|
Pulling this from another thread to see what people think:
There's a lot of talk from both Clinton's and Obama's camps (when you can hear them over the trebuchets launching flaming naphtha and rotting cow carcasses) about the significance of Republicans and Independents casting ballots (generally for Obama) in our primaries. (Query: is there similar suspicion when Greens, Socialists, or Natural Law voters do the same? I don't know.)
Most of us have said for years "why are these red-staters voting against their own interests?" And in many ways we're right to, though possibly wrong to do it so condescendingly.
Well, we can't have it both ways. Either they're voting against their own interests and we need to bring them back into the fold, or they're evil mud-dwelling troglodytes who can't be trusted with the franchise (send more trebuchets...). So, gut-check time: which is it? Do we want these people's support or not? If we nominate Hillary, we simply won't get it. Period. If we nominate Obama, there are signs that we will peel some of them away.
Will it be enough? I have no idea. I think in the end Hillary could do the "Kerry plus Arkansas" plan and eke out a victory, but it's about even money and (as we saw in the past two elections) vulnerable to shenanigans in key states (FL 2000, OH 2004, probably PA or FL again 2008). I think Obama can pick off some of the upper West and lately-red midwest without losing any of the key blue states (I personally find the notion that McCain will beat any Democrat in CA laughable).
Basically, here is what I see as the two options between our nominees:
1. Clinton: energized Dem base, energized (against her) GOP base. Four-corners strategy for the Democrats with close races in FL, OH, and VA. Partisan campaign (McCain moves hard right to shore up his Republican support) with a middle that begins with lukewarm support for Clinton which evaporates as fundraising and other scandals come to light -- I think that those of you who believe that Clinton's scandals will be "old news" are going to be in for a very rude awakening; neither she nor Bill have particularly cleaned up their fundraising strategies in the past 8 years, and the Clinton library donors are a trapdoor just waiting to open. In the end, these moderates get turned off by an extremely negative campaign from both sides and stay home. Clinton has a winning play if she can hold FL and take AR, but it's a damn close call. We lose seats in Congress, though in either scenario we gain in 2008 in the Senate just because of the particulars of the races we have (12 open GOP seats, 5 open Dem seats).
2. Obama: energized Dem base, depressed GOP base. 50-state strategy for the Democrats with activists finding the occasional "Macaca" moment that turns key House and Senate races. Obama picks off a couple of traditional red states in the west and midwest (MO, IA, SD, etc.). Large coattails for Obama in the House; like I said in 1) I think the Senate races happen to be so lopsided in our favor at this point that we do well there either way. McCain is in a more difficult position. If he turns hard right, Obama absolutely eats away his moderate support. If he doesn't, his base stays home to teach the GOP a lesson (if that sounds ludicrous, remember it happened to us in 2000).
Just my 2 centavos; would welcome any views from any "side", or no side.
|