Hillary wins OH, TX, RIFollow

This is actually a component that bothers me (as a Conservative of course!). While the conventional wisdom is that it's great to allow the Dem candidates to chew on each other all the way to the Convention, I really don't agree with that conventional wisdom at all.

If it goes to the convention and Clinton wins, all is well IMO. Clinton's support is based on more classic Liberal loyalties then a "buzz" like Obama. She's a known entity and the GOP knows how to fight her. Additionally, all the Obama fans will be deflated, there'll be talk of her "stealing" the Nomination, and we might even see another Riot like back in Chicago...

IMO, the worst case scenario for Republicans is if it goes down to the convention and Obama wins. It'll be seen as "the people" overthrowing the status quo, and no matter how "ugly" it got along the way, he'll get a huge swell of support as a result. With only a couple months to deflate that, the GOP will find it incredibly hard to take him down from that position. IMO, the key against Obama is time. Given enough time, people can be convinced that the glow from Obama is just painted on glitter and that the reality underneath isn't that great. I pointed out a while ago that polls are showing that many voters in the middle and right think Obama is more moderate then Clinton, meaning they'll be more likely to accept him as an alternative. It'll be hard to remove those false assumptions about him until after he wins the nomination and it's unlikely the Clinton will attack him directly for being "too liberal", so that leaves very little time for the GOP to attack him.


I'd rather he won fast and early in this case. Obviously, the ideal is a slow bleeding and a Clinton win. But I think either candidate can be beat by the GOP. In fact, I've stated several times that I think Obama is ultimately more beatable then Clinton. But it'll take time to wear through the BS around him to see that the real Obama isn't a moderate and isn't a very good choice for President...


That's just my opinion of course. ;)

Wait, conservatives feel that Obama is less liberal than Hillary? Where has this been stated?

Anyway, the easiest way to determine that sort of thing is to look at a candidate's voting record. I find it hard to believe that the majority of conservatives have not done this to differentiate between the two candidates.

I'd have to dig up the polls. There was a series of polls about 2 weeks ago, right about when Romney dropped out of the Republican race. First was a series of runoff polls between McCain and Clinton, and then McCain and Obama. They showed McCain beating Clinton narrowly, and Obama beating McCain narrowly.

At the same time, there was a set of exit polls and a Rasmutin Poll about where the voters placed Clinton and Obama in terms of "liberal or moderate". In the Dem exit polls, more voters identified Obama as "liberal" then identified Clinton as such (by about 5%). In the Rasmutin poll (which was weighted by liberals, conservatives and moderates), this cross section identified Obama as moderate more often then clinton by a few percent (The numbers switched). In the Republican exit polls, when the same question was asked, Obama was identified as moderate more often then Clinton by about 10 percent.

Reading between the lines, this means that the farther a voter is away from being a liberal democrat primary voter, the more likely he is to view Obama as more moderate then Clinton. Folks in the middle and the right don't know Obama as well as primary voters on the left (duh!), and they tend to falsely believe that he's closer to their own positions then he actually is (assuming that they're more likely to view moderate as closer to them then liberal, which is a reasonable assumption).


Which draws the conclusion that the runoff polls showing Obama beating McCain are likely influenced by this information. Most moderate and conservative voters don't know much more about Obama then "he's running against Hillary". They don't like Hillary, so they project their own assumptions onto Obama in terms of his positions. They view Clinton as a Liberal, so they assume Obama is not as much of one. IMO, that's a false assumption, and any numbers and polls taken while that false assumption still stands will weight things toward Obama.


IMO, Obama will do well as long as those voters aren't given time and information to realize that he's not as moderate as they think he is. Once they realize that he's in fact more liberal then Clinton, his support (or lack of opposition which amounts to the same thing in a two party system) will crumble and those voters will all likely see McCain as a vastly superior choice. He's much closer to what Conservatives want, and he's clearly a moderate. He's certainly a real uniter, while Obama just says he is. Obamas voting record in the Senate, while short, is about as liberal as it can possibly be. He's shown zero evidence that he actually wants to reach across the aisle to Republicans and work with them. He holds views and takes actions that are 100% in opposition to core positions they hold.





They've been looking at the Republican primary race. And now, they're watching the Dems duke it out, but it's not about who's more liberal, so they're not really getting the information they'd need. Clinton and Obama are fighting for Dem voters right now, so it's not like Clinton is challenging Obama in the same way that a Republican will. If we had 6 months to do that, we could tear him apart on his positions. If we're only given 2 months, it may not be enough time...

Thanks, Joph. I think what I was having problems with were that these were "false assumptions" about Obama and Hillary. Their voting records are nearly identical, and they agree on most issues, with the main differences being exactly what you mentioned.

However, despite their differences in these hot-button issues, even so they tend to agree on what should be done, but have different ideas of the "correct" approach to attain that goal.

On a whole, I am not sure how that would lead many to view Obama as more conservative, with the exception of a few key points (and once again, I definitely agree with you that he is no where near that, but I am having trouble understanding why such minute differences would have an impact on conservatives.)



Edited, Mar 5th 2008 6:01pm by Alixana

Yeah, you're probably right Smash. I suppose I was just not thinking of it that way.

However, as for those who are in the middle politically, I think Obama's message, as well as his stances on the issues, are having more of an impact on the votes he is gaining from that population; at least more so than the perception of whether or not he is more liberal/moderate than either Clinton or McCain.

ding ding ding! We have a winner...


Smash supporting Obama should be proof enough that he's more liberal then Clinton, but feel free to actually check his voting record instead of just parroting the "they have identical positions, so it's just about personality" argument that everyone seems to love.

He's more liberal. That's why you guys like him. Sheesh!

He's more liberal. That's why you guys like him. Sheesh!

No kidding.

You don't think that's some sort of revelation, do you? Also, here's a tip: we're politically sophisticated enough not to care if our candidate lies to get elected.

To be fair, so are the Pubbies.

Apparently, it *is* a revelation to some on this board Smash. Please try to keep up with the conversation...





This really says it all, doesn't it?

So I should just ignore Joph's post where he attempts to explain how Obama really isn't that liberal? Or are you saying that he's lying too?



Look. My statement wasn't that confusing, nor that controversial. Obama is very liberal. More liberal then Clinton. You know this. I know this. Anyone who's read his website, or listened carefully to his speeches knows this. However, exit polls show that Moderates and Republicans *think* that Obama is less Liberal then Clinton.


Can we please agree on those two facts? Obama is more liberal then Clinton. Moderates and Republican voters think he's less liberal then Clinton.


From that it's pretty clear that those voters currently have a false view of him, and it's reasonable to expect that as time goes by and they learn more about him, they'll oppose his presidency more then they do today.


I guess I don't understand your arguing tactic here Smash. You bash what I say. Then essentially acknowledge that every single point I made was correct, even going so far as to wondering why I think people disagree with me.

I seriously suggest getting head-shrinking help there buddy...

So I should just ignore Joph's post where he attempts to explain how Obama really isn't that liberal?

You misunderstood. Again, as usual.

From that it's pretty clear that those voters currently have a false view of him, and it's reasonable to expect that as time goes by and they learn more about him, they'll oppose his presidency more then they do today.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa

Ahhh.


Yeah, voters learn about candidates and then vote for the one that serves their interests the best. Right. That's how it works.