A Hillary vs McCain Matchup is Bad, Bad, Bad

Follow my reasoning and correct me were I'm wrong here.

Hillary is liked by rank and file democrats, disliked by independents, hated by republicans.

Obama is liked by rank and file democrats, liked by independents, indifferent to Republicans.

McCain is indifferent to rank and file democrats, liked by independents, basically acceptable to Republicans.

Where does this put us in a match up of the two frontrunners?

Jump.

The Republican base is deflated as Georgia10 pointed out.  McCain will not energize them, so he will go for independents to make up for the lack of enthusiasm in his base.  Between Hillary and McCain, he will take independents.  The problem is, the only person that energizes their base is Hillary.  So McCain takes independents, while Hillary energizes the GOP base, and at the same time is currently in the process of deflating the democratic base by alienating vast portions of the Obama coalition.

On the other hand, I think we can safely assume that Obama will continue to be liked by independents, liked by democrats, and at least not energize the GOP base anything like Hillary is going to.  So with Obama, you get at least evenly split independents, deflated GOP base, and still energized and unified democratic base.  

Where is my logic wrong here?

•  Any McCain matchup is bad.

  That's why I'm praying for an unlikely 4th place Florida finish for him.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:07:35 PM PDT

  •  Rudy might be done

    A St. Pete Times poll out today puts Rudy at 15% in the Florida primary, tied for 3rd with Huckabee.

    by Daaaaave on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:10:23 PM PDT

  •  Still, Hillary is our worst shot against him

    by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:10:33 PM PDT

  •  Clinton is an especially bad matchup.

    He trumps her strength--experience--and fakes authenticity much better, which means that in the media it'll be The Straight Talk Express vs. Triangulation and Opportunism.

    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:11:37 PM PDT

    •  Also

      I feel that she won't be able to play the victim as easily against a former POW, and the trust issues will be exacerbated.

      Though, I could definitely be wrong.

      by latinadem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:13:51 PM PDT

      •  Totally deserved or not, he has the reputation of

        a straight talker which will contrast unfavorably to Hillary.  And, he is liked by the media and the Clintons are not.

        by PrometheusSpeaks on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:46:02 PM PDT

    •  He trumps Obama's strength

      Indies like McCain more.

      by Partially Impartial on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:15:21 PM PDT

      •  Obama can neutralize his 'straight talk'

        reputation, because Obama is perceived much the same way.

        And Obama's strength--being a voice of change and a fresh face vs Senator Older-Than-Dirt.

        Obama will take his share of independents vs. McCain.

        Clinton won't.  

        by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:17:51 PM PDT

        •  Obama can't even retain Dems against him

          Check out the latest Massachusetts poll from today.

          McCain 50, Obama 45

          McCain wins indies 54-39.

          Obama only wins Dems 65-30, while McCain wins Pubs 85-13.

          Clinton does better among indies and gets 76% of Dems.

          by Partially Impartial on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:23:22 PM PDT

          •  How much has anyone campaigned

            in Massachusetts?

            by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:26:18 PM PDT

            •  They vote in less than two weeks

              Obama's campaigned there at least seven times.

              by Partially Impartial on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:29:05 PM PDT

              •  Deval Patrick is a Friend and Ally

                Don't worry, PI--Obama will sweep Mass.!!!

                by serrano on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:34:31 PM PDT

            •  Does any Democrat

              normally HAVE to campaign in Mass?

              by nrafter530 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:15:02 PM PDT

              •  they will

                if Romney takes the R lead.

                by gnat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:51:34 PM PDT

          •  You don't look at deep blue states

            to measure the strength of Democrats in a general election.  They come home every time.

            You look at swing states.

            by JR Hawks on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:49:30 PM PDT

            •  Huh?

              According to whom?

              You really have your head in the sand. if you think everyone is just goingto run to Obama.

              by GregNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:52:10 PM PDT

      •  I'll take

        the younger Obama vs. McCain anyday.  A McCain-Hillary contest would be brutal and might make Bloomberg run.

        by chewie333 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:15:33 PM PDT

    •  Yup!

      The strengh and experience gimmick will be completly neutralize with McCain.

      My guess is McCain will run on his intergrity which will be a problem for Hillary...It's going to be tough for the Clinton to smear a war hero that a strong majority of the electorate respect.

      by BlueStateLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:22:06 PM PDT

      •  Hillary is going to run ...

        On how to get the bus out of the ditch and back on the road.

        McCain was cheering on the bus driver who got us into this jam, and he hasn't a single friggin clue of how to get out of it.

        by al Fubar on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:24:31 PM PDT

        •  Clinton had an identical voting record on Iraq

          to McCain before the invasion occurred.

          His obvious, and effective, retort will be that "I didn't change my mind because the war became unpopular or because I started running for President."

          Iraq isn't going to be a major 2008 election issue.

          by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:28:00 PM PDT

        •  Hillary voted for the war

          In my opinion , i doubt the war in iraq will be a strong issue for Hillary if it's Hillary vs McCain.

          McCain will easily throw in a face , the fact that she was a strong supporter of the war and only flip-flopped for political gain.

          Lwt me also remind you that the war seems like it was be the biggest issue in the general election and the economy has now surpassed it...McCain and Hillary are probably on equal ground on the economy...I dont think neither of them has a huge advantage on it.

          ALos , things have been pretty quiet in Iraq , meaning and if things continue to stay that way , Iraq could be a huge asset for McCain...This sound cynical , but if Iraq is really improving , meaning less violence , Hillary could be in a world of hurt with McCain.....I think the war issue is already losing a lot of political power for the democrat.

          by BlueStateLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:30:07 PM PDT

          •  If it's the economy ...

            McCain is the one in for a world of hurt. At a time when there will likely be huge demand to do something about the economy, he has absolutely nothing to offer. In spite of straying off the reservation enough to offend the GOP faithful, he is an orthodox GOP conservative.

            McCain is the one who will want to make the election about terra. Not Iraq, because there are only two conditions Iraq can be in, bad, or out of the news. But McCain's extreme all round hawkishness will rattle nerves, while Hillary's "hawkishness" by left blogosphere standards will sooth nerves.

            If the economy somehow is in a feel good condition in the fall, and Iraq is out of the news, then the environment favors McCain against any Dem. Then the question is, can Obama tease over more indies (and there aren't many real indies), or can Hillary pull more women out of the woodwork.

            And if all else fails, so far Hillary looks like a better knife fighter, more likely to take McCain down a peg.

            by al Fubar on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:02:50 PM PDT

            •  McCain

              I seriously doubt she will have a huge advantage on McCain on the economy for the simple fact that people will trust him because of his experience in DC.

              I do believe the economy being a huge issue is hurting Obama because i dont think people trust a new comer to handle such a huge crisis...This is where i think having DC experience will be a major factor for voters.

              I strongly believe that McCain will move to the center if he wins the nomination and i will bet he will tone down some of his right wing talking point...Hillary will do the same but because McCain is viewed more fgavorably among indies , he will crush her among those voters.

              States like Ohio , Virginia Wiscosin , will be out of reach for Clinton.

              by BlueStateLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:20:33 PM PDT

  •  McCain is their only good candidate

    He's polling scary well right now.  In today's Survey USA polls, he beats Clinton and Obama in Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Minnesota.  He's the only Republican to win any of those matchups against either of them

    He also beats Obama in Massachusetts and is pretty close in California and New York (Obama's up 6 points in each).

    by Partially Impartial on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:14:48 PM PDT

    •  McCain is what ...

      Obama wants to be, with free floating popularity unconnected to anything he stands for.

      I think we are seeing a dry run for how Hillary will take on McCain. She will try to get inside his head and get him mad, because Angry John McCain will not go over well.

      by al Fubar on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:27:34 PM PDT

      •  wrong

        Hillary has a huge advantage on Obama because she's playing on her turf which is the democratic electorate...Against McCain , she will be forced to court independent which is a weakness...She wont have nostalgia democrats who feels they owe her their vote against Obama.

        Hillary is not popular among indies and if she were to win the nominee , she'll have huge problem against McCain who is by far one of the most popular candidate among indies.

        by BlueStateLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM PDT

        •  True indies ...

          Are only a few percent of the electorate. Most so called indies are merely soft partisans. All the soft Republicans will go to McCain against anyone, since they especially like him. Soft Dems will vote for either Hillary or Obama.

          So only the handful of true indies is in play, and McCain probably plays better with them than Obama does anyway. The pool of low-intensity women who will come out for Hillary is bigger than the pool of true indies that Obama can snatch from McCain.

          Tactically it will be all about throwing McCain off his rhythm, the same way she has with Obama.

          by al Fubar on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:08:15 PM PDT

          •  Naw

            I seriously doubt Hillary will bring out any new voters to the fold...I strongly believe she would have done soo already if this was the case.

            Exit polls have clearly shown that all the new voters broke in Obama's favor instead of Hillary and this means there werent this surge of new women who dont vote , coming out for Clinton.

            Obama is the one who's bringing in those new voters , not Hillary.

            Again , she's not showing any appeal outside of the democratic base...Women who supports her are rank-and file...Women who dont bother voting probably dont give a fuck about Hillary...Hillary is not a loved figured outside of the democratic primary anyway.

            Polls have suggested Obama beats Hillary among independent/republican-women , so this tells you a lot right there.

            Mnay women feels she's a power hungry bitch who stayed with her cheating spouse because of power...The only reason she has a strong shot at the presidency is because her name is "clinton"....If she was not , she would not be here.

            Anyway , i seriously doubt this huge block of women who dont vote will all of a sudden come out for Hillary..If this was the case , they'd done so already.

            by BlueStateLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:28:22 PM PDT

  •  Unless Thompson endorses

    McCain, I will go out on a limb and predict Huckabee wins FL.  The conservatives down there are concentrated in the northern part of the state, and that's Jeebus country...

    by jarhead5536 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:28:56 PM PDT

    •  Romney

      I saw somewhere that with Thompson out, Romney has taken the lead in FL.  Please let it be Romney!!!!

      by chewie333 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:18:59 PM PDT

  •  He Can Be Beaten--Just Less Likely w/HRC

    He won't wear well in a long campaign, would be the oldest President ever elected in a change year, and is a Warmonger, among other problems.

    In a year when the electorate is desperate for Change, Obama would offer a striking--and uplifting--contrast.  He'd murderize him!!!

    by serrano on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:32:02 PM PDT

  •  This diary proceeds from the false assumption

    that Obama won't be shit upon by the full force of the GOP slime-bots. Do the misty-eyed mooncalves studiously licking Obama's feet remember the distinguished, honorable war-hero who was our standard bearer last time out...because my recollection is that 51% of Americans thought he was a pandering, wishy-washy, spoiled coward who was too full of "book-learnin'". The only reason more people don't hate Obama is because he hasn't had one shot -- NOT ONE -- fired at him from the right....YET.

    You groupies are in for a hard fall (and by that I mean crash to earth AND autumn) if you don't wake up and smell the bong-water. You should still vote for the guy if you like his style and politics, but don't be an idiot and think he's bulletproof, I guarantee his negatives will be every bit as high as hers come November.

    by PBJ Diddy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:59:54 PM PDT

•  McCain is their best shot.

  period.

  He can conceivably beat any of our candidates.

  by Salo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:08:36 PM PDT

  •  Nevertheless

    I think Hillary is the worst candidate to send up agianst him.

    by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:09:59 PM PDT

    •  Ah, Electability!!!

      Our most useful argument over the course of the last 28 years!!!! Forgive me for sneezing on my own vomit, but the only Democrat to win a nationwide election in the last lifetime was a draft-dodging, skirt-chasing, hillbilly lightweight (co-incidentally named "Clinton") who rated about a .5 on the electability scale -- WAY below yer Mssrs. Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. So, if the best you got is "electable" or non, I think you're shootin' blanks.

      by PBJ Diddy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:04:18 PM PDT

  •  I think McCain will be toast in the general

    In a change election, being the stay the course candidate will be bad for him.   And, in general, during change elections, the older candidate takes it on the chin, big time.   McCain looks and sounds like Cranky Grandpa Duck out on the campaign trail and that will get old by the end of the year.

    by kamosa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:12:43 PM PDT

    •  Is Hillary really all that viable as a change

      course candidate?  Notice in the debate, when asked she said she would "withdraw troops", not all troops.  I don't see her as enough of a contrast with McCain to make up for the structural problems in a head to head match up with McCain.

      by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:15:29 PM PDT

      •  Clinton economic policy will be a big plus

        We need to face facts that Iraq won't be the issue that drives this campaign.   In the end the recession will be the issue that drives people.  It's been in every exit poll this year and I don't see the events of the past weeks pointing any other direction.

        Having the nice sunny Clinton years to point back to and say, I can make that happen again will be a big plus for Clinton.  

        by kamosa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:17:40 PM PDT

        •  Possibly. But it would have to be a pretty

          painful recession, I think.  The math probably would support any democrat in a bad enough recession.  

          by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:20:42 PM PDT

          •  The number one issue in exit polling is economy

            The fear is already here.  Why do you think Bush is jumping up and down this week?  He see's the polls and is trying to keep this from becoming the issue that kills the Republican party.

            by kamosa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:24:31 PM PDT

        •  She also has credibility on health care

          and education issues that he will not.

          by jarhead5536 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:24:03 PM PDT

  •  Yes, he could, but

    will the Christian conservatives vote for him in the primaries?  They are the largest and most reliable bloc of the party, and he is pretty much unacceptable to them...

    by jarhead5536 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:21:30 PM PDT

    •  If they think they could lose to

      HRC or Obama in the general they might hold their noses.

      by Bartimaeus Blue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:45:22 PM PDT

  •  Funny thing is, GOP establishment dislikes him

    The Wingnut talking heads just won't stop trashing him, and some have labeled him with the "worst of conservative insults": a Democrat-Lite.

    Not sure if this is good or bad, or a little of both. Good, because every word of theirs helps de-energize their base if he gets the nomination. Bad, because the reasons the far rights dislike him are things that appeal to moderates.

    by watch out for snakes on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:48:36 PM PDT

  •  Hill's numbers

    can only go down against McCain, Obama's can only go up!!!

    by chewie333 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:20:08 PM PDT

    •  Or

      both their numbers go down.

      Same was said for Dean and Kerry respectively.

      by nrafter530 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:21:46 PM PDT

•  Basic math:

  Pretty much all current Clinton supporters would vote for Obama in the fall.

  Not all Obama supporters would vote for Clinton in the fall.

  Now, in blogland, that's a point in Hillary's favor, since that means she has purer supporters.

  by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:10:09 PM PDT

  •  Furthermore she inflates their base

    deflates ours, loses indies.  

    This is really bad.

    by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:11:40 PM PDT

    •  Running a Restoration campaign in a change

      election is criminally stupid.

      Then again, Democrats have never been particularly bright about choosing their nominees--Mondale over Hart, Dukakis over anyone with a pulse, etc etc.

      by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM PDT

    •  No, she pumps up our base ...

      Look at the women who came out of the woodwork in NH. Look how she rolled over Obama's organizational advantage in Nevada.

      by al Fubar on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:29:57 PM PDT

      •  Are you kidding?

        by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:42:51 PM PDT

      •  rolled over?

        the hyperbole among some HRC backers is getting tiresome, and may be a tell of the same underlying insecurity that triggered the shift to the negative on the part of HRC's campaign since Iowa

        tell me, how is that one who is "rolled over" in NV is one who gets more national delegates, mere weeks after being down serious double digits in the polls???

        just sayin'

        by penncove on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:56:20 PM PDT

    •  I wish Hillary and her supporters

      would understand this.  Their desire for power may cost the Dems this election.

      by chewie333 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:21:51 PM PDT

  •  In reality, it's a veiled threat from Obama.

    And a nasty one, at that.

    by BoringDem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:14:19 PM PDT

    •  How so?

      All of those Republicans and Independents who chose him over McCain aren't going to vote for Hillary.  

      by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:15:35 PM PDT

      •  Then he'd better be prepared to campaign

        hard for Hillary to make sure they do, instead of writing them off, giving this as a reason to vote Obama.

        by BoringDem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:17:15 PM PDT

        •  Pffft.

          If he doesn't get the nomination, he's under no obligation to go the extra mile for her.

          He can deliver Illinois, and that's what he would owe her.  Just like if he gets the nomination, I would expect Clinton to deliver New York but otherwise keep a low profile.

          by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:19:52 PM PDT

          •  If he doesn't get the nomination Obama will

            be bound to campaign for Hillary about as much as Hillary campaigned for Gore and Kerry...

            by Lepanto on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:29:04 PM PDT

            •  Yep.

              Or as much as Bradley campaigned for Gore.

              by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:37:59 PM PDT

            •  Exactly

              I do not expect Obama to break her neck for Hillary , specially after the racial smears and drug related stuff that was organized by the Clinton through surrogates.

              The Clinton did not go all out for Kerry or Gore , so they shouldnt expect Obama to do the same.

              They were report that the Clinton were privatly rooting for a Kerry lost so that it could set Hillary up to run as soon as possible.

              I had also heard stories about Carville , one of Clinton operative , passing information about the Kerry campaign , to his wife who is a GOP operative...His wife , passed the infos to Cheney who then passed it to Bush/Rove.

              by BlueStateLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:45:18 PM PDT

              •  It might even be that the Clintons wanted both

                Gore and Kerry to lose, so that Hillary could have her turn.

                by Lepanto on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:47:14 PM PDT

          •  Let me make one thing clear

            I'm voting for Barack Obama in this election.  But I swear on all that is holy that if he loses the nomination and does not work his ass off to get a Democrat in office, he will have no future in this party.  None.  Zero.  Zip.  

            He will be the Ralph Nader of 2008 and he knows it.  Obama is not that stupid.  He will do what is right and support the nominee.

            by stephdray on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:50:45 PM PDT

    •  Yeah the Clinton people don't know anything about

      nastiness.

      by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:16:16 PM PDT

  •  So, we should give the crybabies the nomination

    I will never support any math that says something like... "elect me or I'll take my ball and go home".  Its a loser position and anyone that stands with that opinion has no respect from any one serious about the election.

    by kamosa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:14:34 PM PDT

    •  He'll support the nominee.

      His supporters will be much more varied in their responses.

      That's because he's attracting people other than party loyalists.

      by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:16:11 PM PDT

      •  Because he cares about 2012 and 2016

        This man lusts for the presidency, it's been obvious for years.

        He'll do it. And not out of altruism.

        by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:30:57 PM PDT

        •  Since kindergarten.

          Also, this is winner take all.  If the DLC/Clinton wing takes over the party, they will choose the successor to the throne.  And it won't be Obama.

          by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:43:15 PM PDT

    •  No one cares

      I'm just asking if my logic is wrong here.

      by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:17:06 PM PDT

      •  The people supporting Obama

        I say this with all the inner pain that a former Dean supporter can bear.

        The people Obama is courting have not turned out for any election in the past in numbers that changed the out come.  The same fair weather friend nature that leads them to proclaim they will not support the nominee, will in the end, lead them to dump Obama.   One tack to the middle in the general, which all candidates do, and they will be off for the latest liberal fantasy candidate that is running on some fringe ticket on the left.  

        See Al (Mr. Green) Gore and the 2000 election for an example of how catering to them works out when you have to try to win a general national election.

        I'll take my chances with the true democrats that will work for the ticket no matter who wins the nomination.

        by kamosa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:22:29 PM PDT

        •  Spot on.

          I have been thinking this for some time now, that Obama's support is almost a cult of personality.  If BO should fall to Hillary later this spring, his vaunted party building and awakening of the youth vote will evaporate.  So much for the good of the party...

          by jarhead5536 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:36:14 PM PDT

          •  And if the party nominates Obama, they

            become Democrats and part of a coalition for enacting his legislative agenda.

            It's the folks voting for Clinton that aren't showing a lot of concern for the future of the party.

            I mean, the Democratic party as a whole withered and died on the vine during the Clinton years.

            by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:47:51 PM PDT

            •  And the first time

              Obama says something to win votes south of the Mason/Dixon line, they will be Greens.  Being a fair weather supporter in this age of 24 hour coverage and complicated campaigns means that there will always be something imperfect about your candidate.  The Obama crowd will abandon him and go tilt at windmills with some other fringe candidate as soon as he leans right.

              by kamosa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:50:43 PM PDT

              •  Funny how I keep hearing Clinton folks

                referring to Obama's supporters as fair weather supporters.

                Folks, people know Obama's a liberal.  

                by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:51:44 PM PDT

                •  Obama's a liberal? First I learn he's black, and

                  now this? Man, this is all getting way too confusing...

                  /snark, people, just snark.

                  by darthstar on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:53:33 PM PDT

                •  Obama's supporters

                  Are the only ones saying they will jump ship if they don't win.  I call that fair weather.  You like the party as long as you get to be the star, but screw you all if I don't win.

                  Fair weather indeed.  

                  by kamosa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:55:33 PM PDT

            •  Whither then

              the threats from Obama supporters to not vote for her in the GE?  I have yet to see any Clintonista make the same threat about him, although I came very close last fall during the you-know-what travesty.  If my candidate goes down, I will be crushed, but I certainly won't take my marbles and storm off in a tantrum, which seems to be a popular option around here...

              by jarhead5536 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:53:07 PM PDT

      •  Your logic is wrong.

        and you are waaaay premature in trying to assess what the dynamics will be in November.

        One major event in Iraq - or elsewhere - and this whole campaign reboots! And who knows, maybe Edwards ends up on top!

        by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:32:24 PM PDT

        •  You can say that about any thing

          These particular dynamics have been in place for a long time.  I think you have to at least confront them since we are literally on the verge of nominating her.

          by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:38:26 PM PDT

          •  So we say, like the economists do,

            "If there are no other significant variables - and we all know that there are and always will be - this is the way it shakes out."

            Sort of makes your effort seem ... academic, doesn't it?

            by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:42:21 PM PDT

            •  What do mean?

              by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:43:53 PM PDT

              •  Economists depend on "If nothing changes ..."

                but things always change.

                by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:52:52 PM PDT

  •  Aw, 99% of Obama folks here will come around

    The blackmail argument fizzles here, geek. Nobody believes the 'bring us together' crowd is going to carry out its threats.

    Damn nice try,though!

    by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:29:17 PM PDT

    •  Tell it to the Bradley crowd who either sat out

      the election or voted for Nadar.  And Gore did a hell of a lot less to alienate them that Hillary is doing to alienate the Obama coalition.

      by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:33:35 PM PDT

    •  Dkos is not representative.

      Moreover, will most Obama folk here grudgingly vote for Clinton out of party loyalty?

      Yes.

      Will they do anything more than that?  Nope.

      by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:45:53 PM PDT

      •  I think you sell them short.

        You will take that road, at best, I am certain, but I think you will find many of your current 'compadres' will bail on you, probably right after 5 Feb....

        by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM PDT

        •  Okay, Mr. Penn. eom

          by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:52:10 PM PDT

          •  I'm lost. What did Sean Penn do? Or Wm Penn?

            I am not from Pennsylvania, but I did enjoy The Falcon and the Snowman.

            I do enjoy Penn & Teller's Bullshit on Showtime - is that the reference?

            Help me out, here ...

            by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:07:02 PM PDT

            •  You're off the mark. eom

              by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:09:07 PM PDT

    •  A large number of voters

      voting for Obama in the primary and caucuses are voting for Obama -- not just for "generic Democratic candidate".

      Party loyalty may be stronger on Democratic leaning blogs, but I wouldn't take your claims to the bank.  A significant number of the Obama folks are cross-over voters who broke for the Democrats in 2006.  These voters broke for the Democratic party because the Democratic party offered up real alternatives for the first time in a generation.  

      The habit though hasn't been established beyond one, and perhaps two election cycles.  With 47% of voters saying they will vote AGAINST HRC, and only 30% of voters saying they will vote FOR her right now, it means that Clinton is walking a really, really thin line.  This is even excluding the question of whether she can rally base support behind her candidacy if she wins the party nomination.  Definitely not a given.

      Rasmussen Reports

      by NotGeorgeWill on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:36:18 PM PDT

      •  Tell me again: How many states have voted?

        Actually, it is my suspicion that Sen Obama has crested and Sen Clinton's floor has been defined.

        That's in Clinton's favor.

        by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:42:15 PM PDT

        •  One Northeastern state, one Western state,

          one midwestern state, one south eastern state.  Each offers a pretty nice snap shot of what the regional vote is likely to be.

          Still no evidence of strong independent support for a Clinton candidacy.  Her strength is with reliable party line voters (and I would guesstimate likely with some cross over support from older, highly educated GOP women).  Still no evidence though of expanding beyond the 1988 Democratic base.

          by NotGeorgeWill on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:12:36 PM PDT

•  McCain

  beats Hillary because of the obvious reasons you explained

  He beats Obama because of his experience. A fresh new face is great and wonderful, but we're talking about the leader of the free world here, Indepdendents will go with the more experienced candidate, no disrespect to Obama

  Edwards loses Northern Independents and still loses the South, although not by much. They're will be a lot of states he gets 48% of the vote in, but he won't win that many more states than Kerry did. He puts states like NJ, CT, NH, ME, OR, WA in play.

  All candidates are underdogs against McCain.

  by nrafter530 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:10:46 PM PDT

  •  McCain is actually quite vulnerable...

    He is detested by the Rethug base and unpopular with the GOP establishment. Yeah, he has experience and it's epitomized by the notorious Bush "hug" photo. The Dem 527 outfits will have a field day producing attack ads tying McCain tightly to the Bush albatross.

    McCain is a lot older now and looks it: from the side he often looks stooped over. He's had visible skin cancers. I suspect most people will be looking for someone younger and more vigorous.

    The poor economy is liable to loom large and folks are going to blame Bush as they should and transfer that blame to his sycophant, McCain. Also, McCain's recent clueless comment, "economics is not something I’ve understood", is another attack ad in the making.

    MCain has a volatile temper simmering beneath the surface - anyone think it would be beneath the Clinton machine or even Obama and Edwards to goad him into losing it in public?

    Then there's his comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years and despicable singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Those are bound to turn off the huge number of voters who have tired of endless war against anyone we might disagree with.

    finally, McCain is no moderate: he has consistently been anti-choice and although he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, that's only because he believes it should be up to the states and he even cut ads supporting the unsuccessful 2006 gay marriage ban initiative in his home state of Arizona.

    by Ian S on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:48:30 PM PDT

    •  Don't underestimate

      the number of Americans who will vote for him because "he's the cute old guy who got smeared by Bush and was right about the Iraq surge thing"

      If we've learned anything, it's that Americans don't vote on issues, they vote on appearances and impressions.

      by nrafter530 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:52:02 PM PDT

      •  That's why the "Hug" image

        will be so effective a tool. BTW, it's not at all clear the escalation is doing anything else but provide a brief respite from the violence. There has been no real political progress - even the de-Baathification law looks like a fraud. The escalation will be ending this year so we'll get a real taste of the permanence of the surge's effects by November.

        If voters really want change, there is no viable rethug promising anything different from we've suffered under for seven years. And with the economy heading south and the GOP supporting endless bloody and treasury-draining war, ANY of the three Dems will look like agents of change by comparison. Even Hillary.

        by Ian S on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:06:36 PM PDT

        •  Again

          betting our victory on Iraq turning into a disaster again is not going to work.

          We all thought the surge would amount to nothing. It amounted to something. Nothing spectacular, but a majority think it's "working"

          If nothing changes, even if there is no political progress. If the chaos doesn't erupt before November, we lose.

          And don't expect Congress to rush to pull troops out before hand. Bush will find a way to keep the surge going till the election and Congress can't stop him without cutting funds, which is going to have the same effect as the surge "working" on us.

          We're up against a wall.

          by nrafter530 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:09:35 PM PDT

          •  Iraq doesn't have to turn into a disaster

            again. The American people are sick and tired of it and I don't think they're are going to support the endless war that McCain enthuses over.

            by Ian S on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:18:42 PM PDT

    •  Dont think so

      I doubt anyone will be able to "re-brand" John McCain.

      The public have a strong opinion about McCain that is deeply imbeded in their mind and i seriously doubt Clinton would easily be able to brand him on a negative term that would benefit her.

      A new guy that starts with a clean slate can easily be branded in a negative term since people are still getting to know the new face...This is why Obama is more vulnerable to this

      by BlueStateLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:00:51 PM PDT

      •  Re-branded from what?

        He's already "branded" himself as the one to carry on the Bush policies and he's already "branded" himself as economically clueless. I'm quite happy with those McCain "brands" in this election year and hope the Dems run with them in their ads if McCain is the nominee.

        by Ian S on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:15:01 PM PDT

        •  Well

          You may feel so , but the general elecxtorate does not.

          Just because you feel McCain had a terrible brand does not mean everyone thinks so.

          You're a Clinton supporter and you're never understand the respect the public have for McCain.

          McCain is a war hero and Hillary got where she's now on the back of her husband...Who do you think will get the most respect out of the 2??

          McCain voted for the war , and eventhough it grew unpopular , he stayed with his previosu thinking about the war unlike Clinton who flip-flopped as soon as things started looking ugly....

          The public may not agree with McCain on some issue , but they respect him because he has integrity and he's not a flip flopper who will flip flop based who whats good for their political career.

          If things continues to stay quiet in Iraq , this will obviously help McCain , not Clinton.

          Even if things flares up a bit , i just think McCain could neutralize any attacks because of the fact she was a huge supporter of the war.

          by BlueStateLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:35:07 PM PDT

          •  You're banking on a McCain brand

            from eight years ago and a lot of water's passed under the bridge since then. McCain has reinvented himself as the Bush heir over the past few years. Any minor differences such as his bleating tsk, tsk's over torture weren't backed up by any real action against the Bush policies. He has in effect supported Bush in virtually every way.

            As for endless war, McCain has embraced that with his foolish "100 years" Iraq commitment and once that is made clear to the American people, they may be less charitable towards the cranky old codger. While Dems shouldn't and won't go after him with Swiftboat smears of his war record, I doubt it will be hard to keep the image of admired old war hero while simultaneously establishing serious doubt that that this old Bush-supporting war horse is the appropriate choice for cleaning up the Bush mess.

            And FWIW, I support Edwards not Hillary. However, unlike so many on this site, I don't hate her and would support her if she's the nominee. I also like Obama but for now have concluded that Edwards' fiery populism is the best approach for taking on the Rethugs.

            by Ian S on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:13:25 PM PDT

•  With all due respect

  I've been through numerous election cycles now where 6 months prior to the election the Democrat had a 10-20 point lead over the Republican.

  By the time of the election that gap had narrowed.

  I am not convinced that we cannot do the same to a Republican, especially one as old and cranky as John McCain.  By the time of the election people will understand that if they elect McCain, Bush's advisors aren't going away.  What's the point of electing a man who has nothing but incompetent boobs working for him?

  by The Other Steve on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:11:04 PM PDT

  •  Well, we have to make sure we have someone

    who can take advantage of that narrowing.

    Clinton is just a horrible matchup against McCain.  Her strength--experience--contrasts poorly with him while his strength--the Straight Talk Express--is devastating when contrasted to her.

    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:13:12 PM PDT

    •  Until campaign time ...

      She will get inside his head the same way she is getting inside Obama's. Once he gets needled he is over, because Angry John McCain is not going to fly on the campaign trail.

      by al Fubar on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:33:22 PM PDT

      •  I've Heard that Hillary Has a Temper Too nt

        by Empower Ink on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:01:51 PM PDT

        •  She can control hers

          McCain let's his out in the open.

          Nobody remembers the bizarre Daily Show appearance where he said he was going to kick Jon Stewarts dog?

          by The Other Steve on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:44:00 AM PDT

•  Pretty simple

  Clinton can't be McCain.  And I'm not so sure she can beat Romney either.  Huckabee is the only one she might be able to beat.  And I'm not too sure about that.

  by Paleo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:11:55 PM PDT

  •  bull

    I don`t support Hillary but anyone who says she can`t beat McCain is full of it. No one knows what will happen between now and the election.
    My feeling is McCain will show his age and once people realize he is a warmonger he will lose support.
    Pray for Romney, his flip flopping has doomed him. Just think of the commercials they could run.People are fed up with the gop and when push comes to shove they will not put another one in.

    by JOEL1954 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:19:58 PM PDT

    •  You can't just insist on your point

      Back this up.  Where is my logic wrong here?  I don't see how one can't arrive at the conclusion that Obama is a better bet.

      by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:28:55 PM PDT

      •  "Poland is not under Soviet domination"

        Did you predict that in 1976?

        Tis many a slip twixt cup and lip, my friend.

        Let's let this play out and then we'll see.

        by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:34:47 PM PDT

        •  Fair enough, fair enough

          by Descrates on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:45:02 PM PDT

  •  She can beat Romney.

    But I don't see her beating McCain unless Iraq flares up again - which is likely.  Name one 2004 Bush state where Hillary beats McCain?  None.  McCain can compete in Wisconsin, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Washington and several other states.

    by RichM on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:20:59 PM PDT

    •  First two yes

      NJ and Washington no.  Minnesota is another state likely to flip to McCain in such a matchup.

      by Paleo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:24:20 PM PDT

      •  I think he has a shot in NJ...

        But you may be right about Washington.  Minn. definitely.  Oh and PA.

        by RichM on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:25:10 PM PDT

    •  Massachusetts

      apparently

      by nrafter530 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:56:50 PM PDT

      •  Yup...

        Saw that.  Let's face it.  If she can't carry Mass., she is toast.

        by RichM on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:03:49 PM PDT

        •  No she carries Massachusetts

          Obama doesn't

          by nrafter530 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:05:14 PM PDT

•  McCain doesn't even have enough JoeMentum to win

  the GOP primaries.

  by BoringDem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:13:40 PM PDT

  •  I still think he wins

    the nomination even if he loses Florida because Rudy is done and all the Kill-all-Arabs, eternal war votes will go to McCain. And McCain also gets the votes of moderates who for some bizarre reason think he is middle of the road.

    by global citizen on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:17:26 PM PDT

    •  But he is only barely winning ...

      Against a wretched field, and only winning at all because of indies. If Mitt tops him in FL and pulls away his mo, McCain struggles in a lot of GOP only primaries on Feb 5.

      The point is, if he's such a super candidate in the general, how come he can barely win GOP primaries against the likes of the Mittster, Huck, et al.?

      by al Fubar on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:37:05 PM PDT

      •  Because

        -- I hope, I hope -- the Republicans have something of a death wish not unlike another party I know. I should also say I think we can beat him, but we can beat Romney more easily.

        by global citizen on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:42:54 PM PDT

•  And

  And the California SUSA Poll shows him doing worse than Hillary against McCain.

  Much worse...

  Boy you all really love bouncing around this spin...

  Looks like Hillary supporters are goingto McCain, not the other way around.

  Blinded by the light...

  by GregNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:17:35 PM PDT

  •  California?

    Give it up, pal.

    by JR Hawks on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:52:33 PM PDT

    •  Nope

      Not a chance, buddy.

      But enjoy your time with your head in the sand...

      by GregNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:50:16 PM PDT

•  One thing might energize them

  It's the opposite end of what energizes the Democrats, but I listen to a bunch of wingnuts on some sports boards and nothing gets their knickers in a twist much more than "Socialized Medicine" (okay, gay marriage and abortion, too).  They are utterly convinced that our health care proposals are the most evil things and would usher in creeping socialism and Hillary Clinton is the poster girl for "Socialized Medicine" and "Socialism" for them.  They think the only way to reduce health costs is by reining in "trial lawyers" and such.  And there are many tried and true tactics they can use on this issue.  

  Yeah, Hillary would energize a lot of them more than the others, but whoever is up there needs to be ready to fight the "socialized medicine" idea effectively.  

  by SlowNomad on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM PDT

•  Obama will be attacked as inexperienced