John McCain is a controversial figure in the Republican Party. He has a history as a moderate; whether or not he deserves the label is up for speculation. He angers many on the far right because of his previous disdain for the Bush Tax-cuts, his support for the environment, his views on immigration, and his previous statements on the religious right. McCain may be the strongest Republican in terms of Independents, but he is the weakest amongst the GOP. Believe me, as long as Republicans aren't dedicated to the total and utter destruction of the Democratic candidate, many of them may not have the energy to go out and vote.

Trust me, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, they're coming out.

Edwards was probably the candidate least likely to anger the GOP, even though he was probably the candidate the most at odds with them. The truth is, especially in the South, Edwards anti-establishment/populist message resonated even amongst some members of the religious right. And while Obama's skin color is certain to anger many in the deep South (which has been making me feel ashamed to be a Southerner recently), his message will likely resonate with Republicans in other areas, where race doesn't matter as much.

But Hillary is a unifying figure. Not for Democrats, no. Hillary has been so controversial in her own party that many Obama supporters have vowed not to support her in November. Mind you, most of these supporters are Democratic-leaning Independents, many of whom voted for John McCain in the GOP Primaries in 2000. But there are plenty of angry Democrats who do not want to see another dynasty similar to the Bush Family. What's next? Chelsea running for Congress?

No, Hillary will unite the GOP. Hillary brings back Bill with her, and the two of them are the most hated Republican enemies in recent history. Even if John McCain is the nominee, the most red-of-the-red will be out there daily campaigning for the GOP in order to keep Hillary out. Not only that, this unified Republican Party may be able to sap some house seats from us, and keep us from gaining 5 or even 6 Senate seats (we'll pick up two or three and likely lose one).

Hillary Clinton claims to be a uniter. But if this past week is any clue, the only thing Hillary Clinton can unite is the Republican Party. And even if John McCain is better than Bush, that's not much of an accomplishment. We need a solid Democrat in the White House. It is the only way to get our Foreign Policy back on track, to halt the increase of economic disparities between the classes, to end the threat of Global Warming, to solve the Health Care Crisis, and to make America believe in it's government again. Hillary Clinton, as much as she wants to be President, will not do this. John McCain will beat her. Solidly. Her message of "experience" doesn't work against McCain, who beats her in spades there.

With Edwards gone, the only hope Democrats have to defeat John McCain is to nominate Barack Obama to the presidency. One who can compete with McCain amongst Independents. One who is, like McCain, consistent on the war (albeit on the other end of the spectrum) and all other platforms. With Hillary v McCain, it's Experience v Experience. In such a race, McCain easily wins. In Obama v McCain, it's Change v Experience. At least there, we have a shot.

Supporting Obama is not only a smart move, it may by a necessary one.

And that is the idea that somehow the election of Hillary Clinton is going to galvanize GOP regulars to come out and vote in droves, and that will swing the election for McCain.

You seem pretty knowledgeable and analytical about this stuff. When does that ever really happen?

Nixon was hated intensely, but still managed to win two elections, one by a landslide.

Didn't the right wing really hate Bill Clinton? He managed to win in 1996.

How much did we on the left hate George W. Bush in 2004? Well, how often does John Kerry hear "Hail to the Chief" when he enters a room?

I think these types of hatred motivations can carry the day in off-year elections (1994 and 2006 being just two recent examples), where intensity of feeling can carry the day in a congressional district or even a sparsely populated state, but in presidential elections, there is no historical basis for this thinking that I can divine.

repeating the same meme over and over doesn't make it any more true.

I understand the argument. Can you address my argument -- that history suggests that the conventional wisdom is wrong.  

I think Hillary would EASILY beat Romney.  Why?  No matter how "energized" the right would be to beat her, Romney would attract virtually no Independents, and the Dem-Indie coalition would crush the GOP on it's own.

Not the same case with McCain.  In fact, judging by the way Independents have voted in the election thus far, I'm assuming most Independents would side with McCain.

History be damned, aznew.  This race is very different.  Both races you mentioned, Nixon v Humphrey and Clinton v Bush I, had one thing in common: a strong third candidate.  This race will not have one (unless Bloomberg gets in).  So trying to compare the extreme circumstances of the last one are irrelevant.  Many people DID dislike Clinton.  But instead of voting for Bush, who they also disliked, they voted for Perot.  Same with Nixon v Humphrey.  Had it not been for Wallace's success in the South and amongst Conservative Democrats in other areas, Humphrey would've won.  Unless anti-Hillary Republicans are given another option (and remember, there are a LOT of them), I don't see how Hillary plans to win.

Are you seriously arguing that the Wallace campaign in 1968 stole rabid anti-Nixon from Humphrey? That election actually bolsters my point.

As for Clinton, I was referring to 1996, but your point holds. And I would grant you that some anti-Clinton vote went to Perot.  I'll grant that 1996 is not as clear.

What about 2004? Hatred of Bush was pretty intense.

If the GOP thinks it can depend upon a victory in 2008 because people want to vote against Hillary Clinton, they won't stand a chance. I welcome that strategy from there. It puts total control of the outcome in our candidates hands, since I don't think the Clinton haters can get much more enraged at her.

Especially in the South.  Remember, Wallace actually won a lot of Electoral Votes.  Yellow dogs who never would've imagined voting Republican voted for Wallace.  Remember, this is before the Reagan Revolution.  I'm studying this in a class right now, and there's no doubt that a vast majority of Wallace voters considered themselves "Democrats" in the old Southern sense.

As for 1996, Bob Dole was a HORRIBLE candidate.  McCain, on the other hand, is not.  Yes, he's old. But he's personable, he's a hero, and the media loves him.  It's impossible not to respect the guy.  

And 2004 was quite simple: the right's love of Bush was stronger than left's hatred of Bush.  The GOP had a 27% increased turnout in 2004.  The Democrats had a 17% increased turnout.  So yes, hatred for a candidate is not overwhelming.  

But in all your analysis, you seem to continue to forget independent voters. In 1996 and 2004, Independents sided with the Democrats.  In 2008, with McCain, that would not be certain.  Obama may be able to neutralize or even beat McCain there.  Hillary could not.  Polls have frequently shown that Hillary's support amongst Independents is a lot weaker than both McCain's and Obama's.

I just wasn't talking about them.

And I am not arguing that Clinton would be more electable than Obama. I've said many times that it is impossible to predict an election 10 months out, and that is not a basis on which I would cast a vote. I mean, McCain was being left for dead 8 months ago.

You explain away each of my examples on a different basis, but there will always be an infinite number of factors that will affect the outcome of any election that can explain results.

As for 1968, I appreciate your argument. I think it's questionable though whether the dissolution of the solid South, which clearly took hold in 1972, would have been accelerated one election cycle had Wallace not been there.  

I predict that Mark Warner will win the Senate seat this year.

Boom.  Election predicted.

As for "solid South" dissolution, it was pretty damned solid for Carter in 1976.  I would still argue it was Reagan, not Nixon, who conquered the South.  

Whoever aznew is, I don't know.  But I do know that "feeding him/her" does no good.

I've been nothing but civilized and respectful in my discussions.

I just don't agree.

respectful in your comments here, even though we've disagreed more than we've agreed on Obama vs. Clinton.  I certainly don't believe you're a "troll" in any way.  Thanks for your contributions to RK.

And I'm enjoying the debate.  I'll keep going as long as it stays civil.

Bush was president in 2004, Clinton was president in 1996, and Nixon was president in 1968.  It helps if you're an incumbent and you're running for re-election.

But let's look at when Republicans LOST elections in the past many years:

1996: After a bruising primary, they came out with a lackluster candidate -- Bob Dole.  Their base was depressed, and Bill Clinton appealed to enough economic conservatives to win (albeit, not a majority).

1992: After reneging on his promise not to raise taxes, the Republican base was angry with George H.W. Bush.

1976: After Watergate and Nixon resigning, the Democrats were united and the Republican base was depressed.

1964: With a rabid conservative on the ballot who alienated many in the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the party, the Republican base was depressed.

See a pattern?  Democrats win when the Republican base is depressed.  Republicans may be able to stomach Bill Clinton, but they hate Hillary.  Their base won't be depressed if she's the nominee.

The first paragraph should say, "Bush was president in 2004, Clinton was president in 1996, and Nixon was president in 1972.  It helps if you're an incumbent and you're running for re-election."

I think we could depress the GOP base with Obama, who they won't be fire up to go vote for.  And they won't adore McCain.

As I said above, there are always innumerable factors that affect elections.

Let me make the point another way. I can't think of a national election in the modern era in which one of the nominees was so hated by the base of the other party that it fired up that party's base sufficiently to defeat him.

So, I think this argument that we shouldn't nominate Hillary because she might fire up the GOP base is entirely bogus. Who cares?

Like, what if I said the Pats ought not start Tom Brady because, as it turns out, the Giants really hate the guy, and they don't want them getting too psyched up for the game.

I don't think a lot of Republicans hated Bill Clinton -- many of them did, but not all of them.

Not a lot of Democrats hated George W. Bush in 2000 (I didn't), they just saw him as suspiciously too conservative and not qualified to be president.

And while a lot of Democrats despised Ronald Reagan, a heck of a lot of them voted for him too!

This isn't a football game where everyone on each side is dedicated to beating the other one -- for a lot of these swing voters, it matters who we put up as our nominee.  And for a lot of sad semi-motivated Republicans, McCain doesn't give them a reason to get out and vote. Hillary as the nominee, on the other hand, gives them all the reason in the world to vote.

A friend of mine was working on Capitol Hill for a Republican no more than six months ago, before she left. If Obama's our nominee, she's voting for Obama.  If Hillary's our nominee, she's voting for McCain.

Let's stop fear mongering.  McCain is older than Reagan when he first ran.  Not only that, but his Republican brethren dislike him and some with a passion.  I mean with their combined hate of McCain and the Clintons if they manage to make it to the poll, they are most likely to spontaneously combust rather than cast a vote.  As for those prized "independents", there is plenty of time between now and the election to either turn them to the Democratic side or discourage them from voting along with the Republican base.

The problem is this:

1)The race started so early this time around
2) They have been encouraged like never before to participate in the process.

Many Independents have already made it clear that they have made up their minds.  Had this race been only a year and a half long, I would agree with you.  But this race has been going on over two years.  In Edwards case, nearly four.  Independents know what they want.  Just read an exit poll or two.  They are far, far, far more interested in McCain than Clinton.  Hell, most Obama Independents I've talked to, those who hate politics but are getting involved to vote for Obama this time, are adamant that if Clinton wins, they are voting for McCain.  

is that people are not unchanging automatons.  Obviously if they were, Hillary Clinton would have sailed through this primary process.  If you want to pull polling data, I would think only 30% of America is as stubborn or immutable as our president (the 30% that still thinks he is doing a great job).  The rest of the populace changes their minds all the time.  What some might deride as flip-flopping.

Let's just wait and see.  I think we'll have plenty of people rehashing the erratic behavior charge.  There will be subtle and overt messages about his age.  And then you have all this bile that Republicans spew against him.  The talking heads on the radio hate McCain with a passion.  All of this says to me depressed turn out for the Republican base.  And it says there will be plenty of things floating around to change independents' mind.

After being called extinct, it is nice to now be "prized", like the dinosaurs rising out of the tar pits.  For me the easiest way to defeat McCain is to hit him on the economy, he admits he doesn't understand economics.  Also play over and over his rant that we should expect endless wars, and to be prepared for large numbers of US casualities.

And I suspect many other people have this same reason: we don't want two families ruling this nation for all of our adult lives - we don't want our children growing up under the rule of Clintons or Bushs.

In addition to that, I believe she has sold out to big business.  I can't in good conscience vote for someone who has never met a lobbyist she won't take money from.

Hillary Clinton is a great politician.  We don't need another politician.  We need a leader.

I'm sorry to disappoint anyone here on my allegiance to the Democratic party, but in my mind our nation is much more important than this party.  Hillary Clinton is wrong for our nation.  We need new blood and new ideas, not to create a dynasty and feed the ego of Hillary Clinton.