Why take chances? The folly of Operation Chaos
Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:23:47 PM PDT
I've commented on this numerous times with regard to strategy for callers and canvassers in Indiana's open primary, and wanted to flesh out my thoughts more fully. I'd be preaching to the choir here if I were simply to extoll the virtues of Barack Obama to the latte-sipping, Birkenstock-wearing, Prius-driving liberal activist crowd, and I don't think we need another diary in that vein.
But what do we say outside of this bubble to our Republican family members, our independent friends, or those Republicans we meet who have little incentive to vote on the Republican ballot in a primary and who are considering dabbling in the Democratic race? To me, the most important question we should ask them is:
How would you feel if Hillary Clinton was inaugurated in January 2009?
Part of why the waters are muddy for superdelegates is the fact that both Obama and Clinton show strength along different paths to a Democratic presidency. Assuming Clinton could win the "big swing states" she has in the primaries gives her her path. Assuming Obama could carry many more of the midwest and mountain west swing states gives him his, even assuming he'd lose swing states he lost in the primaries.
The Limbaugh strategy is based on the assumption that the Republican party could defeat Hillary Clinton in a general election, but right now the poll numbers don't entirely support that theory. Assuming a bounce for the Democratic party from the 50-state voter registration drive that Obama's volunteer army has been planning, there is a strong chance for unprecedented first-time Democratic voter turnout in November.
One need only look at past successful voter registration drives (like Obama's Project Vote in Chicago) to see how radically the landscape changes when hundreds of thousands of first-time voters, never polled, never taken into account, without demographic data to predict their leanings, become part of the mix. Considering the fact that the registration drive will be part of Democratic party activism, the only safe conclusion is that Democrats will be stronger by the hundreds of thousands than they ever were before.
Therefore, any Republican voter who plans to vote in a Democratic primary should be seriously considering which of the Democratic candidates he or she could more easily live with (a) during the general election and (b) for the next four years.
The General Election argument for a Republican vote for Obama
To be certain, there will be the contingent who fear Black Liberation Theology, the terrifying lack of flag pins, the Muslim Manchurian Candidate, and all the rest of the right-wing noise circulating about Obama. And it is equally certain that there are many Republican voters who would rend their garments if Hillary Clinton were elected president.
The psychology works like this:
A Republican voter convinced of Obama's unelectability should not fear him running in the general election.
A Republican voter truly dead-set against a Hillary Clinton presidency should not aid and abet her bid to be a candidate in the general election.
The Next Four Years argument for a Republican vote for Obama
On the other side of the coin are Republicans who are Republicans ideologically. They may not harbor the same fear of, or vitriol toward, either Democratic candidate, but they intend to vote Republican in November.
Here Obama's strengths as a bipartisan sponsor of legislation, his approach focused on finding solutions rather than fighting partisan battles, his stated willingness to include Republicans as high-ranking members of his cabinet, and his ability to praise successes on the part of Republican administrations are the crux of the argument.
Despite his voting record as the "most liberal" in the Senate (by cherry-picking intentionally partisan legislation to divine the grade), Obama has shown himself to be more centrist on many issues that Republicans are concerned about.
- He supports "pay as you go" for funding new legislation.
- His support for the Second Amendment is clearer and he hasn't misrepresented his own position on it, as Clinton did in Pennsylvania.
- He's been willing to release his earmarks and is more willing to consider reining in earmarks than is Clinton (who still will not release her own).
- He has an approach to immigration reform that is actually quite close to what Bush proposed without success -- understanding that strong borders and better ability to identify legal workers is the first step toward actually cracking down on illegal workers and curbing illegal immigration.
- As a Constitutional scholar, he's more likely to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who have a strong record of strong Constitutional decisions, rather than ideologues.
The psychology works like this:
Given the possibility that a Democrat will be elected in November, we are too close to the end of the primary season to be casting chaos votes. Limbaugh may think that there will be riots at the convention, but he's most likely wrong. Voter registration will go forward with or without a decision after May 6.
Republicans need to consider which of the Democrats they could more readily accept as a president, and cast a vote accordingly if they choose to vote in the Democratic primary. Voting for Clinton means voting for four more years of partisan battles. Moving beyond the sound-bite hype of "liberalism," Obama is not only the choice of many disaffected Republicans who genuinely cross over to vote for him, he's a better choice than Clinton for finding compromise on Republican issues.
Permalink | 17 comments