Tuesday, August 28, 2007

No Announced Democrat Is Electible

Yesterday, I said that I would explain why none of the Democratic candidates, although getting mondo play in the press is electable in the general election.
It seems that the press has all but coronated Hillary Clinton with the Democratic nomination. Of course it's months until the primaries begin in earnest, so anything can happen, but all things being equal she is the likely nominee based on consistent polling data showing her with a double-digit lead over her closest rival. What an incredible break for the Republicans that would be! According to the latest polling, about 45% of likely voters say they would not vote for her under ANY circumstances! Some polls show that number as high as 48%. That means she would need to get at the least, 90% of the REMAINING voters to have any sort of chance to win. That is just a HUGE hurdle to overcome, and why Karl Rove has described her as "fatally flawed". I don't think there's a single serious conservative voter who would consider her, no matter how she tries to reinvent herself, and when you consider how close the last two elections have been in terms of the popular vote, her chances are very, very slim. She may have a huge lead in the primaries, but that's all Democratic voters. With a strong Republican candidate or a non-conservative third party candidate (even a Ralph Nader), she doesn't stand a chance.
Barrack Obama is unlikely to get the nomination, but even if he does, a serious Republican candidate will cut him to shreds in debate. His recent gaffes on foreign policy - summarized nicely by Mitt Romney as "talking to our enemies and bombing our friends", would sink him in the general election. To anyone who thinks such gaffes don't matter, I would say, you have misunderestimated the American voter. Our collective conscious seems to mostly get it right, even if we are selecting the lesser of two evils as so often seems to be the case. What America wants and will elect is a SERIOUS candidate. That was proven in 2000 and 2004 as the losing candidates in those elections have shown in the days since. Obama is not a serious candidate. That's not to say he's not a formidable candidate. It's to say that he himself is not a serious enough person at this point in his political career for Americans to choose as their president. He's a smart guy, but he's not experienced enough to get the nod - or maybe better, we don't have enough experience with him to give him the nod. There just isn't enough of a track record. He may have some interesting twists on things, a fresh look, etc. but that will not be enough. Neither will emotionally appealing sound-bites. It's not that he's too black or not black enough either. In fact, he's just too green for Americans to trust with the security and prosperity of the greatest country on earth. Step back and take a good look at him next to a Giuliani, a Romney, or even a Thompson. It appears to me, at this point, to be "no contest".
Finally, John Edwards. What can I say - a distant third, for sure, and I think quickly becoming a national joke. Between the $400 haircuts, the Katrina foreclosures, the News Corp book deal, etc. you've got to be kidding me. This man simply drips hypocrisy. He may be right that there are two Americas - he's just living in the wrong one to try to appear as Mr. Everyman. Americans won't elect a hypocrite. Edwards is as hypocritical an ambulance-chasing, panderer as I have ever seen on the American political landscape.
The political pundits and the media may think this is a strong field, and among Democrats, they might be right. In the general election, however, they are dead wrong. Giuliani and Romney at the least, are much stronger candidates than any of the Democrats. I'll save an analysis of the Republican slate for another day, but one final point as to why these two are stronger. Clinton, Obama, Edwards - none of them have ever RUN anything. Americans like Presidents who have actually run something. It's why we have elected ex-Governors ever since Kennedy in 1960! And yes, that makes Thompson a weaker candidate than he might otherwise be. The Presidency of the United States is not a place for on-the-job training. We like experience. The pundits may focus on image and star-power, but what America will elect is a serious candidate who has actually run something and that does not include any of the leading Democrats. Remember folks, you heard it here first.

No comments: