An Obama/Clinton ticket will not -- and should not -- happen.
DonkeyDude said 05/13, 07:15 PM
Obvious impediments:
- Hillary's campaign spent a lot of time hitting below the belt, and the wounds run deep. They will not work well together for this reason...
- and for the reason that she will not be subordinate to a younger, more junior senator.
- Obama's main platform is Change. Clinton is a secretive, closed-door, old school, corporate elitist. Part of his strategy has been to characterize her as Establishment, so to pick her would damage his brand. That brand will be very important in Nov., as Obama is seeking to portray a McCain presidency as a third Bush term.
- Obama's other message is Hope, which is similarly undercut by her negativity.
- Two firsts (black & female) will face even more opposition than one.
- Geographically, she does nothing for the ticket. Her pull will be in New England, which is generally reliable Blue country.
- Nobody wants Bill as a third fiddle, and his personal baggage would add greatly to the ticket's negatives.
- Given her extreme political ambition, if I were Obama, I'd be afraid to put her a heartbeat away from the presidency. People say "Pairing rivals can work - just look at JFK/LBJ." Well, that didn't work out so well for JFK...
Tickers said 05/14, 04:55 PM
Normally the selection of Vice President is about providing ???balance??? or targeting a single state for the election. For example Obama could pick Rendell or Casey and receive a boost in Pennsylvania. Outside of this, however, the benefits of the VP are normally minimal. They receive little media coverage and rarely have national appeal.
Hillary, however, is a very different pick. As well as her appeal to blue collar workers, women and older voters she also has a national identity. Her campaigning in November on the ticket would draw large crowds, large support and also (importantly) media coverage that few other names could secure. It is unlikely that the republicans could put forward a vice-presidential nominee who could compete with her in terms of the media spotlight, and without spending any money the Democrats manage to secure more coverage than the Republicans.
Obama???s base has always indicated more of a readiness to accept Clinton as the nominee, and so would likely accept her readily as the VP. Obama has to reach out to Clinton???s supporters, and what better way than to have her on the ticket?
DonkeyDude said 05/14, 05:38 PM
I stand by my original argument, which you've essentially chosen not to address. I will address your statement, but I do not wish to indicate a willingness to change the subject.
I agree with your assessment of the VP pick's importance (1st paragraph).
Your 2nd par. loses me a little. Yes, head-to-head, Clinton drew more support from blue-collar whites without college degrees, Latinos and seniors. But consider: 1) Obama can pick another veep to shore up this support; and 2) head-to-head against McCain, Obama is likely to pick up this support anyway. Seniors will break toward Obama because they do not want Social Security privatized; blue-collar whites will break toward him because his economic policies are more aligned with their interests than those of the GOP candidate; and Latinos have no reason whatsoever to vote for McCain. Your argument about her ability to draw media coverage is astute, but it pales in comparison to the negatives her candidacy would bring to the ticket (see my actual argument above).
Polls seem to indicate that Obama's base is more ready to accept Clinton as a VP pick. However, that is only relevant to the discussion of who should be on top of the ticket.
Tickers said 05/14, 06:51 PM
I made the point that most VP's have limited support outside of where they are known. While Bob Casey might shore up blue collar support in Pennsylvania what is his national appeal in, say, West Virginia, Ohio, Texas and so on?
You also seem to overlook a frustration you have yourself expressed before - Hillary's appeal has been with 'uneducated voters who are susceptible to low-information signals' and these are (as you also pointed out) 'a large portion of the American populace'. The level of political awareness in the core of Clinton's constituency is potentially a very serious barrier to him winning them over in numbers that will win the Democrats the white house. They identify with her with the level of fanaticism that Obama supporters identify with him.
Hillary brings negatives, but so do most VP candidates, however her presence on the ticket guarantees her supporters will turn out for her, but I can't see how it would stop Obama's coalition (particularly new voters) turning out for him since largely they are more receptive of Clinton.
DonkeyDude said 05/15, 01:15 PM
I take your point to be that, since "most VP's have limited support outside of where they are known," Clinton's star power would really be a valuable boost to the ticket. You also note that she appeals to groups that Obama doesn't (at the moment). Nice legwork, btw, digging up my quote. You then conclude that all the negatives I mentioned in my first argument are balanced out by her strong appeal to these groups of voters.
Your arguments haven't persuaded me for the following reasons:
- Her positives aren't that great. Clinton's ability to bring media coverage (free advertising) is not that crucial to Obama, who gets plenty of press (good or bad) and has unprecedented fundraising abilities.
- Her negatives are high. Clinton is especially hated by many - esp conservatives (some of whom otherwise lean toward Obama). November might well be determined by the independent vote, and his reach-across-the-aisle appeal is undercut by her polarizing image. See also all of the other points I made above.
- He can do better. Obama could pick someone else with 80% of the positives you mentioned, and about 10% of the negatives, who would be consistent with his message/brand: John Edwards.
Tickers said 05/15, 08:28 PM
I'm not saying that Hillary's positives automatically outweigh the negatives, but that she has enough positives that can hammer a solid base for accepting her as vice-president.
I learned something interesting earlier. Obama doesn't get to simply nominate his vice-president, it's still voted on by the delegates, and should Clinton set her sights on the vice-presidency you have to wonder if Obama could actually prevent her nomination.
Around 46% of the pledged delegates on the floor will be Clinton supporters, who would vote for her. Then you have a portion of Obama supporters who will believe the joint ticket would be in the best interests of the party and suddenly the VP nomination would be a very close run decision.
Suddenly the choice falls again at the feet of the superdelegates. Do they anger the Clinton delegates? Do they once again tell Bill Clinton 'No'? Do they upset the women's groups activists by choosing a man instead?
If Clinton sets her sights on it, and if her activists picked up the call for her to be VP, could Obama actually prevent it and still win in November? Risky.
Comments
Add Your Comment
You live in Durham? I used to live in Newcastle, are they all watching these primaries in England too?
theyoungdem | 05/14/08
Report Offensive Comment
Nice first name, Tickers. ;-) Is Durham near Lancaster? I spent some time visiting a friend there, and I was blown away to find out that there is a castle(/court/jail) just a stone's toss down the (cobblestone) street. How cool!
DonkeyDude | 05/14/08
Report Offensive Comment
(down the street from my friend's house, I meant to say) Tickers, I guess I could have been more specific and said that the magnitude of her national identity is arguably an asset to the joint ticket, but I think the character of that identity is contrary to Obama's brand, which will prove highly detrimental. Obama has plenty of name recognition and media coverage to go around...
DonkeyDude | 05/14/08
Report Offensive Comment
It's hard to counter an argument with just 1200 characters where you put forward the number of points you did, it would be hard to counter each one with more than a lame 'I disagree' so I focused on what she brings to the ticket.
Tickers | 05/14/08
Report Offensive Comment
haha Pit Bull, they think he is a GOD over there. But yeah there are alot of castles, I lived two blocks away from one
theyoungdem | 05/14/08
Report Offensive Comment
I had alot of Rugby matches in Durham though, it is a nice place
theyoungdem | 05/14/08
Report Offensive Comment
I'd say I don't think Hillary will get the VP slot, but that there are positive aspects that balance the negatives she brings. If it were to happen I don't think it would be a disaster.
Tickers | 05/14/08
Report Offensive Comment
I should update my profile as I've recently moved to Norwich from Durham. Given England is a similar size to Florida I guess in American terms Durham is practically on top of Lancaster
Tickers | 05/14/08
Report Offensive Comment
Edwards would draw a lot of Clinton's supporters to the ticket, and wouldn't give the GOP anywhere near the ammo they'd have against her (and Bill).
DonkeyDude | 05/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
I doubt it would ever happen. Hillary wouldn't have another decent shot at the Presidency if she accepted a VP.
Ariyel | 05/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
I like Edwards a lot, his appearance on the Colbert Report was brilliant and I loved his speech in Michigan. Personally I'm praying the dems don't arse this up because I'm planning on going out to the States in November in order to fully enjoy the fall of Bush.
Tickers | 05/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
Bush won't ''fall'' regardless of who wins the general election in November. For one, Bush isn't running, and therefore cannot lose. Second, the president isn't replaced after a term until January, not in November. I don't know how they do politics in Norwich, but this is how it works in the States.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
I'm fully aware that Bush doesn't leave until January, but election night is much more interesting and it's where America selects a successor and starts to head in a new direction. Even if that direction is headed by McCain it'll be an improvement over the administration that we rode shot gun with into Iraq.
Tickers | 05/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
Clinton is the devil. She will scare away everybody but her brainwashed loyalists. Although there are a lot of those.
God's Son | 05/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
Tickers, your opposition to my stance means that you think Hillary will and/or should be VP. You noted yourself in the comments that you don't think she will, and it's not even clear that she wants or would accept a VP slot. Your final argument doesn't really say that she should be chosen, just that she could be chosen. But you put forth a very respectable effort, and I learned something new once again. Thanks!
DonkeyDude | 05/16/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, in part because I can't see any other way to get a debate with you. Due to space I had to focus on the pragmatic arguments about November, rather than wonder how they would share power in the White House. Cheers, Tickers.
Tickers | 05/14/08
Report Offensive Comment