Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brentai]

Back on track, I read from a trusted source that polls showed that Obama/Edwards polled better in every state against every likely McCain/Whoever by a fair margin.  Unfortunately that was about a week ago and I don't remember the exact source, so don't bug me about it.

Point is, I don't think Edwards is quite as bad a VP pick as you might expect.

[Thad]

Back on track, I read from a trusted source that polls showed that Obama/Edwards polled better in every state against every likely McCain/Whoever by a fair margin.  Unfortunately that was about a week ago and I don't remember the exact source, so don't bug me about it.

I think you'd see similar results with most running-mates.

Point is, I don't think Edwards is quite as bad a VP pick as you might expect.

Then again, some research shows that a VP choice doesn't have that much impact on voters' decisions anyway.

[Brentai]

Back on track, I read from a trusted source that polls showed that Obama/Edwards polled better in every state against every likely McCain/Whoever by a fair margin.  Unfortunately that was about a week ago and I don't remember the exact source, so don't bug me about it.

I think you'd see similar results with most running-mates.

I misspoke; I meant that you see a bigger lead on the Obama/Edwards, by a fair margin.  Something like a 4-10% difference.

Obama/Clinton actually loses in several states, but only by ~2%.

As for it not mattering that much, The People I Talk To seem to agree that once it settles in on the general public that of the two main candidates, one is a walking bullseye and the other's heart could stop at any minute, more attention will fall on the running mates.  The very real possibility that either of them could very well be the acting president will influence at least some decisions (at least a few would abandon the Obama ship if he were dense enough to run with Clinton).

[Thad]

I misspoke; I meant that you see a bigger lead on the Obama/Edwards, by a fair margin.  Something like a 4-10% difference.

The numbers this far out are unreliable.  This time four years ago, Kerry was whomping Bush.

You also have to take into account that John Edwards simply has better name recognition than anyone else on the list except Hillary Clinton.  People are going to have a more favorable reaction to his name than Jim Webb's simply because most people don't know who Jim Webb IS.

I'm not saying the polls are NECESSARILY wrong.  But last fall this was a race between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.  There are a lot of variables to consider here, and today's polls may not be the best metric.

As for it not mattering that much, The People I Talk To seem to agree that once it settles in on the general public that of the two main candidates, one is a walking bullseye and the other's heart could stop at any minute, more attention will fall on the running mates.  The very real possibility that either of them could very well be the acting president will influence at least some decisions (at least a few would abandon the Obama ship if he were dense enough to run with Clinton).

I don't know how many people are thinking of the assassination question, and I certainly don't know how many people are considering it a serious possibility.  But yes, McCain's age certainly does put more emphasis on his running-mate.

And I suppose Obama's race probably does put more emphasis on who his running-mate is, whether or not you consider the possibility of assassination.  (I don't consider it likely and I don't think it bears factoring.  And frankly I don't even like discussing it.  But obviously YMMV.)

[Thad]

"New" thread Frankensteined together from VP discussion both recent and months-old.  It's not all the VP talk we've had, but I THINK it's all the talk that could be separated out from the two original threads I took it from without leaving holes in the conversation.

The chatter continues.  Saw an interesting breakdown by ODub; he doesn't mention Webb in the main post but he comes up in the comments.  (Some good points made to the effect that we need him in the Senate.)  I read a similar breakdown on The Beeb yesterday.

Edwards has spent the past few days saying he won't do it, which I think further fuels the possibility of AG for him.

[Kazz]

 

[James Edward Smith]

I don't like Hillary, but I don't know why you think she'd necessarily be a bad VP for Barrack. I heard somewhere that a lot of people actually wanted her to be the nominee for President!

[Kazz]

I don't want Hillary to be VP because I don't want Hillary to be President.

[Thad]

I don't like Hillary, but I don't know why you think she'd necessarily be a bad VP for Barrack.

Three people trying to run the White House may be less than productive, picking her would be seen as buckling to peer pressure, she has said a great many very unfortunate things over the course of the primary season, and a lot of people just don't like her.

That said:

I heard somewhere that a lot of people actually wanted her to be the nominee for President!

That's true, and my anti-Hillary Clinton bias is fairly obvious.  It's possible she WOULD help the ticket.

[James Edward Smith]

I don't want Hillary to be VP because I don't want Hillary to be President.

That's fine, but you live in a democracy and a lot of people wanted her to be just that, or at least have a shot at it. They lost, and whatever, but they still stated that was what they wanted and why should the opinion of that many people not get them that chance?

I'm just sayin' the obvious, but it seems like you guys are completely disregarding this because you don't like her.

[Kazz]

You wouldn't know because Canada's still a monarchy.

[Thad]

That's fine, but you live in a democracy and a lot of people wanted her to be just that, or at least have a shot at it. They lost, and whatever, but they still stated that was what they wanted and why should the opinion of that many people not get them that chance?

I don't think Bush should be President either.

[Detonator]

I don't like Hillary, but I don't know why you think she'd necessarily be a bad VP for Barrack.

Three people trying to run the White House may be less than productive, picking her would be seen as buckling to peer pressure, she has said a great many very unfortunate things over the course of the primary season, and a lot of people just don't like her.

That sums it up quite well.  Maybe it looks different from outside the country, but invoking the assassination of a Democratic Presidential candidate does not bode well for being put on the ticket.

And having a Clinton on the ticket would undoubtedly blunt his message of "change", which of course the Republicans would endlessly point out.

[Mongrel]

I don't think we should discount his personal dislike of her either. A poisonous White House is not an effective White House. Even if he can swallow it for a while, it will eventually leak out at a bad time.

This is one of those things that seems like a great idea (we don't have to choose! we can have our cake and eat it too!), but there's a good chance it would actually end quite badly.

[James Edward Smith]

Well, just for the record, I want to state that I really don't like Hillary at all and I would be happy if Obama picks someone else as he probably will I am sure. I was just trying to point out that she really isn't a retarded pick in my mind for the reason stated. People voted for her, a lot of them, despite all those things she did that you've mentioned.

I like Clark personally.

[Thad]

Clark would help with the demographics Obama has trouble with, and as a close friend of the Clintons would also help to repair relations with her supporters.  But he doesn't fit the "change" meme so well.

[Zaratustra]

But seriously, it wouldn't work. If people actually ditched Kerry 'he just got moderately hurt in the war' against Bush 'once flew a plane', this medal-to-medal would be even worse.

[Thad]

...So how many times am I going to have to explain the difference between popular opinion of the war in 2004 and in 2008?  Because I think we're up to about fifteen at this point.

That and I don't see Clark -- or, for that matter, Obama -- sitting back and ignoring a smear campaign the way Kerry did.

Not to say military experience is going to be THE deciding factor in this race, but it's going to be A factor.  And suggesting that this is the same ballgame as 2004 sort of misses the point.

[Thad]

AP: Polls suggest mixed effects of Clinton on ticket

Basically it tells us what we already expect: Clinton's a polarizing figure.  Obama putting her on his ticket would help him among her supporters, but hurt him among independents -- but then again, the places where she'd have a significant impact are states he'd be unlikely to win in the first place.

Had a chat with a friend yesterday where she pointed out the wrongheadedness of suggesting that Clinton's supporters should just fall in line and back Obama, as if he's entitled to their votes.  I can relate -- I voted Nader rather than Gore in 2000, and never liked the suggestion that Gore somehow should have gotten my vote by default despite his awful campaign that year.  (Of course, it bears repeating that I live in Arizona and my vote doesn't matter anyway; I might feel differently if I lived in a swing state.  But I might not.)

On the other hand, the "I'll vote McCain because I just HATE OBAMA SO MUCH" attitude put forward by a vocal minority of Clinton supporters is cutting off the nose to spite the face.  First of all, I think they're blaming him for sexist comments that he himself had nothing to do with; secondly, it seems like people concerned with sexism probably shouldn't be voting against reproductive rights.  Come down to it, I don't think there are any valid policy reasons for a Clinton supporter not to embrace Obama.

All that to say, it IS the Democrats' job to convince people to vote for them, and they shouldn't make the mistake of just expecting it as an entitlement.

Polls do make clear how divided Democrats are over adding Clinton to the ticket. Half or more Democrats liked the idea in recent polls, but Obama's supporters are less enthusiastic than hers.

And there you have it: a scientific poll showing that Hillary Clinton supporters are more supportive of Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama supporters.  Thanks, Gallup!

[Thad]

NYT:

One name that dropped into circulation on Capitol Hill is that of Gen. James L. Jones, a retired former commandant of the Marines and supreme commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, according to a Democrat who met with Mr. Obama’s search team. Some Democrats believe that Mr. Obama could use someone with national security credentials.

General Jones retired from the military in 2007; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later named him special envoy for Middle East security.

Senator John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, speaks highly of General Jones and has said he occasionally seeks his advice on military and foreign policy.

On the subject of Sebelius vs. Webb: they appear to appeal to different demographics.  She's a strong Democratic female governor (not unlike my own Governor Napolitano, and with the similar problem that her presence on the ticket still wouldn't turn her state blue) who, her missteps at the SotU rebuttal this year aside, has been a fiery critic of Bush in the past, but she doesn't help Obama at all on the foreign policy front.  Webb is all about foreign policy, as a Vietnam vet and former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, but a lot of Clinton supporters are likely to see it as a slap in the face if Obama picks him, given that he's made sexist statements in the past (eg the 1979 article "Women Can't Fight").