George Will likes Obama, dislikes Huck, Edwards, Clinton

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Just saw an amusing poll from SUSA. It's about general elections in IA, the state that knows Clinton and Obama the best. Here are the results:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/01/07/1st-look-at-iowa-after-caucus-rush-to-jump-on-obama-bandwagon/

Granted, Giuliani didn't campaign in the state, but a 40% deficit in a state that Bush won? That's pretty pathetic...

In the interests of balance, I should point out that SUSA just released a poll on OH, where Clinton performed comparably with Obama (slightly better against McCain, slightly worse against Romney). But I would attribute that to Obama's lack of exposure in the state.

Theyre all overwhelmed with Obama now, the GOP candidates have been running against each other, and not Obama. I wouldnt count on that poll as an indicator of anything.

[Impaler[WrG]]

An Obama presidency might be a partisan one in which the parties doggedly oppose each others agendas and nothing can be accomplished with out 60 vote control of the senate. With Obamas greater potential to draw independents he can carry more 'down ticket' senators with him then Clinton and get more done in such an environment.

On the the other hand theirs good reason to believe that Obamas idealism would translate into a less rancorous Washington environment in which case he doesn't need solid control to move the agenda.

Either way the advantage for the party and its agenda is to have Obama, Hillary will absolutely be confrontational and vengeful towards the Republicans and they will intern dig in their heels all the more to oppose her and without a blow out in the senate seats up for grabs the government will grind to a halt which is what voters hate the most as both sides become pissed their agenda isn't being moved.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]

On the the other hand theirs good reason to believe that Obamas idealism would translate into a less rancorous Washington environment in which case he doesn't need solid control to move the agenda.

My sense is that they are quite capable of working together here, the Senates pretty collegial. When they dont, its for calculated reasons, not out of emotion. I dont think Obamas rhetoric (I honestly dont think hes more personally idealistic than most others) will matter all that much.

Either way the advantage for the party and its agenda is to have Obama, Hillary will absolutely be confrontational and vengeful towards the Republicans

See, thats what drives me up the wall. Her behavior as a Senator has NOT been like that at all. She's been quite capable of working with GOP Senators. I think thats a big lie about Hillary, and I think its a part of why shes probably going to lose. Obama owes a helluva lot to the destruction machine thats been attacking her for the last 15 years. At some point, maybe at the convention, or after hes inaugurated, it would be nice if he admitted that.

This woman doesnt deserve what shes going through.

[Ramo]

A few quick points:

A doubt all the people in Iowa who voted for her were foreign policy hawks.

I was stating the rationale now, not before IA.

Her theory of governance is that the key is trying to game the system. Well, she did not successfully game IA and her NH strategy (recklessly throwing **** at the wall and seeing what sticks) has been a total disaster. It's as if she didn't even contemplate defeat in IA (something that was a serious possibility from the very beginning).

OTOH, Obama's performance has vindicated his theory of governance, that he could potentially create something approaching a filibuster-proof majority.

I dont think the electorate that supports Obama is fully in agreement about what they will get.

Which major Dem proposal doesn't have broad public support?

Im NOT dismissing him.

You just claimed that his supporters are a bunch of ignorant kids.

Absolutely not. Dems wont all stay united for a policy that doesnt work for the constituent and interest groups (and yes, interest groups have legitimate input, IMO) that support them. And if the policy IS passed with Dems alone, it will be vulnerable when the pendulum swings.

Getting a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the President's approval is difficult for all but the most banal things. McConnell has filibustered to an unprecedented degree (in one session, he has presided over a Congressional Minority that has racked up more filibusters than any other has in two). Universal health care and a substantive law limiting carbon emissions are going to be party line, more or less. There aren't any more Lincoln Chafees in the Senate (Specter, Snowe, Collins, and Smith are pale imitations).

The Dems are looking at the creation of a historic majority, and this time without conservative Dixiecrats (why, in the past, we haven't seen this kind of polarization). Somewhere around 57 Senate D's, and the next President will be able to get a lot done. Some D's might defect, but so might some R's.

And the same thing about our system of governance that makes major policy proposals very difficult to pass, also makes them very difficult to repeal. 'Specially when they have broad popular support. So far, the pendulum set after '32 hasn't come close to swinging far enough to touch key parts of the New Deal and Great Society.

60 Dems is everything.