Who is more electable?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It seems after months of saying #1 the forum now seems to think #2 and that Hillary is actually a strong candidate for who knows what reason.

[Reaganfan]

Probably Edwards

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Obama is more electable. there are a large number of people who will not vote for hillary just because its her. lots of democrats as well that will not vote for her.

[Lief 🗽]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66706.0

Edwards is the most electable, but of the two, Clinton.

[exopolitician]

Amongst younger voters Obama, but Clinton overall unfortunately.

[Nutmeg]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66706.0

That's a different question, though.


Obama, hands down.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Have the Hillary voters been ignoring every single favorability poll ever?

[WalterMitty]

hillary.

[Math]

Edwards. Or Obama...

[gorkay]

It's a tough question. Both of them have plusses and minuses. Given the mood of the electorate right now I would say that Obama is, because he has been successful at portraying himself as the "change" candidate, and voters are looking for a change. This is bad news for Clinton, who is seen to some extent as the agent of the status quo. I think a big reason for the problems she is having now is simple; it's something a politician friend of mine told me a year ago and that really seems to be happening now. After four years of Bush Senior, eight of Clinton, and eight more of Bush Junior, a lot of voters are balking at the idea of four to eight years of another Clinton and are shopping around for someone new. It doesn't have so much to do with them not liking her (although a lot of people don't, some for good reasons and some for not so good) but with her just seeming like more of the same.

Obama is, as Bill Clinton said, a "roll of the dice." Not that much is known about him-- which is working in his favor right now. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter in 1976, not substantively but in the source of his appeal. He has been able to position himself as the representative of "change" without alienating too many people by being specific about what kind of change he represents. Thus he's getting the best of both worlds. There's a lot of danger in such an approach-- the time will come when he will be forced to get more concrete about his positons and plans, and then he'll start seeming more like just another politician. This happened to Carter too, and almost cost him both the nomination and the election at different times. But right now Obama is riding the crest of the wave, and it might be enough-- especially in this outrageously front-loaded nominating season-- to get him the nomination.

The other great imponderable about them both, which will come more into play in the general-election season, is how their status as trail-blazers will affect their prospects. I see a great potential for Obama to get a huge number of African-American votes if he's nominated, enough to account for the margin of victory in states where you wouldn't normally think a Democrat would be favored. But I have a feeling that the chance to vote for the first African-American presidential candidate of a major party could send black voters to the polls in droves, including many who don't usually vote and have never even voted before. Some of the same sort of thing might come into play for Clinton, but I don't see it as being nearly as large a factor. Of course, there may well be a backlash for both of them too. How many people who would otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate this year won't if the candidate is an African-American or a woman? I know those people are out there; the question is how many of them there are.

[ShadowRocket]

Edwards is the most electable. But Obama is more electable than Hillary.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Obama is more electable. He may be black and his middle name might be Hussein, but his negatives are unlikely to touch Hillary's: Middle America thinks she's an atheist lesbian communist who cavorts with homosexual deviants and drinks the blood of aborted babies. Obama isn't quite so polarizing, and has much more crossover appeal, as demonstrated in his senate campaign. Therefore I think he's more electable.

[MarkWarner08]

It's a tough question. Both of them have plusses and minuses. Given the mood of the electorate right now I would say that Obama is, because he has been successful at portraying himself as the "change" candidate, and voters are looking for a change. This is bad news for Clinton, who is seen to some extent as the agent of the status quo. I think a big reason for the problems she is having now is simple; it's something a politician friend of mine told me a year ago and that really seems to be happening now. After four years of Bush Senior, eight of Clinton, and eight more of Bush Junior, a lot of voters are balking at the idea of four to eight years of another Clinton and are shopping around for someone new. It doesn't have so much to do with them not liking her (although a lot of people don't, some for good reasons and some for not so good) but with her just seeming like more of the same.

Obama is, as Bill Clinton said, a "roll of the dice." Not that much is known about him-- which is working in his favor right now. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter in 1976, not substantively but in the source of his appeal. He has been able to position himself as the representative of "change" without alienating too many people by being specific about what kind of change he represents. Thus he's getting the best of both worlds. There's a lot of danger in such an approach-- the time will come when he will be forced to get more concrete about his positons and plans, and then he'll start seeming more like just another politician. This happened to Carter too, and almost cost him both the nomination and the election at different times. But right now Obama is riding the crest of the wave, and it might be enough-- especially in this outrageously front-loaded nominating season-- to get him the nomination.

The other great imponderable about them both, which will come more into play in the general-election season, is how their status as trail-blazers will affect their prospects. I see a great potential for Obama to get a huge number of African-American votes if he's nominated, enough to account for the margin of victory in states where you wouldn't normally think a Democrat would be favored. But I have a feeling that the chance to vote for the first African-American presidential candidate of a major party could send black voters to the polls in droves, including many who don't usually vote and have never even voted before. Some of the same sort of thing might come into play for Clinton, but I don't see it as being nearly as large a factor. Of course, there may well be a backlash for both of them too. How many people who would otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate this year won't if the candidate is an African-American or a woman? I know those people are out there; the question is how many of them there are.

[Aizen]

Obama is more electable. Fact.

[7,052,770]

Obama probably, but I'm not totally sure.

Who knows what they'll be able to dig up on him though.  They're not going to find anything new on Hillary that we don't already know.  Her approval isn't going to get any worse, it can only go up.  Obama's could still go down.

[Person Man]

Obama probably, but I'm not totally sure.

Who knows what they'll be able to dig up on him though.  They're not going to find anything new on Hillary that we don't already know.  Her approval isn't going to get any worse, it can only go up.  Obama's could still go down.

Yeah. Hillary is this election's Bush in 2004. She is divisive and unpopular, but is well known. She also has a stereotypical culture of about 25% of the population's goal  in life is to have her in the White House. Her objective should be to smear the hell out of the other guy. She must show that her opponent is unacceptable and she will win. That will be a sinch with everyone except for maybe McCain and even he created some pitfalls for himself. He can be shown as the guy who is popular because he says what you want him to say while Hillary can say that she is divisive because she has a strong, clear plan.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Obama probably, but I'm not totally sure.

Who knows what they'll be able to dig up on him though.  They're not going to find anything new on Hillary that we don't already know.  Her approval isn't going to get any worse, it can only go up.  Obama's could still go down.

Yeah. Hillary is this election's Bush in 2004. She is divisive and unpopular, but is well known. She also has a stereotypical culture of about 25% of the population's goal  in life is to have her in the White House. Her objective should be to smear the hell out of the other guy. She must show that her opponent is unacceptable and she will win. That will be a sinch with everyone except for maybe McCain and even he created some pitfalls for himself. He can be shown as the guy who is popular because he says what you want him to say while Hillary can say that she is divisive because she has a strong, clear plan.

she also has the establishment behind her, as did Bush. Both are very polarizing, and both will/did raise record amounts of money. it will be tough to beat her. even though obama is polling well in iowa and new hampshire, clinton still leads florida by over 30%. obama will need to win both iowa and new hampshire to have any hope, and even then she may still win.

[Eraserhead]

Obama easily.

[user60521]

As far as the Democrats are concerned,  by far I think their best chance is John Edwards.  The reason is that I think he would still win the same states as Kerry,  but would fair far better than Obama and Clinton in swing mid western states like West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, and some southern states like Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, and his home state of North Carolina and western states like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Montana.  All if which are states that Clinton won, minus Virginia, but that Bush has won the last two elections.  The polls have been much more favorable to Edward than Obama and Clinton in more rural midwestern and southern states.
As far as the Republicans go, the race is going to be an up hill battle.  I think their best bet is Huckabee.  He seems to have that under-dog appeal.