Yesterday, Sullivan floated the notion of an Obama/Colin Powell ticket here. It would be rather a genius idea in the ways he described, and it would entice Republicans who have become irritated at the way the Bush Administration has chosen to operate in the world. My take is that, outside of the oil companies, business conservatives are really angry at the Administration's foreign policy, because having everyone else in the world hate us is bad news when you're trying to sell them something. These conservatives might blanch at the concept of voting for a liberal Black Democrat, but with Powell on the ticket, I can see many of them bolting from the GOP to vote for Obama/Powell. It might be the only bipartisan fusion ticket that stands a chance of working (largely because Powell's stances on social issues are generally liberal), and despite his speech at the U. N., Powell is still pretty much universally admired, in part because of his consistent criticism of the Bush Administration in the past few years. I personally like this idea because of the statement it makes: instead of left vs. right, it's realists vs. neocons (i.e. Giuliani and most of the GOP field, minus Ron Paul). I do agree with Sullivan that, with this ticket, the election would be over, and it would be smart for Obama to tease this angle--the whole "me and Colin are a package deal" thing. I don't even think the all-Black ticket issue would matter, since both politicians are hardly traditional Black pols (i.e. Jesse Jackson) and have strong appeal with Whites.
This quote by the former General here is only going to feed the speculation.
Status Update: Sullivan brings up the topic again today. No mention of Powell's U. N. speech as a stumbling block among the left, but I happen to agree that this would be a pretty awesome ticket. Then again, in order for it to ever happen, Obama needs to beat Hillary first, which is where the real trick lies...
Showing posts with label hypotheticals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hypotheticals. Show all posts
Monday, June 11, 2007
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Newt and John
According to recent comments, Newt Gingrich gives himself 4 to 1 odds against running, which leads to an obvious joke here.
Gingrich is someone I have a great deal of hope for. On one side, he's beloved by many Republicans and seen by them as being an anti-corruption crusader, despite a palpable history of hypocrisy and corruption. Who was it that set up the K Street project? It wasn't Tom DeLay. Gingrich was never popular with the public at large, but then again, he never had to be. He just needed to remain popular with the folks in his Northern Georgia district and with the GOP caucus, which he was not always able to do (see: failed GOP mutiny against Gingrich). In any event, his reforms were ridiculous. Term limits, in particular, were a bad idea and a bad policy. Although conservatives managed to talk warmly about citizen legislators, the real intent behind this clause was to drum Southern Democrats out of office, who would likely be replaced by conservative Republicans. Actually, one could argue that term limits make more new, inexperienced legislators who will be more beholden to special interests, but I digress. I do actually like the Balanced Budget Amendment, but the current crop of Republicans don't seem to care much for balanced budgets. Gingrich could be the key to a Democratic victory if he wins the nomination: his approvals are so low he makes Hillary look like Obama, but his popularity with Republicans and his "ideas" could make him a contender for the nomination. I predict that his getting the nomination will make the electoral map look like an inverse version of the Eisenhower vs. Stevenson map from 1952.
John Edwards, on the other hand, is becoming a cause for concern for me. I previously thought he would be a strong general election candidate despite a few obvious flaws, but I am rethinking that assessment. It seems to me that all excitement about his candidacy can be found among White liberals, who seem to think they can have their cake (i.e. elect a solid liberal) and eat it too (i.e. carry some Southern states). I am skeptical, since Edwards seems to be having a hard time winning over Southern Democrats, let alone independents and conservatives. He sometimes comes up ahead in South Carolina polls, and he once was ahead in Florida. Hillary Clinton, at this point, is dominating the South, and if Edwards cannot appeal to Southern voters of his own party, how can he actually win over new ones in the general election? When one looks at his issue positions, one gets even more worried. He's anti-gun, pro-affirmative action, and strongly pro-choice (moreso than in 2004). While these are not all issue positions I disagree with (indeed, they are mainstream Democratic positions), how can one win big in the South with positions like these, considering the strength of the religious right in the region? If he were, say, pro-gun, I might rethink this particular idea. The anti-gun segment of the Democratic Party is not very powerful or influential, and a pro-gun Dem could easily win the nomination by being strong on other liberal issues. Edwards may speak with a Southern accent, but culturally, he's closer to Massachussetts than South Carolina. Not a problem for me, but I'm not a conservative Southerner.
Ultimately, Edwards's playbook has been to move farther to the left on any number of issues than Clinton or Obama so as to draw a contrast between them. It has worked to some extent, but by becoming the farthest-left candidate, he is compromising general election electability. Never mind that he hasn't presented any evidence that having him on the ticket attracts crossover voters, or that he can stand tall against tough pols (check out his 2004 debate with Cheney, if you need evidence). The Democrats need to make a decision: do we make an attempt to play for the South, or do we focus on more winnable regions elsewhere? If the result is the latter (and I think that, outside of Florida, Missouri, Arkansas, and Virginia, the South is a pipe dream for the Democrats), then Edwards might make sense and he might not. His talk on trade would seem to make him likely to win Ohio, and he might be able to win Florida (with half-Latino Bill Richardson on the ticket), and he would likely be able to win Iowa and New Mexico, where anti-war sentiment is high. However, with FL and OH, we are dealing with essentially Republican states. Mainstream states, sure, but both voted at least once for George W. Bush, and it seems clear that the voters in those states respond to strong leadership. Plus, we need to consider whether he would be able to hold the left wing in the general election. I think it's likely, but he does have some questionable items on his c. v. (writing the PATRIOT Act, for one) that could come into play.
Ultimately, until I see some evidence (i.e. state polls in Ohio and Florida showing Edwards easily beating Rudy, Fred Thompson, and McCain), I'm not buying the electability argument. Edwards got my vote in the 2004 primary, but he's become too much of a panderer, which comes in stark contrast to Barack Obama's habit of telling people what they don't want to hear--and remaining beloved for it.
Gingrich is someone I have a great deal of hope for. On one side, he's beloved by many Republicans and seen by them as being an anti-corruption crusader, despite a palpable history of hypocrisy and corruption. Who was it that set up the K Street project? It wasn't Tom DeLay. Gingrich was never popular with the public at large, but then again, he never had to be. He just needed to remain popular with the folks in his Northern Georgia district and with the GOP caucus, which he was not always able to do (see: failed GOP mutiny against Gingrich). In any event, his reforms were ridiculous. Term limits, in particular, were a bad idea and a bad policy. Although conservatives managed to talk warmly about citizen legislators, the real intent behind this clause was to drum Southern Democrats out of office, who would likely be replaced by conservative Republicans. Actually, one could argue that term limits make more new, inexperienced legislators who will be more beholden to special interests, but I digress. I do actually like the Balanced Budget Amendment, but the current crop of Republicans don't seem to care much for balanced budgets. Gingrich could be the key to a Democratic victory if he wins the nomination: his approvals are so low he makes Hillary look like Obama, but his popularity with Republicans and his "ideas" could make him a contender for the nomination. I predict that his getting the nomination will make the electoral map look like an inverse version of the Eisenhower vs. Stevenson map from 1952.
John Edwards, on the other hand, is becoming a cause for concern for me. I previously thought he would be a strong general election candidate despite a few obvious flaws, but I am rethinking that assessment. It seems to me that all excitement about his candidacy can be found among White liberals, who seem to think they can have their cake (i.e. elect a solid liberal) and eat it too (i.e. carry some Southern states). I am skeptical, since Edwards seems to be having a hard time winning over Southern Democrats, let alone independents and conservatives. He sometimes comes up ahead in South Carolina polls, and he once was ahead in Florida. Hillary Clinton, at this point, is dominating the South, and if Edwards cannot appeal to Southern voters of his own party, how can he actually win over new ones in the general election? When one looks at his issue positions, one gets even more worried. He's anti-gun, pro-affirmative action, and strongly pro-choice (moreso than in 2004). While these are not all issue positions I disagree with (indeed, they are mainstream Democratic positions), how can one win big in the South with positions like these, considering the strength of the religious right in the region? If he were, say, pro-gun, I might rethink this particular idea. The anti-gun segment of the Democratic Party is not very powerful or influential, and a pro-gun Dem could easily win the nomination by being strong on other liberal issues. Edwards may speak with a Southern accent, but culturally, he's closer to Massachussetts than South Carolina. Not a problem for me, but I'm not a conservative Southerner.
Ultimately, Edwards's playbook has been to move farther to the left on any number of issues than Clinton or Obama so as to draw a contrast between them. It has worked to some extent, but by becoming the farthest-left candidate, he is compromising general election electability. Never mind that he hasn't presented any evidence that having him on the ticket attracts crossover voters, or that he can stand tall against tough pols (check out his 2004 debate with Cheney, if you need evidence). The Democrats need to make a decision: do we make an attempt to play for the South, or do we focus on more winnable regions elsewhere? If the result is the latter (and I think that, outside of Florida, Missouri, Arkansas, and Virginia, the South is a pipe dream for the Democrats), then Edwards might make sense and he might not. His talk on trade would seem to make him likely to win Ohio, and he might be able to win Florida (with half-Latino Bill Richardson on the ticket), and he would likely be able to win Iowa and New Mexico, where anti-war sentiment is high. However, with FL and OH, we are dealing with essentially Republican states. Mainstream states, sure, but both voted at least once for George W. Bush, and it seems clear that the voters in those states respond to strong leadership. Plus, we need to consider whether he would be able to hold the left wing in the general election. I think it's likely, but he does have some questionable items on his c. v. (writing the PATRIOT Act, for one) that could come into play.
Ultimately, until I see some evidence (i.e. state polls in Ohio and Florida showing Edwards easily beating Rudy, Fred Thompson, and McCain), I'm not buying the electability argument. Edwards got my vote in the 2004 primary, but he's become too much of a panderer, which comes in stark contrast to Barack Obama's habit of telling people what they don't want to hear--and remaining beloved for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)