Who is the more viable candidate in the general election?

[sidwill]

I keep hearing things like "Hillary is a bulldog and thats what we need to beat the Rs" or "The clinton's experience with the Rovian slime machine give them an edge in defeating it". These are valid points yet they ignore important and overiding (IMO) trends in US politics these last 12 months or so. Those trends are the US public's increasing disenchanment with the right, the fracture of the Republican coalition of Business, Military and evagelicals as well as a shift for Independents towards progressive candidates.

A. Effect of a Hillary candidacy on the election and government if succesful: IMO a Hillary candidacy will have two adverse consequences on the electorate, first it will restore consensus and unity among rank and file Republicans who (unfairly in my opinion) have a very negative view of the Clintons in general and second it will divide the Independant vote more evenly than we saw in the midterms again due to a generally negative (and undeserved in my opinion) view of the Clintons. These factors have an additional negative effect in the House and Senate where we are poised to pick up seats and expand our majorities due to the lack of "coattails" especially in "purple" districts and states.

That said I still see Hillary winning a relatively close 51-49 or 52-48 race ala the last two presidential elections. But what does this leave us with in respect to US politics? Hillary will be faced with, yet again, a divided electorate, a significant built in opposition with a very negative view of her presidency, and the mess that Bush left her to boot. This plus an Republican establishment that will spend every waking minute trying to undermine her will simply serve to deepen the lines of division that are already so evident in our democracy.

B. Effects of an Obama candidacy. True Obama does not have the down and dirty experience that the Clintons have when fighting the Repukes, but in today's current atmosphere will he need it? Due to the electoral trends cited above the Repukes (IMO) will have a harder time making their slime stick to a candidate who has wider overall appeal and who evokes far fewer negative emotions on the Right and among Independents. Will traditional conservatives be as motivated to close ranks against a candidate who's message is conciliatory? Not only that but a concerted Repuke smear campaign, in light of their recent failures, is more likely to push more moderate Rs and Independents over to Obama.

I see an Obama run resulting a a slightly larger victory margin of 55-45 or along those lines with the added benefit of long coattails maybe even establishing a filibuster proof advantage in the Senate. Add to this his message of healing political divisions may give us some respite from the sleazefest we have witnessed during the Rove era.

I respect Hillary, her negatives are IMO historically undeserved, but Hillary in the General is the Right's wet dream, even in losing they get a walking, talking wedge issue that guarantees a delay to the inevitable fracture of the fragile coalition. Obama would IMO act as a wedge as well, albeit a smily faced well mannered likable wedge that would break apart the Republican coalition and return some semblance of sanity to US politics.

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. i don't know why anyone thinks Hillary can win

it baffles me who they think is going to vote for her.

[flyarm]

2. John Edwards..he is the only one who beats all repigs! period! eom

[sidwill]

4. Possibly but

I don't even see him winning his home state and he trails Hil and barack across the board.

At some point you gotta hitch your wagon to one of the front runners.

That said, if I was given power over all space and time I would install Dennis to the WH, but that ain't happenin either.

[DemDogs]

15. So quick to give it to the Rs?

It doesn't have to be that way UNLESS you give up. That's what they are counting on. Don't let it happen.

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. I don't have to "hitch" my "wagon" too anyone.

Nice try, though. And I am not giving up on John unless he quits and he said he is in this until the end, thank you very much!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. John Edwards and Obama

[robbedvoter]

5. The guy who thinks he has it tough with all the MSM cheering him on?

And who is "disappointed for the Fla and Mi voters - but tough - this is about HIM not their rights? :shryg:

[goldcanyonaz]

6. Nope, they're all losers. I read it here, so it must be true.

[Sparkly]

7. It's impossible to say right now.

The RNC hasn't started its attacks on Obama and Edwards.

On your points about Clinton -- I think the rightwing ammo has all been fired at her already. In many people's minds, she can only go up. (People can hear her speak and say with surprise, "Hey, she's not so bad afterall." It's happened on DU, too.)

[sidwill]

9. I think this is a little wishful thinking

How often do people change their political stripes?

[Sparkly]

11. I'm not sure what you mean.

I don't think it involves changing political stripes.

[protect our future]

8. Obama and Edwards are more electable than Hillary. But here's a news flash:

This morning on Washington Journal, the moderator read from a news article that the Obama campaign is quietly saying John Edwards will be named AG in an Obama administration.

This news bit originated in Washington, D.C. but I do not know where it was published.

I tend to think it is true. There would be no finer choice for AG than Edwards. He's the Republicans' very worst nightmare. The Obama campaign, I am sure, understands that.

[sidwill]

10. I would love Edwards as AG

I would like Dennis more, but Edwards would be light years better than the current assclown parade.

[protect our future]

20. Sidwell, I agree about wanting Edwards as AG if he's not the nominee.

I've described him as an "energizer bunny/pitbull" somewhere here at DU.

I cannot imagine a better choice for AG.

[sunonmars]

12. Trust me big business will never let Edwards be AG

Never in a million years

[protect our future]

18. If a President Obama wanted him, how could "big business" prevent it?

[DemDogs]

13. Amazing that Edwards not even in your discussion - he's most electable

Think about them all:

Hillary wins the nomination, blacks are turned off by the Clinton race-baiting (whether it was or not is unimportant -- the press has labeled it that). Blacks don't show up at the polls for Hillary in November unless she puts a black in the VP position, which she will never do because she doesn't want to add the racist vote to her electability problems. Add that to the people (Rs and Ds) who can't stand her. Add to the R side that she pumps up turnout for the Rs. We lose not just the 2004 states but other states where the margin was black votes.

Obama wins the nomination, and the ugly racist vote is motivated the way it was in Tennessee against Ford. The drug use (whether it was confined to time ending in early twenties or not) becomes an under-the-radar theme playing on fear-mongering stereotypes. Obama has not shown himself able to withstand the pressure. The Rezko stuff that has been mild here will be played out publicly and repeatedly and again with the stereotypes, Obama has to be constantly on the defensive. Against McCain especially but also Romney Obama seems particularly young and inexperienced. We do not win a single state we lost in 2004.

Edwards wins the nomination. The attacks on hair and house, but this time his opponent is McCain (wealthy, big ranch, wife with more than a little cosmetic work) or Romney (need I say more?). Edwards competes in the south and midwest with demeanor and message that won him NC against Faircloth. We win 2004 states, NC, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, Maine and more.

Neither Obama nor Hillary can win a state that Edwards cannot win. Someone here should do a state by state analysis.

[sidwill]

23. I love Edwards

But barring some sort of miracle turnaround he won't even win his home state.

Fact is Edwards, Hillary and Obama are all great candidates, the differences betwen them are neglible, but taking a strictly tactical approach Obama is the best option. Edwards at this point doesn't look like he has a chance at the nomination, Hillary is exactly what the right is hoping for- a candidate who will repair their rifts and rally their footsoldiers.

[Nimrod2005]

14. Obama by far

[saltpoint]

16. I think the top 3 Dems are all viable, that they've emerged from a strong

field of 8 viable candidacies, and that the surviving Pukes are in deep doo-doo in November.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. Thank you for a thoughtful analysis

I'm thinking that another aspect of an Obama candidacy is that the MSM won't be able to go as negative against him for a couple of reasons-one, they haven't known him as long and don't have as much "on" him, and two, they will be reluctant to go to far for fear of being called racists. That being said, I think there are many radio talkers who wouldn't be afraid to spew racist garbage. I know some would say I'm "pulling the race card" but I think race does have to be taken into account when one considers what CBS, NBC, ABC, etc, will do. It will be nice when race is not a factor in this country any more, but right now it is.

Although right now it looks like the race will be between these two, I do believe Edwards is still a factor. His anti-corporate stance will be appealing to the public in general, especially as if the economy gets worse. Anyway, that same stance will make him fair game for the MSM, but I'm thinking circumstances in the world will be enough to expose their lies.

[protect our future]

21. Ayeshahaqqiqa, good points, especially re: the radio talkers.

Radio talkers spewing racist garbage is something I hadn't thought of.

I'm assuming top Republicans, in public, would walk on eggshells if Obama is the nominee.

[cooolandrew]

22. Yep, he is the most logical vote for surviving as a Democratic majority. Completely objectively.