« QED | HomePage | What a wonderful Reception! »

Thursday, February 14, 20081202997305

Obama's going to win: Vote Clinton!

When I endorsed Barack Obama and John McCain, both were given only about a 30% chance of getting a nomination. That is, there was less than a 10% chance of both of them winning their parties before I endorsed. But tdaxp spoke, and the world changed.

Now McCain and Obama are all-but-inevitable nominees of their party. It's time to look to the general election. And while the McCain is generally stronger than Obama on the core issues (Iraq, Russia, Immigration, tax policy, etc.), the overwhelming difference is on abortion: Obama supports infanticide; McCain doesn't.

The objective therefore has to be to weaken Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, to save as many lives as possible.

Fortunately, Hillary Clinton is willing to help the cause. She has started taking attack ads out on Barack Obama



And of course, her race/sex war rhetoric does little to bring the Democratic Party together. So with this understanding: that Barack Obama is and should be the Democratic nominee, but must not be President, I hereby request that you

VOTE CLINTON.

If Hillary can pull of a good showing in Ohio and Texas, she can extend the Democratic primaries to Pennsylvania. If she can do well there, she can fight for the party's nomination. Either Obama wins far weaker than he would have, or Clinton wins so discredited that the harm she does to the Democratic Party outweighs the miniscule chance that she can defeat Obama.

Clinton: Because the infanticidaires deserve the very worst.

Comments

This is exactly right.

Posted by: Lexington Green | Thursday, February 14, 2008

It's true the conventional wisdom is that the longer the primary contest goes on, the worse it is for the Democrats. But some people are arguing that there is a silver lining that may outweigh the delay of a national campaign. Both Hillary and Obama are pouring money into grassroots organizations in Texas and Ohio, the kind of organization that, before Dean started building up local parties, the Democratic Party has lacked. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, they will be able to take advantage of not only their own network, but their former rival's network as well. In an important state like Ohio (and possibly Pennsylvania as well), that will be a big deal.

Posted by: Adrian | Thursday, February 14, 2008

Lexington,

We're on the same wavelength.

Adrian,

By that logic, the Republican establishment should be encouraging Huckabee to stay in the race, to better use his "local parties" as well as McCain's.

A truth isn't wrong because it's labeled the "convetentional wisdom."

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 14, 2008

The thing about the GOP is that Huckabee voters wouldn't necessarily vote for McCain, and vice versa. So you don't get the same usefulness from those grassroots organizations that you build as you get on the Democratic side.

Posted by: Adrian | Thursday, February 14, 2008

"The thing about the GOP is that Huckabee voters wouldn't necessarily vote for McCain, and vice versa. So you don't get the same usefulness from those grassroots organizations that you build as you get on the Democratic side."

I missed where the former RNC Chairman (and McCain backer) said that Veterans wouldn't vote for Huckabee. [1] Could you provide the link?

More seriously, how are you demonstrating that there is more animosity between the Huckabee and McCain camps than between Clinton's and Obama's?

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/12/rendell-some-whites-won_n_86246.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 14, 2008

To circle back to my original argument: To win, Clinton needs to wear down Obama's high favorability ratings, and that requires more negative ads. Her first is softball, but as the campaign progresses she will need to paint him as duplicitous, inexperienced, etc., plus ramping up her racialist/sexualist rhetoric.

I wouldn't be comfortable with someone as Nixonian (heh) in my own party, but if Clinton can actually get a sizeable number of Democrats behind her divide-and-conquer strategy, so much the better!

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 14, 2008

I think you overplay the role race plays against Obama. The conservative whites that wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black wouldn't vote for him anyway because he's liberal.

Looking at the poll numbers for Democrats:

"Democrats enthusiasm is higher: 79 percent said they would be satisfied with a Clinton nomination, 85 percent feel the same about Obama."
(http://www.startribune.com/nation/15275236.html)


The animosity between the candidates themselves and their close political staff does not translate into animosity between supporters of each candidate.

In contrast, only 7 out of 10 Republicans are satisfied with McCain (I assume that'll go up but I don't know the GOP as well). I assume that number is smaller for Huckabee. There are bigger differences between Huckabee and McCain than there are between Clinton and Obama. Thus when McCain is finally crowned, Huckabee's networks (and churches, etc.) won't be as big a boost to him as Clinton's networks will be to Obama.

Posted by: Adrian | Thursday, February 14, 2008

Adrian,

I agree that former DNC CHariman Rendell is incorrect, and indeed Obama's race helps him. The point is that Clinton and surrogates have a pattern of race-charged attacks against Obama that is destructive to her support and her party.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 14, 2008

Adrian,

Your comment of high acceptability and support of Democrats for both candidates emphasizes my point: the need to transition the race into negative campaigning by Clinton, and response by Obama, to weaken both candidates.

The first "Willie Horton" ad against Dukakis was run by Gore, and I have to believe that Hillary Clinton is more of a survivor-type than Al Gore ever was.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 14, 2008

Right - I'm not arguing that there are no costs, I'm arguing that the costs of Clinton attack ads (which will probably go as far as "all hat and no cattle" but not much further") will be balanced out by the construction of grassroots organizations.

Posted by: Adrian | Thursday, February 14, 2008

How many tens of millions of dollars and favorability points are those organizations worth?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 14, 2008

Or, to phrase it another way, to what extent is injury to the national campaign strategy worth better organization in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania?

(I ask this, because this appears to be the exact opposite of a Deanian approach, which is critical of swing-state-focused efforts.)

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 14, 2008

"How many tens of millions of dollars and favorability points are those organizations worth?"

"to what extent is injury to the national campaign strategy worth better organization in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania?"

Time will tell. But given that the negative ads will air only in Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, etc., and not nationally, I don't foresee any huge drop in Obama's favorability ratings even if the ads are effective among those who see them. And given the GOP opposition research I don't think Clinton could find dirt that the GOP wouldn't find anyway.

Posted by: Adrian | Thursday, February 14, 2008

"Time will tell. "

I didn't think an answer would be forthcoming.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 14, 2008

"...the overwhelming difference is on abortion: Obama supports infanticide; McCain doesn't."

So, that must mean McCain supports the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians then, right?

Posted by: Jeffrey James | Thursday, February 14, 2008

"So, that must mean McCain supports the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians then, right?"

I was unaware that McCain had a policy legalizing the intentional killing of Iraqi civilians.

Both Obama and Clinton support a policy legalazing the intentional killing of infants who have yet to be born.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 14, 2008

Well, either way you understand my sarcasm or you don't, but I figured I would jump on the bandwagon of sabotaging dialog on key issues.

Posted by: Jeffrey James | Thursday, February 14, 2008

The longer Clinton lasts, the more experience Obama gets with rough play, the better prepared he'll be for the general election if he ends up winning the nomination.

Posted by: Michael | Thursday, February 14, 2008

Michael,

Definitely a valid concern. Hopefully Clinton can damage Obama and the party in a semi-permanent manner... Consider her latino-v-black and female-v-male rhetoric already, it may be a matter of days.

Even apart from this, however, Obama needs to come down from being a "movement" to just another politician... the more Clinton can accomplish this, the less effort McCain will have to spend on this prep.

Jeffrey,

Moral equivalence is a neat trick, but you need to establish logical equivalence first.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 14, 2008

"Moral equivalence is a neat trick, but you need to establish logical equivalence first."

Well, Hillary and Obama support legislation that will make embryos/fetus/cute, blue eyed drops of sunshine (take your pick) "vulnerable" to "infanticide", as you put it.

McCain and (arguably) Hillary support an effort that makes innocent Iraqi's "vulnerable" to being killed in the crossfire.

Vulnerable is the key word here, and by your previously established logic supporting anything that makes one vulnerable to something automatically makes one support the outcome of whatever they are vulnerable to.

Posted by: Jeffrey James | Thursday, February 14, 2008

"Well, Hillary and Obama support legislation that will make embryos/fetus/cute, blue eyed drops of sunshine (take your pick) "v"

I was unaware of their position on Genetically Modified infants. Can you provide a link?

(Yes, I know you're being sarcastic... ;-) )

Yours is the first use of the word "vulnerable" in the thread -- I was focusing on intent to harm. Why the change of standard?

(By way of analogy, the law is harsh to those who intend to harm innocents in nearly all situations, but generally unconcerned by acts that merely increase the vulnerability of this or that, outside of commercial relationships.)

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 14, 2008

On intrade, Hillary Clinton's jumped by a third, from about 24 cents to 32 cents on the dollar... talk about a tdaxp bounce!

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 14, 2008

You guys are going to be sorry, everyone is voting obama now but a few months down the line if he gets in you will be kicking yourselves in the face. Hilary is clearly the superor candidate her policies are way better. If she dosnt get in, its a crime! Obama will let you down, he is inexperianced and the only reason he is doing it is to be the first black president. If he wins it will mark the downfall of america, mark my words

Posted by: sean | Friday, February 22, 2008

Barack's going to win. face it.

Posted by: mark winkelbauer | Friday, February 22, 2008

sean, look who we've had for the past 8 years. If we can survive Bush & Co, how hard can surviving any of the current candidates be?

Posted by: Michael | Friday, February 22, 2008

Post a comment