So, who takes the DEM nomination?

[scrapinpeg]

Hillary is on track to amassing a truly staggering amount of money to spend on her campaign. Best guesses are somewhere around $10,000,000 by the end of this month already.

That money is mostly going to be spent on TV ads. Those ads are useful only to sway undecided voters, really. The people who already made up their minds to vote one way or the other are rarely affected by TV ads or other things campaigns spend money on.

About 38% of voters tend to vote the party line for Democrats, and about the same number tend to vote the party line for Republicans. So the fight is for the 24% or so in the middle.

The trouble for Hillary is, a lot of people from both sides of the political spectrum have already made up their minds NOT to vote for her. In a Zogby poll the other day, 46% of likely voters said they'd never vote for her under any circumstances. 18% of Democrats said they'd never vote for her under any circumstances (this number has been growing lately).

If I was working for her campaign, there's several things to worry about in these two stats. First of all, she's losing significant support in her own party's base. That's a big worryer, and it's going to require a lot of campaigning to bring the base back around, which siphons off resources from going after the critical undecideds.

Secondly, it's practically unheard of that so many voters would express such an absolute preference so early in the game. This means she has a hard reputation to overcome, and that means a lot of work. And the chances of changing minds that are already made up are slim. Starting to act contrary to reputation tends not to work, as it is seen as mere hypocrisy and campaign play-acting (see the reaction to her faux-southern speechifying recently).

Thirdly, the fact that nearly half the country -- significantly more than the number of automatic Republican voters -- is dead set against her means that the number of undecided voters out there would be decidedly smaller this time around were she to get the nomination. All those campaign dollars, after rallying her own base, would be spent on trying to convince a slim margin of voters in electorally significant battleground states. How to do that without turning them off with the campaign overload that would be demanded?

Anyway, it looks like her campaign staff has its work cut out for it, despite the fact that it is accumulating such a large warchest. Given the fact that parties tend to nominate candidates they see as "electable," rather than candidates they see as best qualified to do the job, I would not at all be surprised if the Democrats decided to go with someone else next year.

[dcmdale]

Given the fact that parties tend to nominate candidates they see as "electable," rather than candidates they see as best qualified to do the job, I would not at all be surprised if the Democrats decided to go with someone else next year.

I agree with your analysis. The one thing I question is this party's commitment to running electable candidates. (I absolutely agree that it *should* be their goal).

The accelerated primary schedule is not going to help them find a better candidate.

[Inquartata]

If this trend plays out, eventually we are probably going to wind up with every state holding its primaries on January 1st.

The Clinton Machine is unlikely to yield to the realities of electability, and is powerful enough to stymy those who might want it to do so. But then, it may very well also be powerful enough and clever enough to get an "unelectable" candidate elected anyway...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

About 38% of voters tend to vote the party line for Democrats, and about the same number tend to vote the party line for Republicans. So the fight is for the 24% or so in the middle.

The trouble for Hillary is, a lot of people from both sides of the political spectrum have already made up their minds NOT to vote for her. In a Zogby poll the other day, 46% of likely voters said they'd never vote for her under any circumstances. 18% of Democrats said they'd never vote for her under any circumstances (this number has been growing lately).

If I was working for her campaign, there's several things to worry about in these two stats. First of all, she's losing significant support in her own party's base. That's a big worryer, and it's going to require a lot of campaigning to bring the base back around, which siphons off resources from going after the critical undecideds.

Secondly, it's practically unheard of that so many voters would express such an absolute preference so early in the game. This means she has a hard reputation to overcome, and that means a lot of work. And the chances of changing minds that are already made up are slim. Starting to act contrary to reputation tends not to work, as it is seen as mere hypocrisy and campaign play-acting (see the reaction to her faux-southern speechifying recently).

Thirdly, the fact that nearly half the country -- significantly more than the number of automatic Republican voters -- is dead set against her means that the number of undecided voters out there would be decidedly smaller this time around were she to get the nomination. All those campaign dollars, after rallying her own base, would be spent on trying to convince a slim margin of voters in electorally significant battleground states. How to do that without turning them off with the campaign overload that would be demanded?

Anyway, it looks like her campaign staff has its work cut out for it, despite the fact that it is accumulating such a large warchest. Given the fact that parties tend to nominate candidates they see as "electable," rather than candidates they see as best qualified to do the job, I would not at all be surprised if the Democrats decided to go with someone else next year.

Possible tactic for Hillary team:

Try to influence the GOP race in such a way so that they nominate a candidate which has even higher negatives! How about a Hillary vs. Gingrich race? Not sure how to do that influencing, though.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[introspective]

You know we've never elected a Jewish President. It's been very waspy up until now and I understand that it's really the 13state thing and the whole political process, but we need a little cullah now. What about another Greenspan? [are we ready to Span the Globe - get global?] I'm looking forward to having a pres that comes from a different religious background. It took a lot to get JFK in because he was a Catholic - very 'different' most all pres' have been sorta Waspy - and I mean that very specifically - As Jesse Jackson was want to say "It's time for a Change" - even if he called everyone heimies. If we vote for a female, she has to be a brain - someone like Thatcher - someone that everyone hated, and feared because she was so smart and tough. I'm getting burned out on the Evil Axis theme. It's very old. The axis thing comes from a completelyl different time-span. I'm dissapointed that people are into this Hillary chick - even Jerry Rubin would be a better choice.