This post started as a reply to my big sister Little Things, but it outgrew itself.
1) The nation hasn't elected a senator president but twice in the last 75 years. We like governors and vice presidents to be presidents, but not senators. This factor works against Clinton and for Huckabee.
2) With any political campaign, you have to consider the general election's "anti" vote. For example, Romney, as the nominee, would have to fight the anti-Mormon contingent of the Republican Right, who would really have to be courted quite hard not to just stay home. Guliani attracts such a strong "anti" vote from the Right that they've threatened a third-party bid (well, fourth-party, if you count Bloomberg). However, Huckabee lacks the strong "antis" so far, as far as the general election goes.
Clinton has such a high "anti" factor that people who have never participated in politics before would actively volunteer just to ruin her chances (and in my social circle, I know some of these people). It's not nice, nor is the vehemance of their vitriol logical, but there we are.
Here's an excerpt from pollster.com that plays off that idea:
A new SurveyUSA automated survey of 523 registered voters in oregon [sic] (conducted 11/9 through 11/11) finds:
General Election Match-ups:
McCain 48%, Clinton 45%
Clinton 46%, Giuliani 45%
Clinton 48%, Romney 44%
Clinton 50%, Huckabee 40%
Obama 45%, McCain 45%
Obama 51%, Giuliani 40%
Obama 52%, Romney 37%
Obama 54%, Huckabee 33%
Obama handily outperforms Clinton in each match-up. Huckabee's low name recognition nationally (compared to prior candidate McCain, Hizzoner Guliani, and front-runner/multi-millionaire Romney) accounts for his poor performance in these polls.
3) America doesn't tend to go for Democratic presidential candidates. From 1966 to the present, the U.S. has only elected two Democrats to the presidency. One was elected in the wake of the Watergate scandals. The other failed to get past 50% either time he ran.
This works against Clinton and favors Huckabee.
4) Immigration is the dark horse issue that could really work against Democrats. I'm pretty liberal on immigration (I supported the bipartisan McCain/Kennedy reform package), but the nation doesn't share my views. Clinton, already shown vulnerable here, will be walloped on immigration, no matter who the GOP candidate is.
More disturbingly for Dems, most African-Americans agree with Republicans on immigration. Some have already held their noses and voted Republican over abortion and gay marriage; if immigration pulls even an additional 5-10%, the Dems could be in real trouble, working to the advantage of the Republicans. BTW, Huckabee, in his Arkansas re-election bid, earned 49% of the African-American vote statewide. (Ironically, Huckabee is actually fairly moderate on immigration, despite all his nay-saying, but immigration will still be used as a "wedge" issue.)
P.S. As a registered Dem, I'm voting for Obama, who has really impressed me of late with his statements on education.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm also voting for Obama.
I don't know that the American public as a whole would vote for Huckabee, who believes in the whole "Earth is 6000 years old" thing and doesn't believe in evolution. I can't take him seriously.
Oh, and while William Jefferson Clinton might not have received 50% of the popular vote, Gore did, and he didn't get elected. Scumbags.
xoxo
Yeah, the "young-earth" thing really rubs me the wrong way, too. It smacks of anti-intellectualism. On the other hand, how will that affect his public policy? The negative usually associated with the "young-earth" crowd is poor environmental protection, and he seems--well, reasonable, though I'm not convinced yet. I'll wait till he veers left after the nomination.
Funny that we agree on Obama, though. (Mom's apparently in Hilary Clinton's camp, having jumped ship from Richardson about a month ago.)
On a personal level, I hate Huckabee less than most of the Republican candidates, and I think that he could at least bring some honor back to the White House. I just disagree with his policies. But I'd take him over our current president any day.
I've been in the Obama camp a long time -- I've looked at the others, but he's my favorite. But there's no Democrat that I like less than my, um, "favorite" Republican. Obama is SMART, and he thinks things through and is good at seeing more than one side of any issue. We can use a good dose of smart in the White House. (I'm also a big Kucinich fan, but I don't know that we can elect him. Sigh.)
BTW, I dig that Ron Paul is running. He doesn't have a shot, but he sure does bring an amusement factor to the debates. I think he should be running as a Libertarian, though. But Libertarians don't get any air time, so he keeps his Republican identity.
Just to play Devil's Advocate:
1. I think Clinton benefits from the assocation with her husband's administration. I don't think her primary identity is as a U.S. Senator in the minds of most voters. Political dynasties seem to do well enough in presidential politics -- witness the two Georges.
2. Clinton does well vs. Obama in these match-ups with Republicans because Obama hasn't yet been subjected to the kind of negative scrutiny Clinton has, and he will have (and is starting to now). Let's see where he is in a couple more months.
3. The exception to Republican hegemony in presidential politics is, in my opinion, the one race that is analogous to this one. Watergate swamped the Republican boat; the war in Iraq will do the same in 2008. An even better analogy (except the parties are switched) is to 1968, when Johnson's war in Vietnam ended that Democratic regime.
4. It remains to be seen whether immigration will really emerge as the wedge issue some Republicans think it is. The GOP played the immigration card in the recent state legislative elections in Northern Virginia, and few of their incumbents survived. If immigration couldn't help the Republicans in Northern Virginia, where such impacts have been more keenly felt than most other places, I doubt it will bail them out in next year's presidential sweepstakes.
Interesting discussion, though. In spite of my not buying all of your analysis, you've got me leaning more toward Huckabee all the time. Maybe we should start a "Democrats for Huckabee" chapter in Maryland. ;-) (That said, I still tend to agree with Little Things that Huckabee may be unelectable by the American public as a whole. Even in the Iowa GOP caucuses, where he's surging, he still hasn't broken out beyond Evangelical voters.)
Post a Comment