I understand that primary voters may be supporting Hillary and Mitt Romney for entirely non-strategic reasons; that they simply think theirs is the best candidate for the job. I'm pretty sure that this is why, for example, Greg Mankiw has signed on with the Romney campaign. I don't find it hard to believe that Mitt Romney is the best of all the Republican candidates; indeed, I think that's probably true, in terms of whom I would most like to see govern the country.
But economic advisors shouldn't behave too strategically; they can't be effective with a candidate who is too far from their beliefs. Voters in a primary, on the other hand, aren't just picking the person who is closest to their beliefs; they are picking the person who is closes to their beliefs, and can beat the candidate from the other party, who presumably is farther from their beliefs.
Mitt Romney is having trouble inspiring Republican voters, which bodes ill for his fate in the general election. Hillary Clinton inspires voters on both sides, but what she inspires in Republicans and many independants is a visceral and passionate loathing.
Despite the chirpy news stories about long-time Republicans changing their party affiliation, Democrats will probably win the 2008 election for two reasons: disgusted independents voting Democratic, and Republicans staying home in despair. But independents don't like Hillary, which is why she does the worst of the major Democratic candidates in head-to-head polling. And Republicans almost all hate her. Put her up and the Republicans don't need to bother with a turnout operation; their voters would pull themselves to the polling place with their tongues if that's what was necessary to cast a ballot against That Woman. Given how little daylight there is between the Democratic candidates on policy matters, I find it hard to understand why you would vote to nominate the candidate with a strong chance of losing the general election.
It's easier to understand on the Republican side--a fair number of my Republican friends join me in trembling at the thought of Giuliani in office. Still, I presume that most Republicans would prefer to have McCain actually in office than a Romney loss to Obama.
I think any of the Democrats is going to have a problem with Republicans and centrists being motivated to vote against them.
Consider the problems Obama is having now that people are finally paying attention to his whack-job "spiritual adviser" and his afrocentric church. If under the spotlight of a national campaign Obama turns out to be just another Sharpton with a nicer suit, I expect his negatives will be even worse that Hillary's.
And of course Edwards is a lawyer.
"To know them is to loathe them" applies to all the Democrat candidates. Ms. Clinton's only disadvantage is that so far she's the one we know best.
As a long term Republican, it's either Fred or Obama. I'd rather vote for a real liberal than a watered down Republican like McCain. And electing Obama has several potential upsides. First, can we finally put the race thing behind us? Second, Jesse Jackson and company may disappear as the black spokemen. Third, Obama's young and new. The Democratic party desperately needs new blood. And as you pointed out, all of the Democratic candidates have essentially the same positions. But Obama would have the least chance of implementing those policies IMHO.
The Democratic party is truly a party of children and childish attitudes. Parents know that, sometimes, the best way to mature children to give them what they ask for.
Second, Jesse Jackson and company may disappear as the black spokemen.
Replacing them with Jeremiah Wirght isn't really much of an improvement.
Obama would have the least chance of implementing those policies
Good point. Obama really is the weakest of the lot.
"And electing Obama has several potential upsides. First, can we finally put the race thing behind us?"
You do realize that this was precisely the rationale behind electing David Dinkins to be New York City's first black mayor, don't you? It didn't put "the race thing" behind us, and New Yorkers subsequently elected Rudy Giuliani to clean up the mess.
"Still, I presume that most Republicans would prefer to have McCain actually in office than a Romney loss to Obama."
And you would be very wrong in that presumption. As David Brooks put it succinctly the other day, power-brokers in the GOP and conservative movement would much rather keep control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Both McCain and Huckabee threaten that control, because both have realized that running Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign in 2008 is as absurd as Ronald Reagan running Dwight Eisenhower's 1952 campaign in 1980. As a McCain supporter, I had hoped that we could coalesce around a candidate that can inject new ideas into the debate and recast what it means to be conservative, without a long spell in the political wilderness. I hope McCain can pull it out in SC, and regain some momentum going into Tsunami Tuesday, but I'm less hopeful after Romney's win in MI. Oh well, each party gets what it deserves, and multiple choice Mitt seems to be what we deserve this time.
Well so far he’s won two out of three primaries (MI and WY) with a solid second place finish in the third (NH) and a solid second place finish in Iowa. Granted it’s still incredibly early in the process but let’s see if he’s still ahead after Super Tuesday before we declare who is (not) “inspiring Republican voters.”
If you're a strategic voter concerned aobut "electability" you might be swayed by the fact that Romney was able to win office in one of the bluest states around, as well as the fact that while he may not have high positives, he also doesn't have the high negatives that McCain generates.
My suspicion (not well backed I admit) is that people who dislike Romney kind of dislike him for being "just another phony politician" while people who dislike McCain really hate him, and consider him a traitor to the cause and/or a lunatic always on the edge of biting someone's ear off.
"Just another politician" isn't that bad a knock, as by definition it applies to almost all politicians.
I think people delude themselves when they talk of this set of Republicans beating that set of Democrats.
The conservative voter is saddled with having to vote for politicians they don't trust that can more likely win but still lose (Giuliani, Romney), or politicians they trust who can't win period (Thompson, Huckabee). McCain stands like a grey haired Moses in between those two oceans, but without Moses' unifying "follow me to the promised land" powers.
It would seem that if Republicans are not totally enthusiastic about their choices, one can expect low turnout and a loss of independent voters.
On the Democrat side, you have the hatred of Bush and desire for healthcare reform as unifying, energizing planks. They need only decide how liberal they want to be, and who is more likely to get them there.
On the Democrat side, you have the hatred of Bush and desire for healthcare reform as unifying, energizing planks.
Ummm ... Bush is retiring.
Neither McCain his long-time bitter rival nor Romney the weathervane can easily be cast as a continuation of the Bush administration.
So one of the Democrats' "unifying, energizing planks" is about to go "poof".
Registered Republican. Voting for McCain. I don't favor Romney because he lacks an immigration policy that takes into account migrant labor.
Obama is my favorite Democrat. Neutral about Hillary. Don't like Edwards because he's a class warfare protectionist.
It seems like you've spent too much time in this world of journalism and blogging and election coverage, and have lost sight of what it's really like out there for most people.
I don't necessarily disagree with your read of the strategery, but I think you seriously underestimate the number of people who simply vote for the candidate they want to win. Not everyone has read all the polling data you have and done the strategy analysis you have. A lot of people just heard some stuff about these guys, and decided they really like one in particular, so they vote for him/her.
While I agree that Republicans hate Hillary Clinton, I don't think it matters that much. I'm sure they do not hate her nearly as much as Democrats hated Nixon in 1972. All that hate didn't get us many electoral votes. The polarizing, hated, Nixon won in a landslide even though Democrats received a majority of the votes for races in the House of Representitives. Hatred does not turn out voters. GOTV efforts paid for by a lot of money does. The divided, factionalized Republicans are having trouble raising money.
'Ummm ... Bush is retiring.
Neither McCain his long-time bitter rival nor Romney the weathervane can easily be cast as a continuation of the Bush administration.
So one of the Democrats' "unifying, energizing planks" is about to go "poof". -Posted by Ralph Phelan'
From what I've seen, McCain and Romney are doing their damnedest to promise to be four more years of George Bush, from doubling Gitmo to another 100 years in Iraq.
Some (most? nearly all?) people do not vote strategically, they just vote for whoever they like, or equivalently, dislike the least.
On the other hand some of us know it's not worth voting at all.
Njorl:
(1) Iraq isn't the only issue, and it's fading day by day.
(2) For those whose take-away lesson from Vietnam was "get serious or get out" (which is may be a large fraction of those "dissatisfied" with how the war is going) McSurge is the candidate of the "get serious" option, which makes him significantly different from Bush.
Both smart and well-intentioned Dems (there is some intersection,
"From what I've seen, McCain and Romney are doing their damnedest to promise to be four more years of George Bush..."-Njorl
Njorl has a remarkable record. In the time I've been reading this blog, he's never been right once. Even brooksfoe and liberalrob can't match that.
McCain has been very critical of the Bush administration from the beginning, about fiscal profligacy, misconduct of the war in Iraq and coercive interrogation techniques. It's just preposterous to claim that he is no different from Bush.
It's certainly true, though, that McCain opposes socialism at home and retreat abroad (which seems to be the Democratic agenda), so admittedly he does have that in common with the President.
True Conservative:
As I argue above, there's a distinct possibility that once Edwards or Obama becomes as well known to the public as Hillary is, they will be hated just as deeply. In Obama's case maybe more so if he turns out to be beholden to the old-line "civil rights establishment" after all.
Biden wouldn't suck, but he doesn't seem to have much of a chance.
The problem with voting strategically is twofold. First it is hard for a partisan to get into the head of a nonpartisan. Remember, the intial appeal of Bush was how well he would do with hispanic and black voters and the initial appeal of Kerry was that there was no way Republicans could paint him as weak.
Secondly once a candidate is elected the part of their agenda which is most likely to pass is that which agrees with the other party. For example, Clinton got welfare reform but was unable to socialize medicine.
Republicans or libertarians who think electing Obama will get this country beyond race can look forward to 4-8 years of being told "The reason you oppose tax hikes, socialized medicine, and tax payer funded abortion are because your a rascist who wants to see a black man fail."
As a libertarian-leaning independent, I typically have to pick the lesser of many evils and usually just try to vote for whomever is least likely to reach more deeply into my pocket to buy themselves reelection votes.
Because of this I have historically voted Republican (holding my nose at the social-conservative backwardness). I respect McCain and admire the way he's stood up to the progfligacy of Bush and the Republican congress, but unfortunately he'll never survive the beating he's taking at the hands of the National Review. Romney, despite his dismaying tendency to abandon positions in a futile effort to please every Republican constituency, would at least restore competency to the White House, especially on economic matters - he did run one of the world's most successful private equity funds after all. And frankly I think he will have a better shot in the general election than most pundits are predicting - he has plenty of money, a solid organization, and will have a field day attacking the Democratic candidate's 1960's era big government policy ideas (they are all the same in this respect). The sound bite of "let's take more money from the rich" may be sufficient if your audience is Democratic primary voters, but is simply won't hold up to the scrutiny Romney will inevitably expose it to. And when America realizes that the Democrats define "rich" as anyone with a six figure income, then the jig is up. Just because the country is sick of Bush does not mean that the Democrats have won the argument over tax rates (even if the increases are to be used to pay for health care).
Preemptive response - the expiration of the Bush tax cuts would amount to a massive tax increase - there's no escaping that fact.
2. The Right despises her. This would make it very difficult for her to govern effectively, creating bipartisan agreements.
Nah. The candidate left standing after election day is the one you have to work with. Some of the best governance, policy-wise, arises when the Legislative and Administrative branches are dominated by different parties. It sorts out the crap by forcing the two parties to prioritize what's important and then seek out enough common ground to get it through the flaming hoops, while stalemating on the rest.
Contrast that to the first Dubya Bush term, where the president said "It would be really neat-o if I/we had ___", and Congress said "That would be awfully neat", and then promptly constructed a bill that codified it along with a seventy-car train of pork riding behind, said "Here you go", and then Bush promptly signed the whole lot of it.
I.e., no ideological conflicts, no veto pen.
McCain has been very critical of the Bush administration from the beginning, about fiscal profligacy, misconduct of the war in Iraq and coercive interrogation techniques. It's just preposterous to claim that he is no different from Bush. -Posted by rwe
No, McCain was critical at the beginning, not from the beginning. He has since caved on the tax cuts, joining in Bush's fiscal profligacy. His opposition to the conduct of the war has always been safely futile and very quiet. His opposition to torture vanished into a meaningless, but cosmetically pleasing "compromise" that was compromising indeed.
'McSurge is the candidate of the "get serious" option, which makes him significantly different from Bush.'-Posted by Ralph Phela
So, McCain, because he supports the surge, is significantly different from Bush, who ordered the surge. Please forgive me for not understanding this before.
Njorl, just in case you're not playing dumb:
McCain was calling for the surge long before Bush did it. It appears to me that McCain eventually succeeded into badgering Bush into doing what he should have done long before, thus McCain gets credit. BTW, I'm not a McCain supporter (I think he's a hotheaded nut, and I'm not prepared to forgive the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold), I'm just giving the devil his due.
Giuliani is my third choice behind Romney and McCain but it’s a pretty tight race in those regards. I think he’s got great experience as the Mayor of New York (again where’s the executive experience amongst any of the one-term Democrat Senators who are competing for their party’s nomination?) and is used to dealing with an adversarial legislative body.
Moreover he’s advocated a decidedly free market approach to issues like health care and entitlement reform (the BIGGEST domestic issue IMO), has given some rather insightful answers about what to do regarding reforming the federal government, and I trust him on the War (the only ones I don’t are Huckabee, Paul and the one-term Senators).
His views on social issues don’t bother me (although I don’t make my voting decisions on social issues) and he keeps his word on judges, it won’t bother most of the social conservatives either particularly seeing as how hated he is by the anti-Christian, racial grievances, and you can’t hug with nuclear arms crowds.
Again, he’s my third choice but one I wouldn’t have much difficulty in supporting.
Giuliani ... is used to dealing with an adversarial legislative body.
An advantage he shares with Romney. Which one would you say actually got more conservative stuff accomplished under those circumstances?
Still, I presume that most Republicans would prefer to have McCain actually in office than a Romney loss to Obama.
Not really. Obama would be an utter disaster for the Democrat Party, because he would be an utter incompetent as President. What Bill Clinton did for the Republicans in 1994, Obama would do for us in 2010. Right in time for redistricting.
John McCain, OTOH, would be an utter disaster for Republicans. Think GHWB in 1990. Left wing governance w/ a Republican label is never agood deal for the Republican Party. Combined with the fact that McCain is a nasty jerk, who revels in personally attacking his opponents, and who only gets MSM cover because he is more of a jerk to Rs than to Ds (recall the immigration bill, and the way he pushed it, last year), we realize that even if he did when the nomination, he would get blown out in the election once the MSM stopped shilling for him (which they'd do the second he won the nomination).
Would I plug my nose and vote for McCain v Hillary? Yes. Because I think that Hillary is competent and vicious enough to screw up the whole country. Obama is a lightweight who would hurt the country with his gross inexperience, but would hurt the Democrat Party more. So if the Democrats want to hang themselves by choosing him, and the country choses to screw itself by voting for him, I'm enough of a Republican partisan to stand back and let my party benefit from those screwups.
'McCain was calling for the surge long before Bush did it. It appears to me that McCain eventually succeeded into badgering Bush into doing what he should have done long before, thus McCain gets credit. BTW, I'm not a McCain supporter (I think he's a hotheaded nut, and I'm not prepared to forgive the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold), I'm just giving the devil his due.'-Posted by ralph phelan
Actually:
"Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course." [John McCain, The Hill, 12/8/05]
Bush had probably decided on the surge before McCain began talking about it(Oct 27, 2006). He was using the ISG to delay any decisive plans until after elections. After getting the Baker Hamilton report he announced the surge. It's hard to believe that the ISG was anything other than a political stalling tactic, since he ignored it completely.
Either way, I'm just not seeing a significant difference between the two on Iraq policy. Maybe if you throw a few more pointless insults at me I'll get it. Or maybe pointing out genuine differences between the two that you can document would work better.
But independents don't like Hillary, which is why she does the worst of the major Democratic candidates in head-to-head polling.
This isn't true.
It was the CW of what people expected to happen, with good reason, but it's not what the polls are showing.