Electoral strategies for our two candidates

[Recursion]

Pulling this from another thread to see what people think:

There's a lot of talk from both Clinton's and Obama's camps (when you can hear them over the trebuchets launching flaming naphtha and rotting cow carcasses) about the significance of Republicans and Independents casting ballots (generally for Obama) in our primaries. (Query: is there similar suspicion when Greens, Socialists, or Natural Law voters do the same? I don't know.)

Most of us have said for years "why are these red-staters voting against their own interests?" And in many ways we're right to, though possibly wrong to do it so condescendingly.

Well, we can't have it both ways. Either they're voting against their own interests and we need to bring them back into the fold, or they're evil mud-dwelling troglodytes who can't be trusted with the franchise (send more trebuchets...). So, gut-check time: which is it? Do we want these people's support or not? If we nominate Hillary, we simply won't get it. Period. If we nominate Obama, there are signs that we will peel some of them away.

Will it be enough? I have no idea. I think in the end Hillary could do the "Kerry plus Arkansas" plan and eke out a victory, but it's about even money and (as we saw in the past two elections) vulnerable to shenanigans in key states (FL 2000, OH 2004, probably PA or FL again 2008). I think Obama can pick off some of the upper West and lately-red midwest without losing any of the key blue states (I personally find the notion that McCain will beat any Democrat in CA laughable).

Basically, here is what I see as the two options between our nominees:

1. Clinton: energized Dem base, energized (against her) GOP base. Four-corners strategy for the Democrats with close races in FL, OH, and VA. Partisan campaign (McCain moves hard right to shore up his Republican support) with a middle that begins with lukewarm support for Clinton which evaporates as fundraising and other scandals come to light -- I think that those of you who believe that Clinton's scandals will be "old news" are going to be in for a very rude awakening; neither she nor Bill have particularly cleaned up their fundraising strategies in the past 8 years, and the Clinton library donors are a trapdoor just waiting to open. In the end, these moderates get turned off by an extremely negative campaign from both sides and stay home. Clinton has a winning play if she can hold FL and take AR, but it's a damn close call. We lose seats in Congress, though in either scenario we gain in 2008 in the Senate just because of the particulars of the races we have (12 open GOP seats, 5 open Dem seats).

2. Obama: energized Dem base, depressed GOP base. 50-state strategy for the Democrats with activists finding the occasional "Macaca" moment that turns key House and Senate races. Obama picks off a couple of traditional red states in the west and midwest (MO, IA, SD, etc.). Large coattails for Obama in the House; like I said in 1) I think the Senate races happen to be so lopsided in our favor at this point that we do well there either way. McCain is in a more difficult position. If he turns hard right, Obama absolutely eats away his moderate support. If he doesn't, his base stays home to teach the GOP a lesson (if that sounds ludicrous, remember it happened to us in 2000).

Just my 2 centavos; would welcome any views from any "side", or no side.

[TooBigaTent]

1. Unless Obama changes his tune and decides to woo Democrats, the "base" of

our party is not going to be "energized."

But I guess that depends on how you define the base.

[Recursion]

2. Interesting -- what would you like to see him change?

I'm not aware of vast policy differences between him Clinton; what changes would you like to see made to his platform to woo you?

[TooBigaTent]

5. There is not a quarter's (inflated up from a dime) worth of difference between

these two corporate candidates in terms of their policies.

I will continue to feel that the opportunity for real reform and progress has been thrown under the bus for the sake of victory. Everything I have seen indicates to me that liberal/progressive stances on practically every topic are to be sacrificed to the holy god of reaching across the aisle after reaching out to the middle-right votrs who are dissatisfied with the way that George's Amerika is turning out.

First, BO is appealing to the right and not the base (supposedly liberal) of his own party. When (if) those voters put him into office, don't you think they will demand (and get) enormous "compromises" on issues? Add in that he is starting from a position way right of middle (itself pretty far right) and I have absolutely no faith that the values of traditional Democrats will carry any weight in a BO administration.

Second, once he is in office and tries to reach out to the pukes, they will rip his hand off and tear his arm out of the socket. It is IMPOSSIBLE to work with those people. Compromise means the Dems compromise their position and the pukes get their way.

As for HRC - the only advantage I see her having over BO is that she will (I think) fight the rethugs a little harder. Not enough, by any measure, but at least some. At the minimum, she is not going in saying she wants to work with them. But, they are both too deep in the corporate pockets to effect any real, meaningful change.

[Recursion]

6. I just don't buy that

It is IMPOSSIBLE to work with those people.

He's already done it, it seemed to work.

These aren't some alien menace that's taking over the country; they are half of the country. I'm tired of pretending they're some evil amorphous "other" we have to fight at every turn. They want access to health care, they want a better life for their children, they're nervous about their jobs disappearing.

[TexasObserver]

7. Wrong. He's already energized the base.

[Redbear]

3. Either candidate will be heavily favored to win.

1. McCain will have to run on staying in Iraq. That is a losing proposition. People right now are responding to the old maverick, "Straight Talk" McCain. But thats not who he is anymore. He is tied to Bush on many issues now. He even voted in favor of torture the other day.

2. Plus, as you acknolwedged, the Democratic candidates are going to do well in the House and Senate races. I think we will see reverse coat tails this year. Voters know if they want change they will need a Dem president to go with all those Dem congresspeople.

3. I dont see any states that Hillary wins that Obama doesn't also. Nor do I see Obama winning any states that Hillary wouldnt also win. They should both carry NM, FL, IA, and VA.


The ONLY way we lose in November is if we, as a party, are divided.

[Recursion]

4. A fair position

But I stick with mine. Unfortunately you can't do experiments in politics, so only one-half of our predictions can be proven wrong...