Anatole Kaletsky, writing for the Times of London, makes the currently counter-intuitive case that Hillary Clinton is a stronger candidate in the general election than Barack Obama. Some of his points are stronger than others. For example, Kaletsky argues:
Mrs Clinton has won by decisive margins in every big state that the Democrats must win to send their candidate to the White House. Mr Obama’s lead in the delegate count is based on his success in small states with little electoral significance or in Republican strongholds such as Alabama and Nevada where the Democrats have no chance of success.
I have similarly written that Obama’s cheap delegate strategy was similar to that of McGovern in 1972, which did not turn out well for the Dems. I have also at least entertained the following speculation:
If Clinton is the nominee, the election may look more like all of the other elections in this century, which have generally been about identifying and turning out the candidate’s vote. The larger pool of Democrats, combined with a polarizing campaign potentially depressing the Independent vote, might make Clinton the tougher foe for McCain.
The current polls showing Obama to be the stronger opponent to John McCain also show that the Democrats McCain picks up against Obama are Hillary-type voters.
There are counter-arguments, however, that Kaletsky does not consider. First, he likely overstates the degree to which people’s votes will be influenced by gender as compared to race. In the February Pew poll, Clinton only does 4% better with women than Obama does against McCain. Nor does Kaletsky explain why he thinks women in the general electorate would be more favorably disposed to a female candidate than the subsample voting in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. While some Democrats fear defections from women and Hispanics if Obama is the nominee (and not irrationally, based even on current polls), Kaletsky does not consider the effect a depressed black turnout could have in a number of key states.
Kaletsky thinks the Obama-JFK argument does not hold:
Kennedy was swept to power on the crest of the baby boom, when the largest group of voters was in its twenties. Today these boomers are in their sixties or seventies – and will not take kindly to the charge that Mr McCain is too old to be president. Given the high propensity to vote among the elderly, this election will not be decided by a baby boom but by a senility surge.
However, McCain is not a Boomer, except by proxy through his service in Vietnam. Moreover, Boomers did not sweep JFK into office. The post-war baby boom did not start turning 21 before the mid-60s; the voting age was not lowered to 18 until 1971.  And Kaletsky does not consider that Generation Y is now phasing into the the electorate and that the start of the “Echo Boom” is just turning 18 now. Obama has proven skilled at turning out the youth vote in the primaries. Whether he can carry it over in a general election for a margin of victory is unknown, but the possibility cannot be ignored.
Kaletsky also argues that Clinton is the stronger candidate because she has more centrist policies than Obama. Karetsky fails to consider that Democrats and Independents currently do not care much about the issues — and even less about experience. That could change, but if it does, McCain would likely beat either Clinton or Obama, as he is seen by voters as more centrist than either of his possible opponents (or was in the January Pew poll, anyway). So far this election has been about changitude. So long as that dynamic holds, the Dems need not go for Hillary.
Kaletsky might have been on more solid ground to argue that Clinton is the lower-risk candidate (unless the convention is a disaster). As noted above, a Clinton-McCain match-up has a dynamic more clearly like 2000 and 2004. An Obama-McCain contest could be an electoral college landslide.  While that landslide would look more like 1992 today, it could look more like 1972 by November, given the more fluid nature of a contest mostly among Independent voters. (Of course, if I was forced to guess, I would guess that even an Obama-McCain election ultimately may not look too much different than the last two.)
(h/t Dan Collins.)
Update: Since writing the above, but before post-time, Survey USA has posted electoral maps for the McCain-Clinton and McCain-Obama match-ups. The SUSA server seems to be sluggish, so I note you can also see the maps at Open Left. The bottom line? Obama has more underlying strength than Clinton against McCain, but the overall electoral college totals do not change much. Currently, SUSA has Obama over McCain by 280-258, and Clinton over McCain by 276-262. Each has about 12-14 toss-up states, some of which likely will not be toss-ups by November, e.g., New Jersey and Texas. No sign of a landslide so far.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
If I mad-lib this, it makes just as much sense as any combination of candidates.
Try it and see!
very comprehensive analysis , Karl, meticulous, excellent job.
P.S.
Is there any reason my ex-compatriot Kaletsky became Karetsky in the post?
That’s “Kaletsky.” Unless you have a lisp, in which case, my apologies.
Yep. Fixed now. As you might imagine, I have a certain amount of muscle memory for typing Kar…
SUSA? John Philip?
I pick The Liberty Bell; nice marching tempo, and a humorous Montey Python connection all in one song.
I wasn’t able to get past the part where Kaletsky argued that Democrats should nominate Hillary because world-wide womanhood deserves to be represented by the U.S. president even more than world-wide oppressed races do.
a violently unscientific survey of a group of friends and acquaintances, all of whom are republicans or conservatives of a stripe or another, is interesting. If it’s McCain-Clinton, they will uniformly vote for McCain, without a second thought. If its McCain-Obama, two of them will vote for Obama.
the reasons for the dissonance–Hillary is much more conservative than Barack–are complex, but basically devolve into Hilary hatred. if that is replicated nationally, then McCain wins. Obama seems to generate none of the visceral hatred of Hillary, so I reckon even moderate or frustrated republicans can vote for him.
Hmmph. The margin of difference calibrated by microns.
mcgruder has demonstrated a fundamental lack of ability to grasp simple facts previously. He is consistent.
I would just LOVE to hear about this violently skewed sample of only Republicans and conservatives, mcgruder.
Clinton’s victory in Ohio won her only 9 more delegates than Obama, with two delegates still to be awarded. In Texas, Clinton won four more delegates than Obama in the primary. But Obama trimmed Clinton’s lead to a single Texas delegate in the party caucuses. Ten delegates are still to be awarded in the caucuses.
she may not get any delegate advantage out of super tuesday II.
I didn’t have the heart to post a question over at OpenLeft: How do these numbers compare to Kerry winning the election 8 months out in 2004?
The acrimony is being watched by the same American Public which supported
a wrong-headed WOT strategy which diverted to the hapless Iraqi population.
They supported, in good faith, this President who assured them he was certain about the uncertain post-war residue.
‘Goin’ home with the one that brung ya’ is the thematic response through
2006. Now they see that stubborn intransigence is no substitute for
the quality they look for in a Leader; Resolution, consistency, steadfastness, toughness.
Whether he knows it or not, McCain is being upstaged by the infighting within the Dem ranks. They are witnessing two tough people, trading blows and rancorous rhetoric, and as the story continues, this self-same public is mulling the difference between the Republican Nominee, and the
two Dem wannabees.
Mark my words…….
A pairing of the two? Perhaps, but the only pairing feasible is HRC as
Veep. I think she would take that option, rather than ensure a capitulation to McCain as the default President.
Bill? He would fight it tooth-and-nail. He wants to be Secretary of State, and that won’t happen if Hill is #2.
KKKleo – take your meds.
I wonder how the polling would look for a Hilliary/Obama verses McCain/Mitt contest…
@ #13
The acrimony is being watched by the same American Public which supported a wrong-headed WOT strategy which diverted to the hapless Iraqi population.
… ?
They supported, in good faith, this President who assured them he was certain about the uncertain post-war residue.
If you were a tree, what tree would you be?
Wow, McCain is being upstaged by a racially charged undercurrent, the suppression of voters within 2 important swing states & the winning candidate liken to be chosen by the political elite & not actually the voters themselves… w/ repercussions that could likely damage the political relationship between Democrats & independent women, hispanics or blacks.
These 2 “tough, fighting†candidates whose only political résumé includes only a few years working 10 hours a week, 3 or 4 months a year & devoting the last year plus, publically, to trying to get a different job are a real threat. I’m sure McCain resting, garnering financial support & noting the effective attacks of his opponents is heart-stricken w/ worry over the possibly Democratic Party damaging result of election 2008. Hell, he merely has to state he actually spent more hours as a POW then both Democrats combined have spent in a national, elected political office.
And given the effectiveness of the Pelosi & Reid led Congress to accomplish nothing at all, I’m sure GOP Congressional members are relishing locking up, preventing, blocking & changing everything any perspective Democrat President may wish to submit to the Congress.
I can just see the GOP, responding to the cries of foul, investigating the questionable methodology employed in arriving at a winning candidate. Care to speculate on the political damage 2+ years of reviewing Democrat politics, fueling the rage of whichever side loses the Democratic Nomination, all under the guise of fairness is going to cost the Democratic Party? What do you think the chances are of Hillary or Obama actually reconciling their Party either before the Election or for re-election in 2012? Neither side is going to trust the other, no matter who wins. If they win, their administration has essentially an asterisk for 4 years & risks polarizing their own party members.
McCain & the GOP are salivating at taking their swings at the survivor of mess, for ever if they lose in 2008, this Democrat based civil war will still be present in 2012. Unless that was what you meant by upstaging..?
“McCain & the GOP are salivating at taking their swings at the survivor of mess,”
The fervent hope of McCain is running against Hill.
JD–not sure why you have a beef with me, but best to you as well.
kelly–Obama votes as liberal as ted kennedy and wyden, perhaps a smidge less than avowed socialist Bernie Sanders.
Hillary, while a liberal, has a voting record that is more centrist, despite her primary rhetoric, which surely would qualify her for the Nation Mag editorial board.
frankly, I cant think of a single iconoclastic or contra-Howard Dean position OB has taken–can you?
For HRC, well, she voted for Iraq and actually spent about a year defending the vote.
10.
JD, six buddies in, around NYC area. 4 in various biz pursuits, 2 in media. 4/5 of the 6 are pretty economically well off.
3 movement types, 3 not-involved in the grind.
2 neo-cons, 1 libertarian, 3 Reagan cons. (2 of the 3 are pretty socially conservative too).
given that being faithfully (and out) republicans in the NYC area is no small task, we keep in touch via email, and used to get together every month or so at a well-known GoP thing called the Fabiani society.
the mccain v. obama/clinton thing came from those threads and convo’s. the libertarian and one of the Reagan-style con’s are fed up with GOP over budgets, iraq and the credit crisis.
6 dudes, representative of probably,well, nothing scientific. just found it interesting that a couple of guys who voted for reagan, 2 bushes and dole would get so fed up with GOP that they’d vote for Obama, who makes dukakis look the tank commander that he tried to pose as.
…the only pairing feasible is HRC as Veep.
If you are Chelsea, or Hillary’s mother, maybe. I can’t see anybody else taking that kind of a chance.
mcgruder – I’ve no beef with you.
…so fed up with GOP that they’d vote for Obama…
Wasn’t it only a few years ago we were bemoaning the incompetence and lunacy of the Democrats and opining that we need two real parties for this system to work?
I would settle for just one, right now.
Clinton will win Texas about a week after Hell freezes over, and then only if the frost is still on the burning brimstone.
McCain can already safely put Texas in his hip pocket.
Next?
** If Hillary and Barack swapped bodies, there would be no doubt who the most qualified presidential candidate is.
** Put Barack’s brains, experience, and charisma in a mature woman’s body and she would have no chance.
** Put Hillary’s brains and experience in a “cool”, African-American man’s body and he would win.
——
Without a doubt, Barack just isn’t ready. His run for presidency has been forced…it’s not a natural process. His very short list of legislative and senatorial accomplishments is contrived; he was given credit for the work of others in order to cram some experience into 1 year of service. He has shown lack of judgement in the people he’s associated himself with in both business (his advisors) and personal levels.
In short, he is a politician and nothing more. He gives great speeches which is a major change from our current President. However, he is just too green for the job. This country is at a crossroads, and it is *not* the time to gamble on Barack and hope he will mature while in office into the person we all want him to be.
These are the most interesting parts of the article:
“While official opinion, especially in the US media, self-righteously insists that America is an egalitarian, multicultural society where gender and race should play no role in political allegiance or personal advancement, the fact is that this is nonsense. Everyone knows that women and blacks continue to lag far behind white male Americans by virtually every social and economic criterion.”
“Everyone also knows that what makes Mr Obama’s candidacy so exciting is not his oratory or his good looks. It is his race. The possibility of a black president has electrified the world – and rightly so. President Obama would become an inspiring role model, not only for black Americans, but for oppressed races around the world, not least in Africa.
“But surely this is even truer of a woman becoming the world’s most powerful human being. In any rational comparison of frustrated talent, women, who are half the world’s population, have suffered far more from disempowerment than Africans, Hispanics, Jews or any other racial group.”