Illini Media
WPGU
buzz
Illio
TechnographObama could lose in November too
By Dan Streib
Posted: 1/18/08 Section: Opinion Columns
Not surprisingly, many pundits have jumped to the conclusion that this election is pretty much in the bag for the Democrats unless they "mistakenly" nominate Hillary Clinton. If that happens, the "Hillary effect" could take place, and her high negatives in polls could take a toll. Renowned columnist George Will even went so far as to reference a Hillary nomination as a "gift" to the Republicans.
Given statements like these, some Democrats wrongly seem to think that since Barack Obama is appealing to independents and does not receive "Hillary" hate, he would be the ideal candidate to secure a Democratic presidency. And since so many liberals want anything but another Republican in office, electability is a great concern for them - and to them, Obama seems perfect.
In reality, there are numerous other factors that make the situation much more complicated, and these factors transcend Clinton's high popularity in some sections of the electorate. But even if Hillary's nomination is the gift the GOP has been waiting for, an Obama nomination might just be a delightful surprise for the elephants. This is because, given his current campaigning, Obama will be an even less electable candidate than Hillary in a general election.
This is due to the fact that Obama's campaigning so far has revealed one severe weakness: inspirational words with no stated substance. Now before Obamainiacs start throwing their stones at me, I understand that his aides may have numerous policy papers in his files. But there is a difference in having obscure policy measures in obscure cabinets at the Obamovement HQ and having him actually discuss and debate these measures.
Yes, Obama wants "change" and offers "hope." But when he is alone on the debate podium with no prepared speech to guide him, he doesn't elabrotate on what change he wants or what hope he brings. If Obama continues to show a lack of understanding of his issues by not doing this, he will also seem inexperienced. And this is his flaw in a general election.
Granted, Obama would beat many Republicans in this year's Democratic-leaning electorate. But what people don't think about is the fact that given current polling, those he will beat will go down in defeat by equal margins at the hands of the junior senator from New York. Yet the reason polling can be so inaccurate is that voters may not have considered all of the factors about a candidate when they respond to a cold call. And most voters have already considered Hillary to death. Many haven't considered Obama's drawbacks yet.
Yet the thing that shows up in primaries is that Obama still sweeps audiences off their feet. What does Obama's lack of elaboration matter if voters get all misty-eyed when he speaks? Why does he need to explain his hope when people love him anyway?
The answer is simple: young primary voters, new primary voters, and media types that suffer from memory loss are who he appeals to right now. What about the elderly who didn't vote in a primary due to the weather? What about the middle-aged who were too busy with their jobs and kids to vote in the primary? These people have heard the words "change" and "hope" more than us young college kids can possibly imagine. If Obama continues to base his candidacy over these stilted phrases, he will be much more hindering to the Democrats' chances against an electable Republican than Hillary's negatives ever could.
Simply put, a large reason for the Democrats' success in polls and congressional elections is the fear of GOP incompetency by the electorate. Thus, to keep that "competency" appeal the Democrats would be smart to stick with the candidate that seems more competent, responsible, and experienced. To general election voters, Obama has yet to establish these traits.
Does this mean Obama would lose a general election and Hillary would win? No and no. But what this does mean is that Hillary maximizes the Democrats' current electoral advantages, and therefore is more electable than the senator from our very own land of Lincoln.
Dan is a sophomore in history and political science and forgot to write his bottom line, much to his editor's annoyance.
Given statements like these, some Democrats wrongly seem to think that since Barack Obama is appealing to independents and does not receive "Hillary" hate, he would be the ideal candidate to secure a Democratic presidency. And since so many liberals want anything but another Republican in office, electability is a great concern for them - and to them, Obama seems perfect.
In reality, there are numerous other factors that make the situation much more complicated, and these factors transcend Clinton's high popularity in some sections of the electorate. But even if Hillary's nomination is the gift the GOP has been waiting for, an Obama nomination might just be a delightful surprise for the elephants. This is because, given his current campaigning, Obama will be an even less electable candidate than Hillary in a general election.
This is due to the fact that Obama's campaigning so far has revealed one severe weakness: inspirational words with no stated substance. Now before Obamainiacs start throwing their stones at me, I understand that his aides may have numerous policy papers in his files. But there is a difference in having obscure policy measures in obscure cabinets at the Obamovement HQ and having him actually discuss and debate these measures.
Yes, Obama wants "change" and offers "hope." But when he is alone on the debate podium with no prepared speech to guide him, he doesn't elabrotate on what change he wants or what hope he brings. If Obama continues to show a lack of understanding of his issues by not doing this, he will also seem inexperienced. And this is his flaw in a general election.
Granted, Obama would beat many Republicans in this year's Democratic-leaning electorate. But what people don't think about is the fact that given current polling, those he will beat will go down in defeat by equal margins at the hands of the junior senator from New York. Yet the reason polling can be so inaccurate is that voters may not have considered all of the factors about a candidate when they respond to a cold call. And most voters have already considered Hillary to death. Many haven't considered Obama's drawbacks yet.
Yet the thing that shows up in primaries is that Obama still sweeps audiences off their feet. What does Obama's lack of elaboration matter if voters get all misty-eyed when he speaks? Why does he need to explain his hope when people love him anyway?
The answer is simple: young primary voters, new primary voters, and media types that suffer from memory loss are who he appeals to right now. What about the elderly who didn't vote in a primary due to the weather? What about the middle-aged who were too busy with their jobs and kids to vote in the primary? These people have heard the words "change" and "hope" more than us young college kids can possibly imagine. If Obama continues to base his candidacy over these stilted phrases, he will be much more hindering to the Democrats' chances against an electable Republican than Hillary's negatives ever could.
Simply put, a large reason for the Democrats' success in polls and congressional elections is the fear of GOP incompetency by the electorate. Thus, to keep that "competency" appeal the Democrats would be smart to stick with the candidate that seems more competent, responsible, and experienced. To general election voters, Obama has yet to establish these traits.
Does this mean Obama would lose a general election and Hillary would win? No and no. But what this does mean is that Hillary maximizes the Democrats' current electoral advantages, and therefore is more electable than the senator from our very own land of Lincoln.
Dan is a sophomore in history and political science and forgot to write his bottom line, much to his editor's annoyance.
The Daily Illini encourages on-topic discussion through article commenting on its articles and blogs. It is our policy not to delete any comments based upon political or ideological point of view. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are abusive, off-topic or use excessive foul language.
The posting of copyrighted material, including any and all content for which you are not the author, is illegal under Federal intellectual property laws. Such activity will not be tolerated. Comments containing copyrighted material will be removed, and continued violation of copyright law is grounds for being banned completely from commenting on DailyIllini.com.
If you feel any post meets these conditions or merits review, please e-mail our editors at meonline@dailyillini.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 10
eric
posted 1/18/08 @ 1:08 AM CST
poorly written article. Nothing to comment about
Bharat
posted 1/18/08 @ 3:20 AM CST
you say that he doesn't debate his issues. I think that is because he spends too much time trying to oppose the clinton machine and their spin on his "inexperience". (Continued…)
Fair is Fair
posted 1/18/08 @ 10:57 AM CST
1. I agree with above statements
2. You are in Obama's home state so you got guts
3. I think it says something that you can get young and old to come out and vote for the first time in an election. (Continued…)
william
posted 1/18/08 @ 1:07 PM CST
As a liberal and a college democrat I was surprised that I largely agreed with what this seemly conservative/republican writer has to say.
True, Obama lacks experience. (Continued…)
william
posted 1/18/08 @ 1:24 PM CST
To the above post of "Fair is Fair":
True, it appears that kids may end getting the college candidate, Barack Obama elected and have their voices heard. (Continued…)
goldenstate
posted 1/18/08 @ 5:42 PM CST
Hillary is the best person for the job. She's thoughtful and well prepared. She knows her stuff. She will make a great President.
"Libby" for liberal
posted 1/18/08 @ 6:39 PM CST
With any other election Obama would probably not have been able to run on the platforms of hope and change.
It just goes to show that the conservative Republicans that voted Bush into office have messed everything up and that this nation is now desperately in need of hope and change. (Continued…)
destiny
posted 1/19/08 @ 8:23 AM CST
Hello! John Edwards! He is the guy who can take the white house back! JohnEdwards.com
Tom
posted 1/20/08 @ 11:54 PM CST
Throw a wrench in all this. Bloomberg will run if Hillary is the nominee. He will not if Obama is. If Bloomberg can't pull it all together to win himself, a Republican will win. (Continued…)
Post a Comment