Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Clinton as VP: Trial Balloon?
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Is McAuliffe putting this out there to see if the Obama camp is receptive to the idea?
The national chairman of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign says she could end up on the same ticket with rival Barack Obama.

Terry McAuliffe told a business group in Madison on Tuesday it ‘‘sure is’’ possible the former first lady and the Illinois senator could become running mates.

He says that team would create excitement in the country heading into the general election. But McAuliffe would not predict who would be on top of the ticket.
It would certainly be the Dem's dream ticket. But I think including Hillary would also be a boon for McCain and his ticket.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Or it can be a trial balloon for a bribe- Obama to keep quiet when Hillary uses shannanigans to take the nomination at the convention, and he’ll be rewarded with a VP slot.

Honestly, do you really envision Clinton putting out at trial balloon with her being the VP?!??!?!?

Talk about conveying weakness...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Or it can be a trial balloon for a bribe- Obama to keep quiet when Hillary uses shannanigans to take the nomination at the convention, and he’ll be rewarded with a VP slot.
You know how Democrats used to like Ralph Nader?

Hillary will be Ralph Nader if Obama is leading in delegates before the Supers vote and she pulls it away. And I don’t think Obama would accept the VP spot. He’d be better off running for Governor of Illinois (and winning in a landslide), before making a another run in 4 or 8 years. The guy has time on his side, what is he 17?

She’d lose the general because all that fire would be extinguished for Democrats and ignited for Republicans.

I think McCain wins in a McCain vs Hillary contest if Hillary pulls a stunt to get the nomination. If she wins straight up, she has a fair chance in the general.

Which explains why all the Republican blogs like this one are cheering for a brokered convention and a Superdelegate reversal of the primary outcome.

I think Obama would win by double digits and by 10 states vs McCain. The polls will show a close race, but you don’t leave your house to answer a pollster.


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
all the Republican blogs like this one
Oh, no he didn’t!
 
Written By: Luke
URL: http://

I think McCain wins in a McCain vs Hillary contest if Hillary pulls a stunt to get the nomination. If she wins straight up, she has a fair chance in the general.

Which explains why all the Republican blogs like this one are cheering for a brokered convention and a Superdelegate reversal of the primary outcome.
Republicans & Others don’t care right now if its Hillary or Obama. What they are laughing about is the Party that Decried ’stolen elections’ with no legitimate basis is about to do the same thing to its constituency they accused the Republicans of doing. Not only may the election be "stolen from the people" but will be done by a system that is institutionalized in the Party.

If the Democrats are good at something, its hypocrisy.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Republicans & Others don’t care right now if its Hillary or Obama.
Yeah, right.

Republicans don’t care whether they get the Democratic candidate that inspires Republicans to show up, they want the Democratic candidate that pulls independents. They don’t want the Democratic candidate that pulls a backroom stunt to get the nomination and depresses the base, they want the Democratic candidate that inspired record turnouts at primaries and caucuses. Republicans don’t want the Democratic candidate who is polling tied or behind McCain, they want the candidate that is polling as much as 10 points ahead, not including the show-up factor.

I was born at night, but not last night.

I hope you were kidding me, if not, you are kidding yourself.
If the Democrats are good at something, its hypocrisy.
I’ll tell you what, I’ll give you that with a slight alteration...


If the politicians are good at something, its hypocrisy.





 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Actually I think Republicans are still more frightened of Hillary... She’s been the monster under the bed for 4+ years. As for competition Republicans nominated a moderate because they wanted to appeal to moderates. At this point Republicans love that Hillary is getting trounced - like I said the establishment feared her - the fact that the person touncing her is going to be competitive - that’s life.

As for Obama, his negatives are climbing and may eventually match hers - at this point Republican’s don’t truly care who gets the nod they see enough negatives on either candidate to feel they’ve gone from: not having a shot; to actually having a shot to hold on to the Office of POTUS. Now don’t get me wrong the Republican dream is to have Hillary forced to pull a stunt to take the nomination - in that scenario we agree they don’t fear Hillary nearly as much as Obama. On the other hand they see the ugly battle and the fact that it’ll be Obama on the ticket one way or another as a good thing.

Other things to consider for the next 9 months:

Interstingly no one considered that Drudge might have gotten the Obama photo from a group other then Hillary... (That group might have gotten double bang - another hit on Billary and a hit on Obama... but Hillary can’t claim it’s part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy either...)

Want your conspiracy theorists to run wild - remind them that the Democraticly controlled congress just limited overseas survellance - so if a major national security event occurs between now and November what will the Republican’s point to?

It’s still too soon to say who will or won’t vote but I think that the Republican establishment would say they feel they are in a better position now then they were six months ago.

(BTW - I agree - all politicians are good at hypocrisy.)
 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com/
You make valid points, and this is all opinions at this point, but I do disagree with this...
As for Obama, his negatives are climbing and may eventually match hers
No way. IMHO

Obama is just too good at this.

His favorability may drop, and his negatives may increase, but assuming he doesn’t murder children, on live TV, he is just not going to get to a minus 2 favorability rating. Hillary approaches 50% unfavorability. Guestimating here, but assuming 100% unfavorability by Republicans, that still means she is getting an unfavorable rating from half of the independents.

I suspect Obama’s favorability will increase, and unfavorability will peak below 40%.

I see two things as very relevant for the general election:

1. Forty percent of Americans in the Feb. 11-14 Gallup Poll — in response to the question, "In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent?" — said they identified with the Democratic Party, while 26% identified with the Republican Party and 34% with neither (most of these considered themselves independents).


2. Seventy-nine percent of Democrats say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting in this election than in previous years. Just 44% of Republicans say the same.

Taken separately, not earth shattering, but together, if nothing significant happens (like a brokered convention), McCain vs Obama will poll within the margin of error, but the vote won’t be close at all.


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I suspect Obama’s favorability will increase, and unfavorability will peak below 40%.
I believe they are already at 45%...

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

If the Presidency were the only item on the ballot true enough but both parties know that ’all politics are local’... what will be the motivating items on the ballot - especially in swing states... sometimes motivation to get out the vote isn’t for the main candidate it’s for a ballot measure - and oh while you’re in the booth pick between the lesser of two evils.

 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com/
Republicans have yet to mount a campaign against Obama or Clinton. So far, issues have played zero part in the democrat primaries because both leading candidates have the same positions - big government, retreat, increased taxes.

If a first term republican senator who had been a state senator for one term threw his hat into the ring, he would be laughed off the platform. Clinton was my senator for six years and she accomplished nothing she set out to do. Neither of these two is qualified to be president. If they sent their resumes to a head hunter searching for a CEO of a $100M company, neither would get an interview.

If Clinton manages to come out of a brokered convention with the nomination without Obama as VP, the blacks will stay home and she will have no chance to win. The super delegates include house freshmen who will go back to red states trying to back away from the party. If Clinton is on the ticket, republicans will write those big checks and show up in droves. The red state frosh won’t vote for Hillary.

If Obama is offered the VP spot, he would be a fool to take it. Hillary isn’t running, Bill is! In Hillary Clinton White House, the VP would be less than worthless. He would become a Clintonista. Not good. Ask Al Gore.

Neither Clinton nor Obama voted on the FISA bill. That means they are not serious about national defense, connecting the dots. McCain, of course, voted for it. When the real issues are discussed, the light weights will lose.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
If Hillary is the VP and they get elected look for Barrack to get assasinated.

 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
People would tend to view Hillary Clinton as the puppetmaster, something I call the Dick Cheney effect.
 
Written By: invadesoda
URL: http://propagandamachine.blogspot.com
"they want the Democratic candidate that inspired record turnouts at primaries and caucuses"

Ever think that those record number of "democratic votes" may be republicans who have voted for Obama because they dont want Hillary on the ticket no matter what. I fall in this category.

Also if by some miracle Obama gets elected (and I sincerely doubt it since peopel will go into the voting booth and ask themselves do they really really want to turn over the keys of the kingdom to someone this liberal and naive) then his own party will work towards curbing some of the things he wants to do as they are too costly to the party in general.

At most if Obama makes it he will be a one term president. Personally I think we will still see Hillary’s name on the ticket come Nov.





 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Ever think that those record number of "democratic votes" may be republicans who have voted for Obama because they dont want Hillary on the ticket no matter what.
Yes, when I put on my tinfoil hat.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Yes, when I put on my tinfoil hat.
I dunno Cap... I personally know more than 10 people that voted in the Democratic primaries. Most of them in states after McCain had pretty much wrapped it up, but still. If I know 10 people, and you know 10 people... I’m just sayin’ it is not completely out of the question.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
JsrAMD jtvlxacarebx, [url=http://ivdwwihgyllt.com/]ivdwwihgyllt[/url], [link=http://wievftafoijt.com/]wievftafoijt[/link], http://emxkawhrdawl.com/
 
Written By: svlizvuiyz
URL: http://sriyxguuwexj.com/
I dunno Cap... I personally know more than 10 people that voted in the Democratic primaries. Most of them in states after McCain had pretty much wrapped it up, but still. If I know 10 people, and you know 10 people... I’m just sayin’ it is not completely out of the question.
Yes, it is completely out of the question for the difference between previous turnouts and this years record turnouts to be Republicans voting for Obama.

Here’s why, the turnouts were record turnouts in states like mine that were closed caucuses, where the only way a Republican could have participated was if they had changed their affiliation more than 30 days prior to the primary.

So your argument would have to be that in states with closed caucuses and primaries, there was a record turnout of Democrats, but in states with open caucuses or primaries, there were not really record turnouts, THAT was just Republicans.

You see why someone would need to be crazy to actually believe this, once they thought about it.



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I suspect Obama’s favorability will increase, and unfavorability will peak below 40%.
I believe they are already at 45%...
I looked at the link, and you are right, it says 46% unfavorable for Obama. I don’t pay for Rasmussen, so I can’t view the source and methodology. Still, I have not seen any other polls that show Obama with greater than a 34% unfavorable rating, and I have seen numerous that show him in the low 20’s to the low 30’s.

Curious, considering that Obama’s negative with Democrats is about 16%, his negatives with Independents is 27%, and his negatives with Republicans is only 62%. That should equate to a unfavorable national rating of about 31%.

I think Rasmussen is the outlyer.





 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
So if the candidate is chosen by the superdelegates rather than a majority of votes cast, does that mean the candidate was ’selected, not elected’?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
So if the candidate is chosen by the superdelegates rather than a majority of votes cast, does that mean the candidate was ’selected, not elected’?
Cute.



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider