when it comes to the subject field.
that Obama has any significant electabilty over Clinton. Does any real data show that? What I have seen is all of the top 3 are very electable as of now, and Edwards has a slight advantage overall. But all three appear to be electable.
Why do you believe Obama is more electable? Fair or not, the experience factor will be used against him. So far, being African American has been a big advanatage because it makes him novel in some ways. Is there any data on how that will play out? Is there a Harvey Gantt effect anymore? I don't think we really know.
To me, there is an inate danger of picking a candidate based on electability. It's mostly guess work, at least after you get past Kucinich and Biden.
Better to go on issues and character, who they are. Between Clinton and Obama, I would have a hard time choosing. Fortunately, I don't have to, because Edwards is my choice. If I had to pick a second choice, it would be Dodd.
Obama is more likable and charismatic than Clinton. He is better at connecting with people. And likeability is what counts in the end, as the victories of Reagan and GWB shows.
The value of "experience" (Edwards does not fare better than Obama on this point) is overhyped. Experience does not get you elected. especially not if your record can be distorted. Against Guiliani, Thompson and Romney it would not matter at all - since these 3 are as "inexperienced" as Obama and Edwards. Against McCain it might be a small factor. but he has other weak points (being old and so on).
"Obama is more likable and charismatic than Clinton. He is better at connecting with people. And likeability is what counts in the end, as the victories of Reagan and GWB shows." __________
Piffle. Have you seen the highly enthusiastic receptions Hillary gets in N.H., Iowa, Nevada? They love her. This mantra that keeps being repeated - that the country loves Obama and does not like Hillary, is crap. It's neither accurate nor fair.
Furthermore, if Hillary were as "unliked" as you say she is, she sure as heck would not be polling highest among all demographic groups - all of them - except for white males where she breaks about even with Obama.
So, what I see here with you and others is a seemingly desperate need to cling to all you think you've got - the twisted belief that Hillary is so disliked that she simply can't win. YOU dislike her. The higher percentage of the netroots seems to dislike her. The rest of the Dems in the country? They like her!! Stop being so absurd.
Your post would be great if you were responding to something about the primary. My understanding is that the previous post was about electability in the general election.
Yes, I've always found that unlike in the general election the democratic primaries always break for the candidate on the "Kick a puppy" platform.
Well except for the freak win by the "throw momma from the train" candidate in 1956. But since the whistle stop tours haven't enjoyed much popularity since then, we can easily discard that win as not relevant in today's politics.
If somebody does well in the primaries, it's probably because he/she is likable. It's not that the democratic base chooses the biggest asshole of the bunch. They chose the most viable, likable person. The dynamic between the general and primary is almost entirely the same concerning "Likeability"
I have qualms with this theory. Nixon, for example, was very much a polarising figure, but he still managed to reinvent himself and get 60% in 1972. The examples aren't exactly the same as McGovern had a much rougher time in the campaign than any Republican is likely to get and Nixon was running for re-election (and on false premises at that), but I don't think negatives should be viewed as set in stone. It's more difficult to move them than it is to move positives, but a smart campaign can do it.
