Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Real Clear Politics)   "If it's Obama versus Huckabee in November, Republicans might want to prepare a bomb shelter.... That general election would more likely than not be a massive blowout for Democrats"   (realclearpolitics.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1705 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jan 2008 at 5:17 AM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



207 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-01-07 04:39:11 AM  
Is it still even not-news that an Obama versus anybody race would be more likely than not a massive blowout for Democrats?
 
2008-01-07 04:50:45 AM  
The Republican race at this point is completely unpredictable. Every major candidate still in the running (except Ron Paul) has been the frontrunner at some point or another, and right now it's totally up for grabs. If McCain wins NH, and Romney comes in 2nd (likely outcome), that won't change a bit. Thompson's banking on South Carolina, as is Romney if he loses tomorrow (which of course won't work for him). McCain is hoping NH will keep him in the running, which it looks like it will. Ron Paul's just hoping decent finishes in the first few primaries will give him enough time to tap into that assload of money he's raised, and to possibly win Nevada while the others focus on South Carolina. Romney had been hoping to use IA and NH to springboard him into Super Tuesday, and even though that hasn't happened, he's not dropping out any time soon. Giuliani is putting all his hopes on Florida, and is using that as the excuse for his inevitable poor showings in every other pre-Feb. 5th primary. That's very stupid, but he's still showing up well in national polling.

Romney and Thompson are probably the only ones I'd say have no chance of getting the nomination now. Romney because he's lost/will lose in his key-to-his-strategy states (IA and most likely NH), and Thompson because he won't make a strong enough showing in NH and Michigan to not lose serious momentum going into South Carolina.


It's seriously possible that the nomination might not be decided even after Super Tuesday, if there's no decisive winner on that day.
 
2008-01-07 04:56:09 AM  
Obvious tag still waiting for its absentee ballot?
 
2008-01-07 04:56:49 AM  
SwiftFox: Is it still even not-news that an Obama versus anybody race would be more likely than not a massive blowout for Democrats?

I agree Obama would likely win, but the RCP head-to-head page shows Huckabee only behind Obama by 5 to 10 points. This far out, that's hardly "inevitable landslide" territory. The same page has McCain in a dead tie with Obama, which would not happen.

Still, I find it extremely unlikely that a pro-war Republican will win. The Republicans will either nominate an anti-war candidate, nominate a pro-war candidate who then changes his tune as fast as he thinks he can get away with, or nominate a pro-war candidate who will go down in flames.

This election will be overshadowed by the massive unpopularity of Bush and his war, and any candidate who has that stigma (any pro-war Republican) won't win.
 
2008-01-07 05:11:50 AM  
Churchill2004: I agree Obama would likely win, but the RCP head-to-head page shows Huckabee only behind Obama by 5 to 10 points. This far out, that's hardly "inevitable landslide" territory. The same page has McCain in a dead tie with Obama, which would not happen.

It's a landside. The thing is, pretty much all of the candidates on the Republican side have so much mud that, for better or worse, will be raked up and be used to destroy them. Obama pulled the wise move of admitting his drug use and personal faults early on, and most of what else could be used against him was beaten to a pulp by Hillary. Considering that he doesn't have much experience elsewhere, he's pretty much smooth sailing until the election.

Since the Republican race for the nomination has been so much cleaner (relatively speaking), most of the American public hasn't gotten to most of the grime. All of the front runners have loads of skeletons, and they'll be sunk.

Once again, this is for better or for worse.
 
2008-01-07 05:17:37 AM  
Churchill2004:

Regarding the RCP polls, keep an eye out for the dates for each poll. I can only spot a couple of the polls on the matchups page that have results from this year - some (a few Thompson v Edwards for example) haven't had a fresh poll since October.
 
2008-01-07 05:19:33 AM  
Sorry but Hillary is inevitable was the plan for the republicans and now the Huckabee is inevitable is the democrat plan...

In the end it will be Ron Paul VS Obama.
 
2008-01-07 05:23:20 AM  
lolmao666: Sorry but Hillary is inevitable was the plan for the republicans and now the Huckabee is inevitable is the democrat plan...

In the end it will be Ron Paul VS Obama.


So... finally took a break from waving those 'RON PAUL' signs at the intersection, eh?
 
2008-01-07 05:27:34 AM  
Aeonic_Blue: lolmao666: Sorry but Hillary is inevitable was the plan for the republicans and now the Huckabee is inevitable is the democrat plan...

In the end it will be Ron Paul VS Obama.

So... finally took a break from waving those 'RON PAUL' signs at the intersection, eh?


He's just getting ready for the rEVOLution.
 
2008-01-07 05:37:16 AM  
1. Way too early to be making predictions.
2. Always gets closer near the end.
 
2008-01-07 05:40:39 AM  
I have to admit that Huckabee was a suprise to me in iowa...

and it will close as hell if its Obama and whoever on the republican side. I dont think Obama can get the 20% of moderate conservatives he needs to convert in order to win...

im sad to say that many will not vote for a black guy with a muslim sounding name, simply because hes black with a muslim sounding name... especially with the republicans rallying on the war so much and our principal enemy in the war is muslim...

I wouldnt vote for Obama because i disagree with him on policy but if i had to choose between obama and hillary, i'll obama every time...
 
2008-01-07 05:49:04 AM  
Aeonic_Blue: Yeah continue laughing and continue voting for Hillary that biatch. You'll soon see where your country ends up: in shiat never seen since the civil war.
 
2008-01-07 05:51:20 AM  
I want to see Obama and Huck debate.
 
2008-01-07 05:53:45 AM  
quadropheniac: It's a landside.

It's a landslide if polls this far out meant anything, which they don't.

I'm not disagreeing that Obama would likely beat any pro-war Republican, I'm just saying that predictions and polls this far from the actual election are meaningless. If, for example, the war issue becomes less important by November, Huckabee might be able to work himself up to within striking distance of a win. Weirder things have happened.

Though that's without factoring in (as TFA did not) where exactly Ron Paul and his supporters go. If he leaps to the Libertarian Party, or is able to move a significant number of his people to vote for another Libertarian candidate, it would kill Huckabee's chances even moreso than being stuck supporting a failed, unpopular war. It would only have to be 4-5% in the general election to totally screw Huckabee over. Ron Paul would also slice in to Obama's independent supporters, but only to a degree. Mainly because after several months of being the face of the Democratic Party (rather than being seen fighting against the Hildabeast), he'll lose some of the "outsider" image.
 
2008-01-07 05:55:39 AM  
elffster: I want to see Obama and Huck debate.

For the love of god, why? It'd be nothing but meaningless platitudes from both sides. Both candidacies are built on things they can't say out loud (Obama's public persona, Huckabee's religion).
 
2008-01-07 06:02:11 AM  
Churchill2004: The Republican race at this point is completely unpredictable. Every major candidate still in the running (except Ron Paul) has been the frontrunner at some point or another,

Ron Paul is not a major candidate.
 
2008-01-07 06:08:20 AM  
Bad_Seed: Ron Paul is not a major candidate.

You think so? Wait till New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
 
2008-01-07 06:08:35 AM  
Bad_Seed: Ron Paul is not a major candidate.

Yes, Mr. Murdoch.
 
2008-01-07 06:13:08 AM  
Bad_Seed: Ron Paul is not a major candidate.

You obey your masters well. Tool. There shouldn't even be a discussion of major and minor candidates. There should be one between *qualified* and *unqualified*. Anything else is willfully ignorant.
 
2008-01-07 06:15:33 AM  
For the love of god, why?

To see who cracks, of course, I would think that Huck would have a friggin meltdown. Maybe not.
 
2008-01-07 06:16:37 AM  
The following people wish to thank you:

Paper manufacturers and recyclers
Ink manufacturers
Reporters and editors
Electricity companies
Computer manufacturers and sellers
TV and radio manufacturers and sellers
Television and radio stations
Billboard companies
Printing companies
Etc.

Thanks to your endless and mindless debating and bickering about which egotistical half-wit wants to be president and fark up the country for four years, you help keep these people in work with your hard-earned money. Well done!

/Like it makes a difference either way you vote - you either get farked from the front or farked from behind, and either way, you can't say no and you get no lube.
//Go Hillbama McRomneyani!!!
///Nice lawn, isn't it? Stay off it
 
2008-01-07 06:47:04 AM  
lolmao666: Aeonic_Blue: Yeah continue laughing and continue voting for Hillary that biatch. You'll soon see where your country ends up: in shiat never seen since the civil war.

Oh, nasty. You'll see when Hillary goes like Guiliani and pulls ahead on Super Tuesday. The media has been right all along: it will be Hillary v. 9/11 scumbag. Once the general comes around, I suspect some 3rd-party (either Bloomberg or Paul if he does go that way) will siphon off the Repug votes and Hillary will win. We'll then see another Clinton boom and the Repuglikkkans will complain all day long.
 
2008-01-07 06:52:57 AM  
Can someone tell me why Obama is always characterized as black when his mother was an upper class hippie white chick? His father was a wealthy Kenyan intellectual that had nothing but contempt for the African-American community. He then dumped his mom after knocking her up and went back to Kenya. She spent the next 10 years finding other intellectual brown men to screw, hence them ending up in Malaysia for awhile.

He's also a Muslim apostate, so that should make the terrorists REALLY pissed off.

Frankly, I think electing Edwards, Hillary or Obama, will invite a disaster of Carter proportions.

We'll be better off with any of the Republicans. Well. Almost any. Huckabee and Ron Paul aren't great. But they're better than the Democrats.
 
2008-01-07 06:54:38 AM  
I'm not so sure it'd be a blowout. Who's more likely to vote? An evangelical Christian (stereotypical Huckabee supporter) or a the average Democrat?

I seem to recall the same basic thing being said in the last election -- there's no way Bush could win a second term... but guess what? It's not about a poll or even likely voters, it's about those few who actually do go out and vote. Dem's don't seem to have too strong of a history of actually voting.

/I've no idea who will win
 
2008-01-07 06:54:45 AM  
elffster: For the love of god, why?

To see who cracks, of course, I would think that Huck would have a friggin meltdown. Maybe not.


I doubt it. Huckabee's a pretty easy-to-read guy, and that folksy tell-a-joke crap he pulls is authentic (unlike Bush). He doesn't have a temper and is the sort of guy to laugh off most things. Plus he's got the whole Jesus thing (which, for better or for worse, is 100% real)- the closest thing we have to a religious extremist running for President. As delusional as it is, "God's on my side!" has been proven to give people more fortitude under rough situations. Not particularly relevant to the Presidency, but since we're talking about who would crack first...

Obama? He's tougher to read because his entire campaign has been building up his carefully crafted public persona. The "real" Obama personality hasn't really been on display. He's relatively idealistic, but he's also extremely ambitious. Probably more ambitious than idealistic. He's never really met any serious resistance to his ambition. He wrote about how not knowing his father and his multiracial background caused what he thinks passed for a difficult childhood, but the reality is that he grew up as a middle class kid in Hawaii in the 70s, and like most kids tried drugs. Like most kids who tried drugs, it obviously didn't seriously affect him because his academic career took off flawlessly after his high school graduation. Prior to when he entered politics, he floated about between a business and academic career pretty much as it suited him. Once he got into politics, again, his ambition went pretty much unchecked. That sort "I've always won at everything" history tends to lead to people who crack easier under pressure. Again, not really relevant to the Presidency, but since that's what you wanted to know.

To sum it up, Huckabee would be save by his imaginary friend and Obama would be bewildered at the fact that he was in a situation where his personal ambition was being stymied, if both went to the rack.
 
2008-01-07 07:00:51 AM  
Speaking of Republican candidates, go check out the political ad that Rudi Giuliani is running. It's on his website. It's fearmongering at its finest. When I first saw it on the web on YouTube, I thought it was a joke done by someone else.
 
2008-01-07 07:03:18 AM  
inconnu: Can someone tell me why Obama is always characterized as black when his mother was an upper class hippie white chick? His father was a wealthy Kenyan intellectual that had nothing but contempt for the African-American community. He then dumped his mom after knocking her up and went back to Kenya. She spent the next 10 years finding other intellectual brown men to screw, hence them ending up in Malaysia for awhile.

He's also a Muslim apostate, so that should make the terrorists REALLY pissed off.

Frankly, I think electing Edwards, Hillary or Obama, will invite a disaster of Carter proportions.

We'll be better off with any of the Republicans. Well. Almost any. Huckabee and Ron Paul aren't great. But they're better than the Democrats.


Wow. Massive FAIL.

Though actually, looking at Obama's personal history, it's true that for all intents and purposes, he had a "white" upbringing. He spent a few years in Indonesia as a kid, but plenty of diplomat's kids have had similar experiences. He grew up being raised by his white mother and white grandparents as a middle class kid in Hawaii in the 1970s. I hate to use the term "white" like that, but I'm referring to the social construct, not really the irrelevant skin color. Because of both his age and the geography, his personality wasn't shaped by the Civil Rights struggle the way many prominent blacks were. To be honest, that might have a lot to do with why he's a viable candidate and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton weren't. His personal history isn't filled with struggling against the white man who's keeping him down, and so he doesn't bring that baggage the table. That's why race hasn't even really factored into the campaign, and why a majority of his support comes from whites.

And, just to reiterate, I'm talking about "white" as the social concept, because there's no better word for what is (rapidly becoming "was") a very real thing.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not anybody should vote for him, I'm just enjoying picking this sort of stuff apart from afar. I also wanted to show that you could make the point without the blatant racism.
 
2008-01-07 07:12:18 AM  
Nobody can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory quite like the Democrats.
 
2008-01-07 07:24:16 AM  
waiting4godot: I'm not so sure it'd be a blowout. Who's more likely to vote? An evangelical Christian (stereotypical Huckabee supporter) or a the average Democrat?

At the Iowa caucus last week, the number of Democrats showing for the caucus were almost double last year. And the Democrats enjoyed a nearly 2:1 advantage in the number of voters who turned out for their caucus vs. the Republican caucus.

If these numbers carry through to the general, then yes, it would be a blow out.
 
2008-01-07 07:28:42 AM  
lolmao666: In the end it will be Ron Paul VS Obama.

Isn't it a little early in the day to be drinking?
 
2008-01-07 07:39:40 AM  
Thank for you for showing me how to not make that point so racistly, Churchill. I found your response very enlightening.

I suppose I'm just a little jealous of everyone claiming Obama for the African-American community, when in reality, he belongs to us white folk more. Not that I would ever vote for a attractive and successful African-American, but he's definitely ours.

/I keed.
 
2008-01-07 07:39:45 AM  
inconnu: He's also a Muslim apostate, so that should make the terrorists REALLY pissed off.

Terrorists consider all Americans the enemy. There were plenty of Muslims working in the WTC, fool.

Frankly, I think electing Edwards, Hillary or Obama, will invite a disaster of Carter proportions.

OH BOY! You said Carter! Hows that chromosomal deletion going?

We'll be better off with any of the Republicans. Well. Almost any. Huckabee and Ron Paul aren't great. But they're better than the Democrats.

Yeah, God forbid we elect people who think the last 8 years have sucked.

But you go on believing that the Republicans are the only hope we have. They did such a good job since 2000!
 
2008-01-07 07:40:02 AM  
BillCo: lolmao666: In the end it will be Ron Paul VS Obama.

Isn't it a little early in the day to be drinking?


www.helsinki.fi

It's called MESCALINE!
 
2008-01-07 07:42:06 AM  
Churchill2004: Though that's without factoring in (as TFA did not) where exactly Ron Paul and his supporters go.

That's because it doesn't matter.
 
2008-01-07 07:44:54 AM  
I don't see Obama as that huge of a favorite vs any of the front-runners on the GOP side.

I like Obama just because he's not a total political tool, but I don't really agree with him on much.

It's possible once people start paying attention to him they may find him too soft of the presidency.
 
2008-01-07 07:44:59 AM  
Psst... don't tell anyone, but the general election is going to be a massive blowout for Democrats no matter who is running.
 
2008-01-07 07:47:45 AM  
Driving Without Pants: Psst... don't tell anyone, but the general election is going to be a massive blowout for Democrats no matter who is running.

EatHam: Nobody can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory quite like the Democrats.

My money is on EatHam
 
MFL
2008-01-07 07:51:14 AM  
Driving Without Pants Psst... don't tell anyone, but the general election is going to be a massive blowout for Democrats no matter who is running.

It does look like that would be the case if the election were held today. Thank god it's not.
 
2008-01-07 07:51:55 AM  
inconnu:

/I keed.


2/10. You're sounding reasonably sincere, but the content of your troll is so patently offensive that it doesn't matter. The truly good troll has to present an argument worth rebutting, to draw other people into an argument with them. N***er jokes are so far beneath that bar, that most people will either a) ignore you or b) make a single comment about your stupidity before moving on.

Just offering tips because I enjoy a good troll. Get Recall_All_Repuglikkkans to break character and he's actually a fairly decent chap who uses his trolling as a remarkably intellectual exercise. He takes his own beliefs and pushes them to the extreme as a form of introspection. He explained all this to me, and I was rather impressed by it. Idiots like Hellbent_for_Mighty_Delight, who just post a stupid comic and leave? They're never anything more than annoyances. And making racially offensive jokes puts you in that category.

Just offering some tips, because reasonably well-developed trolls impress me. They're like a challenge. I suggest you listen to some of Phil Hendrie's old radio show if you can find it anywhere. He had this stuff nailed perfectly, except he did on the radio doing funny voices. I haven't heard his new show, but I've heard he doesn't let his mock guests take phone calls any more, which completely defeats the purpose.

/don't troll myself, just for the record
//and don't have an alt
 
2008-01-07 08:01:13 AM  
BillCo, MFL

The Democrats now have a 2-to-1 advantage over the Republicans. Every conceivable general election matchup has the Democrat leading in polling. Independents overwhelmingly support Democrats this year. The Democrats will have a candidate in a month or two, while the Republicans lack even a clear front-runner at this point, which will translate to an enormous head start in terms of building a campaign infrastructure, raising funds, and preparing for the general election. The way things are going now, the Republicans may even have a brokered convention this year. What do you see happening that would reverse these trends that have been in the Democrats' favor?
 
2008-01-07 08:02:55 AM  
My bad, I left something out of my first sentence: The Democrats now have a 2-to-1 advantage in voter registration over the Republicans.
 
2008-01-07 08:10:53 AM  
Driving Without Pants
Psst... don't tell anyone, but the general election is going to be a massive blowout for Democrats no matter who is running.

Hillary could lose.
 
2008-01-07 08:18:52 AM  
Driving Without Pants: What do you see happening that would reverse these trends that have been in the Democrats' favor?

They'll come up with something, they always do.
 
2008-01-07 08:20:47 AM  
mrexcess

Hillary's certainly the most vulnerable, but there is no way that she would lose unless something huge and completely unexpected happened.

I don't think Clinton will get the nomination anyway, though. Have you seen the polls in New Hampshire today?
 
2008-01-07 08:22:43 AM  
Churchill2004

God I loved Hendrie's show! I guess one would get burned out after doing that for a while, but I thought it was a big mistake to leave his bread and butter to reach for hollywood fame.

/threadjack...won't work
 
MFL
2008-01-07 08:25:10 AM  
Driving Without Pants
The way things are going now, the Republicans may even have a brokered convention this year. What do you see happening that would reverse these trends that have been in the Democrats' favor?

Very good question. Right now the driving issue of the debate is "change". Obama opitimizes this and the polls seem to reflect this trend. Domestic issues seem to be more in the forefrunt at the moment. (Huckabee's rise is a reflection of this on the GOP side). That being said we do live in a very dangerous world. If something major happens that would shift the focus on foreign policy, the polls would reflect this. It would most definatly hurt Obama and Huckabee. Both of them (Obama and Huck) are political change agents. The are not looked at as wartime presidents.

The economy could rebound by this time next year. The surge seems to be working and political progress in Iraq could change the debate on that issue. A major terrorist attack or other event could make experience a more viable issue than it is today. Clinton may still take Obama down and that alone would energize the GOP base. He's not that great of a debater and could screw up.

That being said the GOP are still the underdogs next year as it stands right now.
 
2008-01-07 08:30:01 AM  
Someone, somewhere.. Please explain this sentmentality for Ron Paul.

He's a Libertarian, yes, I understand. But why is that good?

Now I understand all the personal liberty business, but its the economic factors that absolutely terrify me.

So you de-regulate the entire market, and go back to what? Laissez-Faire Capitalism?

Wasnt that demonstrated in the 1890s to be pretty bad? Didnt real wages actually drop during the Laissez-Faire "Robber Baron" Years?

How would giving corporate entities even more power help the country? This is after all the corporate scandals that proved that these groups cannot handle money effectively.
 
2008-01-07 08:32:53 AM  
Driving Without Pants: The Democrats now have a 2-to-1 advantage over the Republicans. Every conceivable general election matchup has the Democrat leading in polling.


Last I saw McCain beats or is about even with every Dem candidate.

Even Prince Obama. Link (new window)
 
2008-01-07 08:36:06 AM  
MFL

Very good question. Right now the driving issue of the debate is "change". Obama opitimizes this and the polls seem to reflect this trend. Domestic issues seem to be more in the forefrunt at the moment. (Huckabee's rise is a reflection of this on the GOP side). That being said we do live in a very dangerous world. If something major happens that would shift the focus on foreign policy, the polls would reflect this. It would most definatly hurt Obama and Huckabee. Both of them (Obama and Huck) are political change agents. The are not looked at as wartime presidents.

So, what are we talking here? Another war? Another 9/11? What? And why would Obama or Huckabee suffer from that happeneing? What happens if this foriegn policy shift you speak of happens after the conventions this summer?

The economy could rebound by this time next year.

They say that every year, and it never happens. We are on the precipice of a new Great Depression and everyone knows it, feels it in their bones.

The surge seems to be working and political progress in Iraq could change the debate on that issue.

Nothing will change the debate on the Iraq issue before November, again barring some giant thing happening like Iran invading Iraq or zombie Saddam coming back to wreak havoc on the living. The public is overwhelmingly against the war, and no overtly pro-Iraq candidate will have a smoking chance in the general.

A major terrorist attack or other event could make experience a more viable issue than it is today. Clinton may still take Obama down and that alone would energize the GOP base. He's not that great of a debater and could screw up.

Again with the terrorist attacks. You know things are bad when you have to pin your election hopes on there being a major terrorist attack to swing things your way. As for Obama not being that great of a debater, I don't know how true that is. I think every candidate has two debate personalities: one they adopt when they're in the lead, and one they adopt when they're behind. Hillary was arrogant when she was in the lead, and has already become vile now that she's losing her front-runner status. Obama was a bit shaky as an also-ran, but now that he's in the lead he's completely in his element and is looking very, very presidential. Did you see the New Hampshire debate the other day?
 
2008-01-07 08:37:42 AM  
I could deal with a President Obama... The biggest mistake the Democrats could make is picking Hillary as their candidate I think. Very happy to see all that talk of her having a lock on the nomination was just that, talk (most likely fueled by desperate Republicans).

Still a bit early to be pinning blue ribbons on him, though.

As far as his experience goes, he's got more experience then the current jackass-in-chief did when he was first appointed, and if Iowa is any indication, lots of Washington experience is going to be seen as a huge negative by Democratic and independent voters, anyway.

The Republican candidates are a bit laughable at this point, but that could certainly change.

Kucinich seemed to be the candidate my views were most compatible with, but I'd have no problem pulling the lever for Obama.
 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report