I take solace in the fact that right now McCain is up 6 against either Obama or Clinton despite the fact that he has essentially been spared for weeks on end. As our two candidates continue to campaignon, McCain is essentially getting a free pass from both the Dems and the media now. IA is a swing state having switched from Blue to Red in '04.
I think that the Nader vote is a protest vote against both HRC and BHO in March. After the 2000 fiasco, no one wants the Republican to win thsi way again.
I had warned and worried about this months ago...got dismissed as a concern troll.
I know you did, and I think a lot of us just didn't want to think about it. I began to agree with on Super Tuesday.
The sad fact is BO and HRC have very different voting bases and each for different reasons each base is not that interested in voting for the other. I tried posting this many times on dkos and each time i was bullied and shouted down.
The fact is, much like 1960, we have to have a dream ticket similar to JFK and LBJ. They won because one candidate brought in wine and cheese and AA voters and the other working folk or Reagan democrats.
I have heard over and over that this will not happen. My question is why not. My understanding is the plan is to put forth the strongest ticket to being the WH back to the dems. I think most HRC supporters are ok with this. If BO doesnt pick HRC for the VP he is going to get clocked.
And one last thing. IMHO McCain will pick Kay Hutchinson as his VP and she will really take even more older women voters from BO.
david
Can I get a lady Senator for 1000, Alex?
I guess this is one way to overcome that whole "Senator cannot win the white house stat"--only nominate senators!
I supported a Governor first.
So sayeth Kay:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/02/24/potential-vp-picks-stay-mum/
I did see this but on the other hand lots of pols say no way and then change their mind. So i guess i still think she is on the short list. And if it ws me she would be number one. BO is already iffy with older white women and Kay would take an important demographic away for BO.
But time will tell. Maybe MITTENS?
I was thinking he might go for Sarah Plain, the Governor of Alaska--she would not only appeal to women who will be unhappy if Clinton loses the nomination, but she's a Governor (with an 84% approval rating) and she has youth on her side, something McCain most definitely lacks.
http://gov.state.ak.us/
Er, her name is Sarah PALIN -- she most definitely not plain. ;)
Michael Bloomberg, if he's interested, probably would do a lot for McCain. He would draw in Jewish voters and moderate Democrats unwilling to trust a very dovish Democratic candidate, a la the great Namont-Lieberman election of 2006.
Thanks. I suck as a typist. I agree that McCain-Bloomberg would be a tough ticket to beat, but I just don't see it happening. Bloomberg doesn't agree with McCain on the Iraq war and any number of issues. Also, McCain wouldn't have tried so hard to court the religious right vote if he was willing to cast them aside by picking such someone so liberal on social issues as Bloomberg.
Hillary's desperate attempts to draw Obama into a mud wrestling match have hurt both Democrats.
Look, McCain will win this thing if Obama is the nominee.
All the questions about Rev. Wright are EXACTLY the kind of thing that Hillary supporters had in mind when they said that Obama hasn't been vetted.
Obama may be able to relieve his pastor of his campaign duties, but he can't undo 20 years of close association with his spiritual mentor.
Either Democrat beats McCain. I guarantee it. If Obama has now been vetted, he still comes out better than Clinton. Obama is delivering transparency even now. The Clintons' legacy of scandal, secrecy, and untrusworthiness is legion. What I do know about Hillary and Bill bothers me more than what I don't know about Obama. Hillary's negatives are so high across the nation that she'll have a lot tougher time beating McCain than Obama will. Obama is too smart and resilient to be swift-boated.
