Another of my posts on Pollster.com, continuing the discussion on the SurveyUSA 50-state poll:
The way opinions are presented here on this board, it appears as if irrespective of whether Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is the nominee, each is going to lose. Women will walk away if a man with 20+ years of varied life experience (successful and smart, not a legacy candidate like Bush-43) is nominated, while Obamacans, ABCs and some independents will vote McCain if Senator Clinton wins.
When Senator Kerry was elected the nominee in 2004, I was very unhappy - the Dems kept going for the purported "electable" candidate (I supported Senator Edwards then). That's a crock IMHO - the only popular (= re-elected) Democratic candidate elected in the last 40 years (or, to my knowledge, any full-term, re-elected President since FDR, barring Nixon's shenanigans) has been someone who could connect with *all* voters - men and women, Black and White and Brown. That can be said of only one Clinton.
Sorry, but that's the truth. Nothing against Senator Clinton's capabilities, but Governor Richardson, Senators Biden, Dodd and Gephardt, and a bunch of other very fine, experienced Democrats are just as capable, were directly involved longer in elected and/or accountable positions, and yet were soundly rejected by the electorate, in 2004 and 2008.
Here's a thought experiment - IF Senator Clinton was not running this year, who would the Democrats have voted for? Would we have seen this same "oh, a suave, smart, young, relatively untainted, dynamic person is winning over an experienced person, so we should not vote for him" dynamic?
You can keep thinking that voters are choosing Senator Clinton for her experience, but all those fine, experienced, multiply-elected Democrats who dropped out after getting less than 5% of the vote in Iowa and NH would beg to differ.