Tuesday, April 15, 2008

All bitter all the time - Obama's "Bittergate" continues on although it appears to have no effect whatsoever on his lead over Hillary in the upcoming primary contests. But John Judis enumerates the many reasons why Obama may face a real challenge in the general election when independent voters will not be so forgiving of a one-term Senator with no record to speak of. Chickens coming home to roost, Rev. Wright? Oh yeah.

Extra - More analysis from Reason's Hit & Run.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

....the general election when independent voters will not be so forgiving of a one-term Senator with no record to speak of.

It's so true. The voters ALWAYS go for the guy with the established record of vast accomplishment and lengthy tenure. Like Texas Governor George W. Bush, or Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Those blank slate Johnnie-come-latelies Al Gore, Bob Dole, and George HW Bush never stood a chance.

Eric said...

Actually, as you point out, the voters always go for the guy with executive experience (i.e. a governor.) Who would they choose between two Senators?

Well, Obama has problems with Hispanic voters, Jewish voters, and now he's ticked off the Bible and gun "clingers." McCain has problems though: he'll probably only get 5% of the black vote instead of 6%.

I thought that 2008 was a Democratic year for sure but it looks like they'll manage to pull off another defeat. Remarkable!

John W. Davis said...

Maybe, but let's not forget that the key swing vote in 2006 was "everybody." And the GOP's fortunes are even stinkier now.

Most people understood in 1999 that the Governorship of Texas holds about as much executive clout as running a fantasy football league. And Clinton's resume wasn't a heck of a lot more impressive in 1991 ("all the way from 49th in education to 47th: the Arkansas Miracle!").

Governors ALWAYS beat Senators, because Senators get savaged for their familiarity and their voting records. Isn't that the conventional wisdom? That must be why it's Richardson vs. Huckabee now.

One thing's for sure. It couldn't be that staring at 40+ years of dynamic, personality-driven results could produce deceptive "patterns."

And what if we take "unforgiving of a one-term Senator with no record" and lock it inside a room with "The Rule of 14"? Who gets out alive?

Can't we just jump right to the Weekly Reader kid's vote? Or the NFC beating the AFC? Maybe Punxsatawney Phil could wink his left eye for Obama, or his right eye for McCain.

Eric said...

Ha-ha, I'm constantly amazed that somebody's reading this blog.

Yes, Obama wins the "Rule of 14" rule and he also wins the "tallest person wins" rule, which is why he's beating Hillary and may beat McCain. But - and I'm guessing here - it's entirely possible that there's a large portion of Hillary supporters who will never vote for Obama (for various reasons). The last two elections were extremely close and for the first time in a half-century, a sitting President or Vice President isn't running. A tiny Nader-like shift like that might be enough to tip the balance.

Who can guess what might happen? All I'm saying is that sometimes Occam's Razor is the best approach and I think most Americans believe John McCain would be a better Commander-in-Chief than Barack Obama.