The New Republic

#3 is spot on.  Only a supreme sense of self-confidence would allow Democrats to nominate Hillary for Prez.  And that sense of self-confidence would be better characterized as hubris.  No way she wins a general.  

- kerouac9

January 9, 2008 at 11:27am

1, 2, 4, whatever, no grief from this quarter, but blame 3 on the Obamanites for resurrecting McCain, who was toast.  We were headed to HRC v. Romney, maybe Ghouliani.___________The fairest assessment is Obama v. McCain, in which McCain pulls Hispanics, in addition to moderates, on a range of topics including his vote on immigration, and his grasp of foreign policy (obviously not Barack’s strong points).____________________________Hope is too far left for most of us to fathom.  It is the typical left, and the naive (college kids?) and the media who have a love fest w/Obama.  They do it every 4 years; it's a fact of poli life.__________________________HRC v. McCain is not as close as it appears, and is way ahead of McCain v. Obama, as to Dem victory.  Yall take it from a center-left, Hispanic Texas Dem, HRC is the win, Obamanism will lose us this election.  Maybe one day, but not yet; we need a policy wonk with experience and extraordinary capacity, not an activist.  Wake up!

- jdcarteriii

January 9, 2008 at 11:35am

McCain vs Clinton has been my nightmare for 18 months.  I think this matchup gives the Republicans the White House this year, and probably puts the Democratic Congress at risk.

- sdemuth

January 9, 2008 at 11:51am

Well, Mr. Chait, here's hoping that your predictions now are no more accurate than your predictions a few days ago.

And, while I support Obama, does nobody recall how well Hillary did in the debates?  Even Andrew Sullivan, who hates her with risible gusto, had to concede that point.  Maybe the fact that she seems to know what she's talking about on a lot of policy issues will help her to win if she's the nominee.  No?

- drdannyu

January 9, 2008 at 11:52am

No link available to a relatively recent article?  The problems with this website are no longer funny.  I am a long time subscriber and had to change my username for some reason in order to even be permitted to comment, once the changeover occurred.  The archives are completely lost, and the old website had terrific archives and I could find what I want.  Why, it's impossible even to pull up Noam Scheiber's way-ahead-of-the-curve report on Obama when he was completely unknown back in May of 2004!  This is the kind of thing TNR, for business reasons if nothing else, should be exploiting.

Teplukhin, whom everyone knows as a long-time commenter, posted a similar complaint earlier today.  Really, please be honest with us loyal subscribers:  WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS PREVENTING TNR FROM HOSTING A FUNCTIONAL WEBSITE?  WHEN, REALISTICALLY, WILL THEY BE FIXED?  WHY CAN'T YOU REINSTATE THE OLD WEBSITE UNTIL THE BUGS ARE WORKED OUT WITH THE NEW ONE?

I now visit less often, because I am so frustrated by the various bugs.  If this magazine loses loyalists like me, it will tank.  This is real.  This is serious.  Do others agree?  If so, start posting short comments like this one.

- LDuncan

January 9, 2008 at 11:55am

Chait wrote:

"3. The odds of a Republican presidency suddenly got a lot higher. There’s really only one potential matchup that would give the GOP a better than even chance of winning: John McCain versus Hillary Clinton. "

Why should this prediction be any more reliable than the one about Hillary being "toast"? BTW, how does crow taste like? You are seem to be good at reacting to the MSM noise and not at astute political analysis, so, therefore, you get a pass on this. McCain would be a formidable general election candidate no matter which Dem he runs against but it is pure foolishness to suppose that Obama would a stronger general election candidate than Hillary. Other than the "mystique" with which the media has surrounded his candidacy, there is little substance to the man. The GOP won't give him a bye just like the MSM has all year. They'll reintroduce him inexperience to the peole and it won't be pretty. The funny thing is that Clinton just showed that she is a fighter and yet you keep underestimating her. Why is that? (that was rhetorical).

- dcshungu

January 9, 2008 at 12:07pm

Dannyu,

There could be a first time for anything. But being the best-informed candidate in the debate didn't work for Kerry, it didn't work for Gore, it didn't work for Dukakis, it didn't work for Mondale, it didn't work for Carter against Reagan nor for Ford against Carter, and it didn't work for Humphrey. Bill Clinton is the only candidate I can think of in the last generation or so who was both the clearly better-informed debater and the eventual election winner, but Hillary lacks pretty much all of the personal assets that made Bill the exception. We're not choosing an accountant or a tutor, we're choosing a national leader, and Hillary had not yet shown the least sign that she's capable of engaging in that contest, much less winning it. Fingers crossed that at age 60 she discovers talents and a personality heretofore unseen.

Then again Jesse Ventura won an election largely on a series of winning debate performances in which he demonstrated issues competency. If Jesse Ventura can pull off the trick of overcoming public derision with sensible-sounding debates, why not Hillary?

I'm not so sure McCain is a disaster for Democrats; McCain the idea, or the memory of McCain from 2000, is quite attractive. But McCain the actual person in 2008 is a lot closer to Bob Dole '96 than McCain 2000. I'm pretty sure he beats Hillary -- I think almost any Republican will beat Hillary -- but I think McCain is quite beatable in the abstract.

- rhubarbs

January 9, 2008 at 12:09pm

Agree with point 2. But why isn't Bill Clinton's stumping factored into the victory? It deserves far more credit than the press is willing to concede.

With point 3, in the event of a McCain-HRC race, McCain can poach at least some of the younger Obama demographic pretty easily without changing his message.

With point 4, right now, HRC's slim lead depends on Edwards staying in the race. If he chooses to drop out, unless HRC retools her message to get his supporters now, they are all but Obama's to lose.

- hotshot22

January 9, 2008 at 12:13pm

Not good enough Jonathan. Not even close. I saw your post and also watched you on BloggingTVheads, or whatever that site is called, glibly announce that you were "calling the election for Obama"!

On this basis I put 20 lids on Obama to win with a mate in the pub last week but I had to offer a 3:1 price. So, I'm out of pocket 60 Euro's (which is about 313 American Peso's).

At the time I goaded him claiming that I knew what I was talking about. I read TNR you see, TN what? was the answer. He reads The Sun.

So, not only will I be looking for 60 Euro's off you Jonathan but this has become a TNR vs The Sun fight.

If HRC does win it (and of course the tears put her over the top) TNR's subscriber base in North Dublin will be decimated, The Sun will rule the day and you will have to put Michelle and Eve posing sexy with some library books on some sort of TNR Page 3.

There's more at stake than the leadership of the Free World.

Cross your fingers Chait, cross your fingers.  

- The Ignorant Populist

January 9, 2008 at 12:22pm

THERE REALLY ARE TOO MANY BUGS ON THIS NEW SITE.  IF A TALKBACK GOES ON FOR LONGER THAN 75 POSTS,  THE ONLY WAY FOR MAC USERS TO ACCESS IT IS VIA THE REALLY CRUDDY SAFARI BROWSER.  COMMENTS TAKE TOO LONG TO POST.  THE FONT IS HORRIBLE--WAY TOO SMALL.  

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TNR CAN ALLOW THIS HAPPEN.  THERE'VE BEEN A ENOUGH COMPLAINTS HERE--THOUGH THEY'RE CONTINUALLY IGNORED.  NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER.

ARE YOU RUNNING LOW ON CASH?  BECAUSE I CAN SEE NO OTHER REASON.

Apologies for the large type.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 9, 2008 at 12:25pm

Slightly off-topic, but did anyone else notice during her acceptance speech how she thanked her supporters--telling them, "You helped me find my voice."  The woman is 60 years old, and she still has trouble finding her voice?  Guess we all get to watch her personal journey of growth and change during this campaign.  It's really all about her, isn't it?

Thanks Hotshot--that makes my morning-after sickness fade a little.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 9, 2008 at 12:29pm

" yet you keep underestimating her. Why is that?"

Could one reason be the underestimation of women? Ought we not now to reconsider the "X" factor advanced earlier by Carville and (the much despised) Penn? Women are 54% of the electorate and 59% of those supporting Sen. Clinton. Since women as a group, and particularly working class and middle class women have seldom coalesced behind any one candidate, their ability and potential to do so has been discounted and underestimated. It appears that within New Hampshire, at least, this may be precisely what happened. Ron Brownstein of the LA Times has been one of the few to pick up on this potential source of strength for Sen. Clinton.

A candidate who can bring this group together, speak to their concerns and then effectively mobilize them to the polls stands a great chance. Moreover, if this group holds together in a general election (as it did not for Kerry) then it greatly increases the chance of a general election victory. Look for something resembling this coalition to emerge over the coming weeks.

- TULLIUS

January 9, 2008 at 12:38pm

Thank you, Molly.  That irritated me too.  That will be her meme.  She got choked up, people liked it, and now that is her thing.  Look- after 60 years I am now a person!  So cynical.  So typical.

And dschungu, that whole "empty suit, no substance" thing has been pretty soundly rebuked, or could be if anyone does 30 seconds of research.  Don't rip on Chait for being to MSM-themey and run with one of your own.  

Hillary is very beatable in the gen becuase people will vote against her.  We'll have the same stupid squabbles we have had the last 16 years.  It will be a nightmare.

- boneill

January 9, 2008 at 12:43pm

drdan and rhubarbs,

I think what Obama needs to do is just throw in enough policy detail to show that he's not all grace and vague hopefulness. That's what he's being tarred with, and he needs to counter it. But he does not need to show he's the most wonkiest wonker that ever wonked.

ANd as an official Obama-swooner, I have to say, his debates are always disappointing.  His speeches bring tears to my eyes, I love his thoughtfulness on SUnday shows, but debates...they go to Hillary.

- epicciuto

January 9, 2008 at 12:50pm

Rhubarbs, Kerry lost because he was a terrible, terrible campaigner.  The Swift Boat fiasco could have been dealth with handily had be simply released his service and medical records.  Delegates at the GOP convention parading around with purple heart Band-aids was a no-brainer to use as an example of how they "respect" veterans, and an x-ray showing shrapnel embedded in his leg would have shown that he earned his medals through honorable service.  I'm just some guy who likes politics, and even I thought he made a complete hash of his campaign; why the Democratic nominee let himself get plastered is beyond me.  I don't see Hillary making the same mistake

Ford pardoned Nixon.  Carter showed up in a sweater and had an energy crisis and a hostage crisis to deal with.  Mondale was up against a wildly popular president during economic boom times.  Dukakis was...Dukakis.

Do I just looooooove the idea of a Clinton candidacy?  No, I don't.  But I'm not going to cash in my chips and move to Canada just yet, either.  If Obama can't beat Hillary, I have no reason to believe that he will miraculously beat the sleazoid GOP smear machine.

- drdannyu

January 9, 2008 at 12:51pm

bone and molly, I agree that it seems pathetic for a 60-year-old woman, not to metion a senator wh is campaigning on her long record of fighting, to have suddenly found her voice. But I wonder if I only see it that way because of a pre-existing pro-Obama condition.

- epicciuto

January 9, 2008 at 1:03pm

"If Obama can't beat Hillary, I have no reason to believe that he will miraculously beat the sleazoid GOP smear machine."

I think defeating the Clintons in a Democratic primary campaign (one in which the most popular president in the history of term-ending polling is a major surrogate) would be a much bigger accomplishment than defeating the "GOP smear machine" that has won the popular vote in exactly one of the last four general elections.

- jmurph79

January 9, 2008 at 1:04pm

Really, why would anyone believe your current prediction, given the nonsense you were spewing last week? You couldn't manage to at least include a "I realize that any further predictions from me are about as meaningful as Michael Brown during Katrina" caveat of some sort. But no, you just keep on tooting.

- jmkerr

January 9, 2008 at 1:12pm

More on "X" factor

Again to stress this point. Women voting in the Democratic Primary in NH supported Senator Clinton over Senator Obama 47% to 34% (exit polls). That 14% gender gap ought not become lost in the shuffle, or attributed simply to Sen. Clinton's display of emotion. The commentariat have not been looking closely at this question of the women's vote and more specifically the groups of women that do make up a significant part of the base for Senator Clinton as to ask why?

- TULLIUS

January 9, 2008 at 1:15pm

Epic- and very good to have you back, by the way- what bugged me the most about it isn't that I believed her, but that I didn't.  She got good buzz for choking up (god, the media) and decided that it would be her new trope.  That line smacked of such crafted, meticulous "sincerity"- it smacked of Clintonism.  

Look, Bill was a good President and Hillary in a vacum might be as well, but she isn't.  And I am sick and tired of Clintonism and its opposite, Bushism.  The two need each other.  The irritating left and pathological right feed off each other, and the Clinton family is at the center of that crapfest.  I am so tired of it, and that line reminded me so muchof what I detest about Clintonian-style politics.

- boneill

January 9, 2008 at 1:19pm

Bone, I totally agree. Did she genuinely get choked up? I don't know. If she did, I think it was because she was exhausted and so frustrated at not being merely handed the mantle of the nomination. Not because this fight is personal for her, whatever that means. And there's something so dishonest about what seemed to come next: sincerity works! Let's work that sincerity angle!

So I don't believe her either, but perhaps we're in the minority of dem voters.

- epicciuto

January 9, 2008 at 1:31pm

And glad to be back, by the way. And from the perspective of new parenthood, I can say that 1) sleep deprivation is torture, and 2) won't anyone think of the children?!?!

And I'm a new kind of voter! Maybe not a soccer mom, but a tummy time mat mom?

- epicciuto

January 9, 2008 at 1:33pm

TULLIUS

It's not that you're wrong, and I hope I don't come off as a jerk, it's just that you're missing two things:

1. Obama beat Hillary among women in Iowa (albeit by a smaller margin), and

2. That was newsworthy, at the time, because it was widely assumed that Hillary would dominate Obama (and Edwards) among women voters, as she did last night in New Hampshire (to her credit).

So I don't think people disagree with you, or underestimate women voters, I just think that most people saw this coming.

- jmurph79

January 9, 2008 at 1:38pm

TULLIUS - yea verily, o wise one. Seriously, you're on to something: it's clarifying to view the American elite's lurch rightward toward

--hypercapitalism-cum-cronyism in the economic sphere,

--hang-'em-all criminal justice policies,

--bloodsport character assassination as the prevailing electoral tactic,

--bread-and-circus fiscal/monetary approaches,

--hypermacho foreign policies in recent years,

...as the triumph of testosterone poisoning in the body politic.

What this country needs, desperately, is a reduction in testosterone-fueled politics and a return to an ethos of PROVISION-- not just for each other but for our own future-- of the sort that Mommies instinctively understand. Less consumption, less macho BS, less thinkign with our gonads and more saving, mroe provision, and YES, HIGHER TAXES.

Signed, a Proud Member of the Once and Future Mommy Party

- teplukhin2you

January 9, 2008 at 1:47pm

Also, re the authentic Hillary argument, take a close look at last night's photos of her smiling face and compare those to her smiles pre-NH, specifically, at her _eyes_ and _forehead_. A real smile forces the forehead up slightly and creates huge crinkly lines at the corners of the eyes; a phony one leaves the eyes and forehead unchanged.

Yeah, she's showing real emotion now. This is getting interesting.

- teplukhin2you

January 9, 2008 at 2:00pm

The New Hampshire anomaly occurred because voters walked into the booth, saw her name, and realized they despised the people (i.e. media) who have been ruthlessly and, largely, unfairly trashing her and crowing about her demise more than they prefer Obama over her, so just this one night they gave her a sympathy vote. (Sexism works both ways, boys and girls.)

Positively Rovian: bash Hillary so much that gallant Democrats rise to defend her, so she gets the nomination and guarantees a GOP victory in November.

I like Hillary (I like Obama more) but I won't cut off my nose to spite my face.

- williamyard

January 9, 2008 at 2:12pm

More Rovian would be to let Young Obama coast to victory in the primaries, unchallenged, and then watch him flounder helplessly as he faces his first real test in the general.

Obama needs seasoning and testing. Hillary needs to connect. Which is exactly what the process is now, thankfully and at long last, enabling.

- teplukhin2you

January 9, 2008 at 2:46pm

X Factor (again)

Why this is important: as recently as October the unfavorables for Sen. Clinton among Republican women was declining, and the percentage of Republican women who said they would vote for Hillary went from 6% in June to 13% in October. It would be worth looking at and focusing on where this number has gone since and why those Republican women are considering voting for her, considering her candidacy in a new light (etc). It seems clear that Sen. Clinton's base coalition has at its core working class and middle class women--a group which spans party lines. This is not an inconsiderable base of support as a total portion of the electorate, provided a candidate can see to it that it coheres and that these voters are mobilized to the polls.

New Hampshire is too small a data set to generalize from--but in the states coming up there will be new data about which groups of voters within the electorate are gravitating to Sen. Clinton and why they are doing so. What are their concerns and how is it that she is appealing to those groups. This will be, at least potentially, a group that if Sen. Clinton can begin to consolidate and solidify it will be very difficult (not impossible, but difficult) for a male Republican to dislodge. Except for a very few commentators, this is not being explored or discussed.  

It may be that as the economy, health care, mortgage crises (etc) deepen and with the increasing concerns about the economic stability come into awareness of the voters that women voters are affected by these more favorably toward Sen. Clinton, whereas if Iraq and her Iraq vote are the chief concern they are less so.

- TULLIUS

January 9, 2008 at 2:51pm

But can Hillary maintain a large enough advantage among women in a general election to overcome a 65-35 tilt toward the Republican nominee among men? She won't have to win 66 percent of women, since more women vote than men (right?), but she's going to have to have an absolutely crushing lead among women to win the White House. That's a lot of Republican-leaning women she's going to have to win, and she's probably going to have to do it without a single anti-abortion or conservative evangelical woman. You can win the Democratic nomination with the women's vote, but can you win the general election? I don't propose to know the answer, but it does need to be examined.

- rhubarbs

January 9, 2008 at 3:02pm

Spot on, Tully. 1992 again. Our side needs to figure out how to combine Obama's appeal to young turks and independent young men with HRC's appeal to Moms.

Not sure how you'd do this, though. To a  marketing person, these demographics are opposed: young males want to take risks, women who've borne children want to minimize risk. Young males want gratification now, middle-aged women are obsessed with providing for the future.

If these two groups are not likely to turn on to the same message/positioning, then I'd be curious as to which group would yield better electoral college dividends. My guess is that, given the very low turnout rates for under-25 voters generally, plus the demographic dominance of women generally, plus the predominance of working family voters in the swing counties in the swing states (central FL, central OH, etc), the moms would be a better bet.

VA centrist, austinexpat-- your thoughts?

- teplukhin2you

January 9, 2008 at 3:09pm

CLINTON vs. McCAIN....Jon Chait comments on Hillary Clinton's now-brighter prospects for winning the Democratic nomination:The odds of a Republican presidency suddenly got a lot higher. There's really only one potential matchup that would give the GOP

- Anonymous

January 9, 2008 at 3:15pm

I think the analysis that Hillary can't beat Republicans because they'll savage her in the general election ignores the facts on the ground, as the NH results amply demonstrate: Hillary is never stronger or more likeable than when people are attacking her.  If John Edwards is smart, he learned that lesson last night, but I guarantee that Republicans never will.

Frankly, I welcome the idea of the Republicans mounting an all-out, foam-at-the-mouth irrationally shrill hate campaign against her in the general.  It will get them exactly what they fear the most -- a Clinton presidency -- and break their power for a generation.  If you really dread the idea of a Clinton-topped ticket, it's time to admit to yourself that you don't just dislike the Republicans, you are terrified of them, and attributing an almost talismanic power to their irrational anger.

Obama and Edwards can probably win too, but I'd rather have a slightly closer election that gets us a better president.  The nonsense about Hillary not being able to win because Republicans will turn into spittle-emitting hate-mongers is exactly backwards.  The eventual R nominee (which at least half of their base is guaranteed to not be particularly thrilled about from Day 1) will spend so much time denying they're responsible for the latest anti-Hillary atrocity that any losses among sour-grapes Democrats will be more than made up for in losses among independents and the fairer-minded voters on their own side.

- austinexpat

January 9, 2008 at 3:52pm

Mr.Chait--Please stick to dismantling Republican lies about the wonders of tax-cutting.  That's what you're good at.  No one cares about your predictions.  Let the Bill Kristols and Chris Matthews of the world make fools of themselves.  They have no other marketable skills.

- Maksutov66

January 9, 2008 at 4:07pm

Mr.Chait--Please stick to dismantling Republican lies about the wonders of tax-cutting.  That's what you're good at.  No one cares about your predictions.  Let the Bill Kristols and Chris Matthews of the world make fools of themselves.  They have no other marketable skills.

- Maksutov66

January 9, 2008 at 4:07pm

Good point, TULLIUS.  The more things change, the more they change things.

The dark side of the economy looks about ready to bust its chain and threaten anything that comes near the fence, much less into the yard.  Who knows how any of these candidates will respond?

- williamyard

January 9, 2008 at 4:10pm

Thanks, austin, very interesting

- teplukhin2you

January 9, 2008 at 4:13pm

Tepluhkin, I've been saying all along that when push comes to shove, it will be the middle of America that decides this election, and in this country that means white Midwestern centrists.  The Republican nominees are all jostling each other to the right, and Hillary has found the center and stayed there.

Obama fans are quick to throw up polls that say independents hate, hate, hate (and really don't like) Hillary, would rather eat a bug than vote for Hillary, but on Election Day it will come down to a lackluster/problematic Republican candidate on the right and Hillary in the center.  None of the Republicans can win with "we'll stay in Iraq 'til it looks like Dubuque, because our boys want to win" and no universal health care plan.  The middle of America will not buy that ticket no matter who is selling it.

By the by, do you know who's not as "tired" of the food-fighting, drama-ridden '90s as boneill and other "We Must Have Obama Or We Shall All Perish" TalkBackers?  White Midwestern centrists who remember the 1990s as the most prosperous time in our nation's history.  When Obama says he doesn't want to go back to the '90s, don't be surprised if these voters hear "I'd rather produce change than prosperity in America" and run back into Hillary's camp.

Finally, since I'm one of the few Hillary supporters here and rarely get a chance to crow, I hope you'll all permit me two snide little slogans I came up with last night while the votes were being counted.  They won't darken your doorstep again after this comment, but fair is fair, right?

"Dated Obama, Came Home to Mama."

"Yes We Can?  No You Didn't."

- austinexpat

January 9, 2008 at 4:22pm

I'd be very surprised if McCain did not come out with some kind of market-ish plan for universal health care.

Watch Michigan, closely. McCain knows, and mentions every chance he gets, that Michigan's in meltdown now, housing prices in free fall, the state aside from Amway/Meijer's about to go under, and that a key contributor to this collapse is the $1500/vehicle albatross caused by our utterly insane linkage of health insurance to employment.

As to Iraq, he's basically betting on no news = good news during the last month or two of the campaign (and maybe hoping for more whiffs of Iranian grapeshot in the Gulf).

As to HRC vs Obama, I don't care much anymore; I'm just glad that, finally, the process is giving us what the race has lacked so far: attention to the core flaws of each candidate and a fire under each one's arse to correct them well in advance of the general. Good stuff.

- teplukhin2you

January 9, 2008 at 4:38pm

On McCain v Clinton.

Like many others, I've been grinding my teeth about a Clinton general election candicacy for months, feeling she was by far the least electable of the major contenders.  I still believe this to be the case.  But the reason McCain v Clinton scares me is because I consider JM to be the most electable of the Repubs--against ANY Dem.

I actually think that the tone of a McCain/Clinton contest would be more high-minded and civil than if she was up against any of the other GOP stooges.  Hasn't he gone on record several times with how much he respects the senator from New York and enjoys working with her?  How then could he hit her below the belt without being made out for a hypocrite?  Doubly so since, however justifiably, he complained so loud about the raw deal he got in South Carolina in 2000.

In most scenarios I consider Obama to be the stronger general election candidate than Clinton, but I’m not sure that holds up against McCain.  McCain would absolutely hammer Obama on the experience question, on fo-po especially.  It’d be no contest.  HRC at least has SOME ammo with which to fend off such an attack.

In other words, I agree with Chait that the odds of a Republican presidency just got a little higher, but only because the odds of a McCain candidacy just got higher.  I consider that it’s pretty much unknowable whether Clinton or Obama would have the better shot.

LET’S ALL PRAY FOR HUCKABEE!  I know before the South Carolina primary I’m going to be down on my knees praying for the preacher man--and I’m an atheist.

- aeromonas

January 9, 2008 at 4:51pm

repost.  my first attempt seems to be lost in limbo.  appologies if both come through.

On McCain v Clinton.

Like many others, I've been grinding my teeth about a Clinton general election candicacy for months, feeling she was by far the least electable of the major contenders.  I still believe this to be the case.  But the reason McCain v Clinton scares me is because I consider JM to be the most electable of the Repubs--against ANY Dem.

I actually think that the tone of a McCain/Clinton contest would be more high-minded and civil than if she was up against any of the other GOP stooges.  Hasn't he gone on record several times with how much he respects the senator from New York and enjoys working with her?  How then could he hit her below the belt without being made out for a hypocrite?  Doubly so since, however justifiably, he complained so loud about the raw deal he got in South Carolina in 2000.

In most scenarios I consider Obama to be the stronger general election candidate than Clinton, but I’m not sure that holds up against McCain.  McCain would absolutely hammer Obama on the experience question, on fo-po especially.  It’d be no contest.  HRC at least has SOME ammo with which to fend off such an attack.

In other words, I agree with Chait that the odds of a Republican presidency just got a little higher, but only because the odds of a McCain candidacy just got higher.  I consider that it’s pretty much unknowable whether Clinton or Obama would have the better shot.

LET’S ALL PRAY FOR HUCKABEE!  I know before the South Carolina primary I’m going to be down on my knees praying for the preacher man--and I’m an atheist.

- aeromonas

January 9, 2008 at 4:54pm

Amen, Brother Walt. Huck be praised! Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what Jesus Hucking Christ would do! Win one for the Hucker!

- teplukhin2you

January 9, 2008 at 5:25pm

I just now found my voice, but I've been ready to lead from day one, with someone else's voice, all along. Oh yeah: 35 years.

- psantillana

January 9, 2008 at 5:48pm

HRC would crush McCain, your biases and prejudices are clouding your thinking.

McCain represents violence and death and his vision for American is sharply limited. Also, a McCain nomination (not yet in the bag) would depress a portion of the GOP base.

The Dems are basically united and inspired to vote, the GOP is completely divided an uninspired.

McCain v. Obama? Now THAT'S a close race.

Keep in mind, I'm a staunch Obama supporter.

- mmathog

January 9, 2008 at 6:06pm

Never, ever think you're smart enough to know which of your opponent's candidates you'd prefer to run against. You're not. Nobody is. Democrats in 1979 and 1999 almost universally looked forward to running against an unelectable joke like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. At the time, the former was famously an actor who took second billing to a chimp; the latter was the unsuccessful son of an unpopular president.

If you think one of the other party's candidates would make a less-bad president, then great, root for that person -- or if the thought of Rudolph W. Giuliani scares you like Putin, then by all means throw your support against him. But in my lifetime, Democrats have been crushed twice by Republicans we looked forward to facing.

- rhubarbs

January 9, 2008 at 6:19pm

"McCain represents violence and death"

And this hurts him at election time exactly how? In, you know, Norway, maybe. But in the United States of America? That's in the class of things to file under, "feature, not a bug."

- rhubarbs

January 9, 2008 at 6:24pm

It seems to be the CW that if Hillary wins Nevada or South Carolina, she'll go a long way toward

- Anonymous

January 9, 2008 at 6:24pm

Very sobering, Rhubarbs. How quickly we forget. Pres. Huckabee-- yikes

- teplukhin2you

January 9, 2008 at 6:30pm

Elections are, as Joe Klein said in Primary Colors, about 'sex and violence' rather than 'issues', and you need both.

So yes, McCain representing violence helps him plenty.

No matter what you think of each candidate though, right now the GOP is deeply divided and their turnout is for shit.

Dems are basically completely united (100% of Obama voters will vote for HRC and probably vice-versa, I'd say 90% of Edwards voters will pull the lever for either) while the GOP is deeply divided.

McCain, or whomever the GOP puts up there, needs to overcome this (as well as a country generally sick of GOP rule).

Reagan and GW Bush were coalition builders... who fits that description on the other side? Maybe Romney?

I guess I'm just sick of the 'mccain will whomp hillary' "analysis" just because 9 people here think hillary's a bitch. It's data free analysis.

- mmathog

January 9, 2008 at 7:22pm

"100% of Obama voters will vote for HRC" wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Particularly if it's McCain on the other side.  Believe me.

- psantillana

January 9, 2008 at 9:27pm

Yeah, I can concede that some Obama voters might cross the rubicon for McCain... and maybe Guiliani (who's probably IS toast) but not for Romney and certainly not for Huckabee.

Some Obama voters might stay home in the face of an HRC/McCain matchup.

I think Obama v. McCain is the one matchup that is very tough for Obama... reason: race (although in this particular case, people will say 'youth and inexperience').

- mmathog

January 9, 2008 at 9:35pm

mmathog: Why would race be the factor in Obama vs. McCain but not Obama vs. anyone else? I agree that it would be the toughest matchup for O, but I think because they both have - or are perceived to have - integrity and brains. The other R candidates are perceived to lack one or both, by R's even. O vs. McC would be about the war, I think.

- psantillana

January 9, 2008 at 10:20pm

It would also be about youth and inexperience, of course.

- psantillana

January 9, 2008 at 10:20pm

Mark me down for #3.  I've voted Democratic in every general election since my first in 1984 (I was 18, what can I say?).  But if Clinton is our nominee, I will vote for any other candidate - with the glaring exception of Guiliani.  It is simply harder for me to countenance deceitfulness, dishonor and slime politics from my party.  I just can't do it anymore. I don't want to go back to the Clinton 90's.  I understand what the Right did to Hillary and Bill, and I get that she has been unfairly tainted by the sins of her husband.  It gives me no pleasure disliking her.  It gives me even less pleasure to be associated with the many Hillary-haters who are absurd with their vengence and sexism.  But I can't back her just because others have been unfair. Yeah, issues matter greatly.  Health care matters.  Iraq matters. Justice matters. But even if I believed that Hillary stood as good a chance at implementing her policy proposals as Barack or even Edwards (which I certainly don't), I still wouldn't vote for her.  At this particular moment in history, I can't support someone who I know will make the back and forth vilification more vile.  Right now, integrity and judgement matter more.            

- mcfife

January 10, 2008 at 3:18am

My point is psantillana that the non McCain GOP contenders have such dramatic shortcomings that Obama would beat them in spite of his race.

Why race would matter with McCain is because racists who don't like to admit they're racists would vote for McCain because of Obama's 'youth and inexperience' (this is not to imply that everyone voting against Obama for those reasons is a racist).

- mmathog

January 10, 2008 at 3:53am

Hm. So if Obama wins against, say, Romney, it would be because the racists hate Mormons, and/or pathetic jackasses, more than they hate black people? Or: The racist vote would be the same, but more than made up for by the people who hate Romney, and those Romney haters would otherwise vote for McCain if they had that opportunity, because McCain isn't Romney and is a war hero, unlike Obama?

I'm so sure that any Republican would lose [unless it's McCain]  that I haven't been following them so closely.  Is there any Republican hatred for McCain?  As there is for everyone else, except maybe Fred?  I mean apart from lack of enthusiasm.

- psantillana

January 10, 2008 at 6:02am

As one of the few GOPers hereabouts, let me say that McCain is unpopular with GOP elites because of his Campaign Finance stand (esoteric) and his stand on Immigration.  He has recently sort of changed that one, emphasizing border enforcement over any "path to citizenship."

Having said that, I will vote for him in the FL primary because he's an adult, who as much as any politician, calls em as he sees em.  Perfect he ain't.  But these are diagreements, not hatreds.

But he's a damned sight better than the "experienced" candidate who "found her voice" at age 60.  BTW, what's wrong with violence and death, anyway?

- butchie b

January 10, 2008 at 11:58am

None of the Republicans, including McCain, have proven capable of keeping that coalition together. Any Republican nominated depresses a certain aspect of their base.

Disagreeing a bit with butchie, I'd argue that McCain can get the GOP elite to rally around him, although tepidly. However, 0 religious righties trust him, despite his pandering, and relentless tax cutters don't really trust him either.

Romney has tried very very hard to be the perfect figure to hold that coalition together, but he's just not that good of a candidate.

- mmathog

January 10, 2008 at 12:10pm

Can we all just stipulate, we wish Hillary were toast.  And we're just going to keep wishing it until it's true.

- ChanRobt

January 10, 2008 at 12:55pm

aeromonas, you pray for Huckabee.  I'll pray for Kucinich.  In the end, they're both equally likely.  Hucakbee is a helluva a lot more convincing, but ultimately his parochial appeal is just a non starter, even in S.C.

- ChanRobt

January 10, 2008 at 12:59pm

Hillary is the GOP choice.  She's no pushover, but in a year in which no Republican candidate is very positively motivating to Republicans, Hillary powerfully negatively motivating.

The spectre of a President Hillary, with Bill back in the White House with her, is so profoundly frightening, that Republicans will be out with torches and pitchforks to put a stake through her heart come election day.

Hillary has no chance of taking any Southern state, except possibly Florida.  Obama actually could take a few.  And it's easy to imagine Obama taking Ohio on top of that.  If he got everything Kerry got, plus Ohio, he wins.  If he got everything Kerry got plus some Southern states, I also believe he wins.  But, I haven't tried to do the electoral counting.

- ChanRobt

January 10, 2008 at 1:05pm

Rhubarbs, if Jimmy Carter is what you get with the clearly "better informed" candidate, I'll take the dumbass every time.

All his information added up to a long line of disastrous decisions and fecklessness and dithering beyond belief during the Iran crisis.

Carter's being "informed" gave us the highly dangerous Iran we have today.

We salute you, Jimmy.  Keep wonking away.

- ChanRobt

January 10, 2008 at 1:13pm

I wonder how actually strong the HRC 'inspiration effect' is among the GOP rank and file... vs. the 'inspiration effect' of the first woman nominee. I heard a rumor that the GOP was considering Kay Bailey Hutchinson for the #2 spot because they thought a lot of moderate GOP women would cross the aisle for HRC.... Don't know if it's true (and either does ChanR) but if it is, it's turn out the lights on the GOP.

McCain will come with one argument... Stay in Iraq 4 evah... He'll make it eloquently and passionately, as well as anyone can, but there's a lot of evidence that that position is simply not popular among the general electorate. People are sick of Iraq, they might admire and acknowledge Petraeus' progress, but they still see troops getting killed and money circling the drain for reasons they don't consider good enough.

Chan, if Obama is the nominee, we'll have to find a different shade of red to color the South with (although South Carolina is kinda interesting...)

- mmathog

January 10, 2008 at 1:36pm

Mathog, we agree on one thing for sure, Obama has a better shot in the South than Hillary.  Not only because he'll galvanize the black vote, but because there's could be significant Southern white crossover for Obama.  Partly from whites who want to prove that it's a new day in the New South.

As to Hillary, Mat, here's my logic:  what candidate on either side has so many negatives from their own party?  No Democrat hates Ewards or Obama.  No Republican hates any of the major GOP contenders.  The closest to being polarizing is Giuliani but in a much milder way than Hillary and for a different kind of reason.

Hillary just has a talent for pissing people off.  And she's got the double-negative of Bill Lurking in the b.g., perhaps getting to be co-president.     Both those prospect not create fear and loathing amongst Republicans, they create the same emotions among a significant number of Democrats.

Even Nixon, the closest analog to Hillary, was undoubtedly despised by many Democrats.  But, he was not so despised by any significant number of GOPs.

This is really an unprecedented circumstance both in my memory and even in my historical recollection.  Maybe if Aaron Burr had gotten the nomination we'd have something akin.

- ChanRobt

January 10, 2008 at 7:17pm

"No Republican hates any of the major GOP contenders."

Lots of Republicans hate McCain and lots of Republicans are learning to hate Huckabee.

My argument is that the GOP has a very good chance at failing to get their sh*t together and if they don't, even a 'galvanize by hate' candidate like HRC might not be enough.

Few Dems will stay home if HRC's the candidate against a GOP nominee. Some might swap to McCain if he's the guy. HRC might have all the inspiration of John Kerry, but GW Bush was a coalition builder in the middle of fighting war. Who on the GOP side fits that description?

- mmathog

January 10, 2008 at 7:56pm