The Candidates
Democrats have a problem.
Much like the Republicans in 1996, the Dems have been so placated by their recent congressional victories that they’ve forgotten that there’s a presidential election less than two years away. The Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, regularly loses to two or three of the leading Republican candidates in national polls, with Rudy, McCain, and now Thompson all besting her at least as often as not. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that a poll was released today showing that fully 50 percent of Americans wouldn’t vote for Hillary. Those aren’t good numbers. “Unelectable” is a bit much, but we’re getting there.
On Ms. Rodham’s tail is Barack Obama, the young first-term senator from Illinois who the MSM has deemed the new Lincoln but who is actually more of a warmed-over Bill Clinton, complete with fuzzy platitudes and the policy prescriptions of a technocrat, not a visionary. True, Bill Clinton won two elections, but only after umpteen years in the Arkansas state house and during the first peacetime election in a long, long time. Given Hillary’s nails-on-a-chalkboard persona, the charismatic Obama should have overtaken her by now. But he hasn’t. Hillary still leads in every poll, an indication that the Illinois senator may just be too much of a lightweight to win the Democratic nomination. As Cap’n Ed reports, lots of folks are beginning to wonder whether Obamamania is ready to fizzle out:
What a shock! The candidate with an entire two years of experience in national office turns out to be a policy lightweight. Who’d a-thunk it? It had to hurt that Obama got compared to John Edwards, widely considered an empty suit himself, and found wanting.
In 1984, Walter Mondale flummoxed Gary Hart by asking, “Where’s the beef?” when debating the issues. Hart had a habit of speaking in nonspecifics, and Mondale rightly pinned him down on his inability to give specifics on his policy initiatives. Of course, Hart had been in office for over nine years at that point, unlike Obama, who has more of an excuse for his superficiality on policy.
I’m not even certain he wanted to run in this cycle; he may be a lightweight, but he’s not stupid. Obama has to know that his thin experience would not generate confidence in his ability to lead the nation. Obama would do better to finish his term in the Senate and then win the governorship in Illinois, coming back in 2016 for the nomination a much stronger candidate — and still at the young age of 54.
Okay, so Hillary’s unelectable because Americans just can’t stand her, and Obama’s unelectable because no one’s going to entrust the presidency during times like these to a guy who reminds them of their (slightly) older brother. So who’s left? The rest of the Democratic field is comprised of has-beens (Biden, Dodd) and retreads from 2004 (Edwards, Kucinich). Interesting candidates that might actually be able to win elections, like Bayh and Richardson, seem to be gaining zero traction. This all yields a major vacuum on the Democratic side, much like the one that Thompson is trying to fill on our side. But unlike the Republican field, whose vacuum is the result of the lack of a candidate who can combine the proper ideology with electability, the Democratic vacuum is due to the dearth of experienced, electable candidates who don’t put voters to sleep, including Democratic ones. Right now, Democrats have no one who fills that role. And if things remain on their current trajectory, the Dems will nominate Hillary Rodham and, as long as Republicans nominate one of their electables, Hillary will go down quicker than you can say Robert J. Dole. What could change all of this?
Enter Al Gore.
Seven years ago, no one would have predicted that Al Gore would be the white knight who could both excite Democratic voters and project the experience and crossover appeal to be electable. But things do seem to be aligning in such a way. First, Gore has long ago shed the closet centrist image he cultivated during the Clinton years, embracing a sort of populist leftism that would make William Jennings Bryan cheer. His newfound liberalism, combined with the “we wuz robbed” mentality that still exists in the Democratic psyche from 2000, would transform the once-wooden candidate into Zorro himself as far as Democratic primary voters are concerned.
But would Gore go over well with swing voters? Probably. Gore would benefit, at least in the early polling, from buyers’ remorse over President Bush that exists in the minds of many independents who now disapprove of the president by a wide margin. This, plus his national name recognition, would at least create the illusion of electability early on. As far as experience goes, no one can claim that Gore, who served as veep for two terms, is too green (heh) for the top job. Gore would give Democrats a liberal who swing voters could theoretically vote for, and would shake up a field that voters are already bored with.
I strongly doubt that Gore will run. In fact, I see no indication that he’s planning on doing it. But politics is a strange animal. If summer of ‘07 comes around and Democrats are begging for a new choice, the former veep just may find himself in the right place at the right time.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Wow. Sorry Dave, but this piece just cries out for some critical parsing. All constuctively intended I hope you realize.
First off, the notion that Dems are so placated from the Nov. election that they have forgotten that there is a presidential coming up, is so jaw-droppingly loony I dont know how to begin to address it. Perhpas all I should do is to state the reality that I see and let it stand in apposition to your opinion. Dems are hungry, very hungry. And their noses are picking up those wafting aromas of possible victory, and the expected physiological responses are kicking in.
Secondly, the logic of your first paragraph is bizarre. Hillary is behind Repubs in some polls, therefore50% of Americans wouldnt vote for her? Thats the way you laid out the logic, and I cant imagine what you mean. So, once again, let me just rephrase in a way that makes sense to me. After 15 years of raging Hillary Derangement Syndrome on the right, she has high negatives. She has a record of overcoming things like that when the people start actually paying attention (which has not begun yet). So now, in the name-recognition phase of poling, she doesnt do all that well. So what?
Your Obama analysis is stranger even yet. Here is someone who has been getting some good media of late, but his campaign is all of 8 weeks old. After 2 years on the national stage. And the fact that he hasnt overtaken the most prominent democrat, someone who lived in the WH for eight years, and has 6+ years in the Senate, and is the most well-known women in America - this is a sign of failure on his part? I mean….hello!
And you look to a hard-right blogger to give you some informative information about Dem candidates? Or is this not meant for the edification of your readers, but just an exercise in talking-points dissemination?
Do I need to remind you that it is 10 months before anyone casts a vote?
No. I really dont think I should have to remind you of that.
Your dismissal of the Dem field is similarly loony. Hillary is not unelectable. I strongly doubt that she would win in a landslide, but I guarantee you this. If she is the nominee, then most of all Dems will support her. Most all Repubs will vote against her. Given the implosion of Republican support these days, if she gets even close to half of the independents, she wins. Thats doable.
Obama is also very electable. Same general calculation. And if you want to claim that he will not have a detailed, well thought out platform, then you are just whistling past the graveyard.
Richardson as well is electable. He has not got much traction, true. But for how long has he been running? And Bayh? He isnt even running!
A field that voters are bored with? What planet are you on Dave? 90% of the American people havent given 5 minutes thought to the field of either party. Are you just lost in the internet bubble, thinking that your concerns, and the concerns of those of us who post or comment in blogland are representative of America?
Americans will not be begging for a new choice, in either party, this summer. Rather, in the fall, the might just begin to pay attention.
As for Gore. Yes he has some residual support from 2000, fired by the injustice of all. And yes he has a newly enhanced reputation on the environmental issues. But he is also very 20th century. Global warming advocacy is extremely important, but you dont get a major party nomination by proving your chops on single issues. His GW stuff earns him enormous respect, but I dont think many votes. I doubt he runs.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:11 am
“Hillary is behind Repubs in some polls, therefore 50% of Americans wouldnt vote for her?”
That’s not the logic at all. If you click on the link that I provided, you’ll see that I am referring to a Harris poll that shows that 50% of Americans say they won’t vote for Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee.
Clearly you’re closer to the Democratic and liberal pulse than I, but when I see Democratic dissatisfaction with the frontrunner, when I see Edwards seemingly floundering, and when I see Gore coming in third in all the Democratic horserace polls despite the fact that the guy’s not even a candidate, I have to wonder whether there’s an opening for Gore as a liberal who liberals deem electable (implicit in that of course is my continuing skepticism toward Obamamania).
Besides, when Kos used to include Gore in his periodic straw polls last year, Al always decimated the rest of the field, no?
March 28th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Incidentally, if Hillary wins, it’ll almost certainly be similar to the way Nixon won in ‘68, by the narrowest of margins against a divided opposition party, with perhaps one or more minor party candidates snagging a substantial share of the vote (though I have no idea which minor party candidates would hurt the GOP nominee this time around — Hagel, Bloomberg, and Nader would probably all steal votes from the Democrat).
March 28th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Dave,
First off, Harris interactive polls do not have such a good track record. I think the proper number for “never Hillary’ voters, as of today, is probably in the low to mid 40s. Where it has been for a long tie.
From these overall numbers, you deduce that Hill is being rejected by Democrats. Why?
Harris has “never Hillary’ numbers for Dems around 22% (IIRC).
I note in the online poll that y’all posted yesterday, that, except for Thompson, every Republican candidate got at least 25.9% negative votes (unacceptable). So, are Repubs even more turned off to their candidates than Dems?
I find that most Dems are quite proud of our field, and sincerely think that you guys have real probelms with yours. Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden - all of those are major leaguers who would have deep and sincere support from Dems in a general election.
Personally, I think that Hagel and Bloomie would hurt Repubs far more than democrats.
Hagel might get the antiwar Republican vote, which might be large in 08, but that would be at the expense of the Republican candidate. No Dem would need to go to Hagel to find a the one thing that makes him attractive to Dems.
Bloomie is a direct competitor with Rudy. If they both run, Rudy gets hurt. If Rudy is not the candidate, then Bloomie gets some of the people Rudy might have gotten for the GOP. In either case, I dont see how Dems get hurt.
If any Dem is so stupid as to vote for Nader in a presidential, after what happened in 00, then I really give up.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:19 am
DaveG,
Do not worry about a divided republican party. Giuliani has a plan to unite us.
He is a uniter. Not an actor.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Edwards scares the hell out of me.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:30 am
As an Independent I’m here for Rudy. If something should happen and he doesn’t make it to November 08 then I’ll head on over to the Democrats, even if that means Hillary. I would rather vote for a middling Democrat than another SoCo Republican. I think the numbers will reflect that come the election. People are disgusted with the Republican Party and its footloose handling of the Constitution, the back door dealings and lies and the total disregard to the general public’s feelings about the war in Iraq (68% against the war at last count). To get the Independents you will have to have someone different not the same ol’ same ol’.
Oh, Tommy, you keep saying Edwards scares you, can you point me to where you’ve listed your reasons for that. I just curious.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:15 am
There are MILLIONS of voters like Casey, folks. Does anyone here think about the swing voters? Having lived in a string of big cities my whole life, most people I know are happy to vote for economic conservatives, defense conservatives– but NOT social conservatives. They are disgusted by the current social-issues GOP but more than happy to support the other 90% of the GOP platform when given an opportunity to vote for someone who is not a social conservative.
Casey, the reason Edwards is scary is because he is a class-warfare, soak-the-rich type of Democrat like McGovern. Soak the rich, and you screw the economy that currently is at full employment. (4.5% unemployment in general, 1.9% for college grads.) And dash the dreams of those whose dream is to be rich. (They get it even before the effects take place.)
March 28th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I don’t know if Obama is for real or not, but it is a bit premature to dismiss him at this point. His name recognition is fairly low at this point, certainly lower than Gore and Edwards, who he is managing to outpoll considerably. As his name recognition goes up, so will his poll numbers, absent significant ethical/personal skeletons or a “yeeeaaahhhhh!!!!”style campaign meltdown.
Whether he can rise high enough to beat Hillary is an open question at this point, but if he avoids any major mistakes, I’m starting to think he can pull it off. It bears noting that Obama has managed to outflank Hillary on the left AND cultivate a less partisan persona which, in theory, would make him more electable. Right now, Obama seems likely to obtain the endorsement of both the TNR-style New Democrats AND the Kossacks(once Edwards drops out, if not sooner). Plus, as potentially the first African-American President, he will peel off a significant chunk of the black vote from Hillary. Plus, if Obama does manage to pull ahead of Hillary she will quickly lose support of more casual primary voters, who are more likely to rally around the leader in the polls. He may be a lightweight personally, but he is ideally positioned to knock off Hillary nonetheless.
March 28th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Dave,
I’ve actually long held out hope for a McCain vs. Gore general election matchup. I know it’s highly unlikely, but I think it’d really be amazing. The two guys who were defeated by Bush in 2000 battling it out to see who succeeds him.
March 28th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Casey, I agree with you about Rudy - - thanks for giving him a chance! I also agree with you about the Bush Administration’s certain level of abuse of power. However, I don’t think the entire republican party shoulod be blamed for that. We need to unite as a party. I for one, will support whoever the republican nominee is, because the dems will turn these United States of America into these United States of Mexico.
As for Edwards……time to be blunt here. The guy is a freakin psycho ultra-leftist liberal and will sell this country down the tubes. Still the same, my hopes and wishes are with the Edward’s in their time of tragedy.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I really would like specifics about Edwards (not that I think he has a chance in hell of getting the nom). I get frustrated when I see empty statements without links to back them up.
From what I see Bush has already sold this country down the tubes. As far as judging the Republican Party, it’s been painted with the Bush brush and it doesn’t look like it’s going to change. This Gonzales mess is just another example of Republican politics as far as the general population is concerned.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
KT,
United States of Mexico? Considering I’m a bit sick, my brain isn’t up to par. Is that a reference to immigration or just that the Dems will adopt Mexican-like policies?
March 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
[...] well, well. Less than 24 hours after I suggested that a vacuum exists on the Left that would facilitate a Gore comeback, we learn this about the [...]
March 28th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
[...] well, well. Less than 24 hours after I suggested that a vacuum exists on the Left that would facilitate a Gore comeback, we learn this about the [...]
March 29th, 2007 at 6:23 am
I guess Edwards scares me because I think that Hillary will implode, and the Dems will realize that Obama has two years experience. Edwards is less polarizing than Hillary, and is percieved by the MSM as more experienced than OBama. Edwards ran a close second to the Dems establishment pick in 2004 primaries, and was then selected as VP candidate, a move that was strongly supported by their base. In a 2008 general election, he will perform better in the south from not being on a ticket with Kerry as the main choice. We can’t afford to lose electoral votes in any state that Bush carried in his election bids, and Edwards is the one candidate on the Dems side who might be able to pick off the Carolinas, and possibly one or more of the southern states that Clinton was able to win in 92 and 96. I’m not confident that we’ll be able to gain in other states outside the base to make up for the losses an Edwards campaign could possibly carry. He will have some appeal to the blue collar southerners, especially the more moderate ones. Remember, Harold Ford came extremely close to taking TN a race the Republicans were initially unconcerned with. Edwards has that same type of charisma that Ford has, who was able to take advantage of Corkers baggage and personal failures, while making his baggage much less of an issue. And unlike Ford, Edwards doesn’t have the ethical questions that Ford (his family history) wasn’t able to overcome in the end.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Plus, the sympathy he’ll recieve from his wife’s illness could have some sway to the regular folks, who don’t follow politics exclusively.
My prayers are with his family. Just cause I don’t agree with them doesn’t mean I think badly of them as people. I wish them only the best. Politics have gotten to personally destructive for my stomach, and it needs to stop (I’m not accusing anyone here of that. That’s one reason I started posting here, because most of the posts have not swayed into personal attacks, with the exception of Hillary, and that’s understandable, since she is who she is). I hope that my posts will be helpful to some on here because I tend to have a good understanding of the psychology of the south, as opposed to issue specific. I hope that my insights can contribute by helping others understand the mindset of the people who don’t follow the issues as closely as a lot of the posters do. My posts are aimed to help you understand what type of candidate will be able to appeal on the broad terms, as opposed to ideollogical preferences. A lot of the people in this region will vote with their hearts, and I’m trying to give helpful insights into how their hearts work, not so much about their prefered ideology.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:52 am
P.S.
If some don’t understand my comments at first, it might be because I’m looking at it from a different angle, or perspective. I’m not putting in as much thought into the policies as I am into the electability. I’m giving my two cents on how they might appeal to certain voters, or might not appeal. I hope that helps.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:53 am
I majored in political science, specializing in political psychology, as opposed to public administration, or government studies fields.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:57 am
And am still trying to get used to posting without an edit. This is why I tend to post two or three times in a row.