A Short Diary about Electability

When your entire Electability argument is based on the assumption that a significant number of Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton in the General Election....

How can you blame even one Clinton supporter for not voting for Obama in the General Election without sounding hypocritical?

(A lot of people are going to complain that this diary is too short to merit a real diary.   Know this.  This diary is the refinement of 1,000s of words that have been written back and forth on this blog.  I could make it longer if I absolutely had to, but the main point remains, I see no reason to give anyone a reason to allow themselves to get distracted from the main point.)

•  My entire electability argument is not based on

  that, not at all

  by erin r on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:48:22 AM PDT

  •  This election is not about your

    argument, but about We the People.

    by Owllwoman on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:53:30 AM PDT

    •  but the diary is about her argument

      Was that comment really necessary?

      by JR on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:39:28 AM PDT

•  "United we stand,divided we fall."

  It is as simple and as complicated as that.

  by Owllwoman on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:51:08 AM PDT

•  Not a Diary Pls delete

  by ParaHammer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:53:58 AM PDT

  •  Do I really need to add more to it

    I can if you want.

    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:55:14 AM PDT

    •  I think it's fine just the way it is.

      Wrong but fine.  Concise.  My answer below.

      by Dumbo on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:17:24 AM PDT

    •  You Got To The Crux...

      ...of the matter. Either Clinton or Obama will be light years better than McCain.

      And if someone says not that much difference between McCain and........well they have their head up their ass.

      by frandor55 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:24:06 AM PDT

    •  yeah..please add more..

      by louisprandtl on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:25:42 PM PDT

•  In my case

  electability is a combination of factors.  

  Obama starts with less negatives than Clinton, so has more room to absorb negative ads run against him.  He has also shown an ability to bring new voters into the mix, where Clinton relies on the status quo.  He also shows a new face, where Clinton and McCain are both figures of the past.

  The question to me is which one will lose more of the "base" in their quest to gather more of the center.  In that case, Obama comes out best.  He also has coat-tails, as shown in the taking of Hastert's old seat.  Clinton has no coat-tails.

  by Grannus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:58:45 AM PDT

  •  Yes

    He's new.  New means less negatives at first.

    He's getting some though now, isn't he?

    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:00:32 AM PDT

    •  Yes he is.

      Compliments of another Democrat.  Have his negatives started to soar?  Some may call it vetting.  In that case, why is Clinton not open to vetting?  Eight years of amassing money and making deals.  Presidential Library donor list.  Tax returns.  Why is there so much secrecy?  I don't like buying a pig in a poke.  At least with Obama, what you see is what you get.  With Clinton, what you don't see may cost us the election.

      by Grannus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:18:02 AM PDT

•  Not really

  I have seen that argument in a few diaries. But the GENERAL reason for Obama's electability is that he is more likely to attract Independents and Republicans, rather than Hillary who only appeals to Democrats.

  In fact, that has been his argument since the beginning.

  by jenontheshore on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:58:51 AM PDT

  •  Independents and Republicans

    Who wouldn't vote for Clinton, right?

    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:02:05 AM PDT

    •  Who may not vote for him either?

      That is the big question.

      by Owllwoman on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:05:36 AM PDT

      •  For the purposes of this Diary

        I'm willing to give them a "yes" answer to that question, even though it's only a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

        by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:07:21 AM PDT

        •  if everything is hypothetical then the Edgar08 is

          hypothetical..If Edgar08 exists then Edgar08=Edgar08.
          Let's setup the hypothesis test:
          H0: Edgar08 = Edgar08;
          Alternative Hypothesis: Edgar08 not equal to Edgar08;
          H1: Edgar08 > Edgar08
             Edgar08 < Edgar08

          Alpha = 1;
          1-alpha=0;
          Test Statistic Z > 0 where n > 0;

          Hypothesis rejected.
          Therefore, Edgar08 is hypothetical thus does not exists..

          by louisprandtl on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:48:55 PM PDT

      •  Well, if it's "will not" versus "may not"

        it's pretty easy to see which one has the better shot. A chance beats no chance, right?

        by Wit Whither Wilt on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:10:59 AM PDT

    •  Yeah.

      Sad, but true.

      Look at the poll numbers.

      Hillary's negatives with Republicans are huge, and they're big with Independents.  Her electoral base is... Democrats only.

      Which is an advantage in a primary race.

      But in a general election... those negatives would hurt her.  Long history says that it's very hard, and a slow process, to erode negatives.  She's done that a little... and the idea that she'll make those evaporate by November is just magical thinking.  It's "then a miracle happens" thinking.

      In race after race, we've seen polls that show that Obama has a draw for Independents and Republicans that she doesn't.

      So... yeah.

      by ogre on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:37:59 AM PDT

•  I disagree with the premise

  When your entire Electability argument is based on the assumption that a significant number of Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton in the General Election....

  I don't know who is saying that is the "ENTIRE" argument.

  by turneresq on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:58:53 AM PDT

  •  Is it Part Of

    Then?

    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:01:10 AM PDT

    •  That I would certainly concede

      Since Obama has said as much. But I had to dispute that it is the entire argument. That just isn't true.

      by turneresq on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:15:29 AM PDT

•  I voted Hillary but will be happy to vote obama

  As someone who voted for Hillary in the primary, I would be happy to vote for Obama if he ends up with the nomination.  This assumption that the millions like me who voted for Hillary will somehow get lobotomized and vote for McCain is ridiculous.  I agree with the diary, that argument is a non-starter.

  by estebel on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:03:44 AM PDT

•  what the hell are you talking about?

  surely you've seen the statistic, that 25% of clinton supporters wouldn't vote for obama, but only 10% of obama supporters wouldn't vote for clinton

  surely you can see that clinton's strategy has degenerated into "obama is unelectable, therefore the superdelegates have to overturn the pledged delegates and vote for me", and her encouraging of supporters to take donations back from the DNC if it doesn't bend the rules in favor of her

  this diary isn't too short to merit a real diary, it's too damn stupid.

  by Jack McMillin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:07:36 AM PDT

•  

  by kestrel9000 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:08:05 AM PDT

•  Hi Edgar.

  I am sorry for how it has played out.  But I have the cure for what ails you.

  

  Drink up.  You'll feel better, I promise.

  by Marcus Tullius on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:10:08 AM PDT

  •  A much more boring graphic

    

    by JedReport on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:13:43 AM PDT

•  25% of Clinton voters will not vote for Obama

  http://www.jedreport.com/...

     *  If Obama wins the nomination, Clinton supporters will vote for him 65-25
     * If Clinton wins the nomination, Obama supporters will vote for her 86-10
     * White Dems will vote for Obama 75-20, Clinton 87-10
     * Black Dems will vote for Obama 96-1, Clinton 93-1
     * Men will vote for Obama 84-14, Clinton 84-12
     * Women will vote for Obama 79-15, Clinton 93-5
     * 65+ will vote for Obama 68-22, Clinton 84-12
     * Under $30k will vote for Obama 73-17, Clinton 90-7

  by JedReport on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:12:40 AM PDT

  •  I'm happy with 65-25

    Considering Obama's campaign has been one giant effort to reach out to all demographics, while Hillary's campaign is going to need every bit of that 86% from Obama voters when her strategy is confined to just a narrow band of states that are confidently blue in November.

    by obligatorydiscord on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:36:23 AM PDT

  •  This is exactly what I fear...

    by dvogel001 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:18:58 AM PDT

•  When you're entire argument is a strawman,

  how can you blame even one of us for not accepting your premise?

  by GOTV on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:12:50 AM PDT

  •  Erratum:

    When your entire argument [...]

    by GOTV on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:14:47 AM PDT

  •  It's not a straw man,

    it's just a phenomenon that occurs much more at the Great Orange Satan than in the real world.

    by Marcus Tullius on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:14:55 AM PDT

    •  Oh, please

      Not even people posting here base their "entire electability argument . . . on the assumption that a significant number of Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton in the [g]eneral [e]lection."

      by GOTV on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:22:01 AM PDT

      •  No, but

        How can you blame even one Clinton supporter for not voting for Obama in the General Election without sounding hypocritical?

        I've seen plenty of folks post that they'd sit out or vote McCain or Nader in the GE, should Senator Clinton win the nomination.

        I happen to believe that either of them would beat McCain, but Senator Clinton is running a poor campaign, and would probably not have as positive an impact on downticket races as Senator Obama.

        Anyway, I wasn't trying to squabble, just chipping in a couple of cents.

        by Marcus Tullius on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:28:01 AM PDT

        •  No problem, and

          I've seen that, too: the so-called purists who think it below them to stoop to vote for Clinton, but that's not the same as proclaiming there's a significant number of people who are basing their entire electability argument on the assumption that a significant number of Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton in the general election.  

          I think she's running a horrifically disasterous campaign, one that plays right into Obama's message of hope and unity, by placing herself in the role of same-as-usual Beltway insider who will divide the party if it means she stands on top of the heap.  I support Obama by a wide margin, but will gladly vote for Clinton should she somehow manage to win the nomination.

          Sorry if I seemed rude; I must need more coffee.

          by GOTV on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:48:09 AM PDT

•  Well, as one of the people who said

  he wouldn't vote for Hillary under any circumstances last year (and I remember getting into it with Edgar about it back then)...  I'll address this.

  My reasons for not being able to vote for Hillary never had anything to do with electability.  It had to do with non-negotiable moral issues.  For me, I have two: Torture and Iraq.  Later, when Kyl-Lieberman happened, I had three: torture, Iraq, and Iran.  So that was my premise, it has not changed much, and I have always tried to stay clear to myself on that.  A lot of other reasons have been brought up, since then, to make Hillary seem more despicable or less-supportable in the general, mainly her negative campaigning tactics.  But those are more forgivable to me.

  The only time that Obama's electability became an issue for me was in late December, when I finally caved in on my support for Edwards (who I gave money to) and got behind Obama in my posting because I didn't think Edwards had the ground game, money, or numbers to beat Hillary.  

  Democrats winning in November is always something I have just taken for granted because the Republicans are so fucked up.

  It seems to me that it is the Hillary-supporters that have been more obsessed with the electability issue, hammering us over the head with that for more than a year now whenever we brought up our enormous dissatisfaction with Hillary on the issues.  The fact that she was the inevitable nominee was thrown in our faces, usually with some kind of loyalty oath demand that we state whether we would vote for Hillary in the general.  I guess the point of asking that was to discredit people who said they wouldn't vote for her, so we could be more easily ignored as being crazy disloyal radicals, objects of contempt.

  So, no, I don't begrudge any Hillary-supporters that hate Obama so much they won't vote for him, but I have to be baffled to it, to some extent, because there seems to be less compelling reason for it other than driven loyalty for their candidate and resentment at her loss, as well as a general mythos they have developed amongst themselves as to his shortcomings.  

  It's also hard for me to understand hating a candidate for his "lack of experience" (the slur most often thrown at Obama by Hillary) as if it's a great moral shortcoming worthy of such contempt.  I acknowledge that experience is important.  I just don't see it as a driving issue when there are more important ones.

  Hope I have been clear.  And I hope I have been fair in explaining this in a plain, non-confrontational manner.

  Really, this should be such a bad year for Republicans, the only way either candidate can lose would be mutually-assured-destruction by the Democratic candidates in the primary.  I really think, at this point, a Hillary win via superdelegates WOULD taint her so badly she wouldn't be able to win the nomination.  It remains to be seen whether the racial-ization of the election since South Carolina can taint Obama enough to make him weaker in the general if/when he gets the nomination.  Either way, though, I don't want Hillary, regardless of electability.

  And I would never vote for McCain to spite Hillary.

  by Dumbo on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:35:31 AM PDT

  •  Well said.

    I don't agree with everything there, but that was very well put.

    by Marcus Tullius on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:37:44 AM PDT

•  straw man anybody?

  This diary does not even earn a serious response.

  by marcoto on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:42:58 AM PDT

•  That's an incredible misrepresentation

  The EXTREME majority of electability arguments that have been pro-Obama/anti-Clinton have hinged on potential support from independents and Republicans.  Given HRC's high negatives at the start of this race, whether or not she can create a winning coalition is certainly not an unreasonable question to be asking.

  The issue is that voters who would POTENTIALLY support Obama would CATEGORICALLY reject Clinton.  That's the issue at hand, not whether Obama's primary voters will back HRC as the nominee.

  by JR on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:45:01 AM PDT

•  The issue is, did one candidate breach an ethical

  line in the process of winning the nomination.

  That's it.  That's the whole thing.

  For me and many like me, values of fairness and equality are what led me to the Democratic Party.  Those values are non-negotiable.  It's why I have never voted Republican nor would I.

  My judgment about Hillary Clinton would be, did she fundamentally violate those values in the process of winning the nomination?

  If I believe Hillary Clinton was using or countenancing racial divisiveness in order to drive up fear about Obama, then she would have violated the basic values I hold dear.

  If Hillary Clinton goes to the convention with fewer pledged delegates, votes, etc. and gets unaccountable DNC state party vice-chairs to overturn the sum of all the contests, I would not find that in line with my values.  Legal and within the rules, but not in line with my values.

  Those are ethical issues for me.

  If you can say that Obama going to the convention with more pledged delegates, votes, etc. and going out of his way to run a good campaign wins the nomination - even if narrowly - and you choose not to vote for him, then that is not based on ethics, that is petulance and disappointment at legitimately, narrowly losing a long tough battle.

  Now, it is within your right to do that, to be such a small person.  Nobody disputes that.

  by PocketNines on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:45:28 AM PDT

•  If you actually believe ...

  as per the Jed Report, that Clinton can walk into the convention with fewer pledged delegates, walk out with the nomination and GET 93% OF THE BLACK VOTE then you are so far removed from reality, you have your head so far up your ass that you might as well be a visitor from another planet.

  by the biped on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:31:42 AM PDT

•  I think electability goes further than

  just your stated summary of who here on this blog believe that Clinton's behavior has so impacted their own ability to even be able hold their noses to vote for her, it goes to the general public watching what is happening and losing all motivation to come out to vote for her in the general.

  I cannot vote for someone as president who has stated that the republican candidate is more qualified than her Democratic opponent for the nomination.  Think about that, is that someone you think should be president?

  by nupstateny on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:53:09 AM PDT

•  Strawman argument

  I suppose some people are making that argument, but how many?

  I could be wrong, but I personally believe that most people who claim that they will not vote for a Democrat if their candidate is not the nominee are exaggerating. As an Obama supporter, I would not hesitate to freep a poll comparing Obama and Clinton, but as a Democrat I also would not hesitate to vote for Clinton if she were the nominee (giving money is another matter).

  A better metric of electability are the statewide head-to-head match up polls. By that metric it looks like both candidates are "electable", with a small to medium advantage to Obama.

  by HRs Kevin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:03:30 AM PDT

•  Odd, that's not my argument at all

  "Won't vote for..." is about the last, and weakest of arguments.

  In fact, I'm not blaming Clinton supporters for saying it--I'm roundly berating them.  I've already said that I will vote for the Democratic nominee.  Period.

  I expect you to do the same.

  And to stop making these silly claims that a diary like this boils down thousands of words that have been posted here.  "Electability" is a nonsense term that got waved around in '04.  It got us Kerry.  So if you want to talk about Hillary's "electability," have a good time.  I won't be listening.  

  I'm not voting on the basis of electability--which is the perception that OTHER people will, in the future, probably... maybe... more likely... we think... vote for X.  It's mental masturbation.  Kerry wasn't, apparently, electable.  But that's what he was sold as.

  So if you want to talk about electability, I have better things to do.

  I'm not interested.

  I'm voting for a candidate, not for electability.

  by ogre on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:26:57 AM PDT