It's a bit of a shock for this to sink in, but even in my wildest political prognostication I never imagined the presidential race shaping up as being between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
Barack Obama has come from behind to turn the Democratic presidential race in New Hampshire into a toss-up, according to a new Monitor opinion poll. The results - which show Obama with a one-point edge over Hillary Clinton - mirror other polls released this week, indicating that Clinton's once-imposing lead has evaporated in the run-up to New Hampshire's Jan. 8 primary.
The poll suggests that the Democratic race could hinge on the turnout of undeclared voters, who aren't registered with either political party. Much of Obama's backing comes from undeclared voters, while registered Democrats make up the bulk of Clinton's support. In New Hampshire, undeclared voters can vote in either party primary, giving them sway in both contests.
"The more undeclared voters that decide to vote in the Democratic primary, the better chance Obama wins," said Del Ali, president of Research 2000, the Maryland-based nonpartisan polling firm that conducted the poll for the Monitor on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. "What Hillary Clinton has to hope is that more of the established Democrats come out to vote."
If the Democratic race is in flux, the Republican race in New Hampshire has remained constant in recent months, with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney continuing to hold a double-digit lead over his nearest competitors.
If we look at the current Obama versus Romney polls (averaged from 11/11 through 12/11) Obama beats Romney by 11.5 points, (Romney 37.5, Obama 49).
Against Hillary Clinton, Romney does somewhat better, but he still loses by 10.2 points to Hillary (40.0% to her 50.2%)
McCain's the only candidate who can really give Obama a run for his money;
45.3% McCain to 46.3% for Obama is probably within the cumulative error margin.
Fred Thompson does better against Obama than Romney (39.3 to 50.3), but is nowhere near as close as Giuliani or McCain.
None of this means Republicans should start freaking out about Obama, because the polls consistently show he's easier to beat than Hillary (although he still wins).
Still, a lot will depend on whether the Republicans are interested enough in winning the election to run a candidate who can win.
With Obama as a potential opponent, Romney as the nominee worries me, because he is the easiest candidate for Obama to beat.
He's also the easiest candidate for Hillary to beat.
So what the hell is wrong with the Republicans? Why is Romney -- the easiest guy to beat -- leading the pack?
Is it that they just don't care whether they lose? Because, if that's the case, it might be time for them to start worrying about whom they most want to lose to.
I'm wondering whether anyone has polled registered Republican voters to see whether they'd prefer Obama or Hillary. Because if they're going to pick Romney, they might as well decide on his opponent now.
This will sound cynical, but I'd rather see Barack Obama as president than Hillary Clinton. Yeah, I know he's more left wing, but his administration would give the country a chance to finally repudiate its racist vestiges. It would be nice to have a break from the endless cycles of the Clinton-Bush hate machines. Try as I might, I just don't think a major case of Obama Derangement Syndrome is likely. There will be some, but it won't be "payback time again" as it would if Hillary were elected.
If Romney must run, maybe it would be better for the country to have him lose to Obama rather than Hillary.
From a purely selfish standpoint, it would be easier for me to vote for Romney over Hillary, because while I might have to hold my nose, it wouldn't be any worse than it was to vote for Bush against Kerry. But it'll be harder to hold my nose if the alternative is Obama. In fact, it would be agonizing, excruciating, and I might need a barf bag. So in that respect, having Hillary run would make my job as a voter easier.
I never imagined that she might not be on the ballot, though.
It's challenging.
MORE: I know it's not scientific, but I thought this called for a poll:
MORE: Glenn Reynolds links some speculation about Mitt Romney being "the right's John Kerry." If he is, that might make it easier for Obama, who lacks Hillary's rather notorious negatives.
Many have remarked that in the last election Bush didn't win, but Kerry lost.
Are we entering a political era in which victory is determined more by who loses than who wins? A battle of the dilemmas? (You know, instead of "may the best man win," it's "may the worst man lose!")
(Worth reading. Maybe Romney isn't as certain a deal as everyone thinks.)
posted by Eric on 12.14.07 at 05:22 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5903
Comments
You don't give Romney enough credit. The man would make a fantastic president and has got more brains than any of the other candidates. People just arent realizing it yet. He would beat Obama or Hillary, and I believe easily. The people who think Romney is the easiest to beat because just haven't gotten the chance to know him
Jennifer · December 14, 2007 06:38 PM
I'm just going by the polls, of course. The numbers could all change.
But until today, I had given no thought to a Romney versus Obama race, and I don't think a lot of other people have either.
Polls in this situation tend to be very inaccurate. That is because people often lie about their prejudices. I suspect that there are a lot of people who won't vote for Obama because he black or Romney because he is a Mormon, but won't tell that to pollsters. There is a lot of historical evidence that people lie to pollsters, even in anonymous polls, about their prejudices.
chocolatier · December 14, 2007 07:14 PM
Obama is quite close the The Nation of Islam. Fortunately there are no racist in that bunch.
I guess the easiest way to repudiate white racism is to elect a covert supporter of black racism.
BTW do you consider wrecking the economy and losing Iraq sufficient pennance for America's racist past?
And why do I have to pay that price? One of my best friends in high school was a black guy. We were drinking buddies. Often just me and him. Why do I have to pay because you feel guilty? Aren't you just socializing your guilt? I think I have heard you rail against that sort of thing before.
On the main topic at hand - I'm a Thompson guy myself. I could live with Guiliani. The rest of the field not so much. Romney is way too Plastic for me.
Don't read me wrong. I've posted about this repudiation issue before. It's not my opinion, nor is it logical, but I think it has strong emotional appeal.
Why does every presidential primary seem to only bring out the corruptly ignorant party's worst against the ignorantly corrupt party's worst. This will be my tenth time watching the farce go down, and each time it looks more like an election of evil clowns, all fronting for their sponsors, all determined to speak of America's Greatness while selling out the non-elites of the country to the highest bidder in a global marketplace.
Oh well, it was a great country while it lasted. Just hope private industry can make the leap to space in time for Classical Values and Culture to survive.
Stewart · December 15, 2007 05:10 AM
Primaries bring out the clowns because they are the warm-up acts, silly. But you KNEW that, you sly devil!
Problem I have with this post, is that you are giving political handlers an extra snack, and lord knows, they are already portly.
Penny · December 15, 2007 09:25 PM
There is one other poll that also explains this... the one where a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican?
The field, outside of HRC is almost, by definition, 'generic' right now to the people of the US. That changes by SEP 2008, but right now there is only one polarizing figure and she is a negative not only turning people off to her but *against* her as time goes on. Once you remove that spotlight you are left with 'generic' candidates by definition.
Obama is an empty suit from the Illinois Democratic machine and has ties to local organized crime, particularly on land deals. HRC can't bring those up as she *needs* the Illinois machine - she could but then even if she got the nomination, Illinois goes against her and there is zero she can threaten those criminal connections with as she has too many of them, herself.
On the Republican side... Huckabee? Remember that Hope is a town in Arkansas, not a plan. Romney? Governor of Taxechussettes. Giuliani? A NY 'conservative' is anyone else's 'moderate' at best and for all his putting up that he 'hasn't changed his positions' that is getting to bug some folks because he has done so. Thompson? The man folded against the Clintons in the Senate, how is he supposed to have guts enough to face guys like Putin, not to speak of Ahmadinnerjacket without folding. McCain? War hero, anti-free speech, incumbant protector, pro-illegal immigration... and has problems realizing that he does not even begin to understand how internal treaties with Native Americans work or why it is a good idea to let engineers have a bit say on engineering problems in USACE... plus I still remember the Keating 5 and I bet a few other folks do, too.
You can read anything you want into an empty suit, and Obama speaks great on platitudes, short on actually having a conception of what the US can do in the world, save for apologize all the time for existing. Plus his land deals which, to the locals in Chi-town, apparently go back quite a ways involving legislation passed while he was a State Senator. Obama remains generic because HRC can't bring that up nor anyone on the Democratic side that wants Illinois in the D column. That would wait until the general election and he would have to get that out way ahead of time, like before the Democratic Nomination and actually way before mid-FEB so that Democrats don't look at him slant-wise about those connections.
Forecasting now, for the general, can't be done without internal party dynamics taken into account.
I would like a *real* field of candidates out there, and not this strange brew of Big Government types who talk a great game, but have some problems backing it up by action. I am an ABC voter: Anyone But Clinton.
If the D party does not nominate her, all bets are off as I find the rest of the field on both sides problematical and the old write-in for Cthulhu looks really, really good... if you are going to hell, then experienced leadership is key.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
You don't give Romney enough credit. The man would make a fantastic president and has got more brains than any of the other candidates. People just arent realizing it yet. He would beat Obama or Hillary, and I believe easily. The people who think Romney is the easiest to beat because just haven't gotten the chance to know him