Letters to the Editor
-
ruffissima
"Its about electability. I was in a focus group with a huge cross section of strong democrats. With one exception, a white woman in her 60s, all would vote for Gore. Why? He's electable."
We agree on one thing. Gore would have been a surer thing. He won the popular vote in 2000 when things were less propitious for the Democrats, I can't imagine many who voted for Gore in 2000 wouldn't vote for him again in 2008, and he would probably pick up extra votes because he is a more appealing figure now. No question, Gore would have been the answer to the Democrats' problems if he had run.
But he didn't. I understand wanting to bring Gore in as a deus ex machina. But I don't think it can be done. We've gone through a primary process where people have invested too much passion in the candidates who are running. This is a primary season with record turnout - what it is going to say to primary voters, if in the end you say "No, it doesn't matter whom you gave money to and campaigned for - we're going to make Gore the candidate by fiat." You might as well disband the whole primary process as a waste of time and money. Also, I wonder if women and African-Americans aren't going to think there's something fishy about the last-minute substitution of a white male for the candidates they've been pinning their hopes on. I agree Gore would have been a great candidate. But that bird has flown.
"You can't win elections without some big blue states."
There are certain states we just don't lose any more - NY, NJ, MA, CA. The demographics of this country have changed since 1972. I don't mean to overstate things, but Democrats pretty much own the West Coast and the Northeast now. Unless we willfully self-destruct, that's going to hold true for either Hillary or Obama.
"Primary wins in red states vote Republican in the general."
It boils down to the difference between a 50 state campaign and one focussing only on swing states. Hillary's strength is mostly in traditional blue states and a few swing states. If she is the nominee, she will focus on those battlegrounds, and pretty much write off the red states. There's something to be said for that strategy. It's grounded in a certain realism.
Obama will run something closer to a 50 state campaign. He will try to force McCain to defend some of his home territory. And Obama does run well against McCain is some red states. Like Dean, Obama wants to break the Democrats out of the box of being a regional party. For instance, he wants to make inroads in the West. A while back, there was an article in the Atlantic Monthly that made the argument that Republicans are losing ground in the West because of three things: (1) rising Latino populations, (2) an influx of Californians migrating inland, and (3) the fact that Bush's Big Government conservatism runs counter to the liberatian ethos of the region. Also, Virginia is arguably in the process of becoming a blue state.
Another thing about the 50-state strategy - it gives Obama a subtle advantage with superdelegates. If you have one candidate - Clinton - who is likely to spend most of her time and money in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Missouri, and another - Obama - who's going to campaign in Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, etc., which one are you going to support if you're a local politican who relies on coattails? I think you might go for the candidate who is already organized in your state and who's going to advertise and campaign there.
Another thought about those despised "small states." Doesn't writing them off become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If during the primary season you disparage them as being "states that never vote for us" and you don't campaign there in the GE, what incentive is there to be a Democrat in those states?
"There is also that pesky 'senior' segment you seem to think does not exist. They do, and they vote...their interests."
Are seniors going to vote McCain even though he recently said in a WSJ interview that he favors privatizing Social Security? What about cuts in entitlement programs? That's what they're voting for if they vote McCain. And I hope that seniors are a little concerned about the enormous debt this generation is passing on to their grandchildren.
"When you don't have a large majority in Congress, you need to reach across the aisle.What would Obama do in a similar situation? The same or get nothing done."
Actually ... Bill started out with a Democratic majority, but he lost it partly due to his wife's hamfisted handling of Healthcare Reform. But you should recall that Bill went into the game with the DLC strategy - with the aim of transforming the Party by ditching a lot of the its liberal baggage and embracing a "third way." Also, it's worth noting that Reagan, who was president during an era of Democratic dominance in Congress, managed to govern effectively without abandoning Republican principles. Apparently, Ronald Reagan was capable of reaching across the aisle without giving away his wallet.
"Obama was going to wait until 2012? Like all good opportunists, he saw an opening and took it...like Teddy in 1980."
Yes, he didn't dither for a decade like Mario Cuomo until everyone forgot who he was. Was John Edwards an opportunist? He ran TWICE after only one term in the Senate. What about Al Gore in 1988? Gore was a 40-year old who had been in the House for two years and in the Senate for only three!
You'll have to explain the Ted Kennedy comparison to me. Teddy had been in the Senate for eleven years when he ran in 1980. So if you're criticizing Obama for running too soon, how is a comparison to Ted Kennedy apt? Or are you just free-associating Obama's name with failed liberal presidential candidates of days yore?