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

A big unknown is the bllod spilled on the way to the nomination, particularly race and gender. One scenario is that Hillary knocks Obama out on Super Tuesday and Obama doesn't get nasty. Another scenario is that Obama wins South Carolina and competes impressively on Super Tuesday. If that happens Hillary will get nasty and Obama's fans will get pissed. An Obama candidacy with pissed women and Hispanics or a Hillary candidacy with pissed Blacks and wingnuts are difficult cadidacies to assess at this point.

 

Wingnuts are people like many on this thread, who think Hillary is unelectable, or claim to know no women who would vote for Hillary. You may know only women who listen to Rush Limbaugh 20 hours a day, but the majority of women in the United States are not like that, and will be voting for Hillary.

 

OK, then, wingnuts and misogynists think Hillary is unelectable. Wouldn't want to be a petitio principist.

 

Accurate/Fondren- I have to disagree completely. Women who lean left will no doubt vote for HRC and will come out in large numbers. I don't think any conservative leaning women will vote for HRC simply because she is a woman.

That leaves the swing voters. I do not think very many of these women at all will vote for HRC. She is simply too polarizing.

To the original post, the thing that hasn't been discussed is the negative turnout effect. I know many apathetic voters who have contended they will vote if HRC is on the ballot to keep her from getting elected. It will be interesting to see. But I believe Obama has a better chance in the general.

Side note, if Bill C was running he would win in a landslide.

 

No, I'm not saying only wingnuts and misogynists...but thanks for hyperbolizing.
I think whichever one wins the nomination, Obama or Clinton, will win the election unless something changes drastically prior to November. So it doesn't matter which one it is. I contend they are both quite electable, unlike the many Hillary haters, who are unwilling to concede this.

 

Just my $.02:

I think Clinton appeals primarily to the Democratic establishment, while Obama probably has more crossover appeal. As an independent (ex-Republican), I like Obama out of all the viable alternatives at this point. I really like Richardson overall, but oh well.

At any rate, given that the Republicans don't have much of a record to hang their hats on over the last four years, I would expect the campaign after Labor Day to get NASTY. Keeping turnout low is their best shot at retaining the White House for another four years. The Democratic candidate is going to need a lot of charisma to counter the negative attacks from the Republican machine.

 

TTT -

As I stated earlier, I believe Obama is far more electable than Hillary.

A Hillary nomination will fill Republican coffers. Her baggage is heavy enough to sink the Titanic. And her natural inner voice is shrill.

Obama is much easier to sell to moderates/independent.

Baggage like Teddy Kennedy is best avoided after the nomination for Obama. And he needs to make a very open break from Rezko. But he is a blank sheet a paper to most where they fill in what they imagine him to be.

Obama is a lemonade stand under a shade tree on a hot day. Hillary is a grimy McDonalds with a broken air conditioner and an ice machine on the fritz.

Obama is an easy choice in my opinion.

 

I think it is foolish to assume that liberal women will vote for Hillary simply out of gender obligation. I live around and work with many liberal women and many plan to vote for barack, simply because they like him more and feel he offers something that hillary doesn't.

if hillary wins, it will mean a bush or a clinton has held some position within the executive office for 32 consecutive years. that is frightening. and even some women want to break that cycle.

 

Obama is completely unelectable. Dems need guidos in Philly, suburban moms in the midwest, northeast, and midatlantic, and union goons in Detroit to win. No way any of those groups back a black Democrat. Obama will be the heavy favorite according to the polls, and then will lose soundly. Media types, and West Mall regulars, will blame Diebold and a GOP voter suppression conspiracy.

 

I hope that Obama wins so that we can finally get out Iraq.
Why has Bush been president for the last 4 years? I think that it had less to do with his enormous bipartisan appeal and more to do with this divisive, highly liberal, out-of-touch, hypocritical, lying, slimy choice of an opponent:


I will be very honest: I voted for Bush in 2004, despite the fact that I despise him, because Kerry would've been worse. The Democrats stretched hard enough to find someone capable of losing to George W. Bush. They then paired him with John Edwards, a trial lawyer who made a large portion of his wealth by suing people over a medical error that was determined to be fake a decade ago, so that he would be utterly hateful to more than half of America.

I really hope that the Democrats can get their act together and nominate a sane, moderate liberal who will end the Iraq war without promising to crush the upper middle class under the boot of progressivism or dispatch the BATF to blow up or snipe people with illegal weapons. This is so very simple. Most people want the war and the domestic spying to end, which includes most independents and a sizable fraction of Republicans. All the Democrats have to do is nominate someone who will end Bush's most egregious fuckups without declaring war on half of the voting public.

If the Democrats nominate Clinton after nominating John Kerry, they bear an equal share of the responsibility for the Iraq war and for the massive expansion of domestic spying.

 

Excellent Post Maduro. There have been some really good posts on WM today- seemingly less of what I hate about WM and more of what I like.

Keep up the good work.