by fakes seizures, Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 10:07:45 PM EDT
Why do Clintonites keep talking about electability?
As one contributor, who has made a habit of bashing both Obama and what they refer to as "ultra-liberals" put it "Obama is unelectable". This is patently untrue.
What is true is that if the election were held today, Obama may very well lose. As may Edwards. But what this person (and many others) fail to note is that these head to head match-ups do not take the electoral college into account. Also Obama and Edwards only lose marginally.
As I said before these polls mean very little right now since party affiliation is in such flux. Today I read that the DLC of all people are mentioning a "Hoover moment", which I mentioned in my post about a 60-seat majority. But also these head to head matches mean even less for two reasons:
1. In a recent Rasmussen poll Dennis Kucinich loses to Rudy by a margin of 34-48 and to Freddy 34-43. This is sad yes, but the same poll mentions that 40 percent do not know enough about Kucinich to vote for him. These head to head matches (like many polls) are based on name recognition.
2. These polls are before any general election campaigning, during which the Blue team would mention Rudy's fascist police techniques and lack of success as mayor. The people of New York did not even like Rudy that much before 9/11, people forget that he was on his way out before 9/11 because he was unpopular. This doesn't even take into account his lack of drills at WTC from 1993-2001 or his "I was basically a rescue worker" gaff.
Why do Clinton's supporters always fall back on these electability numbers when people stop caring about her "experience". She has FOUR more years in the senate than Obama, his Illinois service notwithstanding. Name a major legislative success of Hillary's. Obama has the internet campaign finance database (done during republican control of the senate), Edwards has more experience, and Kucinich saved City water and power in Cleveland (on top of his 20 years), and Richardson has a resume a mile long. Clinton has "I saw Bill do it, so I know how it works."
Electability IS NOT an issue since 80 percent of Dems and about 40 percent of Republicans believe that the White House will be painted blue in 2009.
Lastly to the person that referred to my prediction about Ron Paul's performance (I was expecting 15 percent, but I was not expecting Tancredo's support) as an "ultra-liberal pipe dream". I am not "ultra-liberal", I do not even consider myself to be liberal. I am frugal and somewhat modest in my personal life, the only thing I do "liberally" is maybe put too much salt on mashed potatoes. I am a proud progressive.
True I do support Dennis Kucinich, but why is peace considered an "ultra-liberal" idea? Everyone wants it, but people are afraid to talk about wanting it. Being for peace has this kind of stigma associated with it even amongst many on the left. Peace activists are not all hippies, and not all are pacifists.
Besides, watch a speech that he gives, by himself, and tell me that you are not struck by how knowledgeable he is. He can cite bills and numbers and his website has his plans/ideas for (by my count) 88 items with an average of 3-5 paragraphs each. Furthermore so of what he says may sound strange, but the fact is he has been right on USA PATRIOT and the Iraq war from the start. Also, his ideas may sound strange, but that does not mean they are not as good because they sound strange. He is in my opinion by far the most honest and down to earth of all the candidates.
A parting note: I work overnight and write these at work and that is why many of my posts do not have hyperlinks.