The Obama Effect versus The Hillary Effect
|
It’s the electability, stupid.
I’ve written about this before, but perfect examples of electability keep presenting themselves. For example, yesterday progressive voters came out in droves to kick out seven term incumbent [corrupt and conservative] Democrat Al Wynn in Maryland’s 4th Congressional district. |
|
Update: In a bit of irony, Donna Edwards was endorsed by Emily’s List, the same Emily’s List that has repeatedly attacked Obama with lies about his record on reproductive rights for Hillary Clinton. Way to go Emily’s List! Way to look past the vagina and at the big picture!
As in nature, everything has its antithesis, for every yin there is a yang. The antithesis to the Obama Effect, is the Hillary Effect. The Hillary Effect isn’t hard to conceptualize, because it is simply the exact opposite of the Obama Effect. For instance, if she is our nominee, she will unite the Republican party, not around John McCain, but against her. She is polarizing, it is no secret. Right now McCain has a Republican problem, and she is just what the doctor ordered. If she is on the ballot, Republicans will turn out in record numbers to defeat her, and after the check the box for Republican for president, they are likely to vote Republican all the way down the ballot, thus devastating Democratic candidates in red, purple and even light blue districts and states all across America.
As with the Obama effect, we may already have an example of the Hillary Effect in action. On December 11th, 2007 there was a special election held to fill a vacant seat in Virginia’s 1st Congressional district. The Republican candidate beat the Democratic candidate almost 2-1. It wasn’t a likely pickup for the Dems, but no one thought it was going to turn out that bad. The Republicans did have a secret weapon in this battle however, and that weapon was Hillary Clinton. Even though Hillary Clinton was not our nominee yet (although at that time she was still “inevitable”), and even though Hillary had absolutely nothing to do with the Democrat running in that election, the Republicans dropped attack mailers in the district with Hillary Clintons picture right next to their opponent’s picture. Regardless of whether or not this drove energized Republicans to the polls or not (we’ll certainly never know), it goes to show that the Republicans WILL exploit hatred of Hillary Clinton to energize their base and defeat local candidates. They apparently think that is a winning strategy, and I think they are right.
So there we have it, our two choices, the Obama Effect leading to increased Democratic majorities in Congress and more Democrats in local positions across the country, or the Hillary Effect, with us getting hammered in the general election coast to coast, culminating in us losing the presidential bid as well. Recent polls highlight the stakes well:
Rasmussen, February 13th, NH-Pres: Obama (D) 49%, McCain (R) 36% Clinton (D) 43%, McCain (R) 41%These are amazing numbers, for a couple reasons. First, the results in New Hampshire are the most alarming. If we can’t win New England in the general election we are in big trouble, and Hillary only beats McCain here by 2%, basically tied! This is before taking into account the Hillary Effect which is likely to sharply increase turnout by the Republicans (and Independents). It is very likely that Hillary wouldn’t even be able to carry New Hampshire. Notice Obama carries it easily by 13%.
Rasmussen, February 13th, CO-Pres: Obama (D) 46%, McCain (R) 39% McCain (R) 49%, Clinton (D) 35%
On the other side we have the Obama Effect in action, in Colorado, a state that has only voted for a Democratic president twice since Harry Truman right after World War II, where he beats McCain comfortably by 7%, before taking into account the Obama Effect. Hillary loses Colorado by 14%. What a difference! This same thing is repeated all over the country. As I mentioned in a previous blog, Washington state, a very blue state, Hillary ties McCain in the polls, and would most likely lose in the general election, while Obama carries it easily. In the South, greatly increased African American voter turnout even opens up the possibility of a few Southern wins for a Democrat!
The thing to keep in mind is that this race is bigger than just the presidency. We can’t go into the general election with a 50% + 1 strategy, which is what the Clintons are going for. We need a 50 state strategy, the same strategy that Dean has ran since he became head of the DNC, and it has been a huge success. The absolute best thing for our party is to have someone on the ballot who can bring voters to the polls all across the country, not to defeat them, but to support them, and in turn support other Democrats all the way down the ballot. Obama is the only candidate who can do this for us. Look at the states he has won, everything from Alaska to Iowa, to Alabama to Idaho to Maine, he has captured all demographics, he has converted moderate Republicans, he has energized young adults, he has turned conventional wisdom on its head, and he can repeat the Donna Edwards experiment all across the country. We just need to come to our senses and make the obvious choice: Do we want to win coast to coast, top to bottom, or do we want to lose our asses coast to coast, top to bottom, because we nominated the electoral equivalent to Typhoid Mary? It isn’t a hard choice.