It’s About the Electability, Stupid
By SusanUnPC on April 10, 2008 at 4:17 PM in Barack Obama, DNC, Democrats, Electoral College, Florida, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Joseph Wilson, Larry Johnson, Media, Media Bias, Michelle Obama, Michigan, Obamedia, Patriotism, Qualifications, Race, Race Card, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., Sexism, Superdelegates, Swift Boat Veterans For Truth
There are a lot of tags above this story, aren’t there. But that’s because this piece addresses all of those concerns — including several must-reads on the ‘net about Obama’s iffy chances in a general election:
- “Obama Puts Democrats in Peril” and “Electability Is Name of the Game,” from TheStreet.com, and
- “Grand Unified Theory of The Race (GUTTeR),” by eriposte at The Left Coaster blog
Larry Johnson has been arguing here for months that Barack Obama faces a huge hurdle as a general election candidate, especially once the GOP begins its full-out assault. Larry’s most recent critique is “Obama’s Foreign Policy Faux Pas,” which hits on Obama’s vulnerabilities, particularly his dubious longtime associates who we are certain that the GOP and 527s will go after.
Former ambassador Joe Wilson has also written several strong op-eds — including Wednesday’s “Obama’s illusions on foreign policy” — that foresee the perils Obama faces when voters become more familiar with his lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge.
And on Tuesday, Bud White wrote a well-vetted analysis of what a general-election GOP assault will surely look like in “The Plan to Swift-Boat Obama.”
Now we have additional predictive analyses, substantiated by hard evidence and rational thinking, that any remaining sober superdelegates must face — that Barack Obama, as a general election candidate, may be overwhelmed by a tsunami of relentless GOP attacks and will face further insurmountable electability issues:
From “Electability Is Name of the Game” at TheStreet.com:
Barack and Michelle Obama sent a message to the media early in the primary season. Barack said:
“I’m confident that I will get her [Clinton] votes if I’m the nominee, it’s not clear that she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee.”
Then Michelle said on supporting Hillary Clinton:
“I’d have to think about that. I’d have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.”
The logic behind those statements went unquestioned by the media. Ever since, the media has begun saying how Obama supporters would defect from a Clinton candidacy, ruining the Democratic party and handing the election to Sen. John McCain.
A poll last week put that thesis to shame. Gallup polled Democrats on their likelihood to defect from a Democratic candidate and crossover to support McCain: 28% of Clinton supporters chose McCain over Obama, while only 19% of Obama supporters abandon Clinton for McCain.
Enough said for the lazy analysis in the media.
This is bad news for Obama come a general election. Clinton has very strong support among women, and this election offers a classic scenario they know well: A lesser experienced man gets all the breaks on the way to being promoted to a better position. The media forgets sexism and intently focuses only on race. …
The author, John Fout, goes on to describe Clinton’s strong support among Latinos and older voters — two additional, solid voting blocks.
Fout also zeroes in on patriotism, an emotional, bedrock issue that Obama will face, especially from incoming GOP and 527 attacks:
Patriotism will become an issue, not race.
[...]
They will talk about him not wearing a flag pin; they will play the tape of his wife saying she’s never been proud of her country. Lastly, they will play Pastor Wright’s anti-American statements.
Obama’s favorability ratings could drop like a stone in middle America, including key swing states such as Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. Obama may recover by giving another speech on patriotism. But if the attacks come late in the election, it may be too late for him to recover.
Obama’s unifying message sounds wonderful, and I wish it were possible. But I believe it won’t happen in this election. …
Fout also points to the lead that Hillary Clinton enjoys in the major blue states with the largest number of electoral votes — and the inherent weaknesses of the Democratic nominating system that have driven us all mad recently:
Clinton likely wishes the Democrats used the electoral college to determine the election or winner-take-all. She would have sewn up the nomination with her big states already. Instead, Obama leads because of proportional representation of delegates and wins in many caucuses.
Read all of “Electability Is Name of the Game.”
In his latest story, “Obama Puts Democrats in Peril,” Fout describes Barack Obama’s failure to unite his own party:
His campaign has failed to recognize the results of the Florida primary — and Michigan — for political gain over his opponent, a decision that could disgruntle Democratic voters in Florida in November and years beyond.
[...]
The DNC is working its way out of the trap. Will Obama follow its lead anytime soon? He may want to take some action or face the wrath of Florida voters in the fall. A recent poll taken in Florida shows that as many as 25% of Florida voters will stay at home in the fall if the result does not count. That spells defeat for Democrats in the state.
(To see more of John Fout’s political commentary, click here.) Obama already polls much worse than Clinton in Florida vs. McCain, and it will be difficult to win the general election without Florida. I explained this last week.Florida Republicans have already used the DNC ruling as a campaign issue there in January and almost certainly plan to do so again.
Obama has a dilemma: Face criticism in a critical swing state where he’s in essence supporting disenfranchising Democrats because of a Republican ploy and against securing a verifiable paper trail for elections or recognize the results of the primary. The former choice places Democrats in a poor position for years to come in Florida.
Then there is Eriposte’s “Grand Unified Theory of The Race (GUTTeR),” a piece of writing so complex and deep that it is impossible to summarize neatly. Eriposte actually dares to talk about race, and without accusing all of the white voters of being racists for not voting for Obama.
You’ll have to read it yourself to get all that Eriposte describes. But here’s a tidbit to whet your appetite:
[I]f [David] Sirota is actually right, shouldn’t we ask a simple question?
If Sen. Obama was unable to win the large states that Sen. Clinton won (most of which are a must-win in November for Democrats) due to white racism amongst a significant portion of Democratic voters, how in the world is he going to win those states in November when the proportion of white voters in those states will only increase dramatically due to the massive influx of even more conservative white voters who are Independents and Republicans? Further, if Republicans use racially "coded messages and tactics" that work – in the general election (anyone want to bet they won’t?) – isn’t that a prescription for a rout of Sen. Obama in those very states – many of which have long been reliably Democratic?
As you can imagine, these questions are not considered very seriously in the BrilliantTM piece that Josh Marshall couldn’t wait to link to. Sirota says blithely:
Even if Clinton wins big in the remaining Race Chasm states, Obama has advantages in Montana, Oregon, North Carolina and South Dakota—smaller states, to be sure, but likely enough pledged delegates to keep a significant lead. Clinton, therefore, would have a difficult time convincing superdelegates to go against the will of the people in their states.
That leaves the “electability” argument with the superdelegates—and the problem for Clinton there is that polls show Obama is at least as “electable” as Clinton, if not more so.
In other words, Clinton is winning with the help of white racism amongst Democratic voters but Obama can win in those very states in November because, um, many of those very same whites – perhaps along with some even more conservative whites that don’t vote in the Democratic primaries in those states will vote for Obama in the general election against McCain because their racism will magically disappear right after the superdelegates pick Sen. Obama as the nominee. Got it? It’s so simple, really!
If only those Racist Uneducated RubesTM in the Democratic party just understood The Math of the GUTTeRTM!
Read all of “Grand Unified Theory of The Race (GUTTeR),” by eriposte at The Left Coaster blog.
Given what we know now about our electorate, a few questions come to mind:
1. Can Obama win large electoral states?
2. Can Obama win without Florida and Michigan?
3. Can Obama win without 28% (or more) of Hillary supporters?
4. Can he win? Period.
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
