« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary for VP-please
Two items in today's news:
July 29 NYTimes
oChance of an Obama -Clinton Ticket is Seen as Increasinly Unlikely
oUSA Today/Gallup poll of likely voters 7/25- 7/27: Obama 45% ;McCain 49%. compared to same poll for 6/15-6/19: Obama 50%;McCain 44%
I voted for Obama in the primaries and disapproved of many of HRC's campaign tactics. But if Obama does not
choose her for VP he's still going to be paired with her as the two of them watch next January's inauguration along with the other senators.
It simply doesn't matter what we think of Hillary. If she isn't on the ticket Obama won't win. He can not afford to combine with the net electoral disadvantage of being black the swing to McCain (or to staying home) of a significant number of disappointed Hillary's supporters.
We've been reading their sour comments here for two months but we "ain't seen nothing yet". Wait till Obama announces that his VP is to be Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine.
Not only will the polls show McCain ahead from then on ,but they'll understate his margin.
And don't be too sure about those expected majorities in congressional races.
If you're hoping to see Justice Stephens replaced by another Scalia or Thomas just keep agitating to keep
HRC off the ticket. It's Hillary for VP or McCain for President.
Comments (81)
Having Hilliary on the ticket gives McCain a chance.
All of a sudden the narrative will be about sex. Who does Bill sleep with. Who does Hilliary sleep with.
And so say goodbye to wins in Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, Montana, North Carolina, Georgia.
No thanks.
Obama will pick a VP candidate who shares his vision. It will be Mark Warner. Everything else is a smokescreen.
July 29, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I agreed with you.
I have a sinking feeling as I read some of the least disaffected Hillary-ites here but I think they are probably going to be OK..... unless we drive them away. It's the ones we don't read here we should be worried about and I fear there are a lot more of them than there are of Mark Warner enthusiasts.
July 29, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Evidence?
People on the left are supposed to respect scientific methods and standards of evidence -- not just on what we hope, or fear, to be true.
July 29, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to make to fine a point of it, but what leads you to your conclusion that without Hillary Obama cannot win. If it's July poll numbers you need to learn how to ignore July poll numbers for a November election. They are not historically a good indicator on how things actually turn out.
July 29, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
During the spring my own contacts supported what I was reading in Times: that there was an outpouring of usually indifferent women who deeply wanted her to win at least in part because they felt about her as Blacks feel about Obama- that this was an opportunity for an enduring wrong to be righted. .
For some of them at least their disappointment at what they see as yet one more rejection is going to be too deep for them be able to vote for the male who defeated her.
July 29, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please look at a graph that combines the full range of polls.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php
If, after looking at the full range of evidence, you still feel anxious, then we can talk. But when people cherry-pick polls, or rely on anecdotal evidence, the conclusions they produce are not reliable.
I know journalists often hang huge hypotheses on a single poll. But even they know it's bullshit -- it's just that they're in the entertainment business.
July 29, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Real clear Politics keeps a running tabulation and one can compare each poll with the last one from the same organization. That was pretty much a standstill until this most recent USA Today/Gallup LV poll- except for Fox News which showed a similar swing.
July 29, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Real Clear Politics carries the same numbers.
If you compare successive polls for each polling org the trend is down.
To your earlier comment ,I have no evidence on what disaffected HRC supporters will do. It's intuitively obvious that O will at least get more of their votes with her on the ticket than without.
As to the likely response of those who dislike her ,I also have no evidence as to the number of O supporters who will vote for him without her and against him with her.
I think the first group outweighs the second.
July 29, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between Pollster.com and RCP is that the algorithm used by Pollster smooths the line out so you get a better view of the trend. Basically, RCP is calculating mean values. Pollster is calculating median values.
Just compare the two graphs: the RCP numbers are constantly bouncing almost straight up and straight down. A single poll can make it look like we're shooting ahead, or falling behind.
That doesn't happen with Pollster.
Now, if you believe this race is turning on a dime every three or four days -- or if you just like frequent doses of adrenaline -- by all means rely on RCP. On the other hand, if you believe the trends change over a period of weeks, or if you just want to avoid manic-depressive behavior, Pollster is more reliable.
The other thing to consider, of course, is that the electoral college is what matters. And our advantage is even stronger there than it is in straight national polling.
July 29, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have an academic interest in your comment on mean vs median. But in practice , as I wrote , I pay no attention to RCP's overall trend , plot separate trends by polling org., then eyeball integrate them . That's sufficiently subjective so no doubt I subconsciously put a finger on the scale. Like using a Ouija board.
July 29, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what you are saying is that the women who now support Obama will not vote for him if he doesn't choose Hillary. They will change their minds? Obama leads McCain by 55 percent to 36 percent among women voters. Not all that sure I agree.
July 29, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. Women who are reluctantly supporting Obama, but would have preferred to have had Hilliary, may be persuaded not to vote for Obama if Obama chooses a VP candidate with suspect Roe v Wade credentials (like Kaine) and McCain chooses a pro choice Republican.
The point is then that Hilliary 2012 may look irresistible to those folks come November, 2008
July 29, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me just say there are two candidates on my OH HELL NO list (not that I wouldn't support Obama, but I would be puzzled about what factors went about in making that choice).
1. Webb (who is thankfully I believe not in contention anymore). Reasons - misogynistic comments, inexperience in the Senate, gun-nut and he is a recovering Republican. I am befuddled that he would even be under consideration in the first place?! I've said before, if Obama picks Webb at least he can borrow Webb's smuggled handgun (illegal in DC at the time) and shoot himself in the foot.
2. Kaine - Governor for 2 years, no foreign policy background, pro-life (which will not help woo the women voters), not even overwhelmingly popular in his own state (56% approve/39% disapprove).
Like I said, I'll support Obama regardless of his VP choice. But the last thing I want to hear if he is not successful is that it's Hillary's fault for not uniting the party. Obama's got his own choices to make to help bridge the divide. It doesn't *have* to be Hillary even though I think her on the ticket would make it a wider margin of victory. But picking a VP candidate that is offensive to many female democrats? I don't get the logic.
July 29, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Almost every poster here will support Obama regardless of his VP choice.
I agree with you about Webb and Kaine, both are offensive to enough Democratic women as to make their selection offensive and counter productive.
Webb is no longer a possibility, but Kaine is.
And if it is Kaine, Hilliary would not be at fault for failing to unite the party. It would be Obama's fault for giving Hilliary supporters the opportunity to vote for a McCain - Fiorina/Palin/Ridge/Snowe ticket and thereby opening up the prospect of Hilliary 2012.
My heart wants an Obama-McCaskill ticket, my head tells me it has to be Obama-Warner.
I believe all this talk of Bayh, Biden and Kaine is a smokescreen designed to keep McCain's crew off balance.
July 29, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just an addendum - there is 3rd person Chuck Hagel but he's on the even more adamamant HELL TO THE NO list. I didn't include him before since I don't think he's ever been a serious contender. He's a conservative republican on the social issues. Pro-life. Against adding sexual orientation to federal hate crimes protections. Against affirmative action protections. I'd be seriously disappointed with an Obama/Hagel ticket.
July 29, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still think Wes Clark would be the obvious old white guy to choose, despite his "gaffe" of speaking the truth.
July 30, 2008 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually don't mind Wes Clark, but I hardly find him exciting and don't see him putting us in the best position in November. Other than Hillary, I'd also have gone Edwards had he not withdrawn his name from the hat. I'd be content with a Wes Clark or a Biden. Even though Biden can be assacious and gaffe-acious, I still like him and thinks he brings the foreign policy gravitas.
July 30, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Assasious! :O)
I actually would be OK with Biden as well and that is forgiving many of his votes. The only reason I am not for having Hillary on the ticket is the screaming fits of rage the Clintons send republicans into and the risk of having a woman and a black guy on the same ticket.
I am not sure the white male dominated culture we had until very recently could handle that one.
I have been convinced by you and others that she is about the best choice for the job of a working VP whipping Congress into shape - kind of like a Chief of Staff on steroids. She would just be the worst choice for the election, unfortunately.
I like her as the Senate Majority Leader for her next term, followed by a Supreme Court appointment.
July 30, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they're not - in almost every case they overestimate the leader's lead - except for 1980 in the list you provide on another thread. So having Obama just a few points ahead shouldn't provide much breathing room unless he's the Reagan of our time - rather doubtful.
July 29, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
That Obama is the democratic Reagan this year isn't doubtful at all. He is getting enough independent and republican votes (many in the south) to make that analogy work, which is also why the polls don't see that shit.
July 30, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has too much baggage and Bill's financial dealing can't be vetted.
Move on already; you're living in the past.
July 29, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't say he can't win without her, but I will say he can't lose with her. His advisers don't want her, they think she'll establish a court in waiting.
July 29, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary on the ticket will bring out the GOP base for McCain. Don't forget that a big portion of the 18 million after March 4th were GOP cross-over voters egged on by Limbaugh and other RW hacks. They were willing to hold their noses and vote for Hillary to disrupt our primary outcome, not because they plan to vote for her.
The DLC did enough damage in the Clinton years with NAFTA, Most Favored Trade Status for China, the Telecom Act of '96, and repealing Glass-Steagall (which lead to banking mergers). Although it might have been good short term for some, the effects of DLC policies have been disastrous to most except the chosen few at the top incomes.
July 29, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton on the ticket won't "bring out the base for republicans" anymore than Obama will. The newest Pew research poll indicates that over 50% of the electorate are leaning democratic while a majority of independents are also leaning that way.
Secondly, you are wrong that "a big portion of the 18 million after March 4th were GOP crossovers egged on by Limbaugh" there is not one shred of evidence that supports that claim.
July 29, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pres '08
July 29 RasmussenObama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 46%Pres '08
July 28 USA Today/GallupMcCain (R) 49%, Obama (D) 45%
100 days to go and the Dems will lose unless they run Clinton for President.
July 29, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife... thanks for playing
July 29, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't even begin to fathom where this "Obama need Hillary" idea comes from. I don't get the sense that this is the case at all.
Best as I can tell, at best she may help him shore up his leads in states he's already extremely likely to win. At worst she will cost him dearly in other states that he could well win without her. My home state of Colorado is an excellent example - we are very ready to go for Obama here, and I don't know how much impact a Hillary VP would have, but I guarantee it won't help. In sum, it seems like having her on the ticket is an invitation to give this election the same calculus of 2000 and 2004 - to that, I say, no thanks.
What if Obama picks some other female VP? Will the Hillaryites complain about that? Probably. Because, as we have seen plenty of, it's not about glass ceilings for women that they protest, it's about glass ceilings for Hillary.
July 29, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The national polls are saying something quite different - Zogby's poll of 18/07/08 has Clinton second in lead after Powell.
Clinton leads in those more likely to vote for Obama with her as vp choice:
Electorate
More Less
30 25
Democrats
More Less
47 15
Independents
33 26
Tim Kaine's numbers run 7 - 11, 8 - 10 and 8 - 8.
In Colorado, when independents are factored in, Obama leads by 50 to McCain's 47.
July 29, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/06/why-no-nightmare-ticket-lets-count.html
Enough said.
July 29, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Clinton won't be on the ticket and Obama will win in a landslide!
For example, look at the Pollster.com home page. The Obama blue and light blue already add up to 284 electoral college votes and that's without winning any of those tossup states. Obviously anything can happen and he has a lot of hard work to do still; but don't buy the "he's doomed without Hillary" line as it just isn't true.
July 29, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best reason not to have to: the Republicans want her on the ticket. They wanted her as the Democrat Presidential candidate, but they'll be happy to have her as the VP. Why? because they can nail her, and so Obama, in So many ways and the Republican electorate HATES her profoundly where they don't hate Obama so much and many are leaning to him.
July 29, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know any of this? There is no evidence or proof that your claims are true.
July 29, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
When did personal dislike become more important than the good of the party and real, core democratic values? If we are talking about winning, no candidate puts us in a better position to do so than Hillary Clinton. That's who democrats as a whole are excited about (away from the TPM community for the most part).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.obama.clinton/index.html#cnnSTCOther1
The Democratic race was not the only one with residual personal animosity between the candidates. McCain loathes Romney on a personal level, but will likely choose him as his running mate because it will help unify the GOP. Would Obama be able to do the same? It’s up to him and if he doesn’t choose Hillary, I will support him anyway. Not everyone will make the same decision I have. But I am just astounded that so many democrats are against a solidly liberal democrat like HRC in favor of blue dogs like Kaine & Webb. Obama's doing a fine job of being moderate himself. Does he really need help in that area?
I am just praying Obama doesn’t pick the 2008 version of moralistic moderate inoffensive Joe Lieberman that fails to bring the enthusiasm factor.
July 29, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the Clintons who put themselves above the good of the party and real, core democratic values.
Winning with Clinton translates into winning states like Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania by similar or larger margins than Gore or Kerry, but not breaking through in states where Clinton is toxic to voters, and this now includes much of the deep South.
McCain will not choose Romney. McCain is just keeping Romney in the mix so to keep certain constituents in states like Nevada onside. McCain doesn't care about unifying the GOP. McCain cares about winning. There are very few ways for McCain to win, one is a Woman VP, another is a pro choice Republican like Ridge, or a Governor from a state he must hold on to and steal.
I find the suggestion that Clinton is a liberal Democrat insulting. Voting for carnage in Iraq disqualifies her from that label.
But rest assured Obama will pick a candidate the reinforces his message and who is qualified to be President.
July 29, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Other non-liberals who are ineligible based on their vote on the war:
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Are all of these non-liberals too? Hillary's economic policies are much more liberal than Obama's and his foreign policy stances currently are identical to where Hillary has always been?
I can understand residual anger towards Hillary particularly for people who felt she ran a tough campaign against Obama, but please don't try to say she is not "liberal" . That's BS. I am not saying Obama has to pick Hillary or even that he should, but the polls indicate that the unity ticket is the preferred one by the majority of the democrats - not the hardcore political junkies that have more hardened views against HRC and her role in this campaign.
July 29, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are all of these non-liberals too?
No. They are spineless fools.
July 29, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that you take no offense when Democrats opposed to the telecom immunity place the same judgment on Obama for that what they consider a spineless and foolish vote since you are so willing to hang Hillary, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Kerry, Reid, Schumer on that one vote.
July 29, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was then, this is now.
The politics of moral relativity (changing your views with the speed of light)
July 29, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is not a good fit for the Obama ticket and yes he can win without having her on the ticket. Don't blame Obama for not picking her. She ran a campaign that makes it virtually impossible for the two to share the ticket. There is no perfect choice, but Tim Kaine would be a great choice. Obama needs to pick a VP that he might actually engage in some honest dialogue with during his term.
July 29, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kaine is not the worst vp choice that's been floated by "sources." That honor goes to Hagel. Kaine would be the final straw for me, though much more than a straw. The thought that if Obama wins this year and re-election means the Kaine would almost surely be the presidential nominee in 8 years is too much. I won't vote for Obama if Kaine is his vp choice.
If I wanted someone who was anti-abortion I wouldn't choose a DINO I'd just go with a republican. Kaine not only personally opposes abortion but is a member of Democrats for Life of America.
DFLA mission statement: Democrats for Life of America exists to foster respect for life, from fertilization to natural death. This includes, but is not limited to, opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia.
DFLA goals include creating a pro life plank in the democratic platform and promoting legislation that protects unborn human life.
If Obama were to select Kaine I would wonder all the more exactly what he meant by his recent statements on abortion rights.
July 29, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that the vice presidential job is actually a ticket to the presidency. Not many have actually made that transition, at least directly after the president in question.
I say the more likely scenario in 2016, providing two Obama terms regardless of who is VP, is an unknown woman in Gen X moving into the slot as heir apparent. She may even be a republican. I can see the end of labels at some point in the near future, especially after an Obama term.
The thing I find hilarious about republican hatred of Bill Clinton is that he was actually very conservative in his policies and they still hate the guy and Hillary by extension, who is also a fairly "conservative" democrat. Meaning, really, that she isn't a radical.
Same thing with Obama. Not a radical.
This election year is helping me to shed my radical in favor of a more pragmatic self that doesn't let the fights of yesterday limit my potential for tomorrow.
It entails a lot of eating crow. :O)
PS: If you were wondering, yes that was an apology for anything I might have said that was over the top. I feel much better able to disagree intelligently now, thanks in part to past disagreements.
July 30, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.....
I thought the HRC VP talk was over.......(puzzled)
I guess I more so just wished it were true!
July 29, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Sean! Hooray, you're back! Missed you. No, Clinton as VP talk will not end until Obama names his VP, which won't be Clinton. Then we can stop talking about it.
July 29, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Mrs KateO.....I missed you too especially. Yes sadly I thing you are correct....:)
July 30, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilliary remains a serious threat to Obama until November 5th. Obama has worked it well. He is largely ignoring her. He has more important business to attend to.
July 29, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come off it. It's bad enough we have to listen to the republicans make these kinds of hyperbolic charges but democrats should have better sense.
July 29, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not being hyperbolic.
Hilliary remains a "threat" to Obama because her supporters could yet be dissuaded by Obama's VP and persuaded by McCain's VP.
And if Hilliary herself sensed the mood was such, she would do in a heartbeat what she did with Kerry. What was that supportive for the good of the party remark she made referring to Kerry's statement about doing badly in school and going to Iraq.
Unfotunately, Obama CANNOT afford to give Hilliary an inch here still.
His VP choice must give her supporters no opportunity to abandon ship. Obama may feel comfortable with Kaine on the decks, but it would cause a crack below the surface.
July 29, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand why all those who backed Senator Clinton for the nomination, would still be backing her for the VP slot. That is natural. They believed her to be the best candidate, so of course they still believe in her. Those of us who backed Obama, would feel the same way about him, if the circumstances were reversed.
I have no strong objections to having Senator Clinton picked for the VP slot. Sure she would bring some negatives to the ticket, but she would also bring some very big positives to it .
There is no doubt that having her on the ticket would attract a lot of women voters, that two men may not.
As for the notion that as VP she would be plotting to undermine a President Obama; that makes no sense. To what end would she be doing such a thing. If his Presidency fails, then the entire ticket fails. He would still win the renomination, so Hillary would not be in a position to put up a primary challenge. On the other hand, if she were his two term VP, she would be a shoo in for the nomination in 2016.
I do not want to hear about she would be to old by then. She would still be years younger than McCain is now.
I think the time has come to lay the ground work for electing the first woman President. The best way to begin to accomplish that is to pick one for the VP slot now.
Sebelius, Clinton or McCaskill are all well qualified. I would like to see one of them picked for the VP slot, but it is Obama's call, as is the long established custom, and I will back the Ticket, regardless of which person he names.
July 29, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. This thread has some interesting comments, and mostly devoid of the usual rancor. Why has it not received more recommends. I clicked on it, and just one other person. Why not keep the thread from getting buried. Give it a click.
July 29, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Referencing your query about few rec'ds.
Might it be that the majority don't want to encourage the topic of Clinton as VP? For various reasons.
I don't know the answer, just a thought.
July 29, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'm grudgingly, and belatedly, going to click "recommend," though I don't like the topic. I would be fine with HRC as veep, but I don't like rehashing all the grievances of April and May.
On the other hand, liam is right that this discussion is less rancorous than discussions of this topic usually become, and flavius deserves some credit for that.
July 29, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do have strong objections to having Senator Clinton as VP. My objections are not based on how her campaign was conducted. My rejection is based is how McCain and his surrogates would campaign against Obama-Clinton.
Clinton as VP may knuckle down for 8 years. But Clinton as VP candidate would give McCain a chance to win.
McCain has only a few ways to win.
1. Obama picks Clinton as VP Running Mate
Welcome to the high rolling sex lives of the Clintons brought to you by some sweaty old Republican 527 undercover McCain surrogates. You be sure then that centre right and independent disinterested voters and evangelicals would materialize at the polls on Nov 4th.
2. Obama choosing an anti-abortion or misogynist VP
This probably triggers enough Hilliary supporters to sit out the election. McCain responds by choosing a Roe v Wade protecting candidate, and we have squeaker win for McCain in Pennsylvania -- and it follows the electoral college. (I am very anti Hilliary since I got up close during the Tasini v Clinton race, and have been a big Obama supporter from the get-go, but even I would be left cold by such a poor disrespectful Obama choice.) We've dodged the Webb bullet, let's hope the Kaine business is a smokescreen. I think it is.
3. McCain chooses some a VP that excites for some reason yet to defined.
July 29, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who live in sure blue states are not going to be considered about the V.P. choice. I think it's really that simple (or complicated, depending upon how you look at that.) A lot of commenters on this site seem to be thinking about it as to the general electorate polls and as to issues and the feelings of certain nationwide demographics. While that may be fun, it's also a waste of time.
Unity pony is Howard Dean's job, Obama's is to get enough red states to vote for him. Obama will help Dean as much as he can because he would want a Democratic Congress as president, but not over the goal of winning more red states than the two previous Dem presidential candidates. The choices he makes will be geared towards that goal, or he should at least be judged as to how well he is doing that.
July 29, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize that my first sentence could be misread. To clarify: I meant to say feelings of constituency in blue states will not be considered, not to imply that candidates that happen to live in blue states wouldn't be considered.
July 29, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly seems like state by state polling is the appropriate approach.
Unincumbered by facts my gut feeling is that she's a drag in most red states but I'd like to see numbers . From the primaries it seems pretty likely that she'd be a plus in the "purple"/"battleground states where the margin either way was less than , say, 3% in 2004 and where she led Obama in the primaries :Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire come to mind.
If she cost us Colorada that might be a reasonable trade off.
My guess is that most of her primary voters ( I know there was some tactical voting by crossover reps)would vote for an O/HRC ticket.
And an Obama/HRC ticket would send the audience out of that Denver stadium with wild enthusiasm. Maybe even rub off on the couch potatoes.
July 29, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good comment by artappraiser, and good reply.
But I think the reply could be trimmed a little, because MI and PA aren't *really* in play. I know there was, at one point, a notion that Hillary's strength in those states would pose a problem for Obama in the general. But it was always a rather dubious assumption, and in practice, the effect hasn't materialized: the state-by-state polling is showing MI and PA solidly blue.
By contrast, NH and OH are in play. But then, so is VA, where Kaine could help us. And for that matter, I don't know why Kaine couldn't help us with, say, Catholic working-class voters in OH as much as HRC would.
I'm not sure that we need to choose a VP in order to make a play for Virginia, or any other state. But I'm also really not sure that HRC is a net plus on the ticket. I'd like to see her favorable/unfavorable ratings with independents and swing voters. More importantly, I *am* pretty sure that it's not going to happen. The shorter shortlist that's being discussed now doesn't seem to have her name on it. The list I've been hearing is Bayh, Biden, or Kaine.
July 29, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess how solid our lead in any state is depends on the model. I look at electoral-vote.com a lot, and he has PA weak and MI barely Dem right now.
However, for reasons I've gone into elsewhere, I think it's time for the Clintons to pass the torch. She's not a good generational fit for Obama. IMO, she should let the Jonesers and younger take the Party and do what they can with it.
July 29, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll definitely give you that her ability to work the purple in the primay as well as her husband's team did was a surprise to me. Even though I saw her do it with upstate New York in her Senate race, I didn't think she would manage to do it nationally. She's gotten pretty damn good at that, especially given all the longstanding themes about her out there as much more "liberal" than her husband.
I haven't even gotten into studying up on what states are in play so I won't go further; that's actually why I haven't gotten into the prediction game myself. I just wanted to point out that people seemed to be spending a lot of time on figuring out appeal of certain candidates that won't even matter if he's doing it right. :-)
You know, now that you have me thinking on it, Obama's campaign probably wants to study how his overseas trip and economic conferences plays with the CIC and economy issues in certain states before he decides on what V.P. will help most.
July 29, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Three things about the Veepstakes.
(1) If you haven't heard anything from Obama, Holder or Kennedy, you haven't heard anything worth hanging your hat on yet.
(2) They're putting out trial balloons. Nothing more. There are good arguments for Kaine, but this is a float.
(3) Please remember that the final candidate may not be on the "short list" (Bayh, Biden, Kaine) put out in the papers today at all.
Personally, I absolutely do not think Clinton should be the VP nominee, for reasons I've blogged about before here. However, I'm not going to panic about it. My goal is still to focus more scrutiny on McCain, regardless of Obama's choice.
July 29, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eastside93 just called it. Best post in the thread.
The Obama team is air tight. They have floated trial balloons and created smokescreens. They are focused on McCain's choice and so should we be.
July 29, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tim Kaine is as pro-choice as anyone in Virginia can get: http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Tim_Kaine_Abortion.htm
Please don't spread misinformation.
July 29, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know where you get that Tim Kaine's stance is as prochoice as you can get in VA.
Jim Webb is a Virginian politician that I dislike for other reasons noted above and is still a Blue Dog, but his stance on abortion is not in question as seen below.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/James_Webb_Abortion.htm
Mark Warner publicly said he supports Roe. v. Wade and opposed the 24 hour waiting rule.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Mark_Warner_Abortion.htm
Tim Kaine has not stated anywhere that I can see that he supports Roe v. Wade or that he is pro-choice. In fact, he's left the matter rather ambiguous and just refers to his own faith based opposition to abortion without fully detailing where he stands.
July 29, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is one critical factor that the DNC and the Obama camp must consider when choosing a VP candidate, and that is the 2008 Senate races.
The democrats are likely to retain control of the house, but to really get legislation passed, they need 60 votes in the senate. The prospects currently don't look good, as the Dems need victories in three of the following states: Minnesota (doesn't look good - Coleman has drawn ahead), Georgia (this race is tightening), Maine (Collins has done bipartisan work, so this one may not be critical), Mississippi (could go either way), and Kentucky (doubtful, at best).
What this means is any current democratic senator is probably off of the list, including Clinton.
That leaves us with governors, former senators, and other prominent democrats. For example, I wonder if Wexler would help Obama in enough key demographic areas to win Florida and its 27 EVs.
To me, the list looks like Kaine, Napolitano as a "dark horse" (check out current Arizona polls - surprising!), as well as Strickland, Rendell, and Richardson. I'd have to say, based on the data I've seen so far, that Kaine looks very good, and that would make it an OK ticket...
July 29, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The sky is falling!"
July 29, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Celestial Choirs"
oh God I'm so glad she lost. Hillary sold her VP opportunity to
Kathleen Sebelius, the next vice president of the United States.
July 29, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton no equal Change.
Thanks flavius for getting the band back together. It's nice to see a bunch of the expected commentary, but please no more. I can only take so much gotalife. Where's goatlife?
July 29, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re Kaine... Don't you think it important that the VP complement the ticket? It seems to me that he seems instead to echo it. ie He's relatively unknown, he's certainly inexperienced in national security. He han't been governor long enough to argue that he has terrific management experience and he doesn't seem to have made an unequivocally glowing success of the job. In all the articles about him dealing with his pros they seem to mirror Obama - but so largely do his cons. Add to that that his personal pro-life beliefs seem to outrage the Clintonistas (unfairly I think since he doesn't advocate them - seek to impose them.)
When McCain et al start to hammer the inexperience theme in the fall, Kaine doesn't mitigate it.
Is anyone else a depressed as I am that there doesn't seem to be ONE purely terrific choice given that Warner's ruled himself out?
July 29, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted a long piece about why I believed Warner would be Obama's choice in late May. Obama-Warner emphatically passed the taste test, with only one of two dissenters among approximately 100 posters. I haven't seen anywhere near the positive reaction to any other potential VP candidates.
July 29, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary were the VP running mate, would she try to eliminate Barack before the election (as in the Manchurian Candidate plot) or after the election (a la LBJ's rubout of his archenemy JFK)?
I don't think Michelle would ever let Barack reduce his life expectancy by picking the outrageously ambitious Hilla Monster.
According to David Gergen on CNN 2 months ago, Barack's advisors believe he'd need a foodtaster if she were in the White House with him.
July 29, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certanly Hillary inspires hatred.In 2000 I had to put up three Hillary signs because the first two were torn down. After I went to the police that stopped-perhaps because they'd been responsible.
But why this hatred from our side- altho I don't for a minute consider David Gergen one of us?
Apart from her vote on the authorization to use force ( I know , I know, "other than that Mrs Lincoln did you enjoy the evening")which of her positions do we dislike?
Brad Delong convinced me that her mishandling of health care reflected such weak administrative ability that she would be an inept president. But given that the extent of her VP duties will be entirely up to Obama she could certainly perform whatever he delegated to her. Which might be zero.
And she's proved she a great campaigner.
Tonight's news is full of reports that she is definitely out of the running.Pity. I hope it's a head fake.
This is my last comment. Thanks for the kind words above. So I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.
I agree this was a civilzed thread. Maybe we're all just getting soft.
July 29, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a critical point that's missing from the Hillary supporters posts here - how can you expect Obama to *want* to work with someone who has so viciously attacked him and his record??? Obama's VP needs to be completely supportive, not someone who has declared that *he* has not passed the threshold for Commander-in-Chief, whereas she has, and McCain has. Imagine the potential for farce when Hillary is VP and McCain runs soundbite ads with the candidates for VP ridiculing the P.
You have only Hillary to blame for having gone down the toxic path without considering the damage she has wrought for her relations with Obama.
July 29, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense, it's like saying how can you play on a hockey team with someone who used to play against you and bang you up. They're professionals, they work it out.
July 30, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, the opposing team is called GOP.
July 30, 2008 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the opposing team wherever you run against one another - conference championships or finals, doesn't matter.
July 30, 2008 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
are we back to beating this dead horse with a stick again???? geesh! hrc is done-stick a fork in her already!!!
obama will lose if we allow him to lose! hrc and her base should shoulder the majority of the blame no matter what!!! stop pushing the hrc agenda and concentrate on being a good dem by supporting obama and his choice of vp.....
we have been through this time and time again--a poll is just a poll...when he is up by 10, no talk of hrc, the minute he is down by 2 0r 3, all of a sudden, hrc is his path to victory..let's not forget a poll is a snapshot and it is being done months in advance....
get some sleep people!!! i am going to pop a few pills b/c the thought of hrc as vp gives me a migraine!!!
July 29, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, cher. The woman is history (thank god!) and has as much chance of being named VP as a snowball has in hell. When will these Hillaryites stop with the "Obama can't win without her" crap? Notice how the only times you hear about the Clintons is when some Kool-Aid drinker brings her up? She has rapidly become irrelevant.
July 30, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
by the way, if he chooses her, i will not be happy about it... i will dutifully cast that vote, but with an aching heart..not to mention the fact that i would be terribly disappointed in him!!!
if you people truly believe that hrc will carry the states she carried during the primaries, think again!!!! those who tipped her over the edge did so b/c she appealed to their ugly side..must we go back to the basics of HRC's campaign???
July 29, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
She would refuse it anyway. Last thing she wants is the bottom spot on this ticket. She's acting like she's interested because she'd seem like a spoil sport if she publicly said she wouldn't take it.
I'm sure she has told Obama not to ask her. He's acting like she's under consideration to mollify the PUMA's.
July 30, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, if you must use the hockey analogy, let me rephrase it for you though I have zero knowledge of the game, so please bear with me. It's as if during one of the intra-team heat to select a captain, one front-running player went beyond the rules to knee-cap and body-slam the other to the point of possible permanent injury (Wright, Obama in Somalian garb, McCain more qualified than Obama as CiC, etc...). True, the other team would inflict those same injuries, some players even sustain lethal injuries during some of the most vicious games, but NOT this level of intentional malignancy from your own team. The other player won despite the low blows, and now he has to pick a reserve captain, someone who will have his back, who has to work in synergy with him, who will be in on his closest secrets. He would be insane to pick the one who tried to do him in.
July 30, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, Hillary made Wright Obama's pastor? Drudge said someone in Hillary's campaign sent him the Somali picture so it must be true? (Did Hillary go to Somalia to take the picture?)
Some people just aren't ready for professional sports and infer self-inflicted wounds on others.
July 30, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um I would think he would pick the player that puts him in the best position to win the big game that matters. What sense does it make to leave someone on the bench that is most capable of hurting the opposing team? That's like saying back when Shaq and Kobe were on the same team and there was animosity, the Lakers should bench him Kobe in the Finals because Shaq considers him an a-hole.
Politics is not a Ms or Mr. Congeniality contest and never has been. Voodoo Economics was GHWB's attack on Ronald Reagan in the 1980's primary. Very bitter feelings and GHWB like Hillary did not concede until June. Perhaps you need some historical perspective:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E4DE133AF933A05754C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3
July 30, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment