Here's a comment to a Matt Yglesais post, with an excerpt from Matt's post in italics:That said, all the available evidence points to there being more people with friendly feelings toward Obama than there are with friendly feelings toward Hillary.
OTOH, there are greater limits to the grossest ways in which the Republican candidates can dog whistle on HRC than on Obama. Republicans weren't going to get the black vote anyway. The main reason to seem friendly to black voters is to reassure white female voters (or so I think Rove said). But attacking HRC on dog whistle gender grounds seems at least as likely to cost Republicans those white women voters, whom they currently win by (I think) 10%, as attacking Obama on race-related dog whistle grounds. Even K-Lo gets irritated by some of the gender related HRC-bashing, and occassionally gets frustrated by the lack of Republican female politicians.
I don't think the issue is as clear cut as you're making it out to be. This isn't making me change my mind, but this is the first argument for Clinton vs. Obama that has made any sense at all to me. What do you guys think?
Overall I still say that since Clinton is stronger with the dem base, and Obama is stronger with independents, he's a better candidate in the general election since the base is going to vote for whoever the dem nominee is anyway, while the independents can easily break the other way (or just split or just stay home) if it's Clinton.
Republicans can go anti-black and anti-Muslim on Obama.
exhibit a: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7688
National elections require a state-by-state calculus. With Obama as the candidate, that would be even more true. One would have to look at, in particular, where blacks (who are likely to vote) live and where the white supremacist evangelical crackers live.
If the Republicans go with Romney, and the Dems go with Obama, the evangelicals are in a bind -- Mormon cultist vs. crypto muslim. Which may be why the Rep establishment seems to be moving in to back McCain. The wackos in their base might hold their noses to vote for McCain in order to voice their opposition to a islamic/black-christian-separatist Kenyan/Indonesian Chicago-political-machine candidate.
And we all know how strongly McCain fights against Republican dirty tricks.
not related to your question but it seems counter-intuitive that the supposedly more liberal candidate gets less support from "the base" than the dlc-type candidate. but i also suspect that many so-called independents are people to the far left who dont self identify as democrats anymore. be interesting to see a breakdown of the political spectrum of the independent folks.
as to your question, it might depend more on who is able to draw people out and that might depend more on the candidates this time around. if the media has there way and mccain gets the nod (or even romney) do the evangelicals sit this one out? would huckabee on the bottom of the ticket make a difference? if huckabee is on top, do the independents lean heavily democratic? and can either hillary bring women out in overwhelming numbers as with new hampshire or can obama rally african americans and the youth vote?
im just not sure that a dog whistle alone will make the difference this time. hope im right.
i suppose the comment is right though. there is potentially more to lose by attacking hillary as the repugs will never get the black vote. but attacking his blackness could spill over into other minorities especially latins. with immigration already working against repugs that might not be particularly helpful. and again to my point, it could increase turnout among blacks which would counter any wingnut gains. that said, theres probably more soccer/terror/swingvote moms than african americans that will vote.
not a terribly coherent response.
that was written prior to marks comment. dont know how effective the muslimization of obama will work to bring out the wingnuts or keep the terror moms in line.
it seems counter-intuitive that the supposedly more liberal candidate gets less support from "the base" than the dlc-type candidate
I think people don't have any idea about the cadidate's positions. People who don't know just think Clinton = radical liberal and Obama = left leaning moderate with no axe to grind. Even though as you point out Obama is clearly to the left of Clinton if you pay attention to their actual policies.
Interesting question about what a Huckabee VP does for the republicans in terms of getting the evangelical base to come out. I'm not sure, but that's probably pretty important.
Totally off the wall theory: could Obama get a reverse racist vote from the born-agains because he might be seen as the anti-christ (who some think will be black because, I think, of the Left Behind books,) and getting him into power will hasten armageddon?
ya got me there, jim. you can take that up with imus next time youre on the show. i still think they need a candidate that can unify the disparate parts of the party and that doesnt seem likely at this point. i suppose hillary-hating and hussein obamania are all they have left. and the surge is working!!
You know, Huck (or Brownback) as a veep might work well enough as sop for the evangelicals. I think that might inoculate someone like McCain or Giuliani. I think they lose a lot of the culture warriors with an LDS candidate who has a tainted history on key theocracy issues.
|
Overall I still say that since Clinton is stronger with the dem base, and Obama is stronger with independents, he's a better candidate in the general election since the base is going to vote for whoever the dem nominee is anyway, while the independents can easily break the other way (or just split or just stay home) if it's Clinton.
- jim 1-10-2008 11:38 pm
Republicans can go anti-black and anti-Muslim on Obama.
exhibit a: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7688
National elections require a state-by-state calculus. With Obama as the candidate, that would be even more true. One would have to look at, in particular, where blacks (who are likely to vote) live and where the white supremacist evangelical crackers live.
If the Republicans go with Romney, and the Dems go with Obama, the evangelicals are in a bind -- Mormon cultist vs. crypto muslim. Which may be why the Rep establishment seems to be moving in to back McCain. The wackos in their base might hold their noses to vote for McCain in order to voice their opposition to a islamic/black-christian-separatist Kenyan/Indonesian Chicago-political-machine candidate.
And we all know how strongly McCain fights against Republican dirty tricks.
- mark 1-11-2008 12:35 am
not related to your question but it seems counter-intuitive that the supposedly more liberal candidate gets less support from "the base" than the dlc-type candidate. but i also suspect that many so-called independents are people to the far left who dont self identify as democrats anymore. be interesting to see a breakdown of the political spectrum of the independent folks.
as to your question, it might depend more on who is able to draw people out and that might depend more on the candidates this time around. if the media has there way and mccain gets the nod (or even romney) do the evangelicals sit this one out? would huckabee on the bottom of the ticket make a difference? if huckabee is on top, do the independents lean heavily democratic? and can either hillary bring women out in overwhelming numbers as with new hampshire or can obama rally african americans and the youth vote?
im just not sure that a dog whistle alone will make the difference this time. hope im right.
i suppose the comment is right though. there is potentially more to lose by attacking hillary as the repugs will never get the black vote. but attacking his blackness could spill over into other minorities especially latins. with immigration already working against repugs that might not be particularly helpful. and again to my point, it could increase turnout among blacks which would counter any wingnut gains. that said, theres probably more soccer/terror/swingvote moms than african americans that will vote.
not a terribly coherent response.
- dave 1-11-2008 12:57 am
that was written prior to marks comment. dont know how effective the muslimization of obama will work to bring out the wingnuts or keep the terror moms in line.
- dave 1-11-2008 1:00 am
it seems counter-intuitive that the supposedly more liberal candidate gets less support from "the base" than the dlc-type candidate
I think people don't have any idea about the cadidate's positions. People who don't know just think Clinton = radical liberal and Obama = left leaning moderate with no axe to grind. Even though as you point out Obama is clearly to the left of Clinton if you pay attention to their actual policies.
Interesting question about what a Huckabee VP does for the republicans in terms of getting the evangelical base to come out. I'm not sure, but that's probably pretty important.
Totally off the wall theory: could Obama get a reverse racist vote from the born-agains because he might be seen as the anti-christ (who some think will be black because, I think, of the Left Behind books,) and getting him into power will hasten armageddon?
- jim 1-11-2008 1:21 am
ya got me there, jim. you can take that up with imus next time youre on the show. i still think they need a candidate that can unify the disparate parts of the party and that doesnt seem likely at this point. i suppose hillary-hating and hussein obamania are all they have left. and the surge is working!!
- dave 1-11-2008 2:06 am
You know, Huck (or Brownback) as a veep might work well enough as sop for the evangelicals. I think that might inoculate someone like McCain or Giuliani. I think they lose a lot of the culture warriors with an LDS candidate who has a tainted history on key theocracy issues.
- mark 1-11-2008 2:29 am