The interesting thing about these SUSA surveys is that Sebelius and Hagel generally torpedo Obama's chances in every state whereas Edwards adds 7-10 points to his margin. OTOH, while Huckabee is generally a little better for McCain, his choice seems to matter far, far less.
I would love to see how an Obama/Clinton ticket fares.
I think it is a virtual certainty that she will be the VP if she wants it. First of all, I think that Obama will offer it to her as a show of unity. Even if he doesn't she has the political capital to force her way on if she really wants to.
Also, I lost my rec abilities for being pro-Obama, but I could care less. I come here for infromation mainly (and to post my opinion only secondarily...), and the signal:noise ratio is still far better than DK.
I agree (mostly). It is inevitable, but it has been inevitable since 3/5 (the OH/TX night), not just since last night.
This is the main problem with the current situation, from a mathematical viewpoint. The nominating process doesn't actually select the nominee as the "will of the democratic Party", but rather, it is a proxy for the will of the Party, a model with a statistical margin of error. Even though Obama is going to win the process, if it were possible to design an objective statistical test of the results, I guarantee that you would not be able to reject at any reasonable statistical significance level the null hypothesis that the race is actually a tie. In other words, this race is going to end in a statistical tie. Both sides can argue for their candidate until they are blue in the face, but the fact remains that neither "won" with any statistical significance. Obama deserves to be at the top of the ticket because he won the process, but Clinton absolutely deserves the first shot at the VP slot on the ticket because she didn't really lose.
I have thought this would be an excellent ticket since NH. I have thought this is the inevitable ticket since 3/5 (TX, OH). I still think so. The two of them have too many complementary strengths for it not to benefit both to be on the ticket together.
It depends on what level of support you are asking for. I won't contribute my money or time to her campaign as I would Obama, but I will certainly vote for her over McW every day of the week. Without a doubt.
When the nomination process is over and Obama is the nominee, and Hillary is actively campaigning for him, pleading with her supporters to vote for him over McCain (possibly even as the VP nominee), and he loses becuase her supporters are too stubborn and childish to listen even to Hillary herself, that's their problem, and their problem that they've just foisted on the whole country.
And although our leader would be gracious in asking us to disregard the injustice, millions of "Hillary Democrats" will be unable to do so.
So, if Hillary acknowledges that Obama won the primary and asks her supporters to support him in the GE, you still won't be able to? That's not democracy, that's full-on four-year-old level temper tantrum.
That is the difference between TD and alegre. Alegre said that as long as Hillary is in the race fighting, she will be fighting for her. Fine, I don't agree with her smear tactics sometimes, but whatever, as long as her candidate is in the race, she is right - she should be fighting for her. OTOH, TD says that even after Hillary concedes and asks for you to support Obama against McW, she still won't. That's just sore loserism and should be considered trolling this site. If you agree with TD, then you are a troll who should be banned as well. And don't let the door hit you in the ass, either.