Looking Ahead
Obama wins; then faces John McCain in the general election in an epic generational battle between two candidates who are calling the country to a sense of common interest and who are both about bringing the country together across party lines.
Now that would be a campaign worth the price of admission. ~Matthew Dowd
So it would be worthless?
The least persuasive part of this argument is the claim that the Democratic superdelegates will follow the voters’ preference. They will not. They will select whichever candidate they think has the best chance of winning, and unless most of them become badly confused in the next few weeks and months they will understand that the Democrats’ best chance remains Hillary Clinton, as chilling a thought as that is for all of us. I have seen the national polls, and I have read many anecdotal accounts that seem to say that many people will simply refuse to vote for Clinton, but I have also encountered enough anti-McCain sentiment that it is simply inconceivable that he actually prevails in an election against her. It will be Clinton v. Dole all over again, perhaps a little closer but with the same outcome. If it is Obama v. McCain, there will indeed be an ”epic generational battle,” and the results might look something like 1972* because most voters who bestir themselves to choose a major party candidate will side with McCain in such a battle. Those who want to stop McCain from being President have to hope that the Democrats do not take themselves over the cliff with Obama. Obama’s chances improve if his nomination encourages dissident conservatives and Republicans to throw in their lot with a third party as a protest against McCain, but this seems unlikely. On the policies that have deeply alienated many on the right from McCain, Obama is certainly no better and his other policies are so costly or overly ambitious that they will drive voters to McCain in spite of McCain’s flaws. For a short time in November 2006, I allowed myself to indulge in the fantasy that democratic politics occasionally produced modestly decent outcomes, but the last 14 months have again disabused me of that quite transitory illusion.
Rarely have there ever been two prospective presidential match-ups that inspire more dread in me than these, and never before has the argument to stop legitimising the entire process by not participating in it carried more weight with me. With these general election candidates, it even seems as if casting a protest vote would be tainted. This November will be just my third presidential election for which I am eligible, and at present I am not at all inclined to cast a ballot.
*Okay, so it probably won’t be a 49-state sweep, but it will be lopsided.
Update: I should flesh out a bit more the argument for Obama’s weakness in the general election. First of all, McCain may be more competitive among Latino voters than other Republicans would have been, and Obama is likely to be weaker with the same voters than Clinton would be. Whether this can actually tip an otherwise solid Democratic state into the Republican column is hard to say, but it will likely lock down New Mexico and Florida for McCain (it doesn’t help that Obama will not have actively campaigned there during the primary season because of the DNC ban). Plus, all the military personnel and families who live in those states probably have to make McCain the odds-on favourite there even in a difficult year for the NM Republicans. The winner in New Mexico almost always prevails nationally (2000 and 1976 are the only exceptions to this of which I am aware), because the candidate who can win New Mexico can appeal to a broad array of interests and demographic groups in sufficient numbers to succeed across the country. Obama probably cannot minimise the GOP draw among black voters beyond the tiny 8% garnered by Bush in 2000. The question remains whether Obama’s belated gestures towards protectionism can overcome concerns about his voting record on social issues in key Midwestern states. Given Pawlenty’s support for McCain and Obama’s win there last week, Minnesota may be shaping up to be a major battleground state along with Ohio and Pennsylvania. Add to this anxiety about the cost of Obama’s proposed policies, disaffection related to the Muslim rumour and Obama’s background, and qualms about inexperience and you have the recipe for a significant defeat.
“I have seen the national polls, and I have read many anecdotal accounts that seem to say that many people will simply refuse to vote for Clinton, but ***I have also encountered enough anti-McCain sentiment that it is simply inconceivable that he actually prevails in an election against her***.”
Daniel, with all due respect, I really think you need to unpack that comment a little bit, data not being the plural of anecdote and all. If this was the vibe you got at CPAC, then you’ve taken the temperature of a very self-selected audience. I also have a hard time believing that the large amount of very passionate support Obama is getting is going to transfer to Clinton, especially is she is viewed, fairly or unfairly as “winning ugly” against Obama. There are two broad sentiments among very conservative voters that I know. 1. They don’t much like John McCain, and would prefer not to vote for the man. 2. They loathe Hillary Clinton with a passion that burns hotter than 1000 suns, and would crawl across broken glass to vote against her. I think you are wildly underestimating how many voters are going to drink the kool-aid and vote for Obama’s siren song of “change” without ever really looking into what that means.
Thanks for the comment. I understand that anecdotal evidence isn’t conclusive or necessarily representative (indeed, anecdotes are often interesting because of their exceptional quality), but the anti-McCain remark has nothing to do with CPAC. True, a lot of CPAC people are vociferously anti-McCain, and they do not represent a majority of Republicans. Still, there are enough regular Republicans, including some of my relatives whose Clinton-loathing is as great as anyone’s, who have told me that they would take Clinton over McCain. Polls show Obama with a lead over McCain because a large portion of the electorate is undecided between them, and McCain is going to win those voters, while others are going to leave Obama once they see the price tag for all the “change” he is promising.
We have yet to see what the 527s do to Obama and how the public will respond to their attacks. I suspect that Obama’s national numbers will start to tank should he wrap up the nomination. I say this with some trepidation, since I have argued for a long time that the war will be an albatross around the GOP nominee’s neck, and I still think it will hurt them badly, but Obama is just the Dem nominee to save the Republicans from defeat. In another year, taking a chance on a younger, less experienced candidate would be much more likely, but I think the public isn’t interested in that.
A hearty “Hear, Hear!” to that last paragraph, especially.
“We have yet to see what the 527s do to Obama and how the public will respond to their attacks. I suspect that Obama’s national numbers will start to tank should he wrap up the nomination.”
That is true. I’ll bet that a large number of these 527′s are going to go in and highlight various aspect of his record (both in IL and in DC) such as the support for handgun confiscation, allowance of late-term abortion, etc. etc., each one with the tag line “Barack Hussein Obama supported…”. Could have a big effect, and how can you be the great unifier if you are a partisan hack?
I think you’re being a little too contrarian. Without rewriting my own blog post on McCain’s electability, let me just say I have difficulty seeing how McCain retains his base and wins independents given that he supports the war.
Additionally, the 527s would probably hurt McCain even if they attacked Obama, because at least one of the ads will end up being called thinly veiled racism. There is also no clear indication that McCain will have anything interesting to say on the economy or health care. Come debate time, he won’t get any points for not showing up. The only real benefit he has on that front is that he was singing the happy clap trap everything is just alright like the other Republicans. That will not however benefit him against Obama or Clinton.
wasn’t singing that is.
For a short time in November 2006, I allowed myself to indulge in the fantasy that democratic politics occasionally produced modestly decent outcomes, but the last 14 months have again disabused me of that quite transitory illusion.
I share your disenchantment with democracy, Daniel, but surely a writer as thoughtful as you will have considered what you would replace it with—not in the abstract, but in the concrete case of the United States of America. Would you replace it with some sort of Hamiltonian/Burkean republic? With a Pinochet-style dictatorship? With Heinlein’s Starship Troopers veterans-only electorate? With a consulate or directorate? Monarchy seems so definitively un-American that it is hard to imaging insulting George Washington’s memory by crowning even a constitutional monarch here.
I imagine that you have your own ideas. These are what the question solicits. If you have answered the question before, as I suppose is not unlikely, then a link would naturally suffice.
Howard
If Obama wins the pledged delegates, the superdelegates will have to follow the pledged delegates’ lead or else face a massive walk-out from the Democratic Party by black voters. Either they will stay home in November, or perhaps McCain could get some of them to vote GOP out of spite – if he picks a black running mate (although J.C. Watts would have to agree to run with him – I cannot think of any other electable black Republicans).
I am one Republican voter who is planning to vote D or third party, but I am in a very blue state… How you can pull the trigger for four (to 100) more years of Iraq et al. is beyond me, and that is what McCain has to offer.
Other than that McCain is a liberal AND he is going to appoint crap judges as well.
As far as the election is concerned, the question is what states flip if Obama is the nominee?
Both Ohio and Florida are possible flips.
Still, Ohio is hard to see going for Obama, although it went democratic in 2006. Florida is also difficult to predict.
They offer two chances for Obama.
There are also the mountain states that gave reasonable support to Ron Paul and seem have stronger anti-war populace.
I am thinking Neveda and Colorado, which would be enough to flip the total. New Mexico is also a possible candidate for a flip. Montana has also been going democratic electing a democratic senator during the last election.
All of these states have been trending democratic over the last few years.
So Obama will have several bites at the apple.
Do any blue state flip red with Obama? I don’t see it. Michigan or PA? Doubtful. New York? No way.
Still, you get the feel that the election will be very personality driven and that one “slip up” may make the difference on either side.