On Floors and Ceilings (for the few of you who are ambivalent about who the nominee should be)

[Perky]

One of things I have realized in reading the more rational posts from Clinton and Obama supporters is a difference in perception about how well their candidates will do.

I proffer the following:

Clinton supporters view viability in terms of floors. They view Clinton as having a higher electability floor than Obama. They argue that Hillary has proven she is more viable in light blue and purple states because she has greater appeal among Blue Collar and white ethnic voters as proven in Ohio. (parenthetically as an Obama supporter, I will concede the point to a degree, but what can not be known completely by exit polls is whether that gap derives from political leanings or some level of de jour ethnic bias).

Obama supporters view viability in terms of ceilings. They view Obama as having a higher electability ceiling than Clinton. They argue the nation is desperate to move on past the political divide and the wedges politics of the past two presidencies and past the racial divide that exist since the Brown decision. They argue that Obama has the potential to change the electoral math for a generation to come and that that is something Clinton will not be able to do largely do to her high negatives and that she represents a rallying point for the institutional elements of the the Right Wing.

In a nutshell, Obama has a higher ceiling and a lower floor, whereas Clinton has a higher floor but a lower ceiling.

The problem we all face is that both view are right and both are naive and myopic.

In the face of having to face a 73 year-old John McCain who plans on continuing the Bush Doctrine on confronting Islamic extremism and Pro-business (pro-NAFTA, anti-environment, pro-market on health care, etc), you have to ask the electability question in a different way.

Which Democratic candidate does better in Blue, Purple or red states regardless of whether or not it was a primary or a caucus. The real question is whether or not a candidate can grab the 80% of the voters that voted for whatever reason for their opponent during the primary season.

For Obama the question is whether or not he would be able to get 80% of white ethnic male voters in Ohio, Michigan, Northern Indiana, Western PA and NY and those from those areas that have retired to Florida) who voted for Clinton to vote for him. And secondarily whether or not the Hispanic vote comes out from him. If he does that, It will be a landslide win with huge coattails. That is largely because he wins OH/PA/MI and maybe just maybe Florida. He could potentially do that with someone like Ted Strickland, Dick Gephardt or maybe Ed Rendell on the ticket (Granholm would be interesting...but she is not exactly adored in MI). The problem is that while that gets Blue Collar voters, it does not offset the inexperience meme, that a Richardson or Graham or Clark would help with.)(anyone know a blue collar guy who is a foreign Policy wonk?

For Clinton the question is whether or not she can gain the enthusiastic support of Obama's base of independents, African Americans and youth which maybe deeply offended of at least off-put by what she may have to do in order to secure the nomination. She will need those voters to offset right wing attack and motivation to defeat her at any costs. I personally don't think she can do that without Obama on the ticket. The other problem she faces is whether or not she can lock up blue collar males. Does NAFTA trump Iraq with those voters? The general view is that Clinton can certainly win but it is doubtful it would be a landslide.


I think both candidates are electable against McCain. Clinton is probably a surer bet, but only marginally and there is some risks of not getting a mandate necessary to get us out of Iraq quickly and pushing through health care reform.

Obama on the other hand is more risky, but in terms of upside: Having long coattails and a mandate, he is more viable. ANd it is that mandate which allows us to get out of Iraq and solve the health care crisis.

For me it comes down to where we want to see the country on November 5, 2011 far more than November 5, 2008. I am willing to risk more for a realigning presidency that gives more americans hope for a generation to come, than I am wiling to risk whatever small legislative victories might come from a narrow victory in 2008 only to gear up again for the same battle in 2012.

I readily admit that my view is myopic, but no more no less than Clinton supporters. We just all need to understand who we are facing in the fall and be realistic electorally and legislatively. The very worst thing we can do is sacrfice election enthusiasm and thus hand McCain a victory because his coalition is suddenly enthusiastic.

[mdmc]

1. I think they can both win as well

But which one would have bigger coattails?

I really dislike Clinton

[Perky]

4. Why is that?

[Perky]

12. kick

[Perky]

13. kick

[zalinda]

2. I'm not sure if either can or will win

I dislike Clinton the least. I can't stand Obama at this point.

zalinda

[Perky]

3. why is that?

[not_too_L8]

5. Awsome post !!...1st to K&R

I think unity will be our strength!! I hope we find it

[Perky]

6. The more vitrioic things become the harder it will be to put humpty dumpty back together.

[Not the Only One]

7. voting on electability in March is silly

All of this talk about Obama being high risk, high reward, a "roll of the dice" if you will </hillary> is just baseless, even if it's an earnest attempt at analysis. Kerry was beating Bush in 2004 at this time, just like Dukakis was ahead in 1988. It's very difficult to predict outcomes this early in the year.

I think Hillary has plenty of sink potential. She and her campaign say ridiculous things all the time. They do things that make her more unlikable.

We should all just support the person we would actually want to serve as the next President. A million things can happen between now and November that can change the preconceived dynamics of the race. Let the general election campaign take care of itself.

[Perky]

11. .

[ieoeja]

8. Hillary could win big. But she won't fucking run.

Bill limited his campaigns to the swing states. Gore and Kerry followed suit. Hillary is doing the same in the primary and has openly mocked a national campaign strategy.

So it is a given that Hillary will not run a national campaign. When you cede 48% of the country to your opponent, your chances of winning large are non-existent. And you better win everywhere else or you don't win at all.

More importantly you have NO coattails where you don't campaign. We will never know, else I'd bet we would win fewer seats in the House with Hillary beating McCain than we would with Obama losing to McCain.

[Perky]

9. we need a 50-state campaign

[Perky]

10. Very interesting rehash of Survey USA's elecotral math polls

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/03/all-victories-a.html

http://www.surveyusa.com
And strengthens the argument I made in the OP above for an Obama-Rendell Ticket.