Good idea Eli. I think this is what it comes down to. I was much less anti-Hillary/pro-Obama before McCain became the likely GOP nominee. Hillary does not do well among independants, and those voters who vote based on nebulous things like "character", "honor" and "how presidential are they?". McCain does.

My rural-living, church-going, flag-flying, liberal(ish) on social issues ("abortion & gays are none of government's beeswax") but still want to keep a Christmas Tree on City Hall relatives who live in Wisconsin, Florida, and New Mexico have said their favorite candidates were Obama and McCain!?!?! Several have also said they would never vote for Clinton.

Come on, Eli; you need to include "Both" and "Neither". I think either could plausibly beat Romney, since his public persona is so trashable, but that McCain has the edge on HRC.

The Democrats will choose Hillary: Anything to clench a defeat from the jaws of victory!

Old white man = status quo.
Young black man = new state of politics altogether.

Enough said.

The entire South had to be taken to war because of their backward stand on human dignity and equality, it was a War of Liberation. Obama will have to fight and WIN that war again to win the south. McCain does not have to fight that war being a White Male. Clinton might have a better chance than Obama with that war, but only slightly better.

The Republicans are quite demoralized. Have you been following any of the conservative blogs or commentators? To say the very least, they're damned unenthusiastic about their candidates and their party. The one thing that may yet re-unite the Republicans is their hatred for Hillary Clinton. Who knows, they may be unable to get it together even to oppose her, but she's just not worth the risk. I'm convinced: Obama is our strongest candidate.

what 6 said.

I'm voting for Mickey Mouse. Seriously.

The Republicans are just miffed because the crazies are convinced there aren't any real conservatives in the race. The blogs are pretty much all crazy, all the time. They think McCain is a liberal, which is just retarded. They'll come around in November. The non-crazies will be comfortable with McCain from the get-go, and there are a lot more of them.

It's sort of like Obama's big lead here. The Slog is not representative of even the Democratic majority, let alone the nation as a whole. Even though I support Obama, I don't think he's an 80% man; that's just radical.

#5: Are you referring to the general election, though, or primary process? What former Confederate state (Florida aside) was even remotely considered in play for the Democrats in the general? Thanks to our Electoral College system the South isn't where the battle will be. The Dems need a candidate who can hurry the changing allegiances (toward Blue) in the West and halt the changing allegiances (toward Red) in the Midwest.

here's why O is and always will be more electable: Hillary has been inspiring hate since the early 90s, Obama is relatively new on the scene. Sure, his blackness will bring out some deep south redneck votes, but not nearly to the degree that The Hill will.

I was talking with a co-worker today and she said, "I don't know much about Obama, but I know I don't like Clinton." That is the key factor here. Familiarity will inspire contempt more so than will racism.

The Dem Party is fractured, and probably can't be healed before Nov. Romney is done. McCain trounces either Dem.

Latest Rasmussen Poll: "McCain now leads Clinton 48% to 40%. He leads Barack Obama 47% to 41%."
Link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/john_mccain_match_ups/election_2008_mccain_vs_clinton_and_obama

So many people just don't like Hillary. I don't think she is electable, especially against McCain. If Mitt or Huck are running then maybe she has a chance, but we can't afford to risk. I'd love it if they ran together, Obama/Clinton but we know that ain't gonna happen.

quite simply obama makes people excited to be part of a democracy again. people want to vote...young people want to vote to be a part of this. people may decry that young people are too inexperienced or to ill-read to "know" who to vote for; which is the anti-democratic attitude you hear so often coming from the hillary camp. young people are the future of this country, we will have to vote sooner or later...why not be excited to live in a democracy and to exercise our rights to vote.

I would like to know why my vote in the second poll was rejected, because I have submitted "too many comments too quickly", but now upon waiting and refreshing it says I've already voted.

It's funny, because both parties have

one candidate with independent appeal (McCain, Obama)

and one candidate with no possible independent appeal that the party highups prefer (Romney, Clinton).

The Repubs are coming around to the smart decision; will the Democrats?

Edwards dropped out.

So it's obviously Sen Obama for both polls.

(running short on sleep cause I read half his book last night)

Oh, and Fnarf @9, there are no real conservatives running in the GOP race. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and the rest aren't conservatives by the true definition.

Sargon Bighorn,

O doesn't have to win Southern states to get elected. Last election if Kerry had gotten OH it the Dems would have won. This year CO and VA have very good chances of going blue so the south is even less necessary to win.

You think Hillary could win in the South? Hell no.

@6 has it right, especially if McCain is the nom -- Fox and the right wing radio guys are late converts to Romney after bombing out supporting Thompson and/or Rudy. Conservatives and fundies don't like McCain (which is weird, since to me I would think the former liberal Republican governor of "Taxachusetts" would be the one that bugged them, but okay whatever), but they will sure as Hell turn out to hold their nose and vote *against* Hillary.

I suppose with eight months to go, there's plenty of time to whip up closet racists to vote against that uppity Muslim negro boy, and also Hillary is a known quantity whose dirt is out there giving her nowhere to go but up in the public's esteem, but I've heard Obama actually inspire patriotic feelings in Republican shitheads like Sullivan, so I still think he'd discourage GOPers more from enthusiastically voting for their nom.

Obama and McCain, at least theoretically given their past campaigning, might be more reluctant to go into the mud against each other, though all kinds of Swift Boat style groups might crop up.

Honestly, Hillary as the nom really does seem like the only way Dems could snatch defeat from the jaws of what seems like a total cakewalk win...

Call me skeptical that someone who will not vote for any black man under any circumstances would be willing to vote for a woman.

Why can't Hillary win? Vince Foster.

@18, Sullivan would beg to disagree with you as to the meaning of conservative.

I think Clinton is more electable than Obama. Mostly because I think once again, we're coming down to swing votes in swing states. I think with Obama, you pretty much have to cede the South. With Clinton, I think there's a good shot at getting Arkansas and Florida. (Though the Dems really effed up with their stupid BS about not campaigning in Florida. Now Florida is going to be an uphill battle for any candidate. Thanks DNC!)

The other reason I think that Clinton is more electable than Obama is because Obama and McCain are to a certain extent both "change" candidates. While conservatives who didn't like Bush's politics might have been inclined to vote for Obama were he up against Romney, I think they would rather vote for McCain. McCain's actually a huge blow to the Obama campaign because McCain's "straight talk" is akin to Obama's "uniter" strategy. If they're both about "unity," then the race comes down to issues, and Obama's progressivism isn't going to play well to conservatives. Remember McCain gets a lot of credit from independents and conservatives for supporting the surge.

By contrast, I think Hillary will incite a lot of women who might not have voted, or who might have voted conservative, to support her simply because, yes she is a woman. And women are 51% of the electorate.

Of course, all of this is meaningless if Bloomberg enters as a third party candidate.

@21, I think many people speculated that the reason that Hillary won such a large chunk of the white vote in South Carolina was because those white voters weren't willing to vote for a black man, but apparently were willing to vote for a white woman.

ha ha, Bloomberg -- I'd expect him to generate all the excitement of Fred Thompson

Either Democrat will win, not by much, but win. In addition to their own issues(too old or too Mormon) McCain or Romney will have take Huckabee(or worse) as a running mate.

All the other Republican VP choices touted are too liberal for The Christians, they'll already be pissed about McCain or Romney. The Florida governor who was with McCain all week? The Christians think he's a secret gay, no way is he going on the ticket.

This is dumb. Why is it that you all believe that nobody anywhere will vote for Hillary? She got more votes than the winning Republican in Florida. I think this is a case of all the little boys being scared of letting a girl in the tree fort. People ARE voting for Hillary, she definitely CAN win. I like Obama a lot and would be pretty stoked if he made it to the White House, but I think you're selling Hillary short with your narrow understanding of the ideals of the citizens of our country.

Clinton/Obama. You'll see.

1. the last time we tried to pick a democrat based on "electability" we got Kerry.

2. everyone's forgetting about national security and the war now that we're in primary season. this will become a bigger issue in the general, in a way that, I think, would favor Clinton.

Billary's nomination would galvanize the
right. Her ceiling is no higher then 49% in many polls when set against the remaining Republican candidates because of her build in negatives.

Obama will be a coalition builder who can attract independents and even some conservatives.He will motivate the young. He's helps down ticket candidates.

Old versus Young New versus Old.

#2, even if you think both or neither *can*, you can still choose which is *more likely*.

Here's the completely naive analysis running through my head:

A nice random sample of Americans comes out and votes on the issues (ha!).

On a really generic left/right political axis, I think of the candidates like this:

[Obama]      [Clinton]  [American political center]    [McCain]       [Romney]

(Yes, I know there's at least two distinct political axes, bear with me)

Assume everyone to the left of the D votes for him/her, and everyone to the right of the R votes for him.

Therefore, I would think Clinton has a better chance of defeating either candidate, especially Romney. Obama has less of the electorate to his left (his gimmes) and he'd have to fight McCain for the people in the middle. She has the triangulation factor. She's closer to the center, IMO, than McCain. It illustrates flaws in the two party system, because eventually everyone converges on the political center and most people end up with no viable representation (Ron Paul? Puhlease). What we need is a runoff system that would allow a greater number of candidates to focus on smaller pieces of the political spectrum without fear of throwing the election for their overarching ideology.

Now, my idea of the American political center is probably pure speculative bullshit, and further, the American electorate is not a random sample, and further, people do not vote on the issues.

That said, I have to wonder about Clinton's ability to galvanize the R base (thus negating any resemblance of a random sample and thus negating her gimme advantage). So I went with Obama on both.

@27, again, it's not that Hillary is a woman, it's that everyone hates her as a human being. Also, her health care plan sucks and she already blew that once, spectacularly so (I'm a single issue voter this time - healthcare, and I'm not too keen on Obama's plan, either).

Hillary is just too polarizing. Sorry but its true. no one is going to cross party lines based on ideologies to vote for her. In fact people will vote against her for no other reason but dislike. And I think it transcends her sex. Shes just not likeable, believable, genuine, or trustable. If only the first viable female candidate were all those things. Unfortunately, Hillary is not. Whether its genuine or not, I think Obama has some of those qualities, and people pick up on that.

1. because my reagan democrats don't hate obama like they hate hillary, and they're mccain's age.

2. either would do just as well because on mormons, evangelicals & atheists agree.

1) Hillary's high negatives (even WITHIN her own party). Polarizing.

2) Obama's appeal to young voters, and first time voters (of all races)--historic highs, record turnouts.

3) Who elects the president? Independents. Obama has more support among them.

and AFTER the election, who is more likely to reach across the aisle--effectively--and govern with both parties support in congress? so

4) LOTS of bad blood from the Clinton years, esp post-impeachment.

In terms of electability? It's clear.

Here's why Obama is more electable: racist white people are somehow willing to make exceptions for their racist thinking, and say things like "you're not like other black people" or "you're not really black" to black people they have to deal with on a regular basis and whom they almost like or admire.

Sexist men (and women?) *don't* make this exception. There's always, "you're pretty good (at whatever)...for a girl" but that still means "you're not as good as a boy."

And, if we're going to be as darkly pragmatic as possible, and to address Josh's "National Security" argument--

Who is more likely to inspire terrorists to attack us? A white woman in charge (who, to prove she's tough, will likely rattle her sabre and continue to hint at invading Iran) or a black man who (wrongly) keeps being rumored to be Muslim?

And didn't we already hear a huge sigh of relief (if not a shout of excitement) from the rest of the world on the eve of Obama's Iowa win? We've hardly heard anything like that from the rest of the world concerning Hillary, despite (or perhaps because of) all that "experience" she keeps bragging about?

Seems to me like the same people, voting the same way, as yesterday. Predisposition is so rarely predisposed.

So keep this in mind as once again the vitriol bottles on Hillary's vanity are opened:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/349244_clinton30.html

1) Because Hillary is just unlikable to many people. I know a lot of Democrats who have said they could see themselves voting for McCain. But every Dem who's said that to me also wants Obama to get the nomination.

2) Because conservatives think Romney has a "liberal" record and evangelicals will go to a third party rather than vote for a Mormon. Either Dem. can beat Romney.

This came from my mother - an almost life long democrat. FD: she does work at a libertarian think tank but has always voted democrat.

"So, are you going to register to vote
and go to the designated caucus site and
go through the event?

It'd certainly be something to see,
something to experience, and you'd have
plenty to talk about with Mikki and your coworkers.

I'm for Obama, also. Absolutely. No doubts at all.

The recent crappy behavior out of Bill Clinton -- who definitely
has signaled that HE'S running for a third term, folks -- has
completely soured me on Hillary. I didn't like her before, but this
stuff is just outrageous. And, I do agree: if the choice
was between Hillary or McCain, John has my vote."

Mind you my mother is a 50 year old single, middle class,white female but this doesnt bode well for Hillary. Despite living in CA she can influence the vote due to the new electoral rules some states have enacted.

I love all the back and forth here on the Slog. And regardless of who you support, I hope everyone puts as much energy into attending the caucuses on Feb 9 as they do commenting on here.

Time for action, people.

@31

That's the kind of thinking that got Kerry nominated.

People don't think, well I am +5 on the scale, I assess the candidates as -40, -10, +20, and +35, therefore I'll vote for either -10 or +20 because they are equidistant from me.

It's not just that there are 'two axes' or something, it's that it's completely non-linear.

Some people respond to populist rhetoric, or socialist rhetoric, or centrist rhetoric, or neo-conservative rhetoric, or libertarian rhetoric. They pick the candidate that they feel, on the basis of words and record, best corresponds to their vague ideas about how the country should be run. That's not a numerical comparison, it's a gut feeling. I didn't vote for Kerry cus he seemed like he'd be a worthless president, and never said that he would implement anything remotely interesting, not because he was too liberal.

@23 - Sullivan don't know Dick about what's conservative.

My grands were conservatives back when the GOP was nothing. From that perspective, none of these people on the GOP side actually can deliver small efficient goverment with less intrusive oversight of our lives, balance the budget, and avoid unnecessary foreign wars of adventure.

Sullivan doesn't know squat about conservatism, just the abhorent monstrosity that is the GOP today.

@24,

I'm not sure why you think South Carolina is representative of the nation as a whole. In my experience, rabid misogyny walks hand-in-hand with rabid racism (the kind that's entirely based on skin color and doesn't give black folk any credit for anything). Check out Comment #36 for what I'm getting at.

@31,

Triangulation is why Hillary will lose. Don't you think everyone's sick of it?

McCain's maverick status is complete bullshit, but don't count on middle-of-the-road voters to figure that out. Clinton and McCain will be indistinguishable to them.

You know even less about Sullivan than you do about conservatism, or 80 MPG cars, Will. Please go away.

I must not be alone. There are a third again as many votes for the first poll as the second.

Many, many people have been effectively propagandized, over the past 8-15 years, to like McCain and hate Clinton. (No, this doesn't mean that everyone who likes McCain or hates Clinton has been effectively propagandized.)

And we get another 9 months for the teevee to tell us which presidential candidate we'd like to have a beer with. (Hint: it's never the Democrat.)

OK, on the whole racism/sexism thing

1. Sexism is more acceptable than racism among the non-'s. A lot of stuff will be said about Clinton that may get tut tuts or even disapproval that would absolutely disgust more people if it were done to Obama.

2. Doesn't McCain have a brown daughter? Call me hopeless but I think that an Obama-McCain race might be civilized a bit because of that.

Hillary wins against McCain but they're cut from the same cloth: Both are Washington insiders that will continue playing the same game.

Obama wins against McCain and Romney because Obama brings fresh air to politics in this country. It's the first time in a generation that when a candidate says the future is about hope we actually believe that he can bring it about. While he's been in politics a short time, his ability to provide vision for an optimistic future and the ability to get others to see it is what a president should be about. McCain and Romney are politicians. Obama is a leader. There is a difference and the voters can see it.

Hillary would beat Romney, because frankly Dems are scared of the Mormon/Evangelical vote as are moderate Republicans. Couple that with the inconsistencies in Romney's history, and Hillary wins hands down.

42/44, I feel you, hence all my caveats about it being a naive analysis.

To be fair, Kerry did win the popular vote. And if it's the thinking that got Kerry nominated, it's more or less the same thinking that got Clinton nominated in 92. We're dealing with no incumbent this year as well as some pretty mediocre R offerings.

But yes, I do think people might be tired of it. It's why Ron Paul was thought of as even remotely viable, because he doesn't pander to the center and he attracts those "Kerry and Bush are the same" dumbasses on the fringes.

Obama, on the other hand, has been vague enough so far with his "unity" rhetoric that you could probably convince anyone that they agree with it. He kind of has a "rhetorical triangulation" thing going on (otherwise known as leadership).

Obama = Democratic turnout machine.

Clinton = Republican turnout machine.

People are motivated to vote for Obama and against Clinton. McCain is cool; his negatives are his age and his belief that the war in Iraq is a success. People who are sick of the war will vote against him. Romney's negatives is that people are not comfortable with him, and he's too liberal for the Rs.

@27: Thanks to Democratic intransigence, the Florida election did not count. Nobody campaigned, so it's hard to get a handle on the significance of the outcome.

Kerry won the popular vote

Kerry had 59 million votes; Bush had 61 million. So I'm gonna say no.

"Kerry had 59 million votes; Bush had 61 million."

Hmm... indeed. I wonder why I thought otherwise.

I think the Slog and Seattle has much love for Obama that is not representative in the rest of the country (basically, I completely agree with Fnarf).

I truly believe the problem with Obama is that he may be able to speak, but we don't know his secrets. We know about his ties to a slum lord, we know some of his shady past in Chicago...but we really DON'T KNOW.

and the GOP is really good at just MAKING SHIT UP that people believe (aka the swift boats of 2004).

Hillary has already had every skeleton out. and She has won. The Clinton machine has a great track record.

So, with McCain who many GOP diehards hate with a PASSION, and so it really depends on who he makes his VP.

I am not convinced that Obama can beat the GOP machine, even if they are slightly splintered against McCain.

Original Monique, we are looking at the comparative advantage between the two candidates. obama may lose to mccain, but compared to hillary i think he has a better shot. not only does hillary have so much baggage, she doesnt inspire anyone i know personally except against her.

I hate the word electable. It means you presume to understand how other voters think. Remember our last "electable" democrat? John Fucking Kerry? He was sooo "electable" according to all the democrats, but apparently the rest of the country didn't agree.
I think we all perform this analysis in our own minds about how 'it will play out' even though it's just a fucking guess. You never know what is going to sway anyone else (at the last minute or otherwise). So why don't we just vote on the candidates' merits and leave the policital calculus to the punditocracy (who have such a stellar record): who is the best candidate - not who is the most electable!

for both of those questions, how about neither? HRC is dividing and i just don't think Obama's ready. i think McCain will win the election. i really wished Gen. Wesley Clark had run again.

what's a cheap and mostly democratic country to move to?