Nicholas Kristof's op-ed piece on today's New York Times ("Who is More Electable?") essentially argues that Obama has a better chance at beating McCain. One clue, he says is that "in Tuesday’s balloting in 14 'red states' that were won by President George W. Bush in 2004. Mr. Obama won nine while Hillary Rodham Clinton won four and is ahead in the fifth."
In other niches: "Mr. Obama does surprisingly well among evangelical Christians, an important constituency in swing states. For example, Relevant magazine, which caters to young evangelicals, asked its readers: 'Who would Jesus vote for?' Mr. Obama was the winner and came out 27 percentage points ahead of Mrs. Clinton."
And, are we more sexist or racist?: "Another way of looking at electability is to wonder whether it’s more of a disadvantage to be black or to be female. Shirley Chisholm, the black woman who ran for president in 1972, argued in effect that there were more sexists than racists in America. 'I met more discrimination as a woman, than for being black,' Ms. Chisholm once said. . . . And recent polling and psychology research seem to back that up."
One compelling argument that I haven't seen anyone make is the Black Republican's vote. How could it possibly be for Hillary and how large is that faction of voters?
[Ilya Somin] Happy Saturnalia!
2 hours ago