Electability Redux

This is my third shot at the electability issue. The first, 1200-word, essay was a personal one on why I am supporting Obama. The second was a mathematical treatise on voter turnout statistics and a state-by-state data set on who could win what. Neither published because they didn’t speak anywhere near succinctly to the base issue à why Hillary Clinton cannot win the General Election, no matter what.

The context is all the people I know here in Pennsylvania (and in North Carolina) who are considering who to vote for in the primary EXCLUSIVELY on who gives the Democrats the better shot in November.

So, as briefly as possible, here is why she CANNOT win.

1. Voter Turnout: HUGE this year. Biggest ever. A lot of these people are engaged in the process this year for the first time. When June 4^th comes, and Obama is winning by 500,000 popular votes, and has won the states and territories 32 to 18, and the pledged delegate count by 150, they will expect that he has won the nomination. If it is stolen by a group of party elders, they will stay home in November. (I will spare you the “turn out the others” discussion, but at base, it says that 70% of the November electorate will vote Democratic or Republican based on muscle memory -- it’s that last group of new voters and independents and moderate party switchers that actually decide an election.) If you don’t believe me, ask yourself this: if you belonged to an organization, be it the 5^th grade class, B’Nai Brith, CYO, Sierra Club or WHATEVER and they held an election where someone won 65 to 35 and they gave the person who won the 35 the nod, would you want to continue your participation?

2. The Lies: Clinton’s campaign strategy is founded on “experience”. She had no portfolio nor security clearance at the White House. That trip under “sniper fire” in the Balkans? Complete falsehood. Peace in Northern Ireland? Didn’t happen. The recently released daily diaries (yes, they’re available, and I only skimmed them) show a typical first lady setting up photo ops and luncheons. NOT some great participation level after the health care fiasco. The Republicans will end up showing that in the 8 years she has been in the Senate (which she rarely mentions) she sheparded two (ONLY 2) pieces of legislation through the Senate. Same number as Obama in 2 years. That’s it for 8 years. Oh, and the Iraq vote….And the McBush campaign will likely bring out the donation issues to this campaign -- the donor list is interesting, and the Clinton money from Bill’s income isn’t going to play well either, if they ever release their tax forms. I say “likely” because McBush has his own issues -- including the fact that he’s going to get dinged by the Ethics Committee for cheating them out of $285,000 LAST WEEK relative to the Mideast trip.

3. The Clinton Name: there are many people who want to see a woman president, just “not that woman”. There are people who detest the Bush administration as an abomination, who understand that McBush will be a continuation of all policies, except we’ll also bomb Iran, further kill off civil rights domestically, and destroy any chance of the economy recovering in the next decade. BUT they will not put another Clinton in the White House, and do not want Bill prowling the halls. Again. Make no mistake, in the general, Whitewater, NAFTA (and her public support of it, which DID make the daily diaries, with art), Vince Foster’s death, Bill’s women, the China connection -- they will ALL come back. And if you don’t remember the scandals of the 90’s, trust me, they dwarf the Wright issue.

4. The Head-to-Heads: In going up against McBush, Hillary cannot run on “change” only on “experience”. Hers pales in comparison to his. No matter what you may think of McBush’s positions, he has portfolio, he has standing, he has BEEN THERE. A strong case against McCain can be made for his ethics violations, his lobbyist connections, his cheating on his first wife (it’s in his autobiography), his violations of campaign finance laws. That case can be made by anyone BUT the Clintons, as that would be the pot calling the kettle black.

And finally: the Clintons already know that they cannot get her the nomination this year. They actually do. Therefore, the plan most likely is to make sure that Obama loses in the general so she can run again in 4 years. It’s true, and it’s in EVERY speech she and her surrogates give which pump up McBush at the expense of Obama. If you doubt the desperation, yesterday surrogate Evan Bayh came out with the latest argument to the Supers to only look at the Electoral College votes of the won states INSTEAD of the delegate counts, the state counts, or the popular vote. Since there is no correlation from a primary win extrapolated to a national win, it is, at best, a specious argument. They are running the rest of the primary campaign dedicated to shoring up McBush in every way possible. If she does get the nomination, he can easily say “Well, Hillary, YOU said I would be good for this job.” And that will resonate with fence sitters, because their choice will be a similar one, and his National Security bona fides micrify hers.

So there you have it.

Tomorrow à why Obama CAN win.