Kos Makes the Electability Argument for Obama

[jefferson_dem]

Electability
by kos
Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:27:53 PM PDT

The Mountain West has huge growth potential for the Democratic Party, which is why the DNCC is in Denver this year. Colorado is leading the way and is definitely a winnable state ... with the right candidate at the top of the ticket.

Rasmussen. 4/16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/17 results)

McCain (R) 43 (46)
Obama (D) 46 (46)

McCain (R) 50 (52)
Clinton (D) 36 (38)

Obama makes Colorado competitive, Clinton kills it for us. And that's not just relevant at the top of the ticket. We have a top-tier Senate race in the state, and you better believe Mark Udall is better off with Obama at the top of the ticket than having to make up a 14-point Clinton deficit. Throw in CO-04, which is already on the DCCC's target list, and once again, it's clear why having Obama at the top of the ticket is so helpful to the Democratic Party not just at the presidential level, but down below it as well.

Same goes for another Red state we can flip with the right candidate (that "right" candidate being Obama): North Carolina:

Rasmussen. 4/10. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/20 results)

McCain (R) 47 (51)
Obama (D) 47 (42)

McCain (R) 51 (50)
Clinton (D) 40 (34)

Clinton might make this one competitive, but it'd be tough. Obama immediately makes this a top-tier pickup opportunity in a state that McCain can ill-afford to defend. We also have a potentially hot Senate race and at least one solid House pickup opportunity (NC-08), both of which would benefit from 1) having the state be a presidential battleground, and 2) having a competitive candidate at the top of the ticket.

What about those "big states" that Clinton thinks only she can win? How about California?

Rasmussen. 4/16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (3/12 results)

McCain (R) 43 (38)
Obama (D) 50 (53)

McCain (R) 42 (39)
Clinton (D) 47 (46)

Not that either Democrat would lose California to McCain (even in the best-case scenario, he wouldn't have the money to contest it), but funny how Obama runs stronger than Clinton in the Golden State. And even those two points will matter to candidates like Charlie Brown in CA-04 fighting to eeke out tight victories in tough districts. Indeed, Brown only lost by three points in 2006.

What about the purple states, like Minnesota?

SurveyUSA. 4/11-13. Likely voters. MoE 4.3% (3/14-16 results)

McCain (R) 43 (47)
Obama (D) 49 (46)

McCain (R) 46 (46)
Clinton (D) 47 (49)

<SNIP>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/2417/55984/47/501352

[thereismore]

1. Cmon people give this another rec! nt

[Hippo_Tron]

2. I don't think this is the strongest argument for Obama's electability

April polls are pretty much bogus (despite the fact that Clinton supporters love to use them for electability arguments). Obama has significantly more room to improve than Hillary and he will be 10 points or more up against McDinosaur after he gives an incredible acceptance speech at the convention. The question is can he maintain enough of that lead in the fall despite the smear machine. I think he can given that economic issues and Iraq will favor him over McDinosaur and also because McDinosaur isn't exactly infallible either.

McCain has plenty of dirt that we already know about and god knows what we haven't uncovered yet.

[jsamuel]

3. I find him to have a massive double standard. When Edwards was leading all the electability polls

Kos said electability doesn't matter and it is junk to use it.

[kentuck]

4. Hillary is disliked in some states more than others...

Colorado does not like Hillary.

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

6. Neither does Indiana

And dislike is putting it mildly.

[TheDoorbellRang]

37. Why does Indiana not like Hillary?

Inquiring minds want to know. :bounce:

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

42. Well, you have to understand that

prior to Dean's 50 state strategy, the republicans were the only ones doing the talking. So, during the whole Clinton administration, the only things they heard were the republican talkingpoints. Whitewater, Travelgate, Lewinsky etc. they only had the republicans to tell them what all of it was about. Are there those who stepped outside that echo chamber? Of course! But, many just don't take the time and aren't all that interested in politics. So they've been pummeled with the idea of the corruption of it all. Is it fair? No of course not, but, those ideas have been steeped there for more than a decade and Hoosiers don't change thier minds easily and don't like to. The hate for her, by many, is nearly irrational. And many of those that don't hate her are not exactly what you'd consider die hard supporters. They are hungry for someone that they WANT to vote FOR and not just vote for the same old "whoever is nominated" vote.

In my opinion, Indiana is ripe for someone like Obama, especially if they get to know him. Of course,in some areas of the state, they will NEVER vote for a Dem, not even in a primary. But, I don't think Indiana is an impossible win for us (Dems) in the GE. I think it can be done. With a weak republican candidate, many in the south will just stay home, leaving an excited demographic like Indy and Bloomington to cast the votes, good for us!

These are just my observations, from the people I've talked to. I've lived all over the state-top to bottom. My family and friends live all over the state, and anytime you mention the Clintons, you get a groan, Dem and republican alike. I defended the Clintons oer and over again throughout thier administration. Some I made headway with, some will never come around. And it's not just not liking them, it's HATE. Is it fair? No, but, it is what it is.

Oh, one more thing too, Hoosiers do NOT like mudslinging and Hillary's latest campaign strategy has only boosted Obama's numbers. In myopinion, if Obama continues to stay above the mudslinging, continues his campaign stops in smaller towns like Kokomo (today), continues to talk about how his ideas can help ordinary Hoosiers, continues to show his understanding of Indiana (basketball, John Mellencamp, Little 500) he can and will take Indiana. Note to the Obama camp, don't forget the Indianapolis Colts, they are a class act team with the first African American coach to win the Super Bowl, the parallels are there and Indiana is SO proud of their Colts. maybe an appearance by Tony Dungy or an endorsement? Maybe saying that he forgives the Colts for beating his Bears, something funny like that. It would be HUGE!

[TheDoorbellRang]

43. Well this is good to hear.

I'll be watching for your Indiana insights as the race plays out there. :hi:

[Barrymores Ghost]

5. K&R!

[Coexist]

7. knr

[NJSecularist]

8. In the Obama No Ohio and No Florida strategy, he needs to sweep the Mountain West.

There is no margin for error.

[jackson_dem]

10. Which won't happen, especially given "new" candidates always poll much better in the spring

Than they do in November (unless they are running against an incumbent). It is extremely naive and a huge leap of faith to think Obama will not be hurt by attacks from the other party just like Kerry, Bush, and Dukakis were. Why do you think Obama's people are making a full court press to prevent the airing of the pastorgate ad in NC? They know this.

If Obama loses as much as Bush and Kerry did in the last two cycles Obama will lose the general election by 10 points--the same margin Carter lost by in 1980.

[NJSecularist]

14. The Rethugs haven't even started on him yet.

His numbers are sure to go down. And all three of the Mountain West states that Obama needs to win - Colorado, New Miexoc and Colorado - Bush carried them in 2004. And there is a Southwest senator on the ticket this time around.

[jackson_dem]

17. Here is a challenge to Obamites

Name the last "new" nominee to not go down from where he was early in the election year by November when not running against an incumbent. If an incumbent is running it is a different story because the election is a referendum on the incumbent and the incumbent can tank, like Bush 41 did. "New" is defined as not universally known in the sense Gore, Bush 41, and Mondale were known since they served as VP. "New" is Kerry, George W. Bush, Dukakis, Carter 76', and McGovern. Carter is borderline since Ford was an incumbent but had been in office for last than 2 years when he ran. Even then Carter lost 33 points of a 35 point lead...

[jefferson_dem]

22. This sub-thread is just plain weird.

Echo...echo...

[NJSecularist]

27. Interesting how there was no answer to his question.

[jackson_dem]

29. They will never answer it because it 1) causes cognitive dissonance 2) they know the answer

They may not know past history but they know intellectually that it makes no sense to think a new candidate who is basically pristine is going to emerge from months of daily attacks from the other party as strong as he was going into the battle.

I have one thread left and hope to save it for tomorrow morning. If you wish to post my question feel free to do so. ;)

[NJSecularist]

31. I'm out of threads for now.

I think the silence speaks for itself. ;)

[jackson_dem]

34. I have made the same point numerous times. An Obamite has never answered it...

McSame will go down too but not nearly as quickly as Obama. Obama is undefined. McSame is defined to a significant extent since he has been a national figure for years and ran before.

[jefferson_dem]

30. Who's question?

Yours?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

[paulk]

9. Kos is a moron

not to mention a former Republican and quite likely a current Libertarian. Why his opinion matters to the progressive left is a mystery to me.

McCain, who is from ARIZONA, takes the mountain west strategy away. He has always been the most dangerous Republican running because of this. The advantages the Democratic Party have been building in the mountain west are neutralized by John McCain. Neither Hillary OR Obama is going to win out here. No NM, CO, MT, NV. McCain is practically the western prototype - a maverick, an individualist - a fucking COWBOY.

There's a reason why Ken Salazar won in Colorado and Kerry lost! Because Salazar is one of "us" and Kerry isn't. Neither are Hillary and Obama. McCain is!

That's why Florida and Ohio are so important. To see the Obama campaign write off Florida and struggle in the traditional battleground states is not a good sign.

[jefferson_dem]

13. "McCain is a maverick, an individualist - a fucking COWBOY"

And you call Kos a moron.

With Obama at the top of the ticket, we will take CO, NM, and NV at least. MT's 3 EVs will also be in play.

With Hillary at the top of the ticket, NM and NV are competitive but a dodgy proposition. CO is more than an uphill battle. MT is a no way, jose.

[paulk]

18. I live out out here

I understand this place a lot better than some wannabe pundit who lives in Berkeley.

Or some keyboard warrior in Georgia.

-------------------

ps - call me a moron to my face, asshole.

[jefferson_dem]

21. No need to be so sensitive, dude.

You refer to Kos as a moron and McCain as a maverick cowboy. Don't be surprised if someone on the "Democratic Underground" challenges you on it.

[paulk]

40. google McCain and maverick and see how many hits you get

The maverick, go it alone, individualist thing practically defines the "cowboy" mentality.

I wouldn't expect someone from Georgia to know or understand that. I wouldn't expect someone who lives in Hyde Park to understand it, either.

[jackson_dem]

11. Kos makes a "I need to suck up to my 90-95% Obamite readership" argument

You never see the Obama electability argument address these two things: 1) it's the electoral college, stupid! 2) How Obama is going to be immune to attacks from the other party and remain as strong as he is now by November after he gets defined negatively in the eyes of many by the other party. His numbers have fallen the most over the past year with indies--the very group Obama's alleged electability revolves around. The idea they will like him as much in November as they do now is foolish once they learn he is not what he is advertising himself as. The post-partisanship argument will be the first to go. There is nothing in his record to back up his claims that he can unite both parties on controversial issues.

[jefferson_dem]

12. That's the point of Kos's post, silly.

The EC vote will be based on statewide contests. His post addresses how Obama will fare better in certain states this November than Hillary would have if she were our Party's nominee.

Nobody's immune from attacks. I look forward to you stepping up and defending our nominee instead of piling on with cheap rethug talking points.

[jackson_dem]

15. Notice how Obamites list states but never the electoral college count?

It is a clever move because most people don't know the difference between Minnesota and Ohio (10 electoral votes versus 20) or Florida and Iowa (27 electoral votes versus seven). List pile up a list and visually to the less politically aware it looks like a strong case.

Running up the score gets you no bonus points. The Obama problem--and the reason we are hearing such whining and bitterness from Obamites since PA confirmed this--is he does worst in the states we need most: FL, PA, OH, and even some second-tier states like MO. Did Kos mention who flips more states (answer: Clinton flips FL, OH, MO, and NV right now. Obama flips Iowa and NV)? Of course not. Did Kos, who once correctly noted the past history of what happens to the early well-known front runner once the challengers become known mention what happens to the "new" challenger once that candidate makes it to the general election? He didn't because he knows it is almost impossible to defy political gravity. Of course what difference does it make to Kos if Obama loses the GE by 10 (based on assuming he loses as much as the last two "new" candidates did when the other party was through with them)? He stands to get more web hits and make more money, have more influence when the opposing party is in power. Anger breeds more interest in partisan outlets where folks can vent. In a similar way Rush Limbaugh will personally benefit more from having a Democrat in the White House.

[Condem]

20. Hey, Jackson

One of the caucus boys. You and NJ. How's that working out?

[NJSecularist]

24. But Obama will win Virginia and North Carolina!

Two states that haven't went blue since 1976 and 1964 (respectivelly). Some Obamite also told me that Obama would win in Kansas and Montana.

[jackson_dem]

28. I've heard that too. They also think he can win Mississipi and Georgia

[Condem]

33. Hillary, NJ

Starts with 48% of the US despising her. Won't take much to get to 50%, will it?

[NJSecularist]

35. That 48% figure is conjecture and wishful thinking.

You cannot prove that.

[Condem]

38. C'mon, NJ

Why do you think the repugs are crossing over. Cos they like her? Man, when do you give it up? What's the fascination?

[stevietheman]

19. But how would Hillary win the GE if she steals the nomination and half the Democrats

and the many independents (and even some Repubs) Obama was attracting stay at home or vote for McCain on Election Day?

The pledged delegate leader needs to be awarded the nomination. Anything else will spell certain disaster for Democrats in November across the board, from local up to federal elections.

[jackson_dem]

25. she wouldn't win and would fracture the party long-term if...

She is given the nomination without the popular vote. If she wins the popular vote the supers have a reasonable explanation to give it to her, but even then they are unlikely to do so--unless they are convinced Obama can't win the GE and that is possible given his recent performances. Still I would give her at best a 30% chance at winning. If she lost PA it would be 2%, if she even stayed in the race.

There is another side to this equation. What if Clinton wins the popular vote and loses among pledged delegates? Or what if she wins the popular vote and her deficit among pledged delegates is built on FL/MI or just Fl being disenfranchised? Obama would then have the Bush-type legitimacy problem of winning based on not counting votes. Clinton would net over 50 delegates if FL and MI are seated (and "uncommitted", which included Edwards voters, is allocated completely to Oama). What affect would this have on female voters?

[Auntie Bush]

23. Seem to me the polls had Obama winning NH and a much smaller defeat for Obama inPA.

I don't trust those polls. Do you? :shrug:

[jackson_dem]

26. The now beginning discussion of why that happens is the other elephant in the room...

I read at least two articles which mentioned this trend (the same thing happened in OH and in TX) and the reason for it is not pretty. If the supers buy this that blows Obama's poll theory out the water because his poll numbers are inflated. (As an aside, it works the opposite way in southern states. Obama will win NC by more than the polls say, just like he did in SC, GA, MS, AL, and LA.) If the polls have Indiana a dead heat or close (people forget Obama had closed to within 4-5 of her by the end of last week in PA) and he loses by about 10 this will fuel suspicion about this.

[NJSecularist]

32. Obama wants to have a discussion about race but you'll be branded racist by the Obamaflock...

if you create a thread about it. Odd, isn't it?

[jackson_dem]

36. Yup. They tout him winning 90% of the black vote yet if you mention his performance with whites or

Latinos it is deemed racist. The guy never could crack 40% with Latinos in states with large Latino populations and now he struggles to do the same with whites. Yet he is going to win the GE? Kerry got 41% of whites and 56% of Latinos and 90% of blacks to lose by 3% nationally. Obama is going to match him with whites and Latinos? Maybe he can bump the black number up to 95% but 5% more of 10% is 0.5%.

[GetTheRightVote]

39. kicking it to keep it up there ....

[FrenchieCat]

41. Very well done!

Hillary's negative starts her at a deficit. That's why she is no longer the frontrunner in this race. She won't beat McCain either. He is the Maverick when he runs against her. He cannot claim that mantle running against Obama. Period.