Obama is the best candidate to beat McCain

[SteppingRazor]

I would have liked Clinton in a matchup against Romney or Huckabee, but Obama's the man to beat McCain for a whole variety of reasons:

He steals away many of the independent votes that McCain has to rely on to win.

He won't energize disenfranchised, McCain-hating conservatives to show up to the polls, at least not nearly as much as Clinton will.

His purer anti-war stance (regardless of what Clinton or Obama will do with Iraq when elected, Obama can say he was against the war from the get-go) will provide the best contrast with McCain's "hey, let's stay in Iraq for a million years" position.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. On both political strategic levels and policy levels, Obama's the better match against McCain, who, at this point, is the GOP nominee in all but name.

[apnu]

1. wow, for once a reasonable, and appropriate, post in the forum

I'm shocked at the lack of name calling, sexism, racism and cultism in the OP.

:yourock:

[SteppingRazor]

4. Thanks!

Yeah, I try to avoid name calling and other assorted flames. Hell, I don't even call Republicans names -- I don't believe you'll find a single "KKKarl" or "Repuke" or "Chimpster" or what have you in my entire post history, much less a "Hillbot" or "Obamaniac" or whatever. I just think it's a little childish.

Anyway, hopefully we can keep that tone throughout, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who's a little sick of all the name-calling on both sides of this fence. :toast:

[MH1]

8. Wait...surely such a post as the op is against DU rules?

I must assume it is against the rules - you see so few of them.

;)

[TheWraith]

2. Not to mention, he's energetic and inspiring, while McCain couldn't get a cheer in a nursing home.

McCain used to be my favorite Republican, back when he was remotely sane and moderate, but going up against Obama he'd be beaten like a pinata.

[SteppingRazor]

5. Yeah, that will be quite a contrast. I'm not much on the JFK/Obama comparisons, but...

an Obama/McCain debate will make the JFK/Nixon ones look balanced by comparison. McCain won't even make it to the election -- he'll drown in his own flopsweat.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. Yes, the energy of Obama against McCain being the oldest

ever to seek the position would be pretty stark.

[Bonobo]

3. Undeniable. Kicked and Recommended.

[goldcanyonaz]

6. Clinton puts Arizona in play, Obama not so much. AZ is on the brink of becoming blue.

Clinton has a huge base is my state. Most of this states demographic is now made up of Northerners who have moved here and Hispanics. He wasn't able to pull off a win here, even with the Governor and all the newspaper endorsements going his way.

Arizona is Clinton Country.

[SteppingRazor]

9. Against McCain? I dunno 'bout that.

I think either of our candidates will have a tough time against the senator in his home state. And besides, comparisons between Obama and Clinton about which of them can carry a state in the general election based on how they did in the primary election aren't truly valid. Moreover, if its northerners and Hispanics you're worried about, I believe that northerners will likely go for Obama (regardless of Hillary's primary wins in places like New York, those states will still go for Obama in the general, which brings me back to my point about primary wins not being necessarily telling when it comes to the general election). And as for Hispanics, Obama can do a great deal by picking a running mate from the southwest, and even a Hispanic -- Bill Richardson springs immediately to mind.

[TheWraith]

11. Please. You think Arizona is going to vote Clinton over their hometown boy?

McCain's been representing Arizona since it became a state. They love him, for whatever crazy-ass reason. Nobody wins AZ for us if McCain is the nominee. Period.

[goldcanyonaz]

19. I live here, and the Hispanics bring Clinton into play over McCain.

The Hispanics have no place in their heart for McCain. I live here.

[SteppingRazor]

21. But the fact of the matter is, that in a campaign with limited resources, either Democrat...

is likely to cede Arizona to McCain anyway, rather than fight an uphill battle when there are other swing states that can be won more easily.

[Blue-Jay]

24. I'd like to agree with you, but against McCain?

Certainly, Arizona has been trending more "blue" in the past few years, but I doubt that trend will be a factor when McCain is running. There are a certain amount of voters who will cast their ballot for the "home team" regardless of any other considerations.

[Autumn]

7. I agree, and

I think Hillary can beat him too. McCain is toast. My 2 nephews who have done two tours in Iraq are voting democratic this year,one for Hillary and one for Obama, but my sister who is a die hard republican is going to vote for Hillary, and to me that means we have two fantastic candidates.

[TheWraith]

13. Hillary gives the conservative base a reason to come out and support McCain.

Any other candidate, they stay home because they hate his guts, unless he picks Huckleberry for VP and makes one hell of a sales pitch. Even then, it's 50/50 at best whether they bother to vote.

[Autumn]

28. My sister is a conservative

fox watching,bush loving republican who is voting for Hillary,because of McCain.

[TheWraith]

50. Ah, personal anecdotes.

Your sister aside, 99% of the conservative base hates Hillary Clinton's guts. It's the ONLY reason most of them would vote McCain.

And what happened to the people who were running around here shouting "I don't want to vote for anyone a Republican might even think about voting for!"?

[BeyondGeography]

10. There will be no using the experience argument against Gramps

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. No He Isn't.

[TheWraith]

14. Good to see you're not actually contributing substance.

I'd have to check the Weather Channel to see if Hell froze over.

[cali]

18. Instsead of just repeating that, why don't you actually try

to explain your reasoning?

[Blue-Jay]

20. OK. Why do you think that?

Let's have a discussion, instead of unsupported proclamations. That would be awesome, don't ya think?

[SteppingRazor]

22. OMC, I offered a short list of reasons why I believe what I do. Could you do the same please? n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Ok. Sure. I'll Match Ya: Hillary Is The Best Candidate To Beat McCain Because:

1. Insert purely speculative opinion that has minimal impact on why she could win here.

2. Insert additional purely speculative opinion that has minimal impact on why she could win here.

3. Insert additional purely speculative opinion that has minimal impact on why she could win here.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. On both political strategic levels and policy levels, Hillary's the better match against McCain, who, at this point, is the GOP nominee in all but name.

[SteppingRazor]

29. Ah well. I tried. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. Next Time Try Harder. n/t

[SteppingRazor]

39. Given your response already, I don't think you're worth the effort.

I've tried so far in this thread, and in fact, throughout my posting career here at DU, to maintain a sense of civility and decorum, regardless of the overall tone of the forums at any particular moment. But if I come to this place with such an attitude, and all you can do is respond with sarcasm and snide dismissal, why should I give you the time of day?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. I Like You :o)

I appreciate the fact that you seem to genuinely be interested in civil discourse, since lord knows this place is a bit short on that lately.

What stuck out to me and what bothered me about this thread was your 'factual' type declaration in the title as opposed to a caveat of 'I think Obama etc". Then when I opened it, I found very little substantive supportive reasoning for such a factual declaration, and instead a post with pure almost insignificant speculation. From my perspective, your thread came down to nothing much more than "Obama is the best", when put into a nutshell. I figured the appropriate response was simply "No he isn't".



"He steals away many of the independent votes that McCain has to rely on to win."

Pure speculation, not fact. You have no idea how that split will go. It can also easily be countered with additional speculation as to how much Hillary can energize female and Hispanic voters etc. There is nothing in that which lends itself to a declaration of Obama being the best whatsoever.

"He won't energize disenfranchised, McCain-hating conservatives to show up to the polls, at least not nearly as much as Clinton will."

More speculation. You have no idea what that offset would be or how during the campaign itself the fodder that could be used to motivate the base. There are so many factors that come into play. I also think the whole 'energize' argument is bunk anyway. The disenfranchised conservatives have SUCH a bad taste in their mouth towards McCain, that Hillary or not I don't think they're gonna rush out to the polls.

"His purer anti-war stance (regardless of what Clinton or Obama will do with Iraq when elected, Obama can say he was against the war from the get-go) will provide the best contrast with McCain's "hey, let's stay in Iraq for a million years" position."

That's all nice and fuzzy to say and stuff, but this is in no way an argument as to why he's the best. It's actually quite a weak example. Obama's stance on some of these things may actually be a DOWNFALL for him, not a positive. It might resonate with hard left liberals, but overall they are a quite small percentage of the voting populace. Far more might view Hillary's seeming tougher stance on Defense and experience with such as a far better pro than con. It is relative, it is speculative, and again shows no real reason at all as to why he'd be the best.

Fact is, both of them could do great against McCain for a plethora of different reasons. But if you want Obama to shine as the best, and actually post something DECLARING FACTUALLY that he's the best, then I think you need to be prepared with far better evidence than the speculative and opinionated ones you supplied.

[SteppingRazor]

49. Thank you!

For the record, you're absolutely right. My OP is speculative, it is opinion, and I don't think it should be treated as anything else. Of course, if we're going to have a conversation about who would be the best candidate against McCain, then any argument is going to be speculation. The only question is whether that speculation is at all born out by what has happened previously in the primary season and in other elections.

I would say that, while I cede that Hillary could energize Hispanic and female voters, those aren't big bases for McCain. The point of that statement was that Obama can get voters that could otherwise be McCain voters, and while that's speculation, it's born out by poll after poll showing that Obama is drawing in independent and disaffected Republican voters -- people who tend to go with McCain in a choice between him and the other Republican contenders. So, the point of that statement is not so much who Obama or Clinton bring to the table, but who they take away from McCain. And given his previous track record of drawing indie voters, it is my belief that Obama can chip away at McCain's base better than Clinton.

I disagree that conservatives have such a bad taste in their mouths that they won't vote for McCain regardless of who our nominee is. I can only offer anecdotal evidence -- which is to say, hardly any evidence at all -- but almost my entire woefully conservative family falls into this category. My mom, for example, a sweet old lady who almost never curses, doesn't want to vote for McCain but will go to the polls to make sure "that bitch Hillary" doesn't get in the White House.

I also disagree that only "left liberals" will find a more reliable anti-Iraq War stance preferable. I think that might have been true in the last election cycle, but in 2008, left-liberals are only a small percentage of the large majority of this country that is against this war. You could make the argument that Obama's stance opens him up to being labeled as "weak on defense," but he's already started countering this argument with forceful statements on Iran and Pakistan. Not that I think Obama's ready to bomb either country, of course, but I do think he's already covering his ass in regard to the weak-on-defense argument.

Again, this is all admittedly speculative and should be treated as such. We seem to disagree not necessarily on the ideas I mentioned, but on their level of effectiveness -- in other words, we disagree largely on the levels of conservative loathing viz-a-viz McCain and Clinton, and the extent to which the voting population outside lift-liberals is now against this war. Any talk of who would be the better candidate against the man who is now, without a doubt, the GOP nominee will be rife with speculation and opinion, of course, but I don't think that makes the arguments entirely invalid. They're still useful to have, if only from an academic point of view.

[Blue-Jay]

33. So...."Because I said so" is your reasoning?

OK.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Please Learn How To Read.

[Blue-Jay]

36. oK. I couldn'T reaD untiL jusT noW. thanK yoU!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Sniffa Wannabe.

:rofl:

[Blue-Jay]

38. heh heh.

I've been looking for a unique posting-affectation for a while, so I thought I'd try one out on you.

:D

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. I Kinda Dug It.

It was me in reverse LOL

:)

[LulaMay]

15. And what about the HUGE turnout of women 4 Hillary? It's ridiculously discounted. Our party will win

because we will have an enormous turnout. They just aren't going to generate it. That doesn't mean we can get complacent, but that we should all keep building on the EXCITEMENT of people for our candidates and our party, regardless of who's nominated. Hillary got 300,000 more votes than McCain in a state where there was no campaigning. Personally, I think the best slam dunk we have is a ticket with both of them on it, but the only chance of that happening is if Hillary is nominated.

[SteppingRazor]

41. I think those are both good points.

First, that we'll have huge turnout regardless of our nominee (I couldn't agree more). And second, that having a female nominee will increase that turnout among women. I can't disagree with that. It's definitely one of the big factors that Hillary brings to the table.

[Blue-Jay]

16. I tend to agree.

Even though I think that Sen Clinton would be a great president, it seems to me that Obama has a better chance of winning the presidency. Allow me to make a few observations:

The "conservative base" hates McCain, and a lot of them will probably stay home as opposed to voting for him in a primary.

The "base" seems to hate Sen Clinton more, however, and a Clinton candidacy might get more of them off their couches to vote against her.

Like it or not, it appears that Sen Obama draws the independent vote away from McCain. (If polls are to be believed.) The undecided voters are important in a GE, no matter how much you or I think that they're uninvolved or incorrect.

[TexasObserver]

17. Obama by far is the best candidate to run against McCain.

"We're almost the same, except I'm a little bit better on some issues" isn't much of a campaign slogan for Hillary to use to run against McCain.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. No He Isn't.

[JerseygirlCT]

23. Completely agree with you

I don't think its justified, but the simple fact is that there is a certain portion of the electorate who simply hate Clintons - Bill, Hillary, both. It's largely irrational, but that doesn't make it any less real. So as you say, there will be people mobilized on the right to show up who otherwise might not bother.

Also, some of the same people will go toward Obama, where they wouldn't be drawn to Clinton. He's energizing Dem. voters and has been pulling people toward voting who haven't in the past. He attracts many of the independents and more moderate Republicans that McCain would be after -- and he's not a nutter like McCain!

And unlike H. Clinton, Obama has been against this stupid war. It bugs the spit out of me that she can't just come out and admit she blew it, period. Always hedging. I'm sure I'm not the only person turned off by that.

That said, I'm all behind her should she get the nomination. But I absolutely think Obama has the better chance.

[Az_lefty]

26. He certainly is. They'll smear Hillary to no end but not Obama.

Conservatives can't stand McCain but if it means keeping the Clinton's out of the White House they will turn out in droves to vote for him. With Obama, that's not the case. There are a lot of Republicans out where I live that are seriously considering voting for Obama over McCain.

[Horse with no Name]

30. Edwards is. n/t

[Blue-Jay]

35. Great, but he isn't running.

Nor is he going to get the nomination.

Hey listen... I'm really sorry that he "suspended" his campaign, but there's no sense in continuing to invent outlandish scenarios in which he will be our nominee.

Full disclosure: I voted for Edwards in the 2004 Ohio primary.

[Horse with no Name]

40. Question asked and answered

Edwards is the best candidate to beat McCain. It's been shown in polling data.
However...trying to pretend Obama has any edge whatsoever over Clinton in beating McCain is disingenuous--at best.

[Blue-Jay]

44. Fair enough.

But I don't think that I was being disingenuous in any way. I only posted my take on the subject. If anyone can further educate me without calling me a liar, I'd be happy to discuss it.

[Obamaniac]

43. Far and away

nt

[mzmolly]

45. I think those are excellent points. However, if another "Osama" tape comes out before the election

Obama better have a helluva VP in line. Further, I do think that the RW will be energized once the fear/smear campaign gets underway. But, you raise good points.

:hi:

[sandyj999]

46. I Believe if We Want the Win it Needs To Be Obama. And Isn't that What This is all about? n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

48. Just heard an interesting revelation...

from the Boss Man here -- he is white, close to 60, a small business owner, cannot abide PC talk, thinks the US went downhill when Madelaine Murray won her court case, and an independent who receives calls from the GOP for "lunch with George Bush" type events. I had him pegged as a McCain or Romney guy.

I just mentioned to him Romney dropped out -- had a short conversation on it -- and then he mentioned he had voted for Obama in the CA primary.

You could have knocked me over with a feather.

Go figure... :shrug:

[Laelth]

51. Um, I thought John Edwards was.

n/t

-Laelth