|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
of course , Hillary's "concern" about Florida and Michigan is no great fight for the rights of the People as she accepted the original ruling of the DNC disciplining the State Parties for moving their primaries up. Her argument would be more convincing if she was there protesting at the beginning and not when it is in her interest to do so. Pandering at it's worst, I'm afraid.
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ps118
Shipmate
# 13655
|
Posted
I don't think there's a good solution for Florida and Michigan at this point. I had one idea the other day. They keep talk about not punishing the voters for the parties' wrongs. What if they refused to seat the superdelegates from the two states and replaced them with random democrats chosen by lottery, maybe from people who've been registered democrats for at least ten years. That punishes the party bigwigs who broke the rules and moved up the primaries.
A question to the group - do you think it would matter if John Edwards endorsed one or the other? He must have a few delegates? Do you think he'll have any influence at the convention? I was surprised he didn't surface for the NC primary.
Posts: 185 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
Hmmmm: it sounds like she's throwing a bone to the people who say she should concede but doesn't have much intention to, especially given the reference to the Florida and Michigan delegates...
At this point, she can't overtake Obama's lead even with Michigan and Florida's delegates. Obama needs 189 delegates to win the nomination and Clinton is 344 shy of the magic "2025". There are 271 undeclared superdelegates. The remaining primary states have a total of 344 to assign. Is there any doubt Obama will secure 189 of those? Hillary is positioning herself for something else. My guess is the VP spot. <shudder>
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Dollars to doughnuts she's meeting with her closest advisors and trying to see if there's a way forward and if so whether she can pay for it. She needed a stronger win than she got in Indiana, and her campaign is refusing to say whether she's made another loan to it or not -- which means she did and they're pretty much broke.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
My guess is the VP spot. <shudder>
If Obama picks her my strong recommendation to him is to beef up his Secret Service protection. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
And what I'd give to be a fly on the wall at any high level DNC meetings for the next few weeks: I bet it would make watching sausage manufacturing look like a pleasant activity.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Well they said the media declares the nominees and This headline sums it. Tim Russert declared Obama.
Very cool times to be alive. Damn I hope shes the veep.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
of course , Hillary's "concern" about Florida and Michigan is no great fight for the rights of the People as she accepted the original ruling of the DNC disciplining the State Parties for moving their primaries up. Her argument would be more convincing if she was there protesting at the beginning and not when it is in her interest to do so. Pandering at it's worst, I'm afraid.
If you think that is pandering at its worst, you haven't been watching her very closely recently... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Then again, 40 years ago here almost to the day, on what looked like the brink of civil war, President De Gaulle disappeared for a whole day here and people thought it was The End. In fact he had gone to Germany to consult top military commanders stationed there to ensure he had their continued support, and returned the next day to effectively declare an end to "les événements" and go on to restore order and win an election... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
eeGAD
Wandering Stowaway
# 4675
|
Posted
At what point does/will Hillary's continuing fight for the nomination work against the Dems as a whole?
Don't you think that McCain's camp is thrilled by all of these shenanigans?
eeG (political neophyte)
--------------------
You don't fix faith. It fixes you. - Shepherd Book
Posts: 976 | From: The Land of Mary | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Hillary is lending herself $6 million. So she's at least trying to stay in the race. What's her strategy? Either keep fighting or throw in the towel, hope Obama loses so she can come back in 2012?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ps118:
A question to the group - do you think it would matter if John Edwards endorsed one or the other? He must have a few delegates? Do you think he'll have any influence at the convention? I was surprised he didn't surface for the NC primary.
There's some talk in NC (where I am) that the reason he's not made an endorsement, and has kept such a low profile is because he's courting the VP spot from whichever.
(Only the conspiracy theorists know for sure...)
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by eeGAD:
At what point does/will Hillary's continuing fight for the nomination work against the Dems as a whole?
Don't you think that McCain's camp is thrilled by all of these shenanigans?
eeG (political neophyte)
There are at least two schools of thought.
One thinks that if they air the dirty laundry now, then it will be less interesting when the GOP tries to air it again. Picture people saying in six months, "Tony Rezko? Who was that? Wasn't that settled long before now? Why is McCain still talking about it? Obama's already answered all the questions. Aren't there more important things to be discussing now?" Also it guarantees that the contender will be prepared for the grueling battle of the general election (Dude, if he can take all of the crap that Hillary has thrown at him, he can take anything!). It might be like a market thingie, where continual competition breeds a more efficient model. The more we test the candidates, the more we'll know about what they can do.
The other thinks that it'll be bad either because party loyalists will be exhausted by the fight (Oh God, you mean this is going to go on through November!?), because something Obama or Hillary say now will bite them in the ass later (remember this video clip of Obama saying something stupid? Let's play it again!), or because people will continue to support their initial candidate after the primary is over (I can't believe what Obama said about Hillary! How could I ever vote for that man?). It's also possible that the campaign will make both combatants look really ugly even before the general election starts.
So, there's a lot of ways to look at this. Personally, I think it should end soon for the good of the party.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by eeGAD:
Don't you think that McCain's camp is thrilled by all of these shenanigans?
I'm not the only one who thinks Clinton could be a better candidate against McCain. The dynamic has changed some since this was written but IMO parts remain applicable.
quote:
DEMOCRATS SEEM INTENT on nominating Barack Obama, in the face of mounting evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the stronger candidate against John McCain in November. And they only have themselves to blame.
Yes, the Clinton camp made strategic blunders that allowed Obama to score heavily in Republican states where few Democrats vote. But the real culprit is the party's stupid, self-destructive nominating system, which has two major flaws.
snip
Since Feb. 19, seven states have voted. Clinton has won four — Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island — building up a popular-vote margin of 483,000. Yet her total gain in delegates was exactly five. In Texas, she won by more than 100,000 votes, but because of that state's ridiculous rules, she actually came out five delegates behind.
How can that outcome possibly be fair? How can it possibly benefit the party?
Wait, it gets worse. Obama built up sizable margins in small states that Clinton was foolish enough to concede. His delegate advantage in Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana — three states that will never vote Democratic — was a total of 38. By contrast, Clinton handily won three large swing states — Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio. And yet, because of party rules, her combined marginal gain amounted to 28 delegates.
How can it make sense for Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana to have a bigger impact on choosing the Democratic nominee than Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio?
snip
And Republicans are gleeful.
Three months ago, they were convinced that Clinton was the easier candidate to beat, and she's hardly an ideal choice, not when more than half of all voters tell ABC pollsters they don't like or trust her. But many GOP insiders now see her as a tougher, more tenacious rival, and the latest polls support that judgment.
The Associated Press-Ipsos survey gives Clinton a 50 percent to 41 percent edge over McCain, while Obama ties his Republican rival. As GOP pollster Steve Lombardo told the AP: "This just reinforces the sentiment that a lot of Republican strategists are having right now — that Clinton might actually be the more formidable fall candidate for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that Obama can't seem to get his footing back."
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Did not Howard Dean say that it won't be allowed to drag on past the start of June, and it _will_ be settled before the convention?
For the best, I think. If it gets too ugly, we all lose. (Well, all us Democrats, anyway.)
Still, though, it's been some ride!
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ps118
Shipmate
# 13655
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scarlet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ps118:
A question to the group - do you think it would matter if John Edwards endorsed one or the other? He must have a few delegates? Do you think he'll have any influence at the convention? I was surprised he didn't surface for the NC primary.
There's some talk in NC (where I am) that the reason he's not made an endorsement, and has kept such a low profile is because he's courting the VP spot from whichever.
(Only the conspiracy theorists know for sure...)
Doesn't seem likely, since he was already second on a losing ticket, and he doesn't give either of them something he or she doesn't have. I can't imagine why he'd want it. It's one thing to sacrifice possibly your last years with your wife to public service as President, quite another as VP. I hope he's too smart to be courting the VP spot, although it's hard to see why he wouldn't endorse otherwise.
On the subject of VP, I don't think both Clinton and Obama can be on the ticket together in either order. I think the racial and gender tableaux matter. The VP slot looks so subordinate, Cheney and Bush aside. That relationship is just creepy and dangerous and probably unconstitutional. The first black near nominee can't stand subordinate himself to a white person, and the first female near nominee can't subordinate herself to a man. I think either one, and as much as I'd like to, I'm not ruling Clinton out yet, needs a white man as VP. I think the visual, the tableau would help either ticket. I tend to be assassination paranoid for both, but especially for Obama, and even more so with a white male VP. There's always Bill Richardson, who was my fave, but I hope he'd have the sense to turn it down. Certainly, Clinton's not going to be offering it to him.
Posts: 185 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ps118:
That relationship is just creepy and dangerous and probably unconstitutional.
How could it be unconstitutional?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
I'm not the only one who thinks Clinton could be a better candidate against McCain. The dynamic has changed some since this was written but IMO parts remain applicable.
In spite of your current polls, the new young voters in this country will decide the election and it won't favor the doddering, old Bush-clone. I can't wait to see McCain go up against Obama in a debate. Unless his cronies pump McCain full of sedatives, he'll show his surly side or pop a vein on stage for sure. McCain can barely keep his facts and figures straight in a prepared speech - imagine when Obama starts walking all over him live before a televised audience. McCain will blow a gasket. I just hope they keep a defibrillator handy for the old codger. He may, at least, win a few sympathy votes when they haul him off-stage with a stretcher.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ps118
Shipmate
# 13655
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Ps118:
That relationship is just creepy and dangerous and probably unconstitutional.
How could it be unconstitutional?
Sorry. I overstated my case to the point of inaccuracy. There's no way to know, or at least there likely won't be any way to know for decades and decades, since Cheney's surrounded by so much secrecy. He has expanded the powers of the executive, likely in violation of statutes and/or the spirit at least of Article II of the Consitution,
Posts: 185 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Very cool times to be alive. Damn I hope shes the veep.
May I ask why?
I would've thought, and granted I'm an entire ocean away ![[Smile]](smile.gif) , that Obama would be better off going with someone younger [I'm not meaning to be rude or offensive, but it seems to me that Obama is far more of a 'fresh breath' compared to Clinton and his ideas are more inline with 'younger' people] and more in-line with his beliefs. And I would feel it could be a very strained relationship with such a famous person as VP. But I am not there and do not know how these things work out in practice.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Mad Geo wrote: Damn I hope shes the veep.
Damn I hope she's not.
I agree that Bill Richardson would be a great choice. But another intriguing option would be Montana's straight-shooting Governor Brian Schweitzer. Here's a REAL ID and Patriot Act-hatin', global warming eco-hawk energy expert who fought to have Montana National Guard troops brought home from Iraq to fight forest fires. Interestingly enough, he chose a Republican State Senator as his running mate without drawing the ire of the DNC. So he has interesting "new paradigm" cred. Right now he's an uncommitted Superdelegate who has pledged to honor Montana'a choice in the last primary of the season.
He's also something of a gun nut (and I mean that in the nicest possible way, Mad Geo) who brings his dog to the office with him and rarely appears in public in a necktie.
Other intriguing choices: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius, Virginia former Governor Mark Warner (although his abrupt withdrawal from the Presidential Derby early on makes one wonder...), or Virginia Senator Jim Webb.
[ 08. May 2008, 04:44: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
But another intriguing option would be Montana's straight-shooting Governor Brian Schweitzer. Here's a REAL ID and Patriot Act-hatin', global warming eco-hawk energy expert who fought to have Montana National Guard troops brought home from Iraq to fight forest fires. Interestingly enough, he chose a Republican State Senator as his running mate without drawing the ire of the DNC. So he has interesting "new paradigm" cred. Right now he's an uncommitted Superdelegate who has pledged to honor Montana'a choice in the last primary of the season.
Wow. I looked him up in Google images and was relieved to see that he's not all that attractive, because I coulda been a goner. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:
Other intriguing choices: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius,
She gave the Democratic response to the State of the Union this year. Pundits didn't seem to like it, but I did. I wonder if Obama will feel like he needs to pick a woman.
Lawrence O'Donnell says a senior Clinton campaign official has told him it will be over by June 15. I wonder why this has been leaked. I suppose to ease the path toward her quitting and also make an effort to keep people from completely hating her. Someone on NPR pointed out that in 1992 Paul Tsongas won Connecticut after he'd pulled out of the race, which humiliated Bill Clinton, and that in a way it's better for Obama if Hillary Clinton officially stays in it since she's sure to win a couple more of the upcoming states.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
Mad Geo wrote: Damn I hope shes the veep.
Damn I hope she's not.
HUH! but but but, Why!
quote:
I agree that Bill Richardson would be a great choice. But another intriguing option would be Montana's straight-shooting Governor Brian Schweitzer. Here's a REAL ID and Patriot Act-hatin', global warming eco-hawk energy expert who fought to have Montana National Guard troops brought home from Iraq to fight forest fires. Interestingly enough, he chose a Republican State Senator as his running mate without drawing the ire of the DNC. So he has interesting "new paradigm" cred. Right now he's an uncommitted Superdelegate who has pledged to honor Montana'a choice in the last primary of the season.
Interesting. But wouldn't Her Majesty bring a hellofa lot more votes to the table?
quote:
He's also something of a gun nut (and I mean that in the nicest possible way, Mad Geo) who brings his dog to the office with him and rarely appears in public in a necktie.
No offense taken. sans-Necktie is a nice touch.
quote:
Other intriguing choices: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius, Virginia former Governor Mark Warner (although his abrupt withdrawal from the Presidential Derby early on makes one wonder...), or Virginia Senator Jim Webb.
But, how many votes between the lot of them? I've at least heard of the Montana dude.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
RuthW wrote: Wow. I looked him up in Google images and was relieved to see that he's not all that attractive, because I coulda been a goner.
I think he's kind of cute. But then again, I think Ed Rendell is a stone-cold babe and never got the Colin Firth thing. Which is why RuthW and I never have to worry about facing off in a Stage Cage Death Match over a man.
Warner or Webb have the electoral advantage of locking up Virginia for the Dems. Warner is a self-made telecom zillionaire and Webb was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy who Saw The Light and switched parties.
Hillary on the ticket would drag down Obama, I think. Yes, she's got a hard-core base of support, but she's also the single most polarizing and hated figure in American politics. Republicans who might be otherwise inclined to sit this one out because of their "Meh..." reaction to McCain will emerge in droves to vote against her.
I also think putting her on the ticket substantially undercuts Obama's "no more politics as usual" message. Putting the runner-up you loathe on the ticket has a very JFK-LBJ smoke-filled-room feel to it.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I dunno. I think that whatever her liabilities, her base plus his base equals a win. I guess we'll find out as I am sure that the politicos or at least Dean have thought this out nine ways to sunday.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Hillary Deathwatch.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Hillary Deathwatch.
includes a link to this contest:
quote:
I’ve heard some pretty creative descriptions of what must happen to Obama or his campaign for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination. Back in March, Politico wrote that "she cannot win unless Obama is hit by a political meteor." Slate’s John Dickerson writes that for Clinton to catch up now, "she must bring more states into the union." In an episode of On the Media last month, Bob Garfield described one worst-case-scenario as "a video of Barack Obama in a motel room with a den of Cub Scouts setting fire to the American flag."
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Ps118, do you have any links about how Cheney has expanded executive power? I thought the VP was allowed as much power as the president gave him and little more (aside from the senate thing).
Admittedly he's a cabinet level executive employee who wasn't approved by congress, but he was elected by the American people, so I don't see a problem there.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ps118
Shipmate
# 13655
|
Posted
I'm not going to re-open whether Bush and Cheney were elected in 2000, and I shouldn't have opened the Cheney can of worms at all in this thread. Now that I look, I don't have any links to support for it that aren't opinion or speculation, albeit by relatively responsible people, not crackpots. Maybe best to just leave it and let the thread be about the election.
Posts: 185 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I dunno. I think that whatever her liabilities, her base plus his base equals a win. I guess we'll find out as I am sure that the politicos or at least Dean have thought this out nine ways to sunday.
But could the bases effectively coalesce? After the primary, it would be somewhat jarring to go from tearing each other apart rhetorically to being on the same page. Obama stakes his reputation on being a straight shooting kind of candidate; even if I have my doubts about that, to pull a rapid 180 on something so personal would be hard to explain, even if the theoretical "numbers" add up.
Besides, how many of Hillary's base would vote for John McCain over Obama? If their bases are so similar that the two candidates could join at the hip without raising an eyebrow, does he really need to take her on, issues and all, in order to win her base over? I think he'd be looking for new territory, which is one of the political jobs of a good VP.
ETA: some clarification and a smoothed-over contradiction.
[ 08. May 2008, 14:21: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I don't think they are that similar. Sure there is overlap, but there is also a fairly significant women demographic that has been voting Hillary. Gods knows I know quite a few that are pissed off shes not winning.
Obama picks up a lot of those women if he chooses her.
If she gets out sooner rahter than later, there is a LOT of time between then and November. Just look back at where we were in the elections 4 months ago, if you doubt it.
All that being said, Hillary is playing some kind of fierce game. I will be very interested to see what she does over the next month.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I don't think they are that similar. Sure there is overlap, but there is also a fairly significant women demographic that has been voting Hillary. Gods knows I know quite a few that are pissed off shes not winning.
Obama picks up a lot of those women if he chooses her.
But if he doesn't, will they vote for McCain, or abstain?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
From MSNBC.com:
quote:
While Obama has run strongest among blacks, college educated and younger voters and has produced record turnout among all three groups, Clinton pointed to her own strength among Hispanics and white, working-class voters, especially women.
That sounds like a hell of a force if you put them together. Tell me that a party of white women (and men) with the entire black vote for all intents, plus hispanics, plus college educated and young voters won't win.....
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But if Obama doesn't take Hillary on as veep, will those women, white-collar workers, and Hispanics vote for McCain or abstain? Unless and until we know whether and in what numbers they will effectively take votes away from Obama without an Obama/Clinton ticket, we can't say one way or another whether it would be to his benefit to do so.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I don't think they are that similar. Sure there is overlap, but there is also a fairly significant women demographic that has been voting Hillary. Gods knows I know quite a few that are pissed off shes not winning.
Obama picks up a lot of those women if he chooses her.
But if he doesn't, will they vote for McCain, or abstain?
That's what I thought.
The lack of similarity is one reason why I doubt it would be good. One of the two would have to do a lot of compromising on their platform and style, and, assuming the differences are noticeable, that ain't gonna look pretty.
In one circumstance, she'd be playing essentially second fiddle in what is notoriously one of the politically weakest spots in American politics.
And if Hillary ends up playing the stronger hand in the White House, then you're looking at the democrat's equivalent to Dick Cheney (as some have posted above). I can see conservative pundits comparing her to a dowager empress.
It's gonna be messy no matter who's practically on top.
I also don't think it's just about gender (and if it is, then it shows that feminism still has a ton of work to do). And if it is still just about gender (ugh) and electing a woman for the sake of electing a woman (double ugh), then Obama could find a better woman to run with. Some have already been tossed out above.
It's not just a numbers game dealing with 100% hyper-rational actors. To go back to another thread, the story matters. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) If their stories are similar enough that it doesn't matter, Obama needs a bigger VP. If their stories are different enough that it does matter (and I agree with Mad Geo that this seems to be the case), then running on one ticket would seem dishonest to the core, risking both bases.
Interestingly, I suspect that if Hillary wins, since she already has cultivated a reputation for callous cynicism, I mean practicality, she could pull off having Mr. Obama for a VP. Since Mr. Obama is running on idealism and integrity, I don't think it works for him to run with her. It raises too many questions about who's going to really run things.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
I've been wondering what role Hillary would want if she doesn't get the nomination (which looks increasingly likely).
Would she really want the VP slot -- 8 years of warming the chair and doing the President of the Senate thing? (though it would be cool to have women in charge of both houses of congress).
I'm thinking she'd want a role with key policy-making power like HHS (working for universal health care) or State (a meaty role but perhaps more suited to her husband) or DoJ.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cqg:
Would she really want the VP slot -- 8 years of warming the chair and doing the President of the Senate thing?
Really difficult to imagine that Obama would want to give her (and therefore to some extent Bill Clinton) a moral right to more or less unfettered access. Too much like having the previous incumbent of your job looking over your shoulder at all times.
Also Hillary Clinton will probably be too old to seek nomination again in 8 years time and certainly in 16 (assuming a likely change of party). And I doubt if she's really that interested in the number two spot.
Clinton as presidential candidate with Obama for VP would work because of the age factor and because Obama is not married to a previous president. But the other way round seems much more strained.
A cabinet position or yet another specially-created Tsardom might be a batter bet, but that means she gets to "serve at the pleasure of the President" (as the West Wing interminably reminded us). And does she really trust him to both give her room to manouvre and not to kick her out? Does he really trust her not to be undermining him? Anyway, she's done that before and it didn't work out to well.
With no real knowledge I'd guess that Clinton might try and stay in the Senate and build up some seniority there. That way, even though she never gets the top job, she gets to sit at the top table, with Obama's government and whoever comes next. And also keeps a lot of influence in the party - a third-term or fourth-term Senator from New York is not a neglible figure when it comes to horse-trading.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ps118
Shipmate
# 13655
|
Posted
I can see HRC building seniority in the Senate, perhaps becoming majority or minority leader, depending on how the democrats fare over the coming decades. She seems like a good senator, and, if someone new wanted a spot from New York, I hope they'd challenge Schumer rather than her.
The governor of Montana has a lot of appeal as a VP for Obama, should he get the nomination, and for Clinton, if she gets it. I think, however, that either could benefit from someone with military experience. Jim Webb would provide that. I like the idea of Wes Clark. I've heard Gen. Jones (James Jones. I think he goes by Jim, but that sounds like the guy from the Jonestown massacre). On the other hand, McCain, Obama, and Clinton could all use someone with some executive experience.
Posts: 185 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if Obama doesn't take Hillary on as veep, will those women, white-collar workers, and Hispanics vote for McCain or abstain?
I thought Hillary attracted the blue collar workers (and women and Hispanics)?
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
She does. I think Mad Geo's necktie is obscuring his collar.
But it raises another reason why I think Senator Clinton would be a poor choice for President. A substantial bloc of Clinton supporters are blue collar workers who worship at the altar of Ronald Reagan. They're furious with Bush for the folly of his war, so it felt good to yank the lever for Clinton just this once.
But come November, regardless of who's on the Democratic ticket, a lot of them will be back in the Republican fold because as close as Senator McCain and President Bush are substantively, style-wise McCain is the anti-Bush. They can vote McCain, but still consider it to be a repudiation of the Bush Administration. Furthermore, her hard-core supporters -- union members and Hispanics, in particular -- will still come out and support Obama.
Obama's voters, in contrast, are a more curius lot. They may stay home if he's not the nominee, but they won't vote Republican. And in places like Colorado and Oregon, he seems to be attracting the Republican-leaning but heretofore somewhat apathetic Gen X types whose defection is critical to the future of the Democratic Party.
So why not Hillary on the second rung of the ticket?
1) Her presence would encourage massive far right Republican turn-out since she ranks in popularity somewhere between Eva Braun and Heather Mills McCartney.
2) The reliable bloc she brings Obama will get on his own.
3) Her presence would alienate young voters since her style is antithetical to the "new way of doing business" that draws them to Obama.
4) Why would Obama want her around? From her perspective, she's already served eight years as Vice President. And Hillary as VP opens the door for Bill Clinton's return to the White House. And do you really think he'll be satisfied with a place in the East Wing this time 'round? Of course, I'd give him a permanent key to the West Wing, but that's because -- like Obama and very much unlike his wife -- he represents a triangulated "Third Way" style of government. But why would Obama want two other co-presidents hanging around the manse?
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Speaking as a Canadian, as long as a Democrat is in the White House come next January, then I will ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) in thanksgiving to the American people to repudiate the last 8 years of horror that the world has suffered.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
She does. I think Mad Geo's necktie is obscuring his collar.
But it raises another reason why I think Senator Clinton would be a poor choice for President. A substantial bloc of Clinton supporters are blue collar workers who worship at the altar of Ronald Reagan. They're furious with Bush for the folly of his war, so it felt good to yank the lever for Clinton just this once.
But come November, regardless of who's on the Democratic ticket, a lot of them will be back in the Republican fold because as close as Senator McCain and President Bush are substantively, style-wise McCain is the anti-Bush.
They are furious at Bush about the war and yet they will vote for one of the biggest supporters of that conflict??
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
There's a reason they're somewhat delicately called "low-information" voters.
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
She does. I think Mad Geo's necktie is obscuring his collar.
But it raises another reason why I think Senator Clinton would be a poor choice for President. A substantial bloc of Clinton supporters are blue collar workers who worship at the altar of Ronald Reagan. They're furious with Bush for the folly of his war, so it felt good to yank the lever for Clinton just this once.
But come November, regardless of who's on the Democratic ticket, a lot of them will be back in the Republican fold because as close as Senator McCain and President Bush are substantively, style-wise McCain is the anti-Bush.
They are furious at Bush about the war and yet they will vote for one of the biggest supporters of that conflict??
I like John McCain as a person, but any vote for him is nothing short as an affirmation of the failed policies of the Bush Administration.
I'm sorry, but this time, the only way for the country to heal is for the Republicans to get whacked, hard.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if Obama doesn't take Hillary on as veep, will those women, white-collar workers, and Hispanics vote for McCain or abstain?
I thought Hillary attracted the blue collar workers (and women and Hispanics)?
Yes. That's what I said. Now, my question is this: if she isn't on the ticket, will those people still vote for the Democrat (i.e. Obama), or vote for McCain, or abstain?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Well, they could always just sit back and watch to see who fits their personal interests, whatever that means, best between the two.
Or is pondering by voters not allowed in these post-Rove days?
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
No. As a matter of fact, voters these days are only allowed to consider media soundbites and how they relate to ones personal prejudices or special interests. At least those who can be bothered to pull themselves away from Oprah, American Idol or their Xbox.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I thought Hillary attracted the blue collar workers (and women and Hispanics)?
Yes. That's what I said. Now, my question is this: if she isn't on the ticket, will those people still vote for the Democrat (i.e. Obama), or vote for McCain, or abstain?
Latinos aren't a unified group. You can't lump Cuban Americans in Florida together with Mexican Americans in California, and you can't lump people whose families have been in California since before Mexico got its independence from Spain with people who are the first ones in their families to be citizens and vote. In California Latinos will tend to vote Democrat because the Republican party here keeps alienating them with obnoxious legislation (Proposition 187, eg.). In Texas and Florida, though, more of them are happy to vote Republican, which makes sense, since in a lot of ways they are a naturally conservative constituency.
And women are really not a unified group! But we're not concerned with women in general; what we're concerned with are female swing voters. A certain segment of women have voted for HRC just because she's a woman, but when it's Obama vs. McCain, female swing voters will mostly be practical. So whether the main issue is the economy, as it has been in the last couple of months, or the war, as it was before and could be again, depending upon what happens in Iraq between now and November and whether consumer confidence goes back up, Obama could do well with women not strongly committed to one party or the other.
Blue-collar workers, the Reagan Democrat types, are the ones I'd be most concerned about going over to McCain. Here's where I think his VP choice could really help him.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
