Perhaps an Obama/Clinton ticket isn’t such a crazy idea after all?

[Douglas Carpenter]

I was neither a strong supporter of either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama until the mathematic realities finally clarified the situation.

Neither of the two would have been my first choice.

Only a week or so ago I was strongly arguing against the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket on purely electoral strategic grounds. In fact I thought the idea was crazy. I’m still by no means certain that it’s a good idea. But I am beginning to think it’s not such a crazy idea after all.



I suppose I agreed with the argument put forward by one Washington analyst that Obama/Clinton would be “just too much rainbow”.

It’s a historic shift for the American people to vote for either a black man or a white woman for President or Vice President of the United States. So putting the two together on the same ticket would simply be too much for small town American and white male voters.

But for the last several weeks the media has been constantly raising the contrast between Sen. Obama who appeals to African-Americans, the university educated, “big city folks”, and the somewhat above average income voter. Sen. Clinton appeals to woman, Hispanics, lower income voters and small town people.

Now this was not the common perception of Sen. Clinton before the primaries began. But it is the common perception now and it is constantly reinforced in almost every news story about the nomination process. It would be almost impossible for those perceptions to be suddenly changed again and for the mainstream media to suddenly change those mimes now that the process is so far along.

So a ticket that combines the constituency strengths of Sen. Obama among African-Americans, the university educated, “big city folks” and the somewhat above average income voter with Sen. Clinton’s appeal to woman, Hispanics, lower income voters and small town people – could in fact be a very workable and natural coalition; and a very strong coalition.

When all is done and said, the actually specific policies differences between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are minimal.

I’ve heard all counterarguments. If fact I have made a number of the counterarguments myself.

But, maybe just maybe, it’s not such a crazy idea after all?

[gateley]

1. If only Dems were voting in the GE, I'd be all for it.

But historically Clinton has scored high negatives among Republicans, and we need to entice as many of them over to our side as possible. I don't think she'd be the ideal VP candidate to do that.

[AZBlue]

2. No, no, no, no, NO.

You were right to begin with - it is a crazy idea.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. Please read The Field article, it isn't going to happen:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6017637&mesg_id=6017637

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. thank you. That is a good article that everyone should read and consider.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

10. I was hoping someone would give it a kick or two

threads in GDP drop quicly, and the Field's message is important.

It settles alot of un-ease.

[gcomeau]

4. Insane. Absolutely, Totally Nuts.

Putting Clinton on Obama's ticket neutralizes all his main electoral strengths and removes McCain's primary weakness all in one crushing blow.

First and foremost, A large part of Obama's advantage is his appeal to independents and his potential to attract crossover republican votes. Clinton is, quite possibly, the single MOST nationally polarizing figure in the entire democratic party. Put her name on that ticket and you kiss the crossover vote goodbye along with half the independents Obama might have had going his way. AND you turn out the republican base with threats of "Clinton back in the White House if Obama wins!!!" shouted from the rooftops for the next several months when McCain was having a hell of a time getting his base n board with his candidacy.

I won't even get into all the other reason's it would be a catastrophe... her conduct towards him in the campaign, their totally opposite approaches to governance, etc... the first consideration is more than enough.

You can't just look at Clinton by herself and Obama by himself and say "Hmmm, they both do pretty good on their own, if we mix them together it's a WIN!". Chocolate does good on it's own. Lasagna does good on it's own. Mix them together and it's a train wreck.

Put Sebelius in the ticket. She would bring a lot of Clinton's strengths with none of her crippling weaknesses for an Obama ticket.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. Gov, Sebelius certainly does sound very interesting

[highplainsdem]

9. So why is Gallup showing Clinton beating McCain and Obama losing to him?

[Gore1FL]

11. Prbably the same Reason

The polls showed Mondale with a double digit lead over Reagan at one time. Polls are a snapshot of the past and not a prediction of the future.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. Average national poll Obama 47.2/McCain 43.3--Rasmussen gives Obama a 61.5% chance in Nov.

"Data from Rasmussen Markets gives Sen. Obama a 61.5% chance of winning in November "
(results are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants)."

" The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. Rasmussen Markets data gives Democrats a 61.5% chance of winning in November (results are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants). "

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"Rasmussen Reports believes the race for the Democratic Party nomination is over and that Barack Obama will be the nominee"

"At the moment, Senator Clinton’s team is busily trying to convince Superdelegates and pundits that she is more electable than Barack Obama. For reasons discussed in a separate article, it doesn’t matter. Even if every single Superdelegate was convinced that the former First Lady is somewhat more electable than Obama, that is not enough of a reason to deny him the nomination.

With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama."

"Data from Rasmussen Markets gives Sen. Obama a 61.5% chance of winning in November "
(results are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants)."

"Rasmussen Reports believes the race for the Democratic Party nomination is over and that Barack Obama will be the nominee":

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

---------

_________________________________________

Real Clear Politics Average: Obama 49.0/Clinton 41.8 --

Obama 47.2/McCain 43.3 links:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com /

The nomination poll is an average of the latest polls from Gallup, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, and ABC News/Wash Post

link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html


The general election poll averages the latest polls from Gallup, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac,ABC News/Wash Post,POS/GQR and LA Times/Bloomberg

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

-------------------------

"Data from Rasmussen Markets gives Sen. Obama a 61.5% chance of winning in November "
(results are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants)."

" The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. Rasmussen Markets data gives Democrats a 61.5% chance of winning in November (results are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants). "

[gcomeau]

14. Did you even read my post? At all?

I cannot, for the life of me, understand how that question could be in response to what I just said.

Why is Gallup showing Clinton beating McCain?... Ummmm, because that's how she's polling in their surveys? What the hell does that have to do with one single thing I just said about why she would be a horrible match for Obama as a running mate?

[Crunchy Frog]

7. Absolutely crazy. Hillary should pick someone else to be at the top of her ticket.

[rock]

8. And for my next poll

"Is eating nails a good way to get iron and calcium for your body?"

[highplainsdem]

13. Neither of the two were my first pick, either, but they're our two strongest candidates now.

And the rule is NOT "winner take all" when you're transitioning from a primary race to the general election, especially when the voters are so evenly divided between the final two candidates in the race. Nominees who act as though it is aren't likely to have anything to celebrate in November.

It would be very foolish of Obama to turn his back on Clinton and her supporters, or offer them a token woman VP as if they can't tell the difference. Can you imagine the reaction from Obama supporters if she'd won the nomination narrowly and didn't want him on the ticket, and chose someone like Harold Ford instead?

[gcomeau]

15. Two strongest candidates for the top of the ticket...

...does NOT automatically translate into the two best people to share a ticket. See my earlier post in this thread, Clinton on an Obama ticket neutralizes Obama's strengths and solves McCain's problems with his base all at once. They may be strong individual candidates, but they are a horrible match for each other on a single ticket. Just flat out horrendous.

[anigbrowl]

18. Yeah, but your logic doesn't add up

The Presidential nominee is more than a delegate. After a close contest like this, saddling the winner with the #2 weakens them. If situations were reversed I would have wanted Obama to drop out a good while back, rather than fight a losing battle to the end and weaken the party and front-runner. No, I wouldn't want Harold Ford in that situation, but John Conyers or someone of similar standing would be worth considering.

Had Clinton pulled the plug back in March, say, after losing 12 times in a row, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to her in the VP slot. She'd have earned the consideration without being selfish about pursuing her chances to the bitter end. Now she's just kept it going and going, without really bringing any new benefits to the table int he process.

And as for 'token woman vp', I'm offended by that. It denigrates the achievements of many Democratic women pols who are outstanding successes in their own right. Hillary is not the hope of all women or even the one who has fought hardest to get where she is.

[Cha]

16. Don't get sucked in by the mainstreamediaWhores..

they are the enemy.

Since you weren't a strong supporter of Obama then you couldn't possibly understand why this is such a stupid idea.

[DemGa]

17. Can't happen even if Obama wanted it

BO ran on fostering hate for the Clintons - invoking an extension of the right-wing attacks i.e., Hillary is dishonest, calculating, and other vicious assaults on her character.

Putting Clinton on the ticket now would expose BO as a charlatan, even to his supporters - It's wholly incompatible with what delivered the Obama charade to prominence.

Except for these deceptive practices, it would work just fine. Just doesn't seem possible.

[anonymous171]

19. I'm not so sure.

[AtomicKitten]

20. It's not only crazy, it's batshit crazy.

not.gonna.happen