Originally Posted by bostonjc

In elections, its just as effective to be a like-able candidate as it is to be against a candidate. That is why negative campaigning works to a degree, particularly if a candidate cannot over come the negative issues.

Obama's rise is not based on his race, but it has helped him in predominately Black districts where racial pride is important. Hillary has also benefited from female-pride. But Obama's rise is also based on a lot of anti-Hillary and anti-the past sentiment.

Hillary complains that voters don't know her and the media is not giving her favorable coverage. She has been in the media for 20 years and has generally received favorable coverage since her election to the Senate. The reasons that people don't like her is that they do know her and that they don't want to vote for her. Familiarity breeds contempt.

If Democrat voters wanted experience, they would have chosen Dodd, Biden, or Richardson. Hillary benefits greatly from the 60% female democrat voters.

For Republicans, they will vote for Experience every time, and that is why McCain won the primary over his lesser experienced opponents.

In the end, the election will come down to whether Centrist-voters want McCain's experience, or Obama's change.

Republicans will never vote for a Democrat - even though many say they will vote for Obama. I just don't think Republicans will ever find a "perfect Democrat" that they can vote for. However, McCain may lose the evangelical vote and wall street vote given his derision of both groups.