Who is more electable in Nov.? - Obama or Clinton?

Am I missing something here? Isn't Obama unequivocally more electable than Clinton in November election?

 

No. 51% of all voters are female and even conservative women don't have the same irrational hatred of Hillary that conservative men have. That irrational hatred also puts more women on Hillary's side who may not agree with her otherwise.

The more people say that the country isn't ready for a female president, the more women will vote for her when they get in the voting booth. Also, you see too many conservative men saying they just don't like her without giving a policy based reason, and that makes it seem like that dislike is based on her gender. That also pushes more women to Hillary's side.

For that reason, I think once the Republican attack machinery starts up, it will play right into Hillary's hands.


It also doesn't really matter who the nominees are nationwide. The election's going to come down to Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, and maybe Illinois. All the other states that count are pretty much already decided. Some states aren't even worth the time. She doesn't have to win the overall popular vote. Will those states in question support Hillary over a Republican candidate? That's the real question.

 

Good points Fondren, but doesn't Obama have the easier road to travel?

He just doesn't have the luggage Hillary does and doesn't inspire the negative passion that Hillary does - so, isn't he more electable than Hillary?

Let me put it another way - if a hypothetical Republican nomination came down to a decision between Romney and Jeb Bush - isn't a Romney in that situation clearly more electable because of the baggage and passion another Bush nomination would ignite?

 

Hillary has a built-in (and consistent) 49-52% of Americans who "would never vote for Hillary under any circumstance." Obama doesn't have that.

 

Team Clinton in a walk.

 

I agree with SML. And if Huckabee or McCain was the nominee, I'd cross party lines and actually vote Republican against her. One Clinton was enough, and I already held my nose for John Kerry.

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, this party doesn't really have any national function anymore.

 

All of you and myself are men. When the Republicans start attacking her for not being strong or being a cold *****, etc, more women will move to her side. In fact, there's no real good way to attack her. They can say she won't be strong enough which will imply "because she's a woman." Or they can say she's a cold *****, which many already have, which implies that she's not living up to gender stereotypes.

Whoever said 49-52% is way off. By no stretch of the imagination is the number of people who are for "anything but Hillary" that high. Maybe if the poll only included Bossier and Caddo Parrish, Louisiana, but certainly not nationwide. The bible belt states aren't gonna vote for a Democrat anyways, and if they were, a female would have a much better shot than an African-American one. Sadly, I would say Obama would have no chance of winning any of the former Confederate states, save Florida. I think Hillary could get a couple of states there.

I think a lot of you are discounting the female vote considerably. A lot of Southern women are going to nod their heads in agreement when their husband says something anti-Hillary with no basis, like "I don't think this country's ready for a female president". But when they get in the voting booth, they'll pull the lever for Hillary.

But like I said before. It really comes down to whether Florida or Ohio hate Hilllary.

 

Wesser,

Rudy has no chance of winning NY. NJ is in question, as its a slightly more conservative state, but there is no way Rudy would win NY after the way he's handled himself since being mayor. Remember, at one time, he was a NYC Republican, which is about in line with a national Democrat. Now he's backtracked on a lot of his beliefs in order to pander to the nationwide Republican Party. He would get trounced in the city now, and you can't really win the state without the city.

I liked Rudy for mayor, he was mayor when I arrived in NYC, and I voted for Bloomberg in my first election up here. I would never vote for Rudy now for President, and I know plenty of others who feel the same way, even though they voted for him for mayor. He's not really the same guy now.

On top of that, partisan national politics has gotten to such a state, that Democrats (and Republicans) aren't gonna cross the line under any circumstances in a national election. They'll do it for mayor, but not for a senator or president.

 

This Republican is rooting hard for Hillary.

 

Fondren: agreed, Rudy has moved to his right in the primaries. However, you can expect a move back to the middle if nominated. This is why strong conservatives hate Rudy, they know he is pandering to them and will sell them out after securing the nomination. If nominated (big if) the Rudy of September and October will be Mayor Giuliani again. I agree with you it might be too late for that to matter with Clinton -- but against Obama? Doubtful. It is very rare that a candidate loses his home state (Gore 2000) I think that NJ is in love with Rudy and would go for him in the general. My point was that you can't worry about Ohio and Florida until you secure all of the 2004 blue states and if Rudy is the nominee, you can't secure NJ (or even Pennsylvania).

Clinton has a real problem in Florida. I have mentioned in other posts that Florida is viewed as a swing state because of the 2000 election. However, that was with Lieberman on the democratic ticket and securing the sizeable jewish vote for the dems. Absent that support, the dems did not keep Florida in play in 2004. Moreover, Clinton will have a hard time winning any of the cuban vote because of her husband's role in the Elian Gonzalez affair in 1999. When Reno ran for governor, the cubans made her pay for her role in shipping Elian back to Cuba and there is still resentment over that issue today. Nothing insurmountable, but a challenge nonetheless. Obama doesn't have that baggage to bring into Florida.

 

The R' have to keep Florida, Ohio, Missouri, and Virginia. I think Ohio, Virgina, and Missouri could be problems. However, don't under estimate gun control in Virginia and Missouri ,both voted in anti- gun control democratic senators in '06. I really think it will come down to the buckeye state.

 

Baically it goes back to my post on Turnout in 08, where it's hard to see a scenario (for me and George WIll) where the GOP is going to have more voters turn out to the polls than the Dems do. Too much apathy on the GOP side, because of the unhappiness with Bush and the uninspiring choices.

The Dems are going to ahve numbers. I think Obama might indeeed win in a longslide, but it's going to still be damn near impossible for whatever GOP candidate gets the nominee to best her. So the answer is whichever one is on the ballot on November will be the winner.

Closest race would be McCain v Clinton, IMO. I just don't see the GOP unifiying behind one candidate in the same numbers I see the Dems unifying behind one candidate.

 

Evidently the R's are scared to death of Hillary. They (Limbaugh, Hannity, Rove, etc.) are touting Obama over Hillary. Rove is writing letters to Obama advising him how to defeat Hillary. Psychological warfare by the R's FOR Obama tells me they think Obama is beatable in November.

 

So does a McCain/Guiliani ticket put NJ in play...?

"Secure the border" Rs may be scared enough to hold their noses and vote for McCain. Can McCain pull some D voters...?

Here's one to contemplate......what does a McCain/Lieberman ticket do to the race...?

 

I have met too many Repubs, Independents, and Dems who state that they will not vote for Hillary and the number of Dems who state such opinion is growing. Obama is dominating her in the independent vote, who of course are the exact voters you need to win a general election. Couple it with the new voters and turnout that Obama is attracting, I don’t think it is even close between the two as to electabilty.

The polls agree. link

That said, it is very likely that any Dem will win unless there is a terrorist attack within months of the election.

 

Again, TEAM CLINTON in a walk.

 

I think if a conservative independent comes in with a lot of money, Hillary wins the Presidency, just like Bill. I cannot imagine any other scenario where she would win a national election. Again, just like Bill.

 

I'd say Obama is more electable because I agree there is a strong "anybody but Hillary" group. I have 2 female co-workers who are liberal democrats who hate her and will pull for anyone else to get the nomination and will not vote in the general election if she gets it.

I don't think it matters though, because I can't see either winning the national election.

 

I'm a pretty liberal male, but if McCain or maybe Huckabee was her opponent, I would give serious thought to voting Republican. That said, I know many females who would vote Hillary regardless.

 

Ive always thought that the first woman president would have to be someone that both sides liked. So I look at the stable of garbage the Republicans are rolling out there, especially considering the historical hurdles facing the two Democratic frontrunners, and I have to scratch my head. Any decent moderate running as a Repub. should win this election in a walk. Unfortunately for them, there's no such thing as a moderate.

It depresses me that no third party has made any progress.

But then, I'm just here to watch. Republicans suck and Democrats are worse. Happy voting!

 

We do not have a two party system. We have one party with two factions.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the Dems have the WhiteHouse sitting there for the taking. And they will either nominate a black man, or a female.

How stupid is their party? Both will lose in a general election.

Obama I can live with. Hillary...are we honestly talking about a first lady running for President?? How freaking insane is this country??