here's my take on the Dem. strategy if we are going to beat John McCain. What do dems need to do to capture the nomination??

Have you guys noticed the tracker on the home page?? Hillary and Barack both LOSE! I cant believe that. I thought we had this in the bag, I thought there was not even a point to holding an election, seeing as how we we going to crush the repubs this year. Well reality check: we dont. It's not as easy as we thought it would be....

so what now?

Refine our strategy, sharpen up, roll up our sleeves, and get prepared to demolish those repubs. Thats what.

but how?

If we have learned anything over this primary its this: demographics, demographics, DEMOGRAPHICS!!!

Democrats have to win over key demographics and the demographics that are vulnerable to switching parties and ones that McCain will try and snatch from us. I believe these groups to be: over 65's, No college, rural, church goers, and moderate/conservatives. I think the moderate/conservatives are especially vulnerable to switching over to McCain as well as the rural vote. McCain is banking on these people switching over to him and they might if Obama get the nom, based on recent polls.

I think the only reason democrats have lost in the past is because the perception that they are two left. Which is why moderates do so well and ideal candidates because they are more left than others but don't go to far and lose the conservatives. I think the only way possible to capture these votes is to join up.

So yeah there are suggestions about this all the time, but I really think that in theory if Barack and Hillary were on the same ticket we would obliterate McCain. Hillary brings those at risk demographics to the table. While Barack brings in equally important demographic: youth. I think the youth vote could make a real difference this year and if Barack is shut out they will most likely not participate as well as alot of other people.

WE need a unity ticket. TOGETHER WE WOULD OBLITERATE THE REPUBS. Dems cannot afford to win the conventional demographics we need to cut into McCain's bankage.

Tags: brack, Hillary Clinton, obama (all tags)




There is only one combination that works, and I'm not very happy about it: Hillary/Obama. With Obama as VP, he soothes the reformists and African Americans, and but is not enough of a drag to alienate the working class and other Hillary swing voters.

And the path to that is clear: repeat OH, PA and TX. Our volunteer operation has to keep firing on all cylinders. It's as simple as that.

I'm too young to be responsible for McGovern, and I'll do everything possible to dodge McGovern II.

by Pacific John 2008-04-23 02:54PM | 0 recs

   There is nothing that indicates Obama will be the next McGovern. In fact, he's beating McCain in places like CA by MORE than Hillary is according to current polls.

  If Hillary wants to be President, she better somehow catch up in pledged delegates or popular votes...otherwise she only gets the nomination by superdelegate coup, which will kill our party in November.

  Putting Obama on as V.P. to shut his base up is an insult if he happens to win more votes and delegates than Clinton.

by southernman 2008-04-23 03:01PM | 0 recs

I think it should be H/O. She should agree to only one term.

by handsomegent 2008-04-23 03:07PM | 0 recs

  Hillary agree to only one term? Bush will withdraw all troops from Iraq before Hillary will agree to that.
by southernman 2008-04-23 03:14PM | 0 recs

It may be the only way he'll agree to the second spot.  He can win in 2012 and then put her on the court.  A Supreme Court Justice AND President wouldn't be too bad I think.

by handsomegent 2008-04-23 03:34PM | 0 recs
    She won't do it. Hillary has to have the power! Simply won't happen.
by southernman 2008-04-23 03:38PM | 0 recs

I agree partially with you southernman. I agree that unless hillary overturns barack in the pop. vote then she will have no viable path to the nom. But I think if she does do that (win the pop vote) and Barack still leads in delegates, a unity ticket should be highly considered. I dont think the super d.s will overrule the pop. and the delegates but whether you like Hillary or not, she brings in key demographics that are at risk with Obama v. McCain.

Conventionality would tell us, no way, no prize for second place. But this isnt a conventional election. Ill say it again:

we need to dig into McCain's base.  

by amde 2008-04-23 03:10PM | 0 recs
CA's not the problem
CA has been the bluest state or close to it since 2000. The problems are OH, PA, MI, FL. We have to take 3/4 or 4/4 to win the White House.

If Hillary wants to be President, she better somehow catch up in pledged delegates or popular votes[...]

Yep. That is her argument. The HRC strategy is to offer the delegates two winners: one with the most delegates, the other with the most votes. It will also become clear if one has strength in the electoral college.

The "rules" then require that the superdelegates do whatever is in the best interest of the party. The only irony will be whether the supers play the role they were designed to play after the McGovern debacle or not.

by Pacific John 2008-04-23 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: CA's not the problem

California's not as blue as people think it is. Have you seen our governator?

by LakersFan 2008-04-23 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: CA's not the problem

And MA had Mitt. The county's not as blue as we think ;)

by Pacific John 2008-04-23 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: CA's not the problem

Yup. Scary.

by LakersFan 2008-04-23 04:05PM | 0 recs

I doubt he'd accept back of the bus treatment when he's ahead. If he did, I'm not sure the AA vote would come out.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 03:18PM | 0 recs

ahead in delegates, while she's ahead in the pop. vote (?)

honeslty while I like Hillary more, I think a BO/HC ticket would be a winner.

by amde 2008-04-23 03:20PM | 0 recs

The pop vote isn't the measure and it never was.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 03:24PM | 0 recs

There is no "the." The superdelegates were invented to overturn the sort of pledged delegate mistake we had with McGovern. One scenario argued at the time was that if a candidate's flaws were exposed late in the process, the supers could stave-off disaster.

There is NO rule that ties the supers to the popular vote, the pledged delegate count, how their own state or district voted, nothing. They are supposed to vote based on their judgement alone.

by Pacific John 2008-04-23 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: "The"

They won't because if they do they're assured of losing in the GE and they know it.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: "The"

That is entirely debatable based on the electoral map.

by Pacific John 2008-04-23 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: "The"

You're paying attention to the wrong thing. If the first viable african-american candidate plays by the rules, wins the most delegates, and isn't the nominee, the question won't be how many african-americans stay home it will be how many generations will it take before african-americans come back. Dems can't win a national election without them and the supers are certainly aware of that. Perhaps Obama is a gamble but going the other way is surely a loser. For a long long time.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: "The"

Well, then, we might have a problem. For a couple of months now, polling shows Hillary voters are much more likely to stay home or vote form McCain.

But like I said upthread, there is one way out of this: Obama as VP if Hillary wins the popular vote. There is nothing magic about pledged delegates if they fall short on their own.

by Pacific John 2008-04-23 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: "The"

As I said upthread, Obama isn't going to the back of the bus if he wins the most delegates. HRC can if she wants.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: "The"

I have a feeling you'd say the same thing if the roles were reversed. But like I told a friend of mine who is a super before Super Tuesday, I trust her judgment no matter what.

by Pacific John 2008-04-23 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: "The"

You'd be incorrect about what I'd say but honestly I couldn't care less about what you feel.

I doubt your friend wants to doom the Democratic party for generations so if she hasn't decided yet I  be she either goes with her constituents if she has any or Obama.  

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: "The"


by Pacific John 2008-04-23 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: "The"

For the record, I was an Edwards supporter and if Edwards or Obama was trailing like Clinton I would want him to drop out. There's no reason to go to the convention for a fight.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 05:57PM | 0 recs

A unity ticket would not satisfy anyone and if the Big O is the Prez candidate, she would bring nothing to the table.

Why would you want a candidate who is so universially untrusted by the american public? The polls show just how unelectable HRC is in a GE and she does not bring enough to Obama.

No he needs to think about someone else like Kathleen Sebelius or Webb

by gil44 2008-04-23 03:07PM | 0 recs

Webbis a loose canon, I wouldn't trust him in the YouTube world in which we live.  And do you think Clinton supporters are going to like the choice of another different woman?

by handsomegent 2008-04-23 03:09PM | 0 recs

Hillary has been too negative to Obama, and besides she has already endorsed John McCain for CIC.  She ought to run with him as his VP.

by Spanky 2008-04-23 03:15PM | 0 recs

come on now spanky. she hasn't endorsed McCain;

by amde 2008-04-23 03:18PM | 0 recs

She said that she and John McCain was ready to be CIC.  What would you say that was?  Sounded very much like an endorsement to me.  I know that Obama will use that aginst Obama in the GE.  That is why Hillary could never be Obama's VP.

by Spanky 2008-04-23 03:30PM | 0 recs

I know that McCain will use what Hillary said against Obama.

by Spanky 2008-04-23 03:31PM | 0 recs

That's NOT the same thing as endorsing.

by handsomegent 2008-04-23 03:35PM | 0 recs

she would definetly bring things to the table. she would bring in the rural vote that has been so ilusive to Obama. face it: Obama needs what she has and Hill needs what he has. It you fail to recognize this, we are doomed for failure.

by amde 2008-04-23 03:12PM | 0 recs

Isn't that just a wee bit ageist?

Like calling the supporters of one candidate "brillo heads" -
Or the supporters of another candidate "feminazis"?

There are better ways to express political disagreement than to use ageist stereotypes.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-23 03:12PM | 0 recs

ur upset about me calling McCain old?? well i never thought i'd see the day.

Apologies if I offended you, it wasn't mean spirited i meant it jokingly.

by amde 2008-04-23 03:15PM | 0 recs

Calling old people "fossils" is like calling black people "watermelon eaters" or gay men "fudge packers" or Mexican Americans "wetbacks" - it is that dehumanizing.

I am saddened that you think it more amusing than anything else.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-23 04:33PM | 0 recs

hey i said i was sorry.

[watermelon eaters? i like watermelon and i'm not black; ive never heard that]

by amde 2008-04-23 07:20PM | 0 recs

Thanks - -

How old are you?
It's an old and vulgar stereotype.

link - Freeze-thumb.jpg

by johnnygunn 2008-04-23 08:19PM | 0 recs

in case you wouldn't have caught this link from the other thread... l


by RisingTide 2008-04-24 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Nope

There is also the gendering of jobs.

In Wyoming, guys make $20 an hour driving a water truck in the methane fields.  That involves driving slowly down dirt roads all day long while water sprinkles out the tank in back.

Women who work in nursing homes make $8 an hour.  Why?  Which job is more "dangerous"?  Which job has greater responsibility?  A hundred years ago, bank tellers used to be almost exclusively male.  The job paid a middle-class salary.  Today, bank tellers are  mostly female and the average pay scale has dropped accordingly.

The baloney about men taking more dangerous/difficult jobs is fantasy in large part.  The reality is that jobs that largely employ women are devalued by our society.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-24 08:32AM | 0 recs
Thank you for the intelligent response!

Nurses in hospitals have very dangerous work, yet probably arent' compensated as much as they should.

by RisingTide 2008-04-24 09:01AM | 0 recs
Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama

is the ticket. It has almost become the only ticket possible out there.

Yes, i am aware of Webb, Zinni, the governor of Kansas and so forth. I don't think these politicians have established the bonds that Senator Clinton has established with her base and with the demographic groups who have been extremely faithful to her.

Moreover, this ticket is the only one because there has not been any knockout, blowout, or crushing victory of one candidate over the other. Anyway victory is going to be tainted by something. If Senator Clinton wins, people would say well she won only because of the super delegates. If Senator Obama wins, they would say he won only because they did not count Fl/MI (fairly or unfairly doesn't matter really because politics is not about fairness, it is about impressions).

So, these two candidates are very close to each other, and in my opinion, let them fight for this nomination until the end of the primaries. Then, get in a room. Close the doors. Turn off the microphones. Kick out all the advisors from the room. And then start bargaining/talking about hammering the small differences in their policy positions and propositions. Then, walk out, hand in hand, and stand up before those 10000s of microphones and smile, hug, and give that press conference that would be carried live on every channels in the world and played over and over and over. All they need to do is to have a big smile and a hug (maybe a kiss) and say ""God bless this country and the democratic party. Let us win this election. McCain here we come. We gonna whoop your ass into submission."

This is what scares the hell out of the republicans. Just last night, while watching the return at a friends house, i was told my a long time republican official in my state and i am quoting him here "If these two [that is Hillary and Barack] get their act together and get on the same ticket, Jesus Christ himself won't be able to beat them. They would have more money than Croesus and a base that would easily get them to 300 [that is 300 electoral votes]. It would a disaster for us up and down the ticket. It could very well be a truly realigning election."

Well, although i don't agree with republicans at all, i think this republican clearly got it.

by likelihood zero 2008-04-23 03:36PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads