The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Yesterday, Chris Bowers created a fascinating electoral map that shows the best case scenario of how an Obama/Clinton ticket would fare against McCain/generic running mate by assigning states according to the best performance by either Obama or Clinton against McCain in general election match-ups. As you can imagine, the result was...well...

The result is a blowout, where Democrats hold a statistically significant lead in states with 300 electoral votes, and McCain's "solid" states drop to under 100 electoral votes. If Democrats were to gain only five more points on this map, an entirely doable proposition given the overwhelming Democratic advantage among fundraising and volunteers, and this is a realignment map. At that point, Democrats would win over 400 electoral votes, something we have not accomplished since 1964.

This sort of realignment was always the promise that an Obama candidacy represented, transformation via building an "American majority," but so far it's just not manifesting itself in any meaningful way. Sure, it's still early and yes, Obama regularly beats McCain in national general election match-ups, but looking at the whole picture, Bowers today concludes Obama is not favored in the general election. It's not the way most Obama supporters saw it going down, but more and more it's becoming clear that the best way to fulfill that transformative electoral potential is to add Hillary Clinton to an Obama ticket. Doing otherwise is asking for another 50+1 victory, if that.

MSNBC made an interesting point yesterday. There's been a lot of handwringing lately about how many Democrats are threatening to vote for John McCain in the general if their candidate doesn't win the nomination. In Kentucky, for example, MSNBC exit polls show 32% of Democrats would vote for John McCain if Barack Obama is the nominee. On its face, that seems rather high but MSNBC took the next step and looked back to 2004 and found that actually 30% of Kentucky Democrats voted for George W. Bush against John Kerry. In other words, maybe Democrats aren't more divided than usual after all this year; at the same time, however, it suggests that Obama might really just John Kerry 2.0. On the other hand, only 17% of Kentucky Democrats said they would vote for John McCain if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. She cuts McCain defectors by 50%. That is pretty remarkable.

Not that Kentucky is going to go to the Democrats no matter who is on the ticket, but, as Bowers says:

...we are not going to achieve a realignment unless we win all of the states where one candidate or the other is strong. We need Obama's strength in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon and Washington. We also need Clinton's strength in Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Ohio and West Virginia. If we are going to truly realign the country, we need to win all of those states, plus a few others like Texas, North Carolina, Virginia and Indiana, four seemingly red states where both candidates are performing reasonably well.

In other words, we need to combine the Clinton coalition with the Obama coalitions, rather than arguing over whose coalition is superior.

Indeed. And, how better to do this than to put both candidates on the ticket?

Chris also makes some points that echo some of my own sentiments from a couple weeks ago.

And really, when one looks over the conservative crop of names that are being floated for VP, like Strickland, Webb, and Bayh, isn't Clinton actually preferable to all of them, too? Not to mention that we are going to have to heal the party, and giving Clinton the VP slot is probably the fastest way to do so.

In order to get a real sense of the extent to which adding Clinton to an Obama ticket would prevent defections to McCain and solidify Obama's support in some of the states where she is strongest, every pollster that polls Obama v. McCain and Clinton v. McCain should also poll how McCain performs against the two Democrats on the ticket together. Why they're not already is beyond me.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, obama/clinton (all tags)

Comments

287 Comments

If she makes it

through the vetting process then she can be on the ticket. I'm not worried because she won't make it so sorry this is not happening.

No, she doesn't get a pass because she is Hillary Clinton.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-22 07:28PM | 0 recs
If BO is the head of the ticket - we still

WON'T vote for him.

You have got to get that through your heads.

He is unelectable - even if he tries to woo HRC supporters with her as VP.  WHAT A SLAP IN OUR FACES.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-22 07:52PM | 0 recs
And people like you are why

Hillary will likely not get to be VP.  Her supporters like you won't get behind her on the ticket thus making an option that can reach out to the middle better.

by Student Guy 2008-05-22 07:55PM | 0 recs
Whoever has the most POPULAR votes should be

at the head of the ticket..

To do anything else is wrong. If Obama has the most popular votes, (including Mich and Fla, and a revote should be done if possible, but if not, let them stand) then he should lead, if Clinton does, she should lead.

Through unity their is strength, through division, loss and heartache.

by architek 2008-05-23 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Whoever has the most POPULAR votes should be

If you could accurately count popular votes that might be an argument. But since several states didn't track that in their process you're asking to disenfranchise those states, as well as those uncommitted Michigan folks. No thanks.

by brimur 2008-05-23 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Whoever has the most POPULAR votes should be

That would be another way to do it, rather than selecting a candidate through the process used by the Democratic party.  

I have been thinking we should change the rules in football too, so whoever gains the most yards on the ground wins, no matter how many points the team scores.  We can't count yards gained by passing -- it isn't democratic enough, an elite quarterback throwing to an elite receiver.  (Unless my team does better if we include passing).  And the rules would need to be changed in the middle of the game only if my team was losing on points, but barely winning in ground yardage.  

by Headlight 2008-05-23 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: If BO is the head of the ticket - we still

Why won't you vote for him?  Because he's unelectable?  That seems an odd justification.  

You sound like a sore loser.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 07:57PM | 0 recs
Excuse me?

Maybe that's what you need, unless of course you want another 4 years of McBush, not to mention additional conservative judges on the SCOTUS?

by DemsRising 2008-05-22 07:59PM | 0 recs
At what point does this return to being a Dem site

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 08:03PM | 0 recs
So you're saying don't put Hillary on the ticket.


you only hurt your candidate with comments like this.

using cold logic, why put Hillary on the ticket, if her base would take it as an insult.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 08:08PM | 0 recs
Believe it or not, that might be the result

by lombard 2008-05-22 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: If BO is the head of the ticket - we still

Fine, bye!

We'll find a way to win without you!  I'd rather not, but you're not much of a democrat if you think that trying to take the nomination by employing a hostage strategy is somehow morally acceptable to you.

It's fine... there are Hillary dead enders...  They will be replaced if necessary with others...  I'd rather not...  I'd rather have you be a Democrat again, but we're not going to be bullied into breaking the rules just 'cos YOU have a different preference.

The people voted.  The people decided.  The process has almost run its course.  It will be Obama, and he will be the next president.

He's beaten a Clinton... surely McCain will be much easier to beat than she.

by LordMike 2008-05-22 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: If BO is the head of the ticket - we still

The people decided.

Er, the ones in Florida and Michigan sure didn't.

by He Who Must Not Be Named 2008-05-22 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: If BO is the head of the ticket - we still

They "decided" not to decide.

by RP McMurphy 2008-05-22 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: If BO is the head of the ticket - we still

Bye.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-22 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: If BO is the head of the ticket - we still

You know..... you saying that doesn't help hillary win the nomoination.. so keep saying it... go ahead... help McCain win.

IT still doesn't help hillary or the democrats

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-22 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: If BO is the head of the ticket - we still

Ahh, enjoy the troll-y goodness. I'll be sad to see you leave, your posts were always hilarious.

by ragekage 2008-05-22 09:14PM | 0 recs
who's this "we" you're talking about?

because I can't believe that it is that many people.

I just can't.

Either Obama or Clinton are perfectly acceptable presidential nominees, I don't understand this viceral, irrational disgust some people have with either of them.

by DawnG 2008-05-22 09:37PM | 0 recs
Unfortunately, I do

by lombard 2008-05-22 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: If BO is the head of the ticket - we still

I think you left the rational world quite a while ago.

by Jess81 2008-05-22 11:56PM | 0 recs
Re: If BO is the head of the ticket - we still

So the HRC supporters who want her on the ticket, you think they're all morons?

And you wouldn't vote for Obama because he's not electable? But he's not electable because you won't vote for him.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-23 04:53AM | 0 recs
The Realignment Clinton's Been Waiting For?

I think I understand now why Clinton has been fighting so hard these last few weeks.  

I would not have guessed that she'd want the VP slot, but now that her surrogates are pushing the meme, it explains a lot.  However, I don't think Obama will give it to her, if for no other reason than his campaign will have been bullied into it.  If she wanted the VP slot, maybe she shouldn't have employed the kitchen sink strategy against him?

by mffarrow 2008-05-22 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment Clinton's Been Waiting For?

If she really wanted the VP slot she would have conceded and asked nicely a long time ago.

And please don't tell me that's sexist...... it's not.. it's reality and I'd say the same thing if the situation was reversed

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-22 07:42PM | 0 recs
Total and Complete Nonsense!

The first rule of picking a VP is "To Do No Harm". Every cycle we go through this stupid exercise and come to the same conclusion.  A VP can only hurt a ticket, not help it. The best one can do is 'do no harm'.

Picking Hillary means Bill comes along with the ride too.  Nothing can unite and excite the Republicans more than having the Clintons on the ticket.  It ALL comes back, Whitewater, the Health Care disaster, Monica, and NOT preparing the nation from attack. Bowers electoral map does not compute the conservative reaction to the Clintons on the ticket. It will be huge.

The wishful thinking incorporated in the EV map is nuts.  Florida is gone, no matter who the VP is, just give it up.  McCain is going to win the solid south against Obama, ALL the border states including Missouri. Mountain states (not Colorado) and plains states, plus Alaska and N.H. and McCain starts with 240 EV's.  This baseline figure is NOT going to change much between now and election day. The polarized state of the nation is very similar to 2004. What this ALL comes down to is Michigan, Pennsylvania,and Ohio. McCain needs to win one out of three to win the big chair.  Obama must sweep them all in order to win.  All other discussions is just horse hockey.

by minnehot1 2008-05-23 05:50AM | 0 recs
Baloney!

the whole "Clintons will galvanize the Right" nonsense is old and ridiculous.  

  1. they hate John McCain almost as much.  As it is they'll be holding their noses to vote for him let alone fight for him.  
  2. if you don't think the conservative right will  reject Barack Obama as much as any Clinton you have your head in the clouds.  they are going to sink their teeth so hard into the usual anti-Obama talking points we'll all be reciting JEremiah Wright in our sleep come November.

Bill Clinton is yesterday's GOP devil incarnate. Barack Obama is the monster du jour.  No veep selection is going to help or hurt on that score.

What Bill Clinton can do is deliver the big white currently disenfranchised middle that hasn't been able to put a dime in the bank since 1999.  No significant number of voters blame him for anything except screwing up his chances at a third term.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-23 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Baloney!

the whole "Clintons will galvanize the Right" nonsense is old and ridiculous.  

I disagree.  It is possible that Clinton at the bottom of the ticket would fail to raise the money and votes for McCain that she most definitely would at the top of the ticket.  I have not seen anything in the conservative press.  They are finding things they don't like about him.  There is nothing like the gut level ire they have against Hillary Clinton.  Their hatred of her does not come from their hatred of him.  They hate her as an independent figure.  

BTW, I agree sexism is real.  So is destructive ambition.

by bekhardt 2008-05-23 06:34AM | 0 recs
Are you a trolll or just a fool?

"Not preparing the nation for attack".

That is a horrible, bogus right wing smear.  Clinton made terrorism a top priority and tried to get Bush (via Ashcroft) to do the same, but was rebuffed.

If you are going to spout Bush-absolving, right wing smear talking points against Clinton on this website, it tells me that you are either a Republican troll or a complete dupe.  Or, at the very least, someone who has gotten so whipped up in anti-Clinton fervor that you are just like those who believed all the lies about Clinton during his time in office.  

Basically, zero credibility for someone who blames Clinton for 9-11.

by dcg2 2008-05-23 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Obama will pop up once this nominating fight is over as long as Clinton doesn't work to delegitimize his success and doesn't keep pumping up the gender resentment.  But, no, I don't think she should go on the ticket. She adds in some respects and subtracts in others.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 07:32PM | 0 recs
The Page Is Reporting Bloomberg for VP

Bloomberg is being considered seriously as a VP nominee for McCain. That could blow the whole thing open in terms of making McCain more palatable for moderate and conservative Democrats. It could also make McCain less palatable for conservative Republicans. If you consider that conservatives would stay home considering the Hagee fiasco and now this, if moderate Dems were to cross over and vote for McCain, the GE would essentially be about two factions of the Democrats fighting against each other, again with independents being the deciding factor in the election.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-22 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The Page Is Reporting Bloomberg for VP

Mark my words, Bloomberg won't be McCain's VP. That's serious realignment territory, with SoCons staying home, voting "I", or Dem even.

by nwodtuhs 2008-05-22 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The Page Is Reporting Bloomberg for VP

That's an interesting point. You're right, I fully expect McCain and the Republicans to make a "safe" VP choice, i.e., a conservative white Republican male.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-22 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The Page Is Reporting Bloomberg for VP

I think they are going to make all this academic by picking Romney and ruining their entire ticket... although mccain hates romney

I REALLY hope he picks Crist... the heads exploding then they find out he's gay would be priceless

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-22 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The Page Is Reporting Bloomberg for VP

He's not gay until you can prove it.  

I think its going to be Romney, Hutchinson or Jindal (although I can't understand the logic of a newly elected governor.)  

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The Page Is Reporting Bloomberg for VP

1.  McCain will never pick Bloomberg,.. He's ruled out anyone who is pro-choice

2.  Bloomberg would never run with McCain

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-22 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The Page Is Reporting Bloomberg for VP

Okay, I guess that's settled, Mayor Bloomberg.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-22 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The Page Is Reporting Bloomberg for VP

I think McCain-Bloomberg against Obama could lead to a large Republican victory, something like...
McCain-Bloomberg: 49
Obama: 43
Barr: 8

Which would probably be an electoral vote blowout.

At the very least, it could put New York in serious play for the Republicans.

by markjay 2008-05-22 08:36PM | 0 recs
AHAHAHAHAHAH

Do you work for Mark Penn or something?  This prognostication is laughable.  Put NY in play?  Electoral blowout?  So in a race that, generously, is tied right now (we don't even have a solidified nominee yet) is going to end with McCain +8 because Bloomberg is the VP?  Don't quit your day job.

by ThisPlaceIsCrazy 2008-05-22 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The Page Is Reporting Bloomberg for VP

Really? Two rich, old white guys? And one from a state that is out of reach? That makes perfect sense.

by brimur 2008-05-23 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The Page Is Reporting Bloomberg for VP

if moderate Dems were to cross over and vote for McCain, the GE would essentially be about two factions of the Democrats fighting against each other, again with independents being the deciding factor in the election.

In other words, it would be a re-run of the Lamont-Lieberman contest of 2006, with Obama in the role of Lamont.  And we all know how THAT turned out.

by He Who Must Not Be Named 2008-05-22 08:37PM | 0 recs
It's too late

Had this campaign be kept civil, I doubt the results would've been much different.  But then a case could be made for Clinton as VP.  

But I still don't understand why we can't combine the "Obama coalition" and the "Clinton coaliton" into something called THE DEMOCRATS.  I was kind of thinking that would happen anyway...

Yes, if the election were held today, Obama would have a tough go at it (I still think he'd win, but it'd be tight).  But perhaps, just perhaps, once he starts AHEM campaigning, things will look better?

If the primaries were all held at the start, before Obama campaigned, Clinton would be the nominee ("this will all be decided by Super Tuesday").  Yet after hearing his message, the majority of voters went with Obama.  Why would the GE be any different?

I'm sorry, but while the argument is mildly logical given the existing data, the overarching point isn't, because the election is in November, not late May.  Let's all be patient, let it play out on the 31st, and then Obama can get started.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-22 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: It's too late

Where to begin.

Yet after hearing Obama's message, the majority of voters went with Obama.  Why would the GE be any different?

The majority of voters, hmmmm. I that 80%? 75% 65%?
Oh, I get it. 51%. And 30% of the remaining 49 or 48 won't vote for him.

I know this doesn't make sense to you, an Obama supporter but Hillary's more of a moderate and McCain, aside from his asinine alignment with Bush ion Iraq, will tout his global warming and campaign finance creds, and will attract independents

Also, Obama won a majority? He wasn't able to get 60% of his own party. I don't want to see your heart broken in November. I agree Obama shouldn't be forced, but luckily, Obama's supporters will be the last ones to come on board with this. Meaning,
Obama will probably understand that having FL, OH, and PA FIRMLY in play, and Arkansas and Kentucky in play, makes it virtually impossible for him to lose.

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: It's too late

No, I'm not disputing anything you say.

The majority of voters, hmmmm. I that 80%? 75% 65%?
Oh, I get it. 51%

Yes.  51% is a majority.

And 30% of the remaining 49 or 48 won't vote for him

In Appalachia, perhaps.  20% of Clinton's voters wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black, according to the exit polls last night.  Can't fix that.  But if they are really Dems, they are going to come around once they hear the differences a McCain presidency and an Obama presidency offers up.

Hillary's more of a moderate and McCain, aside from his asinine alignment with Bush ion Iraq, will tout his global warming and campaign finance creds, and will attract independents

McCain wants to paint himself green?  Great.  But compared to EITHER Clinton or Obama, he pales.  Campaign finance?  I think not.  Will he attract independents?  Perhaps.  But he'll also shed libertarians to Ron Paul, and he'll lose religious conservatives without a fundie running mate.

Also, Obama won a majority? He wasn't able to get 60% of his own party.

60% doesn't win the election.  50.1% of the delegates does.  It is a close one, no doubt- and due to Hillary's worthy campaign.  She was a great candidate (just because Clinton supporters seems to despise Obama, at least in Appalachia and on MyDD, doesn't make it the other way around).  She deserves full respect.  But in the end, she lost.  Someone has to- even when there are two great candidates.

Look, there are other candidates that will help in Florida and Ohio (please note he's winning handily in PA without anyone). Campaigning will help, too- you can't dispute he did a come from behind in the primary, and I certainly think he's liable to do the same in the general.  But Clinton has gone on the record too many times with negative things about Obama, more negative than called for.  I don't want to keep hearing people say "but you said he's unfit to lead!" every time she gets in front of a reporter.

She's already said she'll fight to get him elected.  To me, I think she's solid enough that VP isn't her best bet.  I would MUCH rather see her as Senate Majority Leader, or in a critical cabinet post.  

I'm sorry, but it's got to be about what's best for the country- not what's best for the Clinton.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-22 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: It's too late

This is about what makes it possible for Obama to win, not what's best for the Clintons. and for many of us who support her, her entire behavior was about what's best for the country and about who can win.

My points with percentages is that Bush beat Gore by 500 votes in Florida in 2000. Obama needs 95 or 990% of her supporters. The logic that 'they'll come home,' doesn't hold, when you remember that people in Amercan elections are famous for NOT voting their self-interest.

As far as who's more green, obviously Obama or Clinton. But when you're a GOPer who as heard rush say, for years, that there IS no global warming,  even a very very pale green looks like dark green. This is all about perception, not necessarily reality.

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: It's too late

I agree with you on her behavior- until the last few weeks.  This is certainly NOT about the country at this point.  Embittering Florida voters isn't going to help anyone out.

If it's really about what's best for our country, when Obama gets the nomination, Clinton will hold true for her word and "work her tail off" to get 99% of her supporters on board.  

And finally, if you're a GOPer who has heard Rush say for years that there is no global warming, you're not voting for Obama no matter what.  If anything, that stance can LOSE McCain some votes he'd normally get.  I'm not worried about it.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-22 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: It's too late

Hillary wasn't able to get 50% in her own party.

Jesus Christ it's just too easy with you guys.

by Brannon 2008-05-23 01:19AM | 0 recs
These divisions aren't all about the candidates

by lombard 2008-05-22 10:54PM | 0 recs
Veep Stakes - This Site

as of 11:30 PM EDT

► Edwards  71%

► Clinton  29%

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/22/1882 0/4706

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 07:35PM | 0 recs
Well, the left wing of the Democratic Party has

spoken!

As MyDD goes, so goes the nation!

(you guys kill me)

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-22 08:47PM | 0 recs
I thought you guys were for counting the votes?

yup- now you're gonna trash mydd.

I see, you were for MYDD, before you were against MYDD.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I thought you guys were for counting the votes
it has nothing to do with trashing MyDD.  MyDD is a progressive leftist site.
The general election will be decided according to how each party's team appeals to maintream America.  As much as I am a progressive, I've seen this party sink before in thinking only in liberal terms.    
by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-23 12:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I thought you guys were for counting the votes

I don't think it's as progressive as we sometimes like to think.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-23 03:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I thought you guys were for counting the votes

No it has sunk because its tried to 'triangulate' to the middle.

Kerry did it in 04
Gore lost because of it in 2000.

And then people try to revise history.

by PantsB 2008-05-23 04:39AM | 0 recs
sorry, can't agree

Mainstream America wasn't going to bite on John Kerry suddenly having some "I'm just a regular American" come to Jesus moment.  That's why he lost them, not because he went for the middle but because he couldn't do it believably.
Setting aside for the moment that Gore didn't actually LOSE, he failed to define himself as anything but that robotic guy that isn't Bill Clinton.  
The uncomfortable truth here is the last Democrat to win the White House did so by riding the middle like, well.....

The majority of Americans have a mixed set of values -- tough on this, soft on that, spend here, don't spend there, rightish on this, leftish on that.  Hardcore liberalism scares them just as much as hardcore conservatism alienates them. And liberals consistently underestimate the importance of religion and traditional displays of patriotism to regular Joe America figuring they can be talked out of the importance of both.  

It's not to say both Obama or Hillary can't win the middle this year.  My point was when the folks on a progressive website vote it hardly reflects the will of the people.  And it's time for Obama to stop plumping up his base -- it would take something truly extraordinary for his base not to show up for him in the fall.  What he needs to do (and let's assume he knows this already) is make decisions now with everyone else in mind.

Bottom line?  What we want don't mean spit.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-23 06:00AM | 0 recs
Awsome spin Todd

Easier to spin when you have FACTS to back up what you state.

As an Obama supporter I am one of the few who sees the obvious. Obama / Clinton is a powerhouse ticket.

Besides Obama who has a more loyal base than Hillary Clinton?

The best debater and policy wonk in the General Election as

a Vice Presidential candidate? C'mon!

This baggage excuse is nonsense.

NOT THIS TIME!

If we are confident Barack Obama can withstand the GOP firepower why is it wrong to say Hillary can hold her own as well?

If she wants it it is hers. If she doesn't I'd like to see Richardson or Weeb (Kaine) on that ticket.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Awsome spin Todd

reasons I think its a bad idea:

1.  Do we really want to double down on senators?

  1.  She brings no real experience or military background to counter McCain.
  2.  People who don't like Obama are not going to simply switch to him because she is on the ticket.  VP's rarely help but can obviously hurt if they screw up.  In the end people go for the top of the ticket.
  3.  They might actually win and the idea of Obama trying to govern with Hillary and Bill there just seems ineffective to me.

by Xris 2008-05-22 07:40PM | 0 recs
And here I thought this was

no more politics as usual.  Rewriting the rules on what it takes to run for president.  

Now all of a sudden it's all about conventional wisdom?  

phft.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-22 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Awsome spin Todd

I agree. I think its a bad idea.  First, Obama is going to win with whoever he picks.  I don't hate Clinton, but I just doubt that Obama trusts her enough to make her the kind of VP who makes a real policy difference.  

Unless he has that full trust in her, she will have a very frustrating and unfulfilling term as VP.  

I know that this is going to sound like Hillary bashing (I guess it is), she does not engender boatfulls of trust.  She says things that are just total bullshit and Obama will not put up with that in his administration.

I just don't think its a good fit. She can do great things in the Senate.

by smoker1 2008-05-22 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Awsome spin Todd

I'm not convinced that she's a big electoral plus, but let me focus on another really important reason not to name her as VP: assuming you win you have to govern.  

What's going to happen the first time President Clinton, Vice President Clinton and President Obama disagree about policy?  I have an awful hard time believing that the Clintons would gracefully say - OK, Barack, you're President, it's your call.  Just tell us where to go and how to support you.

This is a trojan horse for some notion of a co-presidency.

Nah.  Gah.  Happen.

Or at least, if it does I'll be convinced the Clinton supporters are right and Obama is just too weak to fend for himself.

by TL 2008-05-22 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Awsome spin Todd

TL, What's going to happen the first time President Clinton, Vice President Clinton and President Obama disagree about policy?

If she didn't follow the company line, it would be political suicide for her.

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Awsome spin Todd

I think she's shown that she's not much afraid of what people will think, or predictions that she can't do this or that.

How many times have people told her that she can't win a majority of pledged delegates, and that she should stop attacking Obama?  And yet, here she is, explaining that his view makes him Robert Mugabe, or maybe a plantation owner.

She'd convince herself, about health care, say, that Obama just didn't know what he was talking about, and that it was up to her to save the party from his stupidity.  Only she knows what's best.  And, don't forget, there's a loyal network of folk built up over 16 years who know what happens when you cross a Clinton.

by TL 2008-05-22 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Awsome spin Todd

I have to disagree. When you have her STILL splitting states with Obama, and winning some by 30% your point that she should have just stepped down doesn't hold. The question is who can win, and we have a (sick) Super Delegate system which means it ain't over til it's over, somewhat like our (sick) electoral system, also designed to disenfranchise voters.

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:55PM | 0 recs
I agree this could be a problem

I think the insecurity about her potential to upstage him, among other things, would keep her from the ticket, or, if she's on the ticket, keep her in a relatively insignificant VP position if they won.

by lombard 2008-05-22 10:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Awsome spin Todd

[Clinton as VP] is a trojan horse for some notion of a co-presidency.

Allow me to retort here.  

Obama has been running on a platform of "unity."  You don't get unity by wishing for it and repeating the word endlessly -- this is not the Harry Potter universe.  You get unity by responding to the interests of your political opponents.  That means a co-presidency to some degree.

by He Who Must Not Be Named 2008-05-22 08:42PM | 0 recs
Finally an Obama supporter

I'd like to have a beer with!  :)

I think that with her, it's impossible for him to lose, considering that the compensate for each other's weaknesses.

Richardson is a nice guy but slightly depressive?

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Finally an Obama supporter

by elrod 2008-05-22 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Finally an Obama supporter

But does a VP pick really complement the ticket?  

by elrod 2008-05-22 09:02PM | 0 recs
I'm warming to the idea

but I still don't think it would happen, if for no other reason than Michele Obama hates Hillary Clinton.  Sometimes reasons like that actually matter.

From a strategic perspective, I'm starting to think it would be the strongest ticket though.  Obama supporters need to realize that the "change" meme is not that strong.  He could definitely win with other running mates, and would still be a favorite in my opinion, but as you say its likely to be a very closely contested election in which he just squeaks by if he wins at all.

by Fuzzy Dunlop 2008-05-22 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm warming to the idea

No one has any idea what things will look like in even two weeks.  These are GE match up polls taken in the heat of battle.  If you polled me right now I'd swear that I would not vote for Clinton in November, but I know damn well i would gladly do so by then once I realized how horrible McCain would be for our country.

by Xris 2008-05-22 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm warming to the idea

As a HRC supporter, I always found the change meme hollow. And I think Obama knows that at this stage, to win HRC supporters and others, he needs to modify it and he has. He doesn't talk about change for change sake anymore but backs it up in rhetoric in a way he wasn't doing a month ago. I think he realizes that to the rest of us, after 8 years of Bush everyone wants change (Duh) but they want to get a sense of more than the rhetoric, and I don't mean going to a webpage.

Fuzzy, with them together on the ticket, he can't lose.

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:24PM | 0 recs
yeh, well
and it's a well documented fact that Jackie Kennedy would have stuck a fork in Johnson's eye if she had half a chance.  
This is high stakes politics not deciding what car to buy.  If Obama can't stand up to his fricking wife we've all got one hell of alot bigger problem than who's right for VP.
by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-22 08:53PM | 0 recs
Yep, that might nix it.

by lombard 2008-05-22 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

The problem is, if Obama declared tomorrow "I will consider you just as much as anyone else. Please submit the documentation and you will be given fair consideration.", I don't see Clinton graciously accepting this and ending her campaign. (is there an application form? cuz that would be a riot).

I am an Obama supporter and have come to loathe Hillary because of her campaign this election, but if I were on Obama's committee I would attempt an honest assessment of how to win in November and would give her a fair shake.

by nwodtuhs 2008-05-22 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

As a Clinton supporter, I'm not really convinced that putting her on the ticket will do enough to counterbalance the predictable vilification of Obama in the general.

When the Republican slime machine gets ahold of him, no VP candidate, even Hillary, is going to compensate for the damage.

by Radiowalla 2008-05-22 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

He will be just fine. The fact that he is beating THE democratic machine is everything you need to know. I'm an Obama supporter and he has definitely become a much stronger candidate out of this primary.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-22 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Ooooo, baby!  I do hope you are right.  
Your optimism is not shared by me because I have a very low opinion of the opposition and a very low opinion of the press.

For the sake of the republic, I hope you are right.

by Radiowalla 2008-05-22 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Radio. I am passionately for HRC though lately have been more impressed at Obama's toughness. He has the facts on his side.

Admittedly, since Americans are famous for NOT voting their economic self-interest, he still needs her to truly unify the party and capture all the anti-GOP passion of 08. In effect, I think he need her to guarantee a win rather than just having favorable odds to win. But he might not be as much of a disaster as we all fear.

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:28PM | 0 recs
NY Writer,

I do hope you are right.
I haven't seen much to make me feel encouraged yet, but I'm glad you are feeling positive.  I need positivity, but I can't muster any up for myself just yet.

But I'll keep trying.  It beats being miserable.

by Radiowalla 2008-05-22 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Bowers saying "Obama is not favored" was meant to mean, "McCain favored". He just meant that it's a toss-up according to current polling.

As much as I enjoy Bowers (one of my favorite reads), he's often wrong because he's too easily prone to extrapolate data over time without looking closely at potential pitfalls in doing so.

So, I'm not for Hillary as V.P. Not because she couldn't help the ticket but because Obama doesn't need her. I also believe that if Obama does go on to win the presidency this year without her on the ticket, there's no reason why she can't run and win the presidency in 8 years (if Obama is a two-termer).

Most importantly, the polling will change drastically. Just because you pair these two together doesn't mean squat.

by alex100 2008-05-22 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

I meant to say NOT meant to mean "mcCain favored".

by alex100 2008-05-22 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

What do you mean when you say that she could help the ticket but Obama doesnt need her?

Let's assign a probability of Obama winning with his best possible VP pick that is not HRC.  For example, I would guess that's about 60% at this point.

How high does the probability of him winning with HRC have to be for it be crazy for him not to include her? 70%? 65%?

That's an honest question.

To me, the stakes are so huge with this election that I am really loathe to pass up even an increase of 5% in our likelihood of winning.

by Fuzzy Dunlop 2008-05-22 07:44PM | 0 recs
Wish she wouldn't have effed everything up.

I would have found her to be a pallatable choice earlier in the election cycle (pre-"threshold for CIC quote) but not now.

That being said, if he chooses her, I'll still vote for him, albeit with a bit of reluctance.

I still think that her negatives detract more than add to the ticket.

by lojasmo 2008-05-22 07:38PM | 0 recs
It's Clinton....

OR I'm outta here (along with millions of others)...

Try and win Barak without us.....

by nikkid 2008-05-22 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

Bye.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-22 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

thanks for the threat, it is duly noted!

/sore loser

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 07:42PM | 0 recs
what grade are you in?

isn't this a school nite?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

i think most of us have had enough of this.

either you vote for the democrat or you're an enabler to the right.

No one here who really cares about progressive policy really cares about your threats.

by alex100 2008-05-22 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

let's see him win without all of us.....

we know he'll get IL, CA, NY....any other state?

by nikkid 2008-05-22 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

don't worry about it, just watch from the sidelines with your candidate.

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

threats like yours are a frustration response.

but let's say you're honest in holding back support for Obama. What exactly do you hope to gain from sitting out in November (or holding back your vote)?

it seems rather pathetic.

by alex100 2008-05-22 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

Hillary 2012

by nikkid 2008-05-22 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

Hey, don't worry. If Obama does lose, we can point to people like you and ensure Clinton'll never get a shot in 2012. ;)

by ragekage 2008-05-22 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

I guess I've come to the conclusion that I don't really care about people like you.

You have the right to be a partisan HIllary voter and hopefully, you'll get the chance to vote in a presidential election again in '16. I'll be there to vote for her if she is indeed the nominee in 8 years.

by alex100 2008-05-22 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

You think you will get a single black vote in the primary in 12 if he loses in November? How about under 30? If he loses in November, her career is over.

by pneuma 2008-05-23 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

Wow... nice cherry picking of the State polls to make your map.  and 266 in may means someone can't win?  Wow, too bad that's NOT true because then Bush wouldn't have gotten a second term.  

I mean support your girl but stupid logic less arguments REALLY make you look foolish.  Have some pride in yourself.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

Enjoy your time on Free Republic.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-23 03:35AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

Hmmm...are meth addicts Hillary's base?   It's worth considering.

by obscurant 2008-05-22 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

There is absolutely no call for comments like this.

by skohayes 2008-05-23 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Clinton....

do not let the door hit you on you a$$ on the way out.

by woodinville 2008-05-22 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Twelve States

In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won 11 of these twelve states.
In 2000 and 2004, Gore and Kerry each won only one.

If there is a realignment -
it seems probable that it would begin with these states.
Who is likely to win more of them?

by johnnygunn 2008-05-22 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Twelve States

Since it is May its safe to say that no one knows.  But you can keep trying to project snap shots of the present toward November to make your argument.  

by Xris 2008-05-22 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Twelve States

How is 16 years of electoral history -
A "snap shot of the present" ??

Perhaps you should consider a better metaphor.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-22 08:11PM | 0 recs
How is Iowa not a swing state?

How is Iowa not a swing state, yet west virgina is a swing state?

check out the actual tabulations for 2004, 2000

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: How is Iowa not a swing state?

it doesn't help their arguments.  

by Xris 2008-05-22 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: How is Iowa not a swing state?

Three states voted Democratic three times.
Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico.
Iowa is the first Dem state just outside the middle quintile.
Based on rank-order stats.

If you wish to include it, it would change the narrative to this extent -
Bill Clinton won 12 of 13,
Gore won 2 of 13, Kerry won 1 of 13.

Five states went Dem once -
AZ, CO, FL, GA, and MT.
There are different ways to calculate rank,
I chose Dem % minus GOP % rather than ranking Dem % alone.
i.e. - a relative comparison since Perot influenced Western states more than Southern states and Nader got more votes in the Pacific Northwest and Upper Midwest.
By those measures, CO and FL are ranked higher.
AZ is next in line, but not this go round.
VA is close, too, but it went GOP all four times.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-22 08:27PM | 0 recs
so you're not gonna look at the tabulations

Iowa: gore won by a fraction in 2000.  Shrub won by a fraction in 2004.  that's a swing state.  where the margin of victory is invisible, and switching back and forth, pegged to the national vote.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: so you're not gonna look at the tabulations

If it makes you feel better -
Include it.

As I said above there were three states that went Dem three times.  
Iowa had a slightly higher ranking than NH and NM.

There were also 5 states that went Dem only once.
AZ, GA, and MT were ranked lower than CO and FL.

Whenever you create categories, there must be parameters with which you place members in each.  I was looking for the middle quintile based upon rank order stats as well as number of Democratic victories in the past four elections.  

by johnnygunn 2008-05-22 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: How is Iowa not a swing state?

It's that way because it makes Hillary's chances look better.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-23 03:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Twelve States

The problem with this map is that you've essentially identified the swing-states as the states that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996; Gore and Kerrys' maps are essentially the same. I think you've correctly identified the Democratic states, with the exceptions of Iowa and Wisconsin (when a state is decided by thousands of votes, it is by definition a "swing-state"). However, this map completely fails to take into account the peculiarities of 1992 and 1996. To begin with, both elections were three-way races. Also, Bill Clinton was a Southerner, whereas as neither of our potential nominees is. If you think that either Hillary or Obama is capable of carrying Kentucky, Tennessee, or Louisiana (except in a landslide), you're dreaming. Finally, your map fails to take into account demographic change. Would you have put California in the Democratic column in 1992? Of course not -- California had voted Republican in the past six elections. Today, it's impossible to conceive of a Democratic victory without California. Virginia is headed in the same direction. As far as I'm concerned, it's now far more of a swing-state than Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, or Louisiana. A lot that has to do with education and income. Here are the ten states with the highest per-capita income in descending order: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, and California. Of these, the three that aren't historically Democratic -- New Hampshire, Colorado, and Virginia -- have all seen tremendous growth in Democratic voting and representation in recent years. I don't think that's a coincidence.

by RP McMurphy 2008-05-23 12:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Twelve States

Your points are valid -
However, if you note the title, the map addresses swing states for the period 1992 to 2004.  Whatever the reasons - three-way races, regional backgrounds - these were the states that made the difference between Clinton winning twice and Gore and Kerry losing.

Here's something to consider.  Everyone talks North Carolina every election year.  However, North Carolina went GOP all four times and hasn't voted Dem since 1976.  Given all the points you made above, wouldn't it be more prudent to look at some of those Southern states that DID vote Dem - not once but twice - before jumping to those that did not?

by johnnygunn 2008-05-23 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Twelve States

Everyone talks North Carolina every election year.

Really? I've never heard that. North Carolina is heading in the same direction as Virginia, but it's got a ways to go -- compare the per capita income and percentage of college graduates in both states (Virginia is head and shoulders above North Carolina is both respects).

Given all the points you made above, wouldn't it be more prudent to look at some of those Southern states that DID vote Dem - not once but twice - before jumping to those that did not?

The biggest question is WHEN and under what CIRCUMSTANCES. The reality is that most of the South is trending Republican and may soon become the GOP's last regional stronghold. With a few exceptions, the Democratic Party is becoming a coastal and Midwestern party. The West is still up for grabs, but that's trending Democratic as well. In light of these facts, I don't think it makes much sense to identify 2008 swing-states based on the performance of a Southerner in two three-way elections more than a decade ago. For all the reason I've laid out, Virginia and North Carolina are now "swingier" than Kentucky and Tennessee.    

by RP McMurphy 2008-05-23 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Twelve States

Excellent analysis. It looks like facts are making a comeback at mydd.

by xodus1914 2008-05-23 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

I'd rather Obama win the Presidency 50+1 than see the Clinton's anywhere near the levers of power in the White House ever again.

Their campaigning has been what you'd expect a Rovian republican to do, and it's been quite disappointing even for someone such as myself who was already disappointed by Hillary Clinton's cynical Senate career.

I never thought the Clinton's could disappoint me even more after what Hillary has done during her Senate career, a career I helped her start by voting for her in 2000 with the same enthusiasm that I'm voting for Obama in November.

But they both proved me so wrong this campaign.

Quite frankly there are a few things that Hillary Clinton will have to do if she wants the VP slot.

1) Explain her statements that she is ready to be President and McCain is ready to be President, and Obama is not. And show some SERIOUS humble pie over it.

2) Agree that Bill Clinton cannot come within 50 miles of the White House.

3) Keep Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, James Carville, and the rest of her toxic campaign staff the hell away from the Obama camp.

People say Hillary Clinton is a really good person in private. Maybe she is, and maybe this is what happens when you overload yourself with too many 'consultants'. Maybe.

Either way, she's got a lot to answer for should she truly want VP.

by Yalin 2008-05-22 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

"Change we can believe in"
"Hope"
"unity".

Your canidiate isn't bashing Hillary now. Why are you? She's not the one who based her entire campaign on a Republican meme about a former President and his wife.

PS-if James Carville ran the Clinton campaign, this WOULDN'T have gone further than Super Tuesday.

by zcflint05 2008-05-22 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

when did truth telling become "bashing"?

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

"Change we can believe in"

Yes, change from the Bushes AND the Clintons.

"Hope"

Yes, hope that we can move BEYOND the toxic partisanship the Bushes AND the Clintons have wrought on our politics.

"Unity"

Yes, unity that the Bushes AND the Clintons did not try to bring with them to the White House.

Bashing Hillary? I stated that I have reasons why I am extremely disappointed in Hillary Clinton, and they start with her Senate career and end with the statements she has made and actions she has done during this campaign.

As for the former President and his wife bit, she began this campaign running as Bill Clinton's 3rd term with the air of incumbency. Unluckily for her, and lucky for the rest of us, it proved that people were NOT looking for that. That's one reason why Obama sped past her in the fight for the nomination.

As for James Carville, he's someone who values loyalty over competence. That's the kind of bs we need to REMOVE from White House politics. We've seen enough of it from the Bush white house this past 8 years.

Do you want that back again but this time with the D brand?

by Yalin 2008-05-22 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Ahh, yes, the Clintons are just like the Bushes.

Obviously your first post should have been enough warning for me to stay away of the vapid hatred that you possess. You're not worth my time, but perhaps it would be best to remember that those people you hate so much were the only competent Democratic politicans on a national level in the last 50 years or so.

by zcflint05 2008-05-22 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Ahh, yes, the Clintons are just like the Bushes.

Well, she's all chummy with Karl Rove!

by LordMike 2008-05-22 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2000 and followed her Senate career quite closely. Had I been a few months older I would've been able to vote for Bill Clinton in 1996, and I would have.

That changes nothing with respect to how they've conducted themselves during this campaign, and how much I grew to despise Hillary Clinton's legislative career during her tenure in the Senate.

Hatred? Hardly. Distrust? Most definitively.

by Yalin 2008-05-22 08:12PM | 0 recs
You're right

He isn't worth your time.

by lombard 2008-05-22 11:04PM | 0 recs
who does she have to answer to?

You?

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-22 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: who does she have to answer to?

Anyone interested in seeing a democrat elected who has watched Hillary Clinton morph into Karl Rove during this campaign.

by Yalin 2008-05-23 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Somehow folks think that the arguments would just stay the same in the GE.

If that happened, no one would bring up all the Clinton baggage.

But we all know that won't happen. In a Democratic primary, there are things that aren't said about Bill and Hillary Clinton, especially by a certain senator who is well aware that Clinton's supporters can get offended rather easily. But in a GE campaign, well, the bets are off.  

No, I don't think that we should cower in a corner about coming Republican attacks. I'd never say that. But we should also acknowledge that Clinton got a very gentle ride Clinton got in the primary season, so much that her current poll status really doesn't say much about where it would be in a few months.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

I totally agree with you.  It really looks the VP thing is the strategy of the moment now and it is getting rammed down all our throats.  

by Xris 2008-05-22 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Do you think she would have been reelected 2 x for Senate of New York State, her opponents attracting NATIONAL funds to defeat her, and whatever there was to come out against her didn't come out already?

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Yes. It's New York. A VERY Democratic state. And the GOP had no real opposition in both cases.

by elrod 2008-05-22 09:03PM | 0 recs
Todd

Nice idea, but Mr. Bowers map is a little incorrect.
If we are going by the best number either one had against McCain then:
the following states should be blue:
NH, MO, IN, ND, NC, VA.

I am wondering if Sen. Clinton can bring all of her supporters to the table, if it were to happen then the election is a rout of McCain by the combined ticket, you are right in that we need more polling on this topic, I am guessing someone will start doing that polling (maybe Markos will commission it in an attempt to shoot down the unity ticket, if it went the other way I'd have a chuckle).

by Student Guy 2008-05-22 07:43PM | 0 recs
If Florida and Michigan are seated

then there are very few delegates that seperate the two and she will be ahead in the popular vote.  What is to prevent the superdelegates from deciding that Hillary should be on the top of the ticket?

I mean it is starting to look like he will need her to be on the ticket, but does she really need him to win?

by SPK 2008-05-22 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

yeah but the latest GOP tactic isn't going to work, Obama is not going to be pushed around by the Clintons.

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

you are advocating for super delegates to over turn the pledge delegates and then expecting everyone to be happy about it?  Why did we even have a primary then, we could have just had the supers decide in January and saved all of us a lot of anger and frustration.  The primary went the way it did and even if a lot of people are angry, that's how our system works.

by Xris 2008-05-22 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

I agree that there is going to be somebody's supporters who are angry, no matter what.  But looking at today's news, where Senator Obama is working hard to convince the Jewish voters, and looking at his uphill task to win over latino voters, and lower economic group voters,  it is starting to look like a real uphill battle for Senator Obama.

And I thought the task of the Superdelegates is to decide who will be the strongest candidate.  

If Michigan and Florida are seated, then the ticket that makes the most sense is Clinton/Obama

by SPK 2008-05-22 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

So you don't think there would be a political price to be paid for the supers just switching to Clinton?  Take your partisan blinders off for one sec and realize how furious half of us will be.  We also would look like the biggest morons by not being able to even conduct a primary properly.  Most Obama supporters understand why your side is upset, but sometimes Clinton supporters seem to lack the ability to see things from our point of view.  

by Xris 2008-05-22 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

And don't think for a minute that there wouldn't be an effort by the Rethugs to stoke the fires of "illegitimacy." While it is within the power of the SD's to reverse the elected delegate decision, there'd be hell to pay for doing so. Frankly, I'm not sure Clinton supporters understand that.

by Ian S 2008-05-22 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

Xris, there will a political price to be paid anyway. I do not know where this idea that if the DNC does not make Obama the nominee that Clinton would suffer tremendously. I believe Obama is about suffer tremendously as well. There will be a price to be paid, and Obama is be paying it unfortunately.

by Check077 2008-05-23 03:43AM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

hmm... Recent polling is showing that he's made great gains with Hispanics in CA.

I think that Hillary's recent "hard working white people" comments have not only hurt her with african americans, but other brown people as well...

Some are saying she may even lose Puerto Rico over her recent courting of "working class whites" at the expense of the minority base of the party.

by LordMike 2008-05-22 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

I just don't get the argument from her supporters that we are supposed to ignore the results of the primary because of GE polls taken in May.  Should we have just given the nomination to Obama at the beginning of the year when he was crushing everyone in these same polls?  What if the supers do what they want and just hand it to Clinton, should they then change their mind if GE polls change in the summer?  Maybe we don't even need primaries anymore, we can just wait until August and take a few GE polls and go with the winner of that.

by Xris 2008-05-22 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

by the way, I am one of the brown people.

But regarding overturning the will of the people, look the primary battle has been awesome fought by Senator Obama and his team.  But on June 3rd, if Hillary has 50.4% of the popular vote, and Senator Obama has 49.6% of the popular vote, and if Senator OBama is ahead in pledged delagates by 100 or so, (considering Michigan and Florida) are seated, then it is not really overturning the will of the people for the Superdelegates to go with the candidate who will win the GE.

As I said, I understand full well that a lot of Senator Obama's supporters are going to be very upset, but my point is that she has a valid argument to make and the Superdelegates will have to consider this factor

by SPK 2008-05-22 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

popular vote argument doesn't work.  Each state is different and until we have a universally accepted system for conducting primaries, it is not an accurate reflection of the party.  Also, your scenario would have to occur at the convention and  she would not be able to pull the party back together in time to beat McCain.  The same will happen to Obama if its decided at the convention.

by Xris 2008-05-22 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

If Michigan and Florida are not seated to every body's satisfaction, it might go to the convention either way.

I agree with you that the nomination is won by hitting the no. of delegate metric, but my point is if she is ahead in the popular vote, then going with her for the top of the ticket is not really overturning the will of the people.

Also, there is no rule that says that the Superdelegates have to go with the candidate who is ahead in popular votes

by SPK 2008-05-22 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

correction, I meant to say go with the candidate who is ahead in pledged delegates

by SPK 2008-05-22 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

There is absolutely no scenario whereby everybody is satisfied with Michigan and Florida. None.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-23 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

And if the superdelegates reject her argument?  What then?  She has the burden of proof... He's the delegate leader...  Not she.  So, what happens then?

by LordMike 2008-05-22 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

My point is that she has a valid argument to make.  there is still a very good chance that the superdelegates will decide to go with Senator Obama, and then he will be the nominee.

I know there are a lot of ifs, at this point in the argument, but there is a possibility of a valid case scenario for Senator Clinton to be on the top of the ticket.  

Most of the factors will be much clearer on June 4th.

by SPK 2008-05-22 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

Also, if the nomination process plays out this way and Senator Obama is the nominee, it will be a fair process and will make it a little easier for the Clinton Supporters to move on to the next step of acceptance.

by SPK 2008-05-22 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

I think it would just make it harder, 'cos they would feel that her "close, but no cigar" should have overturned the win.

I've already accepted that the bunkered down Hillary supporters will not be with us in November and we will just have to win without them.  The question is what are their true numbers...

by LordMike 2008-05-22 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

I kind of feel sorry for you, but all the party leaders have reiterated that delegates, and not the popular vote, decide the election.

The reason for this is two-fold:  one is a proportional system, much like the electoral college, that seeks to include sparsely populated states.

The other is that if the candidates were told that popular vote would be the metric, they would have tailored their campaigns differently and sought to run up the score in heavily populated areas.

The rules of the game will decide the nominee.  I'm sorry if that bothers you, but Obama is a great candidate, and I hope you'll come to adore him as much as I do.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.. that is TRUE disenfranchisement!

by LordMike 2008-05-22 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated
You do realize that the popular vote metric is skewed because it doesn't accurately reflect caucuses? The mere fact that Obama is beating Hillary in the popular vote (minus FL/MI) and that's not counting the caucuses, means that he is the will of the people. He beat her badly in the caucus states but he doesn't get credit for it in the popular vote, that makes it an irrelevant metric
And I'm not sure that Hillary will even win the popular vote when this thing is over. She won't win SD and MT, and PR is looking rough for her as well.
I think that Hillary wining big in the small states of KY and WV is making everyone forget where she failed to rack up big victories in 'her' states like PA, OH and IA.
by xodus1914 2008-05-23 06:23AM | 0 recs
Slight correction
working hard to convince Jewish voters in FL.
He gets over 60% of Jewish voters nation wide according to Gallup and that is running against John 'Maverick' McCain.
by Student Guy 2008-05-22 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Slight correction

Yes, but Florida voters get double secret votes which means their Jews are more important than all the rest of us.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-23 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

The sad question is: Why do the supers exist at all in our party. The only possible logic was to overturn the will of the people. Or conform to that will, if she has a majority of popular vote.

It's the same reason we have an electoral college rather than popular vote. The Founding Father's wanted to (sadly) retain the option to overrule the will of the people.

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

That is something that both sides can agree on...

by LordMike 2008-05-22 08:57PM | 0 recs
that's silly

that's only if you assign obama zero delegates for Michigan.  

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: If Florida and Michigan are seated

Better check your math my friend... Its not as close as you think...

And you forget one crucial thing... the SDs who are hard core Clinton Loyalists endorsed her in 2007... which is where her big SD lead came from.  The remaining SDs are NOT Clinton Loyalists... so getting them to switch is not some easy thing like you think.

If FL and MI are seated as is (which won't happen), Obama has a 48 delegate lead in PDs, and that doesn't include Edwards delegates OR the 55 uncommitted.  We already now Obama controls at least some of the 55 uncommitted, FURTHER increasing his lead (or if Clinton manages to get some keeping things even).

With SDs, Obama has a 70 Delegate lead.  Now if he gets all 55 uncommitteds and all of Edwards Delegates, he'd be 91 away vs her  236.  That's a lot harder to make up with out a BIG shakeup happening.  But lets be generous and say they split the uncommitted and Edwards delegates evenly... Obama is only 128 away vs 199 for Clinton.  The numbers all favor Obama here.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

It is funny Hillary tried every GOP tactic to win the nomination and it didn't work.  Now she has her surrogates and supporters trying to pressure the man to put her on the ticket.  These people will shamelessly do anything to get back into the White House.

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 07:46PM | 0 recs
ABSOLUTELY!!

Put her on the ticket.  
A) he might win that way (not looking too good otherwise)
B) That way I can vote and be active and be happy and CARE.
Otherwise, yikes- not sure yet.  :(  

Sorry haters- just being real.  Fire away!!!

by easyE 2008-05-22 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: ABSOLUTELY!!

bye!

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: ABSOLUTELY!!

You have five months to realize this is more important than personal candidate preference.

by Xris 2008-05-22 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: ABSOLUTELY!!

You have five months to realize that I don't care! :)

by easyE 2008-05-22 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: ABSOLUTELY!!

Real mature eazy.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: ABSOLUTELY!!

luckily you are one random person on the internet so  hopefully I will be able to pick myself back up and struggle on.

by Xris 2008-05-22 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: ABSOLUTELY!!

Just wait...next we'll hear from this turd "Me and all my family" are voting for McSame.  

It never ends with these dead-enders.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: ABSOLUTELY!!

No one can anger me tonight, my republican cop friend from St. Louis put an Obama yard sign up today when he had to pay almost 4 dollars for gas this morning.  If a conservative cop who works in one of the most racially divided cities in America can realize that the economy and the war matter more than petty politics, there is hope for our side.  

by Xris 2008-05-22 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: ABSOLUTELY!!

YES WE CAN!!!!

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: ABSOLUTELY!!

You have five months to realize that there is a long history in the Us of voters not voting for the candidate who is in their best economic (or other) self-interest. If people always voted their self-interest, you'd have had no Bush Reagan Reagan Bush Bush.

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: ABSOLUTELY!!

Go back 8 years and ask how many people regret voting for Bush over Gore or voing for Nader because they thought Gore and Bush were about the same.  

If you can look at the destruction this man wrought and not see why supporting the nominee isn't important then I'm not sure why you are posting on a progressive blog or even pretending to be interested in politics.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-22 07:49PM | 0 recs
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts...

I would probably still sit this election out, but I do agree that an Obama+Clinton ticket would be a blowout win.

by SevenStrings 2008-05-22 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The whole is greater than the sum of the parts

I would be happy with Clinton/Obama.  

by Montague 2008-05-22 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The whole is greater than the sum of the parts

Sitting this election out because you don't like the outcome of the primaries is one of the stupidest things a person can do.  

Look Kerry was one of my last choices in 2004, but I still voted Dem because giving the GOP a shot at SCOTUS seats is deadly to the Progressive Movement.  

If you sit out this election, McCain wins and R v W gets overturned due to his appointments, which is likely, then you bare part of the blame.  Stop thinking small picture and start thinking big picture strategy.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:47PM | 0 recs
This analysis is

only true in a vacume. You have to assume that having HRC on the ticket doesn't weigh barack down in any way. I believe it would have a substantially negative effect. It would deminish a lot of his outsider appeal. And I serialisly doubt Hillary on the bottom of the ticket would put Arkansas or any other state in play.

What Obama needs is a running mate that compliments his strengths (independent sounding, outsider) and lifts up his weaknesses (lack of military and foreign policy experience). Jim Webb would be great. Perhaps Wes Clark to mend bridges with Clintonland.

by Tatan 2008-05-22 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

i just don't want to go with two senators.  I agree with the foreign policy or executive experience idea.  

by Xris 2008-05-22 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

Agreed. Somebody needs to replace Harry Reid, and we need enough Senators to be able to tell Holy Joe to go fuck himself.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-23 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

HEAR , HEAR! Mark my words, man. Joe is going to try to make himself important in this election.

by xodus1914 2008-05-23 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

How can you be so certain?  At this point in 92, Bill Clinton was polling dead last against Perot and Bush.....remember?'

Why can't you just admit you're not sure waht's going to happen?  the only thing I can offer to explain someone's irrational certainty is a hardened belief that America will never elect a black man.

I don't believe it either.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

I would say a majority of Hillary supporters prefer Her to Obama for a myriad of reasons.  But they will vote Democratic because the party ideals versus the raping of America the GOP will give us is more important than any grievance with Obama.  I do think there are some Hillary supporters who are not comfortable voting for a black man.  I don't think they are racist per se; They don't hate black people or anything... but ... I would bet money most of this group is over 65 and that sentiment tends to be more generational.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

sorry but facts and logic is not on your side...

Photobucket

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

hahah in May???

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

Apparently your faith in May Polling needs some explanation.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

But you need to also for one for GENERAL ELECTION PERCENTAGES FOR THE OTHER HALF OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

"Twice the man he is"... wow, those would probably qualify as sexist comments.  And really calling Hillary a man is just as insulting to her as your Obama insult.  But hey, way to be a Democrat and support the party.  Way to work for the abolishment of R v W and more years of war and tax cuts for the rich.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

I'm not sure about Webb.  He's more conservative than progressive.  He isn't a great campaigner.  And he didn't bring the blue collar voters in during his Senate campaign... not as much as Allen did.

I like Schweitzer...  If you don't go Clinton or Edwards, he may be the guy.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

HIS OUTSIDER APPEAL, you say?

He's going to lure outsiders? Tatan, he's so far lured 51% OF HIS OWN PARTY! And he's running against a candidate who will, amazingly, frame himself as a moderate, and many will vote for that. McCain's an asshole on the war, and abortion (IMHO) but he's for global warming and campaign finance.

At this point, a portion of his own party, the portion that swings either way between Dem and GOP are outsiders to BHO, but support HRC.

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

Obama is running as an agent of change as some one from outside of Washington. When his opponent is a hundred years old and has been in dc for half that, it's a pretty good message to run on. He needs a running mate that compliments that and Hillary "16 years of Washington experience" Clinton does not complement that.

by Tatan 2008-05-22 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: This analysis is

With his "I'm not of DC" he's won half of HIS OWN PARTY> The other half went with HRC's perceived experience--even at the expense of her being "for the war." McCain is going to run and attract a sizable amount of voters based on experience. I believe the meme for Obama for VP is to get someone who has major experience. And..can unite the party.

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Obama's entry into this race lost us an almost certain retaking of the White House.  

by Montague 2008-05-22 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

thanks for the prediction Karnak

/you have any lotto numbers????

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Yeah, I hear this crap all the time, yet there is nothing to back it up... There's this belief that Clintons are somehow unbeatable... Well, Hillary got beaten, folks.. and her 60% negative ratings aren't going to help any ticket, even her own.

by LordMike 2008-05-22 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

You misunderstand.  I do not believe the Clintons are unbeatable.  ANY candidate we put up would have had a hard time against McCain, who has the undeserved reputation of being a straight talker.

It's not that Hillary is unbeatable, but rather that Obama cannot win the general election.

While the Obama campaign appreciates your spin, by the way, neither candidate has been beaten yet.

by Montague 2008-05-22 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Fine, virtually beaten...

by LordMike 2008-05-22 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Ah, the witty ripostes. How they entertain bore me.

by Montague 2008-05-22 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

How they PWN you?

Yeah. I agree.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

To take Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain polls this far out and extrapolate that Obama needs Clinton on the ticket is the height of elementary argumentations.  

If you think that Clinton as VP polls exactly the same as Clinton as president, you're beyond help.  

Let's see what the polls of Obama/Clinton look like over Obama/Edwards.  (Anyone else would likely have too little name recognition to garner enough support at this point to matter.)

Not to mention, lots of Obama supporters may flee if Clinton is VP (Independent and Republicans).....so it's a tough sell.  I'm sure the campaigns have better polling and can make some more informed choices.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Don't insult Todd.  Chris Bowers, who is an Obama supporter, extrapolated this and he did it as a best case.  The results are pretty damn positive... and Chris has been AGAINST Clinton as VP for a long time... he feels a re-affirming pick is the way to go, but is open to the idea of Hillary.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:36PM | 0 recs
Thanks for this Todd:

"Obama is not favored in the general election. It's not the way most Obama supporters saw it going down, but more and more it's becoming clear that the best way to fulfill that transformative electoral potential is to add Hillary Clinton to an Obama ticket."

I couldn't agree more, and I'm holding out hope Obama does too.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for this Todd:

How is adding someone with very high negatives who has loudly and forcefully criticized the Presidential candidate the ONLY choice.  Seriously....there are others who could accomplish whatever she could without the obvious distraction of having Republicans and the press hound the candidate about her comments throughout the campaign casting doubt on his abilities to run the country.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for this Todd:

What, poor Obama can't convince voters of his "abilities to run the country"?  

by Montague 2008-05-22 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for this Todd:

of course he can, but why should he add extra baggage because of a few unhinged rabid supporters?

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for this Todd:

My heart goes out to him.  And to you, of course.  You will be so sad in November.

by Montague 2008-05-22 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for this Todd:


How can you be so certain we're going to lose.  The polls don't show it, and they aren't good at predicting the future this far out.

Why the pompous attitude?  What gives?

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for this Todd:

The pompous attitude, as you term it, is merely a reflection of that from the comment to which it responded.

Polls are meaningless this far out.  They are meaningless until two to three days before an election.

Do NOT trust polls.  

I am certain that Obama would lose for a whole host of reasons, but the key point here is that this is the DEMOCRATIC primary.  Rethugs are permitted to vote in November.  I know people who thought Kerry couldn't possibly lose to Chimp in 2004.  Hey, politics is heartbreaking.  It happens over and over.

by Montague 2008-05-23 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for this Todd:

aaah yes I should take advice from a supporter of a losing candidate!

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for this Todd:

In addition to the fact that your statement is rude, I hope you'll stop taking Obama's advice to, um, hope once he is losing to McCain.

This isn't a game, folks.  McCain is going to win.

by Montague 2008-05-23 06:37AM | 0 recs
Well, speaking of high negatives

there's this:

"Obama is viewed favorably by 50% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 48%. McCain's numbers are 50% favorable and 46% unfavorable. Opinions about Obama remain stronger."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

And, don't forget that Obama has alienated those pesky "typical white people" who "cling to religion and their bibles".

Add his 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright into the general election mix, and Obama needs Hillary far more than she needs him, and that's a fact.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 08:14PM | 0 recs
Correction:

Who "cling to their guns and bibles."

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, speaking of high negatives

Your speculation, sir, is not a fact.  It's the definition of speculation.  

The "typical white person" line didn't get any traction, and he weathered the Rev. Wright storm pretty well.  

I'm not sure why you think he needs to add Clinton, considering she lost to who you think is such a damaged candidate.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 08:16PM | 0 recs
It's not 'sir', but no biggie

You seem to forget that what gets traction in a primary battle, and what gets traction in a general election are often times two entirely different things.

Kerry was a bonafied war hero, and long term distinguished senator, and look what they did to him.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not 'sir', but no biggie

You have no hard data to back any of this up.

If I wanted to play this game, I'd say, "Well, no one has brought up Clinton's baggage in this campaign with any earnestness...."  

But the fact of the matter is, I think either would win....McCain is nowhere near as popular as GWB with his base, and the Republican party is in shambles.  The time is ripe....don't be discouraged.

He's also no John Kerry, for that matter.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 08:28PM | 0 recs
Look, you Obama supporters

really need to get over the agressive bullying. I left a simple comment agreeing with Todd that a unity ticket is the way to go, and you and obamaovertmccain have taken this into all kinds of directions that have nothing to do with my original point. If you want to fight with someone, you picked the wrong person. Now back off, thank you.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Look, you Obama supporters

How is rebutting your arguments on an open forum "bullying".

Your response that we need to "back off", on the other hand . . .

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, speaking of high negatives

Ha ha you also forgot to mention the negatives of Hillary which are over 55 percent, and the baggage with the Clintons over the pardons, Hsu, financial donations from Arab states are just the tip of the iceberg.  Just because the unhinged rabid base is making a lot of noise, doesn't mean we don't look at the bigger picture.

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-22 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Oh, so now you guys LIKE Chris Bowers? A few weeks ago, you were all mad 'cos he wanted to kick the working class out of the party... (supposedly)

Anyways, Hillary is getting good numbers now 'cos she's not the front runner and has had basically a free pass for the last two months.  Republicans have been building her up for a reason... they want to set her up for a giant fall if she becomes the nominee (and also to weaken Obama)... The longer this chaos goes on, the worse it will be for ANY democratic candidate.

A joint ticket may or may not be a good thing... I don't know... It seems like a disaster to me, but who knows... maybe it would work.  I doubt Obama goes for it, and if he's forced into it, he will be perceived as weak...  which is, I think, what Hillary wants...

by LordMike 2008-05-22 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

"Anyways, Hillary is getting good numbers now 'cos she's not the front runner and has had basically a free pass for the last two months"

It also helps that Obama is graciously singing her praises. A little reciprocity on her part would be nice.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 08:50PM | 0 recs
The fallacy

The big mistake here is to think that two candidates positives add up.

Many people actually vote for the lesser of bad choices, and they add the negatives together first.

"I would never vote for X, but I might vote for Y."

That means if you run an X+Y ticket or a Y+X ticket you still lose all of those voters.

The argument here is like saying that if Dick Cheney ran and took Jimmy Carter as his running mate he would sweep the country because the team would each deliver their base.

by TakeBackTheHouse 2008-05-22 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The fallacy

The fallacy of your argument is that Dick Cheney and Jimmy Carter have 90% of political views in common or even come from the same political party.

Really... this is a non-analogy and a preposterous argument.

by RickWn 2008-05-22 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The fallacy

It's not preposterous in the slightest. If supporters of one candidate are claiming they won't vote for the other one -- despite the relative closeness of their viewpoints -- it's no different than Cheney and Carter. If people in Appalachia have a problem with Obama's race, for instance, putting Clinton on the ticket will do absolutely nothing to mitigate this. Hence, we can't assume that the combination of two candidates will automatically convince the supporters (and potential supporters) of both to support a joint ticket.

by RP McMurphy 2008-05-22 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For
Recent reports are that Bill Clinton is pushing hard for Hillary as VP. I can only wonder if Hillary has been rejected by Obama as VP and this why she is going nuclear. She says "I have been vetted", but the Clintons-and we must take both together-have way too much negative baggage for a winning ticket.
Obama would like to take cross-over Republicans who are dissatisfied with Bush; but Republicans are anxious for her to run because they believe they can beat her.
I think that there are other options that could balance the ticket and appeal to the swing states. Definately not a Senator, perhaps Governor.
Also, because of the "kitchen sink", many Obama supporters would have a hard time accepting Hillary and may not want fund an Obama/Clinton ticket.
Much depends on what happends after the RBC meet at the end of the month: Hillary may want to go all the way to the convention; fences may be mended by the end of August; or, then again, pigs may fly.
by prajna 2008-05-22 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

If it goes to the convention we are screwed, no matter what happens.

by Xris 2008-05-22 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

I think he could weather a floor fight.  Seriously, I don't think even that could sink his ship.  (Previous floor fight years were all during non-favorable years to begin with)

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

You might be right, but can you imagine a whole summer with Clinton and Obama surrogates sniping at each other while McCain just sits there and takes pot shots at Obama?  But i applaud your optimism.

by Xris 2008-05-22 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Yah, it would be worrisome, but it wouldn't happen.  

Clinton would soon run out of surrogates willing to keep the circus afloat.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For
It is also the money. I believe that all the rhetoric coming this way from Hillary is because she is broke and needs to draw the line in the sand now.
The "take it to the convention" crap is just that. But I will not dare her not to so.
Obama sees  a new electoral map that takes into account the millenium generation that are post-racial and post-feminists; shifting demographics of the green meme to suburban centers; and red states that he has won in the primary that can be turned blue. There is the sense that we are redrawing the old political landscape as we speak.
by prajna 2008-05-22 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Time magazine is reporting that she asked him for hte VP slot and he said no.  That report should be taken with many grains of salt.. it's from "trusted sources"... so, who knows if it is true or not.

He should hold his ground.  No one should be bullied into anything like this.

by LordMike 2008-05-22 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

No one should be bullied, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't consider it either.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Nah.. if she wanted a Floor Fight, she'd be still hitting the negative attacks and she isn't at all.  That shows me 1) She's being a team player, 2) she is sticking around, just in case something happens which is a good thing overall and 3) She isn't taking this to the Floor.  This will be over by Mid June if not sooner.  Obama has about a 70 delegate lead if MI and FL are seated n a Clinton Best Case.  There are 20 Edwards delegates of which Obama will get many of and he will get a majority of the 55 uncommitteds as well.  EVEN if seated in this way, he will get probably get the nom.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

What do you mean 'we'?

It's amazing that Obama numbers are as high as they are - he has Hillary and Bill nipping at him, firing up their base, and shouting sexism, and he's going head to head with McCain.

Just wait until he's the nominee.

Stop the hand wringing.

by obscurant 2008-05-22 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Fair point... in fact I said the same thing in Chris's post this morning.  But that being said, Hillary SHOULD Be considered as a VP.  I would agree she has earned being on the short list as much as anyone else.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

<thewire>Deserve's got nothing to do with it.</thewire>

It's all about the strongest ticket, not who has campaigned the longest, so I doubt she's in the actual running, although her name might be mentioned out of politeness. People here will claim that she has 50% of the support of party, but her supporters will largely vote democratic in the fall.  I'd put the chances of her being VP at about even to her chances of being the nominee...and she knows it, which is why she's taking the slash and burn approach.

If Obama had any intention of having her as VP, they'd have made nice by now.  She's done.

by obscurant 2008-05-22 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Hm...wrong quote, that one is from Unforgiven.  Different wording in The Wire.

by obscurant 2008-05-22 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Webb can pick up Appalachia.

by Bush Bites 2008-05-22 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

He didn't in the 2006 Senate election.  Nova is what won it for him... not appalachia.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Obama does have to think about governing, you know.

Hill and Bill are undisciplined and scandal prone.

They'd make a spectacle out of everything he's trying to do.

by Bush Bites 2008-05-22 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

"Just wait until the country really hears about his old pals and sleezy deals."

Is it better that the country has already heard about the Clinton's sleazy deals and old pals?

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

I see Obama taking the high road during the primary and not bringing up Whitewater, Lewinsky  and Travelgate has deluded you into thinking that the GOP won't either....

by xodus1914 2008-05-23 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

I'd like to see age breakdowns on the voters who say they'd back McCain over Obama.  My bet would be that the vast majority are over 65 voters.  

Obama's problem isn't as much with White Blue Collar workers as it is with OLDER blue collar workers.  And this subset of the voting population is a traditionally older one.  Of course, this doesn't solve the problem, but rather identifies.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Good point, LordMike.

Hillary has been getting really favorable press on Fox News, which may be helping her with the conservative democratic voters in places like Kentucky and West Virginia.

Obama actually used to get more conservative voters early in the primary season, but I believe Hillary has been getting more of those voters since Texas/Ohio.  

Of course, come general election time, Fox News is going to start to portray HRC as a liberal elitist femi-nazi once again, and her numbers among conservatives and conservative democrats should decrease.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-22 08:18PM | 0 recs
The Devil always exacts his due.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

The funny thing is... I think Bill may be the biggest hurdle for a Clinton VP.  If Bill had acted like an elder statesman, rather than the gaffe machine he was in the primaries, this may not be an issue.  The other problem I forsee is an insistence on his guys being in there and I KNOW Obama doesn't want that.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Obama would have to take on the entire train on Clinton operatives -- some of whom are just tired old retreads and others who have proven themselves to be less than competent.

It would be like bad relatives moving in with all their junk.

And then there's Hillary's $30M debt he would have to pick up.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 08:39PM | 0 recs
He's not the only one...

Yesterday, Chris Bowers created a fascinating electoral map

One thing that has been amply demonstrated in recent months is that an electoral map can be "created" to support the desired point of view -- especially when it involves Clinton.

And can we get it straight one way or the other...is Hillary still running for president, or angling for vice president? This daily bipolar disorder thing is hard to keep up with.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

The other thing TODD should have pointed out about Bowers story is that he said things were TIED.  From the diary, it seems to insinuate that McCain is favored.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-22 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For
I truly don't understand Obama's hesitance to pick Hillary for VP.  Had he made the offer weeks ago, this all would have been over weeks ago.
Think - - if he announced he was going to offer her vp, there'd be a superdelegate stampede to Obama.  
It's like his hesitance to give in on Michigan and Florida.  We're told ad nauseum that it changes nothing.  Well, if it changes nothing, why not give in and get everyone to STFU?
Really, I just don't understand.
by kosnomore 2008-05-22 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

I'm for it but don't think he can offer it until this is over. If not, he looks like he needs her to win (which he does but that's besides the point)

by NY Writer 2008-05-22 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Agreed, but I think it makes him look a tad insecure.  Haven't we already had 7+ years too much of a president afraid to look "weak" or "conciliatory"?

by kosnomore 2008-05-22 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

"I truly don't understand Obama's hesitance to pick Hillary for VP."

For starters, his wife hates her guts.

by Fuzzy Dunlop 2008-05-22 08:55PM | 0 recs
And his wife makes the decisions?

Who cares what Michelle Obama thinks?

Is she making the calls?  

by Radiowalla 2008-05-22 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: And his wife makes the decisions?

I'm pretty sure Barack cares what Michele thinks.  How heavily that will weigh, I don't know.  

by Fuzzy Dunlop 2008-05-23 04:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

"I truly don't understand Obama's hesitance to pick Hillary for VP."

Many good reasons have been put forward upthread. Mostly it has to do with her baggage which would weigh Obama down rather than help him.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

True, sort of. As Obama is, you seem to imply, carrying no baggage of his own.

by RickWn 2008-05-22 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

If Obama has baggage, as you imply, the Clintons' baggage will only add to it. A VP choice is supposed to help, not hurt.

But in reality, Obama has precious little baggage compared to Clinton or McBush. The Wright "problem" has been neutralized by McSame's own poison pastors. And the Rezko thing, a non starter to begin with, is completely outweighed by McKeating's lobbyists and past scandal.

So don't worry about Obama's baggage. Pity McInsane's if you have the heart.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

They all have baggage, feet of clay, etc., and if they don't, the swift boaters will invent some.  The Rovians are clearly going to spend the next 6 months making Michele Obama look like Angela Davis, no matter how much they need to twist, spin and exagerate.  All I know today is that the Clintons know how to survive that stuff.  Do the Obamas?

by kosnomore 2008-05-22 08:59PM | 0 recs
I'd like to see polling on this

Unfortunately, the SUSA VP polls didn't pair up Obama with Clinton. I don't understand why.

I'm not convinced Hillary as VP would really blend the two wings of the party together. It might actually undermine Obama's "change" mantra and drive away Independents. We often forget, in the midst of months of gangups against Obama, that a lot of centrist Independents despise Hillary Clinton.

Obama could lose the well-educated Independents in VA, CO and elsewhere while failing to pick up working class white Dems in OH.

by elrod 2008-05-22 09:07PM | 0 recs
Hillary can win without Obama: 315-206, 17 tossup
Check Clinton vs. McCain map
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/May22.html
Hillary does not need to have Obama on the ticket to win.
I added +5 EV for Nevada from today's poll.
Hillary winning without Obama: 315-206, 17 tossup.
Obama/Clinton "winning" artificially because Hillary's EV, nothing to do with loser Obama:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/May22.html
Obama cannot win without Hillary.
I do not see any need for Obama on the ticket - it will decrease her chances in November.
by engels 2008-05-22 09:15PM | 0 recs
The only reason for Obama on the ticket...

is that he is the party's nominee.

by Goober Pea 2008-05-22 09:35PM | 0 recs
he is not a nominee

as Hillary said: she is in, until we will have a nominee

by engels 2008-05-23 02:49AM | 0 recs
Correct my if I'm wrong Sandy...

...but the latest Gallup Poll had Obama ahead of Clinton by 11 points.  If she only has the support of 42% of the party it seems to somewhat undercut your arguement (such as it is)

by xenontab 2008-05-22 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Correct my if I'm wrong Sandy...

never use national polls for determining electoral votes.

by engels 2008-05-23 02:47AM | 0 recs
I played with the electoral map about a month or

so ago with an Obama/Clinton and the results were a total blow out. If i remember correctly, it was 359 EVs without a sweat, and i was severe with the ticket.

A republican friend of mine, state senator here in my state told me "If you guys [meaning you democrats] get your act together and present a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama, you will have more money than Croesus, a huge coalition, and Jesus Christ running on "The Second Coming" ticket would be trounced."

That was back on Super Bowl day.

PS: sorry if i offended the religious folks here. I am just repeating what i was told.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-22 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

I've been saying this for a while. We can't win without Clinton somewhere on the ticket. I vote Obama but I don't think he can win seeing what I'm seeing in the numbers. I just hope we are catching on to this too late. John Kerry 2.0 is very likely here.

by neverfox 2008-05-22 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

I think Obama knows that when the primary is finally over, he has a couple of very powerful issues/forces on his side.

  1. Most Americans want us out of Iraq
  2. Most Americans are very pessimistic about the current state of the economy.

I think that the real reason he was able to challenge Hillary in this primary is American's anger about getting into Iraq in the first place. It's a huge issue that McCain can't run from.

That being said, I think Obama knows that he is in a position to choose a vice president that he actually wants to work with for eight years as opposed to solely basing his choice on who could help him amass the most votes in the general.

Additionally, it is very difficult to predict the impact of Hillary on the ticket. While she may bring some of her supporters in, because she is so disliked by many, many republicans, she may actually chase away a good deal of Obama's republican support.

Also, it's hard to run on a ticket with someone who says that the opponent is more ready to be the commander in chief than her own running mate.

Some of Clinton's supporters might think it's unfair, but I really don't think a joint ticket is going to happen.

by glopster 2008-05-22 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Wow...  I see you got the new talking points.

(Note to self: subject has entered bargaining phase.)

by neeborMolgula 2008-05-22 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Chris Bower is funny, and you people take him seriously?

I see his point, but it's ridiculous.  I am sure McCain can also take his best polls and see a landslide.

by ghost 2 2008-05-22 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

by ghost 2 2008-05-22 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Todd great post bro!  The dream ticket seems like it will turn out to be the "no other choice" ticket.  Meaning the ONLY way to unify the base is to have HRC join the ticket.  What's so sad about this is that it shouldn't be this difficult for any DEM to to win the general this year, but due to focus of the electoral college v.s the popular vote, we have to play this damn game.  

by nzubechukwu 2008-05-22 09:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

I loathed Kerry and Edwards more than most did in 2004. Yet I didn't need a bone thrown to me in order to vote against Bush.

The Real Democrats who support Hillary will at least vote against Bush's thired term. The others who are supporting her probably wouldn't have past the primaries anyway.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 10:02PM | 0 recs
We can't win without Clinton on the ticket

It's been overwhelmingly demonstrated that Obama more likely CAN'T win with Clinton, with her baggage and shoddy organization, dragging down his formula one campaign.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

OK....i think we get it todd:

HILLARY DESERVES VP

(thanks for being so subtle)

but, um...back to reality.  if obama put her on the ticket, it would totally undermine his credibility with his most ardent supporters.  Furthermore, hillary's most dedicated supporters during the primary are those who abandon the party most quickly in the GE.  

And the biggest elephant in the room:  Obama needs somebody with serious military cred.  to help neutralize all the pansy-painting that's going to be coming form the repubs.  I think Webb is his best bet.  McCain will find it hard to paint all democrats as terrorist-loving defeatists with an anti-war veteran with a son who's served in iraq on our ticket.  hillary lends no military/national security cred to the ticket, and for this reason alone is a poor VP match

by bluedavid 2008-05-22 10:05PM | 0 recs
Does Hillary Come Alone?

Thats what Id like to know.

If she brings her and Bills inner circle of cronies, then hell no.

If Hillary comes into the VP slot 'naked' then it could be doable.  That means Bill is either completely sidelined, given a tight leash and/or sent out of the country to do that voodoo he do so well and keeps his nose clean and the likes of Penn, Carville, Ickes, Wolfson, the DLC, et. al. disappear.

If Hillary can make it about being Obama's VP and immerse herself into the role of number 2 and accept he and his team call the shots and she keeps Bill roped in, I could probably come to see this as a good/great thing.

And this would have to be the case of any VP, not just Hillary, they are number 2 and POTUS calls the shots.

And I also dont mean to imply she needs to come in humbled or hobbled, she doesnt or shouldnt need to prostrate herself to Obama, but she has to publically get behind him.  So Im not implying she needs to kiss his ring, she just needs to accept what the role is.  She has to come in as herself and by herself and team Clinton (outside of Bill and Chelsea) has to go away.

Otherwise there would be way too much drama.

by pattonbt 2008-05-22 11:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

While I suppose anything is possible in this race, I don't see how Obama can make Clinton his VP before she starts working to unify the party.  Right now approx. HALF of Clinton's supporters are telling pollsters they'll vote McCain, stay home, or are considering their options (and in some polls that goes up to 2/3rds).

Two asides: this has screwed up the head-to-head matchups (because no one knows what will happen in November, or whether Obama suppporters, if they were on the other end, wouldn't make similar threats, etc); the fact that both candidates are still competitive with McCain after these sorts of defections shows how strong the Dems might be come November.

But back to the issue at hand.  Can Obama choose Clinton as VP when half of her supporters are saying they hate him?  This isn't JFK/Johnson, it's...well, something unprecedented (toyed with JFK/Nixon, but that wouldn't be fair).

The rest of the place will play out.  If this contest hardens over the next month or two, and Obama is the clear winner, this would give him an obvious option.  Clinton, at that point, should do the important work of starting to unify the party.  "I want everyone to vote for Barack Obama this November".

Because if she can't do that, or it has no effect, then Obama would be making a big mistake if she didn't go elsewhere.  The standard veepstakes song and dance ("Of course I'll support the candidate, and I understand there are many qualified prospects for the VP slot") exists for a reason.

In terms of sheer numbers, btw, if the number of Democratic defectors this November was only half of what is now showing up in polls, Obama would essentially get all of the results which Clinton is now (because that's really the disparity between them--twice as many Clinton supporters are saying they'd vote for McCain or sit out the election).

And the next president, let's face it, has to live with the VP pick.  This isn't a popularity contest where the winner and also-ran then shake hands and go home.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-23 12:32AM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Why do I get the feeling the nauseating feeling that nominating Obama is stealing defeat from the jaws of victory all for the sake of 'change'.

by NJDEM1 2008-05-23 12:52AM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Hillary is such a star, that this would be a case where the VP choice would really sway the election.  The downside for Obama is the prospect of her pulling a Cheney on him in office.

by Bob H 2008-05-23 01:51AM | 0 recs
polling

This poll which shows results with and without Clinton on an Obama ticket shows little difference in results:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Survey USA polled various VP combos and only Edwards provided a real boost to Obama. I don't know why they did not poll Clinton as VP as well:

http://www.surveyusa.com/

Many make the assumption that if you add Clinton to an Obama ticket that you automatically combine the 2 voting blocks. That maybe a simplistic and false assumption. Clinton may bring voters Obama would have gotten anyway but not help as much with some groups he is weak with as some think. Her presence on the ticket will also lose him some voters and add a lot of baggage that other candidates will not.

I am sure that if Clinton is the best choice Obama will aggressively pursue her as VP. But at this point it's not at all clear that that is the case.  

by hankg 2008-05-23 01:56AM | 0 recs
Leave Your Pride at the Door - Hillary for VP

None of the other contenders bring any of the national name recognition or campaign apparatus to the table. Also Hillary puts a number of states into play such as Arkansas, West Virginia and Florida.
Webb or Kaine cannot reliably deliver anything including their home states.

Hillary fought a hard campaign. She can fight another hard campaign. She is not afraid to take
flack. Want to keep the hard feelings going, pick a nobody. Want to win, pick Hillary.

by hypopg 2008-05-23 04:32AM | 0 recs
Metric is ridiculous

how an Obama/Clinton ticket would fare against McCain/generic running mate by assigning states according to the best performance by either Obama or Clinton against McCain in general election match-ups

What a terrible metric.

She's not going to be VP.  

by PantsB 2008-05-23 04:40AM | 0 recs
Yes from an Obama Supporter...IF!

Absolutely the strongest Democratic ticket and one to strike terror into the hearts of Republicans.

But it will only work if Barack and Hillary take a long walk in the woods (metaphorically!), without Bill,  to talk about how they'd work together as a team.

Can she give up major control to him? Can Bill?
Can he be comfortable with a strong presence in the Veep position?
Can they really be equal partners in major decision making?
She needs that and should have it. Can she accept only being equal? Can Bill?

As a strong Barack supporter who has been dismayed by her
total lack of integrity I have concerns. But (a) I remember the Hillary I once liked and (b)she is probably far more acceptable to
Barack than LBJ was to JFK and, especially, Bobby.

I actually think it would be a relatively easy leap for the two of them if Bill weren't part of the package. But maybe he can accept
the third wheel role.

Mark

by markpsf 2008-05-23 05:05AM | 0 recs
President Dukakis

Wow, I love to think back fondly on the days of President Dukakis, weren't they wonderful?  Remember how accurate those polls were in 1988 when he was up 18-20% over George H. W. Bush in May??

Ahh, those early May Polls, have been such good indicators of what November will bring.

Sen. Clinton has turned herself into electoral poison.  The people of WV and KY are not going to vote for her under any circumstances come November, no matter how bad the economy is.

Please, if people think that Obama is an elitist, just wait to the GOP reminds people of the 'real' Hillary, the one who was too busy to bake cookies, or didn't like Tammy Wynette.

Obama has not been slinging these issues against her, because he has been playing more respectfully.  Come the Fall, the attacks on Clinton would be non-stop.    Travelgate, Vince Foster, Whitewater, all of these are going to come back.

The GOP would be sure to remind us that Clinton is an elitist Wellsley, 60's Radical Feminist and many will lap it up.

Democratic women may still love her, but I can assure you that many suburban, independent women do not.  

For all the Obama hatred that has popped up on this site, I just wish people would go back and read this article from last year.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/13/2230 57/676

by monkeyga 2008-05-23 06:03AM | 0 recs
Reality check

how in the sam hill is Obama ever going to win the vote of someone who would fault the ticket for the veep once having not liked Tammy Wynette?   Seriously, dude, if you vote on Tsmmy Wynette you aren't voting for Barack Obama unless he's running with Nancy Reagan.

And why is it that Vince and Travelgate and Whitewater didn't mean a tinker's damn to voters in 1996 but all of a sudden this many years later they're political poison in some tangential long-dead issue sort of way?  Are you serious?  Kids dying in Iraq, the economy in the shitter, $4 gas and Jane Q. American is going to throw this election because they veep didn't have a cookie recipe?  Fer real?

the guy was IMPEACHED for cripes sake and still had an approval rating of 65% the day he left office.  Blaming him for 9/11 never got any traction.  The majority knows who to blame for the past eight years and who to credit for the last time they could really afford a vacation. (that would be Bill Clinton)

try to get past the liberal notion of the Clintons as bad guys.  The very voters Obama so desperately needs get a nice smile on their face remembering the Clinton years.  They didn't then and they don't now buy into any of the Repblican slime of yesteryear about either of them, or the new age "power crazy Clintons" bullshit either.  

If anything, Hillary has GAINED respect in middle America through this campaign because regular Americans respect a fighter and she's done a damn good job of defining herself and softening her edges through the campaign.  

Try to understand and accept that the middle doesn't think or hate along the same lines as the far Right and the far Left.  Frankly, the far Left is starting to sound as didactic and scary to them.  

Hate the Clintons? Over Whitewater?   you have to be kidding me.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-23 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Reality check

I think you need to get a reality check.  There are at least 220 electoral votes in states that McCain would not even need to compete in if Hillary is on the ticket.   There is no respect for her in Middle America, you are only deluding yourself.

She wants to run a campaign like 2004 all over and pin all our hopes on Ohio and Florida.  When push comes to shove she only serves to piss people off.

The right wing is going to come out in droves to vote against her.  She will cost us the Senate the house and probably ensure that the Marriage amendment passes in California.

Bill has already proven that he can't sit on the side lines.  He had his two terms and I don't want him near the White House again and there are lots of Americans who feel the same way

by monkeyga 2008-05-23 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Reality check
whatever.
Let's agree to disagree because both of us are only blowing smoke out our asses.
We'll see as it unfolds.  But from what I'm hearing in my litte corner of the universe she's gaining respect, not losing it.  
by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-23 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Overall, Obama putting Clinton on the ticket would almost clinch the presidency for the Democrats. By putting Clinton on the ticket, Obama can seat Michigan and Florida delegates as elected. Women who supported Clinton will remain excited and many will be happy to vote for the first woman VP.

However, I really don't believe in realignment theory. Most likely, the apparent deterministic cyles in politics are caused by random events such as the Civil War, The Panic of the 1890s, the Great Depression and civil unrest during the Vietnam War.

In reality, politics is continuously changing. Random events corresponing to who is in power at the time makes the realignment process more rapid. When these random events (or "shocks") are large, we get a realignment under traditional political science theory.

by Zzyzzy 2008-05-23 06:23AM | 0 recs
Clinton has nothing to lose and

that ain't good news for Hillary haters.

She's sixty years old, she's got a nice place in the history books now, and there is nothing to keep her from serving out her term and then doing whatever the hell she feels like doing -- write books, start some foundation, travel the world for her own agenda, find a nice front porch somewhere and work on her tan.

Hillary has nothing to lose her.  she knows she can't pull of the nomination and she could care less what anyone in the party thinks of her. After this cycle's hatchet jobs, she has no reason to think she'd get support for a run in 2012.  And the Senate was always a stepping stone and too small for her -- she's not going to spend her last days grumbling through some string of hearings on Capitol Hill.

In other words, at this moment in history the party needs Hillary way more than she needs it or the approval of Barack Obama.  She can pick and choose or say screw it to all of it.

This means she can be as big an asshole as she wants to be between now and November.  She can disrupt the convention, sit out the race in the fall, make Obama's life a living hell because she doesn't need him...but he really needs her.

Obama is not going to play well as the next big Uniter if he can't unite the party.  His message of Hope and Change and Reconcilliation is going to seem pretty lameass if he can't figure out a way to unite his own party behind him.  and the only way for him to do that is to play extra nice with Hillary Clinton and essentially give her whatever she asks for because painting her as some impossible monster is going to alienate her core of support once and for all. And running against McCain and the GOP slime machine he's going to need all the support he can find.

He can't destroy her, he can't win back her people without her and if she's everything evil like the people here keep reminding us she won't give a damn about anything but herself, right?  Good luck with that.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-23 06:44AM | 0 recs
The Primary

The popular vote in PR is not going to determine the results of the primary.  I'm not sure what this post is getting at, what underlying point is being made when Obama is so close to locking this up by the given criteria he and Hillary went into the race signing onto.  If this is about her jockeying for a better position (VP, member of adminstration) it's a terrible way to go about it.  If there is any belief among her followers that this is purely in the name of democracy I believe they are misguided.  What politicians, all politicians (it is part of the job description) want to do most and first is win.  This is simply about winning, but I think she may succeed in just tearing this party apart.

by mady 2008-05-23 07:07AM | 0 recs
Obama Supporter: Okay with Hillary as VP

As an Obama supporter, I am okay with Hillary as the VP for the very simple reason that it would make my mom very Happy.  

She is a passionate Hillary supporter who likes Obama, as I am the reverse.  We both know who the real target is "McCain".  

by TheBite 2008-05-23 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

Now what I am worried about, is two fold

1)McCain will on a ginorous screen at the convention or anytime really, put up a picture of OBama/Clinton, and then the sound bite of her saying tht Obama has not crossed the presidency threshold, and McCain has. All the rightwing talking point statements that Clinton made get extra life.

2)Bill Clinton (and HRC but even without her, she has shown she can't control him or doesn't care) undermine Obama constantly with a DLC agenda as vice presidential spouse.

by MNPundit 2008-05-23 08:20AM | 0 recs
Bill

This is exactly my problem.  I think that Bill has now ruined any chance that there could be for Hillary to be on the ticket.

If Obama chooses her now, he looks week.  He will look as if he gave into the demands of a former president.  Something that would appear to be very unpresidential.

I also don't think that Bill Clinton can give up the spotlight. Do you really think he is going to sit back quietly while Hillary spent her time going to funerals of foreign dignitaries?  I don't.  

I also don't see Hillary being a complete team player.  I don't see her fighting for Obama's positions when she disagrees.   At least in the Senate she can still push her own agenda without appearing to be cutting him off at the knees.

by monkeyga 2008-05-23 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: The Realignment We've Been Waiting For

This is all well and good on paper, but it's like fantasy baseball or something. How is this supposed to work in practice? It'd be literally a three-ring circus, between him, her, and Bill. Then you've got the utter incompatibility of their campaign strategies and tactics, their messages, their foreign policy approaches. Is she prepared to essentially be subordinate on everything important and to stay totally on-message? Are her staff and hangers-on? Is Bill? Because that's what it would take. Obama's crew has earned the right to run their own campaign the way they see fit, and they've proven incredibly disciplined and organized and with it. Can they do that if you try to graft the Clinton apparatus(and apparatchiks) on to it? We can't have her running around talking about obliterating Iran when Obama's trying to define himself against McCain with a new multilateral foreign-policy approach. We can't have her emphasizing her experience because that in turn emphasizes his perceived inexperience and muddies the message of change. We can't have Wolfson / Mcauliffe / Ickes et al fighting their own intraparty battles for control and spoils from within the campaign. We can't have some people trying to run a 90's-style swing state triangulation campaign and others trying to run a 50-state-strategy enlarge-the-tent one. And we can't have Bill going off the reservation all the time and spouting off whatever comes into his increasingly-addled head. And that's before you even get to her negatives and potential power to rile up the GOP base, all of the dirty laundry of the Clinton era getting aired all over again, etc.

If I thought it could work, I might still go for it, even after all that has happened, but it just won't. Most of the positives that could be had by adding her to the ticket could be had without any of those negatives if she would simply retire gracefully after all of the votes are counted and the fait is accomplis-ed, and then make some efforts to reconcile her own voters with Obama and campaign vigorously for the nominee in the fall. If she really cares about the party and about the issues, that's what she'll do. It's as simple as that.

by jddunn 2008-05-23 08:25AM | 0 recs
That's idiotic...

"Yesterday, Chris Bowers created a fascinating electoral map that shows the best case scenario of how an Obama/Clinton ticket would fare against McCain/generic running mate by assigning states according to the best performance by either Obama or Clinton against McCain in general election match-ups."

That is possibly the most idiotic piece of election analysis I've seen this cycle. That's just not the way that VP selections have historically affected the general election results. Bowers might as well be pulling rainbows out of his ass.

by Justin Alexander 2008-05-23 11:55AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads