Edwards 43, McCain 41.
McCain 47, Clinton 43
McCain 43, Obama 38.
I’m an Obama fan. Right now, he looks to me like a strong candidate and potentially a great President. (Funny, too; a sign of both intelligence and character.)
And the symbolism would be awesome: not just at home, but abroad. Maybe a President named Barack Hussein Obama wouldn’t have any better luck dealing with the world’s billion Muslims than someone named, say, George Bush. But he’d start out with an edge, wouldn’t he now?
Still, anyone who mistakes me for an expert on political strategy may be a candidate for Lasik. And though polls, especially this far out, don’t tell us everything, they tell us something. Right now, they’re telling us that John Edwards would beat John McCain in a general election. Only by two points, mind, but two up is better than four down (Hillary) or five down (Obama). The bad news for Clinton is that there are only 10% undecided; in a McCain-Obama race there are 19%.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA Homepage
Curriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman
i'm not sure your first point is true. mightn't the muslim hatred for apostates transfer to a family situation?
I predict that as the disaster in Iraq continues to unfold, exacerbated by the introduction of addition US troops, McCain will be completely discredited. By election day 2008, McCain won't be a viable candidate for dogcatcher anywhere in the country. I sincerely hope he receives the Republican nomination.
Perhaps there's literature on this I am not aware of, but who is to say someone who supports McCain now won't support Clinton? I'm not talking about the staunch conservative from Oklahoma, but rather the moderate from Ohio. Maybe it's because I love defending the underdog no matter what, but I still envision a scenario where Clinton is very competitive with the GOP candidate, no matter what his name is.
Never ever ever underestimate Hillary Clinton. When she first surfaced my impression of her was that she was a "type" that I knew in law school, the smug know-it-all, and I found her more that a little distasteful. But - she has now been my senator her in NY for over six years and I have been impressed as hell with the job she has done. I never thought it would happen, but I voted for her. And she has been so good that I'd certainly consider voting for her for President if I had the chance.
I can't believe I'm the only person who feels this way. The high negatives are based on some lingering residue from her husband's years as president. She can do a lot to dispell that. She's nobody's fool and knows when to keep her mouth shut and when to speak, and when she speaks, what to say. Do not underestimate her. Yes, she seems rehearsed. That shows she's careful. To me that's not a negative.