are real problems that have got to be addressed. Snark doesn’t achieve much. And conservatives are probably not going to give heart-felt cheers for Mr. McCain-Feingold / McCain-Kennedy whatever you do.
Let’s talk about inauthenticity.
How are you using “authentic”?
Because George Bush can SEEM authentic, as can others, on tv, while having absolutely atrocious policies.
Or, simply be very good authentic liars. Both GWB and Bill Clinton are pretty good at lying authentically.
Doesn’t seem to me to be a good fit between “seeming authentic on TV”, and that authenticity meaning a damn when it comes to good governing, or being a good President.
Maybe one of those “necessary, but not sufficient”, given the nature of this media age.
hypo, I’m not suggesting that media authenticity = good governance; just that it = electability.
A.L.
I don’t know what the hell authenticity means. I have no clue.
I do know that Bill Clinton in 1992 had less social distance from average people than G HW Bush and won largely because of that. I know that Barack Hussein Obama has a HUGE social distance from ordinary people, far more than John Syndey McCain, and will lose in a landslide because of it.
Over and over again, from lecturing Iowa farmers on the price of arugula at Whole Foods, to “typical white person” to “I would no more distance myself from Rev. God Damn America than my racist white Granny” to Michelle Obama complaining about being poor at only 4 million a year, etc. etc. the huge social distance between Obama and the average person stands out. Hillary has a big social distance too, but not the huge chasm that characterizes the Obamas.
Obama won’t win. And he’ll take most of the Blue Dogs with him. I assume most Dems are happy with that, they’d rather be “pure” and the Daily Kos/Moveon/Code Pink and look down on us typical white people than anything else. Including getting a Dem elected President.
Critical factors in the campaign:
1. Viral Videos — cutting through the media smog and clutter, the funnier and more biting the better. Obama is a target rich environment.
2. Grass roots organization among middle class Americans, including the NRA, Tax Payers Union, etc.
Jim – truer than you know re Bill. “Here’s his quote”:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html in response to Hillary’s “screw ’em” to blue-collar whites:
Now that we have a cite of Bill saying it, does it make it acceptable?
A.L.
Borat Hussein Obama has taken all the negatives about John Kerry, and taken it to the next level.
1) He is even more disdainful of average Americans than Kerry.
2) His wife is even more annoying and patronizing than Teresa.
3) Rev. Wright is a bigger turnoff than the Swiftboat issue ever was.
4) At least Kerry could do well in debates. I am not sure BHO could.
I would just like to note the acceptable use of the word “boys” in the above comment by A.L.
I think what Hillary Clinton said was fully acceptable. For one thing, when you take a hard loss, blowing steam is natural and nobody should hold it against you.
What Bill Clinton said was great.
Only, it’s not true that working age people have paid the whole price of progress. “Progress” has been redefined to include death for the unborn, little babies, the retarded, the very elderly and infirm – anyone whose “quality of life” is not deemed good enough, or who is made the object of a deadly “choice”.
It wasn’t always so. Marxists were always hard core death machines of course, but there was also a large and responsible Left that was often Catholic or not hopelessly at odds with Catholic teachings, and that meant at least some respect for human life, and often a lot, more than you would get from any alternative source of moral instruction that had practical political clout.
That’s largely gone now. If you’re strongly pro labor union and pro-life, there is no natural political party for you.
There’s the party of organized labor, which is also the Party of Death, and by the way it’s a lot more about billionaire lefties and hard core political correctness fiends than it is about traditional union issues. And it’s the party of defeat – not just the party that doubts whether a particular war is worth it, but the party that doesn’t fundamentally and generally want victory for the English speaking and Western alliance that must be led by America and that therefore must support the pursuit of American interests, both idealistic and material.
There’s the Party of Life, which is also the party of corruption, the party of guys like Trent Lott, who had no idea how to live without a cocoon of privilege, and I doubt he’s got any idea of or real concern with people who live outside the sort of protected bubble he inhabits.
I hope people hold their noses and vote for John McCain, because I think it will be a better world for America and America’s allies if they do. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was not a good era for friends of America, in fact it was humiliating. (How do you support people who won’t support themselves?)
I hope so. But Barack Obama is going to have youth, charm, a vast gap in enthusiasm and a vaster gap in funding on his side.
Re: lurker in comment #8″: so noted. It’s a harmless and often friendly word.
It will certainly be interesting to see how all this shakes out in the Dem conventions. Are Hillary’s people going to explode when they lose?
John McCain is really old. Hell, he is older than I am. I sat in a room with a few friends 60 to 68 years old watching returns about a month ago. My friend after seeing McCain’s acceptance speech commented “how is this guy going to win, he even looks old to us.
Like it or not, Obama’s greatest strength will turn out to be his adversary’s advanced years. McCain looks doddering to me.
TOC — McCain doesn’t have to be great, just better than the other guy. Tonight Obama (and Hillary also) said they “don’t support a TOTAL gun ban” but are OK with DC’s gun ban.
AL — great comment by Clinton, he understood that he had to bow to the cultural demands of the Southern White and industrial white working class. Because for them, culture MATTERS. Doing well in school, playing by the rules (eschewing criminality), being patriotic, working hard, getting married and trying hard to STAY married, investing in your children, valuing children, these are the bulwarks of the middle and working class.
NOT WELFARE. [Which they perceive, probably accurately, as money from their pockets to Blacks and Hispanics.] NOT Government programs (which Affirmative Action insures they won’t be eligible for anyway).
Tonight’s debate feature Barack Obama again saying that government failure caused people to turn to religion. With the added lagniappe that he didn’t see anything wrong with his Crackergate comments because polls bore him out (no fallout).
Yes McCain is old. Like a fox. He’s already proposed FIRST a Gas Tax Summer Holiday. Already he’s raising the stakes DIRECTLY. Offering to put more money in people’s pockets, every time they fill up. Something Hillary and Obama cannot (Dems abhor any tax lowering) match. A pie-in-the-sky government program that by definition (Affirmative Action = “No Whites Allowed”) excludes all white voters?
Please.
Dems have become what they wanted in 1968 — the party of Rich, Liberal (I know, redundant) billionaires. Where Bruce Springsteen’s Drummer (Max Weinberg) is featured in the WSJ — as a real estate developer. Fake rebellion against “the man” (really, middle class people whom the rich detest) when they are “the man.” See Wright’s mansion.
A.L. –
I wish somebody had said this in 1992. Sure she’s a fake, but if it’s so obvious there sure were a lot of people taking her counterfeit currency for one hell of a long time.
And truthfully, she’s not the real fake in the family, Bill is. He’s got the principles of Daffy Duck, and he never believed in anything unless there was something in it for him. Hillary at least has an ethos – Stalinism in an ugly pantsuit, maybe, but at least she believes in something.
In fact, I’m getting a little sick of people jumping all over the She-Clinton. Have you people been in a coma for 15 years? You just woke up and noticed this? What gives all you newbies and FNGs the right to come barging in with the amazing news flash that HILLARY IS A MENACE?
To tell that to those of us who are veterans of the long twilight struggle against that insipid corruption from Hope, Arkansas – or wherever the hell they come from – it’s just wrong.
You guys show up in the last five minutes of the battle of Waterloo, and you want to be the goddamn Duke of Wellington.
So Obama’s Trotsky is more electable than Clinton’s Stalin? I seem to recall history granting power the other way around, but then 24/7 cable networks and the blogosphere weren’t around “back then”:http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/stalin/lectures/StalinTrot.html.
Oh well, commence flaming of my quasi-unserious comparison.
Its a mistake to count out the Clintons until the bitter end. If this stays competitive it will go to the floor of the convention, at which point its anybody’s ballgame (Clinton will have a big edge due to her organizational connections).
Florida and Michigan we havent heard the last from, but it will be the superdelegates that decide this thing. Clinton can make a good argument that if they are required to vote exactly as the popular vote, they arent really voting at all, they are rubber stamping.
Ironically the longer the fight goes on the more plausible HRC’s argument that Obama isnt ready for primetime (‘see, he can’t even win the nomination outright, how can he win the election?’).
If this does go to the floor, its going to be an absolute bloodletting. This period will seem like the reasonable old salad days of peace.
The one thing I have to say about McCain is that he seems to have 0 understanding about the economy. His latest “gas tax” proposal is a silly, silly farce. I think most economists realize that it would make the gas crunch worse, not better.
So, although I like McCain, he really needs a sound economic VP that will make me trust him during the coming recession.
alchemist: _The one thing I have to say about McCain is that he seems to have 0 understanding about the economy._
I think Dave Schuler has been doing some outstanding blogging analyzing the candidates’ economic policies. His conclusion? “I don’t think any of the candidates have the foggiest notion of the nature of the U. S. economy nor the steps that will help it grow.”
“Part I– Taxes”:http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=3636
“McCain Update”:http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=3638
But I agree, McCain could use someone to bulster his economic credentials. And someone young and presidential.
I agree, Alchemist, but the same can be said for the Democratic candidates as well. If I had to cast my vote based on economic issues alone, it would go to McCain simply because his economic proposals/meddlings/whatever would cause less harm than either Hillary’s or Obama’s.
One of the main things keeping me from voting for Democrats at a national level is the party seems to have no grasp whatsoever of economic principles, the tradeoffs required by scarcity, or the law of unintended consequences. I have no problem voting for them at the lower levels–locally, the Democrats around here are just fine on most of the issues, same for the state level. But the national party’s principles and agenda, when given the power of the federal government, is generally such a Bad Thing that I have a hard time justifying a vote that gives them any more of that power.
When was the last time we had a President who actually understood basic economics, let alone “the economy” on a macro/micro level? Any candidate who says that they will do their best to not meddle with the economy would get my vote. These people do more harm than good.
Get out of the way!