The Democrats should make Obama the nominee because he polls better against McCain? How long will it take us to learn that we should never let polls guide our voting?

Haven't we had enough experience just in this primary season alone, to see how fallible polls are? How many states primaries have already turned out different than the polls predicted they would?

Then of course, there's 2004. Kerry was chosen in large part because of "electability".

Novel thought: Partisans select nominees based on who they think will make the best president,considering their policies and capabillity for leadership. Watch the polls for entertainment.

Obama beats McCain.

But really, why is that even relevant? Since Kerry-Edwards beat Bush-Cheney, just like the polls predicted, we should just hand the nomination to President Kerry on a silver platter and be confident that he'll beat McCain just like he beat Bush.

In reality, Obama and Clinton are both Senators who essentially have 0 electability. But at least they can get along with the Democratic base. McCain can't get along with his own base, so either Dem is likely to win. The real question is who'd be a better President. Obama subscribes to the Bush governing philosophy that "I don't know anything, and I don't need to. I'll just hire the right people. And also, I'm The Messiah, so fuck democracy." That philosophy has worked for Bush so well that it would obviously be a good idea to continue it by electing Obama.

If Obama gets the nomination, I'll probably vote for McCain, despite being a staunch Democrat. The principles of little d democrats are more important than those of Democrats. Obama doesn't believe in democracy, as he has shown by withdrawing his name from the ballot in MI. If he wins the nomination by an overwhelming majority, I'll support him. But if the 90-delegate lead Clinton earned in MI/FL would have made a difference, I'm voting Republican for the 1st time in my life.

long2024--

Your point about polls and pollsters is well-made and well-taken. Too bad you go and ruin it by spewing convoluted invective. Just a sampling:

"In reality, Obama and Clinton are both Senators who essentially have 0 electability." Right. And this is why all of those other "electable" people: the Bill Richardsons, the John Edwardses, the Chris Dodds, and the Joe Bidens, are all beating them handily for the nomination. Or why Democratic primary turnouts are beating Republican primary turnouts 2-1, 3-1, or 4-1, (depends on your source).

"Obama subscribes to the Bush governing philosophy that "I don't know anything, and I don't need to. I'll just hire the right people. And also, I'm The Messiah, so fuck democracy.""

Where on earth did you pull this from? First of all, no president can know everything about everything! That's why they have 1) a staff, and 2) an administration. So, yes, I certainly hope Obama (or any President) thinks, "I'll hire the right people" to run the intelligence agencies, the treasury, the various cabinet departments, etc. As for "not knowing anything," I'd say he knows a great deal and has a pretty good handle on policy and the role of government. I base this assertion on his writings and texts of his speeches, which I understand (from interviews given by various consultants) that he is instrumental in writing. And the "Messiah/f*** democracy" thing is both ridiculous and crude.

"Obama doesn't believe in democracy, as he has shown by withdrawing his name from the ballot in MI."

Obama (along with Edwards) withdrew his name from the Michigan ballot because he was abiding by the rules set by the DNC, which was punishing Michigan for defying the DNC's rules and moving their primary too early in the calendar. As a Democratic candidate, Senator Obama was obligated to abide by those rules. And yet nobody seems to fault Senator Clinton for leaving her name on the ballot. A party nominating process is not a democratic election (on either side: witness the roles of Superdelegates, date assignments, and disparities among the states in terms of caucus vs. convention vs. primary), because in the U.S., a political party is free to select their nominee in any way they see fit: they could draw names from hats if they were so inclined. If abiding by party rules makes one undemocratic, well, that pretty much blasts every President we've had in the past 50 years or so.

If you hate Obama so much (and you must, if you really think he's an undemocratic moron with a Messianic complex), I don't understand why the 90-vote threshold matters to you. You would really vote for a guy you despise just because he's the Democratic nominee? Well, then, you can't hate him all that much. And if you don't hate him all that much, why aren't you voting for him, even if he wins the Democratic nomination by 89 votes?

This "logic" defies my every attempt to understand it.

SalientMan,

"And this is why all of those other "electable" people: the Bill Richardsons, the John Edwardses, the Chris Dodds, and the Joe Bidens, are all beating them handily for the nomination."

Since when is performance in party primary contests indicative of the ability to succeed in a general election? Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale... Need I name more nominees who lost the general election?

"...no president can know everything about everything!"

True. But Presidents who try to learn as much as possible about policy details don't muck it up as badly as the "I'll just hire the right people" types. I gather from the debates that Obama doesn't have as good a command of the details as Clinton. And he's certainly smart enough to, so I interpret that as a sign of laziness. Maybe not the kind of laziness that convinces one to take a month's vacation every year, but still not the kind of work ethic a President needs.

"A party nominating process is not a democratic election (on either side: witness the roles of Superdelegates, date assignments, and disparities among the states in terms of caucus vs. convention vs. primary), because in the U.S., a political party is free to select their nominee in any way they see fit: they could draw names from hats if they were so inclined."

Yes, legally, the parties are completely within their rights to nominate their candidates through undemocratic methods. That doesn't mean they should.

"If you hate Obama so much (and you must, if you really think he's an undemocratic moron with a Messianic complex), I don't understand why the 90-vote threshold matters to you."

Because I respect the democratic process more than he does. If he wins the nomination legitimately, democratic principle compels me to treat him as I would any other Democratic nominee. Barring exceptional circumstances (e.g. plans for a dictatorship of the proletariat), that means voting for him.

Hi long2024; thanks for responding.

Since when is performance in party primary contests indicative of the ability to succeed in a general election?

This is a very good point. My aim was to refute your claim that Clinton and Obama had "zero" electability. I think they must have *some* electability, or they wouldn't have emerged as the front-runners. While it's true that many people who have won the nomination of one of the two major political parties in the past 100 years have not won, an equal number HAVE won: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, JFK, etc., and virtually every one of those winners had questions raised about their electability. What's ironic is that many of those who lost the election (e.g. Dukakis, Kerry) were, at the time they secured the nomination, seen as MORE electable that some who won (Clinton was an unknown with a questionable history with women, Carter was seen as one of the "new Southern governors," which was thought to cost him liberal support, JFK was Catholic, etc.). One final point: there have been many elections against an incumbent when nobody the other side fielded had a chance of winning: there really was zero electability (vs. Clinton in 96, Reagan in 84, Johnson in 64, Eisenhower in 56). This is not one of those times.

Obama has had only middling performances in the debates. I interpret this as a lack of improvisational skills, rather than a command of the issues. I cite my reasons in my original post. I know lots of smart, informed, savvy people who are completely lost when it comes to improvisation and debate.

I still can't understand the logic behind why the 90-vote threshold matters to you, unless you think that McCain is more abhorrent than Obama and you are being practical with your vote, going for the least repellent choice. But if it's practicality, it would seem like you would vote for Obama (least-repellent) regardless of how he secured the nomination. Perhaps McCain is only slightly more odious than Obama, in your eyes, and you feel that securing the nom by less than 90 votes would tip the "Revolt-o-meter" in Obama's favor? Otherwise, why not just stay home? Or vote for a third party?

Hi SalientMan,

Sounds like I didn't make myself clear enough when I said 0 electability. I meant that in the sense that both are lack any major positive factors that would help them get elected, but also lack major negatives. Someone with major negatives and insufficient major positives to offset them would have negative electability, which is where I peg McCain. The only divorced President we've had was Reagan, and he had to pander to the Moral Majority like crazy to make it happen. McCain has insulted some of the MM's heroes in a way that won't be forgiven. Yes, "unelectable" candidates have won and "electable" ones lost, but only because the pundits are incompetent at determining who is electable. They make assumptions that are not empirically founded, such as the one that being a war hero helps one become President, and then repeat the unfounded assumptions until everyone believes them.

The primary process does weed out some of the least electable (Kucinich), but above a certain threshold primary voters either don't care about electability or can't tell when they see it.

"I interpret this as a lack of improvisational skills, rather than a command of the issues."

Still not a great quality in a President, particularly one who claims to be working for change. A leader who can't think on his feet is likely to resort to the same old tactics that have already been tried when faced with a challenge.

"I still can't understand the logic behind why the 90-vote threshold matters to you, unless you think that McCain is more abhorrent than Obama and you are being practical with your vote, going for the least repellent choice."

Relevant information that I left out: I live in Massachusetts. My vote is only a symbol anyway. Obama would be a better President than McCain, so if I lived in a swing state I'd hold my nose and vote for him. But the advantage of having a vote that doesn't matter in terms of who becomes President is that I can use it for other purposes. If he's the nominee, my voting decision will be about control of the Democratic Party, which should belong to Democratic voters. If Democratic voters have chosen Obama, then I'll vote for him, regardless of my opinion of him. If they haven't, then I refuse to support the DNC's power grab. However, you're right that there are other alternatives than voting McCain, and I hadn't really thought about those in three days since it become clear that the nomination will be contested closely enough to make the disenfranchisement of MI and FL an issue with teeth. Maybe I'll write in Hillary Clinton instead.

I can somewhat agree with "electability" having been a consideration for Democrats in 2004. The Democrats had a well-established tradition of making a hash of choosing a competitive candidate against a Republican incumbent, with the exception of Clinton, and all other considerations paled beside getting rid of Bush. However, 2004 served as further proof of how useless such considerations are.

There just isn't a good way to determine "electability". Polls certainly aren't reliable. But, more importantly, there isn't an incumbent this year, and it appears like this time, the 3-1/2 candidates surviving are in fact the ones in each party that are best suited to be president. So, let each voter in the primary vote on the basis of which candidate will make the best president, i.e. actually do the best job of governing. Forget about polls and electability. They're fools gold at best.