The non-nuclear option

Because I am a Democrat, and because that's the only thing left that just about everyone on this site has in common, we should consider what last night's events, and those of the past three months have told us.

Neither Obama or Clinton has a large enough base to have a reasonable chance to win this thing by themselves.

Both poll at about 45-50 percent nationally, with little meaningful variation. Both sides have significant amounts of supporters who are independents/conservative Democrats/overzealous youth/African-Americans/strong-minded women who could sit out or vote for McCain if either wins by superdelegate, which we all admit has to happen for someone to reach the magic number. Both sides are just prideful enough to hurt our chances come November.

So why take the chance in November. With the two of them at the top of the ticket, we can bury these guys and get 400 EV's. It's not wishful thinking, its demographics.

Do you really think women or AA'S will not vote if both are on the ticket, in whatever order? Whoever takes VP is one step below the presidency.

How do we do it? Don't change a thing. Keep running for President. Whoever is second at the convention gets the 2nd spot. At this point, that could be either one.

But if any Obama supporters or Hillary supporters are under the illusion that the other's advocates will sit by and watch their dreams taken by superdelegates and still show up in November in adequate enough numbers, they're dreaming.

That's where we are. This has gone on so long that the two camps have become entrenched. Neither wants to give up, and both have compelling cases. They need, however, to stop tearing each other apart. Politics ain't beanbag, but it also isn't supposed to be a mutually assured destruction of our hopes in November.

Keep running, both of you great candidates, but don't forget that November is what matters, no matter who you want to win the nomination.

And for those of you who think that your side will win the nomination and all will be healed, you haven't studied history, have you? 1968, 1976, 1980.

Consider this before you summarily dismiss it, because we all see where this is heading. He has a lead, but she can chip away and make it damn close by the end. Then what? We call it a tie? The superdelegates haven't shown a whole lot of decisiveness so far, have they? They're almost even in super d's.

And forget the brokered convention. You think these people picked delegates so they could change their minds. Neither side took that chance when sending these people to Denver.

Think about it. And answer the poll question.

Tags: compromise, Joint Ticket, Obamillary (all tags)

Comments

13 Comments

Re: The non-nuclear option

the 25% of each side that say they would vote republican, won't seriously consider this untill they have to.

like I said in another blog, let both sides get nasty, you can't stop it, but what it will do is scare the supers and they endorse faster to end this.

and in the end yes we will get the joint ticket.

but just leave it you already hear it people are getting nervous, sometimes the way to fix something is to let it get so bad people see it needs to be fixed.

I am fine with both sides being this way, it only signals to the supes, we can't afford for them to let it go till June.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-23 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The non-nuclear option

There won't be a Obama/Clinton ticket.  Hillary has burnt her bridges to be able to run on Obama's ticket.  She did that the day she endorsed McCain to be CIC.

by Spanky 2008-04-23 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The non-nuclear option

There won't be an Obama/Clinton ticket but not for your 'reasons'. Simply put, Hillary is not going to take VP. Obama might if he were wise, but he'd also be wise to sit out the election if Hillary gets it. Of course, with that, he runs the risk of Hillary getting elected and having her VP choice be the person waiting in the wings. It's political gamesmanship.

Hillary never endorsed McCain to be Commander in Chief. She's only endorsed herself in this election.

by VAAlex 2008-04-23 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: The non-nuclear option

I disagree

this is NOT that negative, I mean really, hey you take money from oil companies no you do!

you are a liar, no you are a liar!

sorry, its NOT that negative, just each sides activists are too involved.

I think there WILL be a joint ticket, the reason being 45 contests later and they are still neck and neck, they both have HALF the party behind them.

and neither can really afford to chance that they can win the other side.

I'd put money on it, Obama/Clinton '08
(assuming she doesn't say no and decides on something like Senate Majority leader)

by TruthMatters 2008-04-23 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The non-nuclear option

Since my rating power was taken again, MOJO!

by DemUnity 2008-04-23 11:25AM | 0 recs
Oh...

I thought this post was about "obliterating" Iran...

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-23 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh...

MOJO!

by DemUnity 2008-04-23 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The non-nuclear option

Hillary is not going to be Obama's VP.  I think she wants to try again for 2012.  Obama wouldn't take Clinton as her VP, too much baggage.  Not only would he have to deal with his junk, he'd have to deal with the Clintons' also.

Obama is not going to be Hillary's VP.  It's not a smart career move and I don't think that he and Clinton could be amicable.

Let's face it, we're in trouble.  The supers aren't budging much and by the time June rolls around everyone is going to be so pissed off, they won't vote for the other candidate.  We're past the point of no return.

by venavena 2008-04-23 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The non-nuclear option

some times THEY don't have a choice.

Neither side can promise they will get the other sides supporters.

the supes can easily say ok Obama we will endorse you to end this ONLY if you promise to give hillary the right of first refusal.  

sometimes you don't get too choose who you want, its chosen for you, this primary I think they both now have the right of first refusal.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-23 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: The non-nuclear option

Reagan didn't like GHW Bush in 1980.  JFK didn't like LBJ in 1960.  Sometimes you just do what you have to do.

by KTinOhio 2008-04-23 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: The non-nuclear option

I could have my history wrong here

but weren't those BOTH winning tickets?

by TruthMatters 2008-04-23 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: The non-nuclear option

MOJO! for the history buff.

by DemUnity 2008-04-23 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The non-nuclear option

I also believe there will be a unity ticket brokered. And I believe that Hillary is sincere in her statement that she and Bill will work their butts off to get a Dem in the White House. I am not so sure she would say no to a VP offer... after the last primary, and AFTER MI & FL are resolved. If she is STILL behind, and the primary is blessed as legit, I think HRC would accept VP. Having said that, I still think she is the better candidate for the top spot.

by JHL 2008-04-23 05:33PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads