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

 
Dem "Dream Ticket" takes a hit
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, March 08, 2008

At least one configuration of it does, anyway. Barack Obama in an interview today:
Q: You’ve raised $55 million in February and in your speech today you said "I was against the war in ’03, ’04, ’05 — all the way on through 2010, and you specifically mentioned Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Could you ever see yourself on the same ticket as Senator Clinton?

A: Well, you know, I think it’s premature. You won’t see me as a vice presidential candidate — you know, I’m running for president.
Obviously it isn't premature enough for Obama to rule himself out.

And I have nothing to base this on but gut instinct, but I don't see Hillary Clinton playing second fiddle to Barack Obama. To much ego for that (She's played second fiddle to Bill for her entire political life. I don't think she's up for a reprise.).

However, that's not the dream ticket that keep some on the right up at night as Patterico describes it:
This is the nightmare scenario that wakes me up at night. And its so easy to see it develop.

Hillary wins big in Penn and PR, while Obama continues to sweep up some smaller states. Neither is close to the majority number, but Hillary refuses to give in.

More and more polling begins to suggest — as Pew does today — that Obama will lose a significant number of blue collar “Archie Bunker” democrats that are currently supporting Hillary, but will vote for McCain before Obama. This will give McCain states like Ohio, Michigan, and Penn.

Superdelegate/party leaders will know that they cannot alienate African-American voters by stealing the nomination away from Obama that he seems to have won, so voting for Hillary when she is behind in vote total and elected delegates is not an option.

Above and beyond that, they really just don’t want a rerun of the Billary Show in the WH.

Obama cannot put together an electoral map in November that produces a winning number.

Solution — go to Obama and ask him to take the No. 2 slot with Al Gore as the nominee. Obama then releases his delegates to vote for Gore after the Superdelegates place his name in nomination.
I'm not sure that will ever develop, but as I pointed out last week, the Gore scenario is one which a fair number on the left would like to see develop. I think Pattericos scenario is as good as any, I simply don't think the DNC and the powers to be could afford to let it happen. While Patterico thinks they hold on to all the Clinton voters if it works out this way, I think they disillusion a huge portion of the Democratic vote by picking outside the two candidates for the top spot.

But given how this election season has gone, who the hell knows? My guess is, however, if a Hillary Clinton nomination would shock the right out of their McCain doldrums and turn them out at the polls in November, I'm pretty sure having the Goracle in the same position might turn out even more.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Remember, this is a civil war for control of the Democratic party. Many insiders do not like the Clintons and do not want to see them control the party. Obama is their candidate, they want to cut Hillary off, and I suspect many of them would be fine with losing the 2008 election to do it. The Clintons are keen on holding on to power and the money and connections it brings them, and Hillary seems to think she has a kind of moral claim to power. Gore is, despite being Clinton’s VP, more likely an ally of the anti-Clinton side. It’s not just concern about the Presidency that’s dividing the Democrats, it’s a battle for control of the party.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
A lot depends on how it’s sold. If someone well respected in the party — especially if two well-respected party leaders, one in the DLC and one not — were to stand up and point out that the purpose of the Party is to win elections, and in order to win elections, the party must exist. Now the Democrats face a race between two extraordinary candidates, and both are so good that the Party has not been able to choose between them. The leaders would wish that this was an easy choice, that it was clear who the standard bearer should be. But the race has become so hard-fought that neither candidate can be chosen without alienating at least a third of the Party, and that would hand the election to the Republicans. The Party’s job is to win elections, and the Democrats have someone that has already proven that they can do just that, a person who has not only gotten the most votes in a Presidential election, but who was robbed of that election by the Supreme Court, a person who could not merely unite the Party, but unite the nation. Then introduce Al Gore’s name into nomination.

I think an emotional appeal along those lines would be enough to get Al Gore into serious contention. After the first ballot, which neither Clinton nor Obama will win unless the superdelegates overwhelmingly pick one of them (and thus alienate at least a third of the Party), the convention essentially becomes a big caucus. If that’s Obama v. Clinton, Obama will get it, because charging racism is more toxic than charging misogyny, especially with Clinton’s existing negatives. But if Gore is into the race at that point, then I think that there’s a fair chance he could be the nominee, and if Gore is the nominee, he would likely smoke McCain.

Frankly, I don’t want Gore as President, but then I don’t want any of the other three serious contenders as President, either, so I guess I lose out any way it shakes out.

 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
Boris:
I suspect many [Democratic insiders] would be fine with losing the 2008 election to [be rid of the Clintons].
But losing with Obama does not get rid of the Clintons, Boris. They’ll re-group and be back at it for another round in 2012 even stronger if Obama loses. They’ll even have a "we told you so" trip to lay out to the gullible fantasists who populate the party echelons.

And "many" who "would be fine with losing" probably comes to a half-dozen. Democrats want power. The sugar plums of another layer of socialism with "universal" health care dance in their heads; they also want to have the foreign policy team that can institute pre-emptive capitulation. They want to show the world that they really can still lose a war.

It’s very unlikely that Obama can win the general election; the bloom is off that rose. Especially with his zombies making him look foolish on YouTube.

But if (once) Hillary hooks or crooks the nomination away from Obama, black voters will want nothing to do with her. Obama, filled with the justification of being robbed will completely miss that his moment has passed, and wait for 2012, when he can be free of Hillary. By then his political goose will have been cooked, like the Phoenix.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
And, oh, as for Gore, what the Democrats need to do with that woman is freeze her like Steve McQueen froze the Blob and transport the block of ice to Antarctica, find the coldest spot, and drop it there.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Eh. I think the Gore ship has sailed. If after all this time, money, agita etc spent on Hill vs Jesus, the party turns around and nominates someone else entirely- it is going to cheese a lot of people off.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
shark:
Eh. I think the Gore ship has sailed. If after all this time, money, agita etc spent on Hill vs Jesus, the party turns around and nominates someone else entirely- it is going to cheese a lot of people off.
But it would have one positive effect for the Democrats. It would change its image from that of the Treason Party to that of the Comedy Party. It would be a considerable upgrade.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
With all due respect, why would a Nobel and Oscar winner take a downward step and run for President? he certainly doesn’t need the bully pulpit.

LOSING the 2000 election might be the best thing that could have happened to Al Gore, in terms of prominence and influence.
 
Written By: Silussa
URL: http://
Silussa:
LOSING the 2000 election might be the best thing that could have happened to Al Gore, in terms of prominence and influence.
Well, there comes a point when even Oscar winners and Nobel laureates don’t automatically have their phone calls returned.

Presidents always have their phone calls returned. Then there’s that added perk of being the most powerful person in the world who shows up on TV every day.

But I’ll give you half the point, that Gore losing the 2000 election was the best thing.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Al Gore would just be another "white boy" using black voters. Obama is their candidate. He’s as qualified as Hillary and he has more delegates. The only reason to give the nomination to Gore rather than Obama is race. Blacks, knowing they are being used again, will sit this one out.

Obama would be a fool to take Clinton’s VP spot and he’s no fool. With Bill back at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., who needs a VP? Also, Obama would be giving away his image as an outsider, Change & Hope. He’d just be Hillary & Bill’s hey-boy. It’s POTUS or nothing.

The fight will be over Florida. If the DNC seats the delegates, Obama howls like a dog. If they don’t, Clinton files suit. If they try some hokey democrat mail in primary, the republicans will never back it and the bill won’t get through the legislature.

If the blacks sit out this election because they believe (correctly) that Obama got screwed, the democrat freshman congressmen go on the endangered species list and whoever is on the top of their ticket will lose.

This should be fun.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Despite Prof. Erb’s lecture, I too doubt that many Democrats "would be fine with losing the 2008 election" in order to wrest control of the party from the Clintons.

Oh, I’m sure that many Democrats do not like the Clintons and odds are that number will grow between now and the convention, but that doesn’t mean they will pass up four or eight years in the White House.

The real question is at what point in the slipping Obama-McCain polls do the superdelegates start worrying. Their job, by design, is to keep the Democratic party from running a dark horse loser in the general election. That’s exactly the sort of candidate Obama may well become.

There will be hell to pay and maybe riots too if they dump Obama, but losing like McGovern isn’t appealing either.



 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
John Edwards said the same thing repeatedly in 2004. Yet when he lost the nomination, and Kerry asked him, he did exactly the thing he said he’d never do.
 
Written By: Jeremy Pierce
URL: http://parableman.net
Arch:
[Obama’s] as qualified as Hillary
I’ll go you one better, he’s as qualified as Jacqueline Kennedy. I mean, if you’re comparing him to First Ladies...
Obama would be a fool to take Clinton’s VP spot and he’s no fool.
He’s a fool but probably not willing to engage in the self-abasement required to carry the Clintons’ bags.

Huxley:
There will be hell to pay and maybe riots too if they dump Obama, but losing like McGovern isn’t appealing either.
Losing the general election will be an even greater flashpoint, in my opinion, than having the nomination pulled out from underneath him.

But winning the election...well...who knows what that will look like.

Jeremy:
Edwards said the same thing repeatedly in 2004. Yet when he lost the nomination, and Kerry asked him, he did exactly the thing he said he’d never do.
But Edwards was very small pototoes compared to Obama. Obama is the messiah, and he’s ahead. So, he would have to really eat a ton of s**t to have the nomination pulled out of his hands and then agree to be the monster’s running mate.

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/

If the blacks sit out this election because they believe (correctly) that Obama got screwed, the democrat freshman congressmen go on the endangered species list and whoever is on the top of their ticket will lose.
If, somehow, Clinton manages to get the nomination without the cause being some kind of Obama implosion (Clinton starts winning massive victories in states Obama is expected to carry, or Obama is caught in bed with a campaign worker), then all Democrats should sit this one out in terms of voting for the Presidency. Clinton’s tactics and behavior are not those of someone we should be giving power to. I find McCain preferable, though I would not vote for him either. I think I’ll end up casting more votes for Ralph Nader in my life than for any other Presidential candidate. Agree or disagree with Ralph, at least he puts principle ahead of power.

Oh, I’m sure that many Democrats do not like the Clintons and odds are that number will grow between now and the convention, but that doesn’t mean they will pass up four or eight years in the White House.
You forget: the Clinton’s in the White House means that those challenging them for leadership of the party are probably no better off than if McCain is in the White House. In fact, they would probably be worse off. I’m not talking the rank and file here, I’m talking about party insiders who see the Clintons as a force ultimately harmful to the Democratic party, even if they win. Because just because A Democrat wins the White House doesn’t mean that ALL Democrats are in a better position in terms of power.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
all Democrats should sit this one out in terms of voting for the Presidency
Prof. Erb — I keep forgetting that you are in charge of what everyone should do or should think.

That’s won’t happen. Why should it? If superdelegates vote Clinton in that’s their prerogative. That’s why the system was set up — in part to prevent dark horses like McGovern and Obama from running away with the nomination on emotional surges and activist full court presses, only to doom the party in November.

If supers see that McCain is likely to bury Obama, while Clinton can do better, they are only doing their job if they vote Hillary. That’s the scenario being considered here. If Democrats then refuse to vote for Hillary, that’s their choice — I don’t see it as particularly moral or smart.

If Democrats only want supers to ratify the existing vote, they need to eliminate supers from the process.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
huxley:

A high percent of black voters show up at the polls and vote 90% democrat. No democrat presidential candidate has a chance absent the black vote. Senator Clinton is not just any democrat candidate, she is, in the view of many, the evil anti-Arch. Conservatives are already sending checks to the RNC. Her negatives are so high opponents will be sure to turn out to vote against her, taking the newly elected congress with her. That’s the nightmare scenario.

If the super delegates do not vote for the winner of their state’s primary or caucus, it will be as back room politics to deny a black candidate the nomination.

The problem with the two remaining democrat choices is that they are opposite sides of the same coin. Hillary is a white woman; Barack, a black man. The choice ends there. The 20% on the left may find these two acceptable, but the center will vote for McCain.

Neither has any experience. Hope & Change will not win this election. Neither will Hillary.

 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
I keep forgetting that you are in charge of what everyone should do or should think.
I keep forgetting, Huxley, that you have trouble differentiating between someone saying an opinion, and someone considering themselves in charge of everyone. So if someone says "people should vote Republican this year," they believe they are in charge of what everyone should think? You’re silliness is boundless.

I think Clinton won’t win because I don’t think she has the hearts of the superdelegates, who are being themselves drawn into this Democratic civil war, and many of them are sour on Clinton, and listen to others high up in the party.

You need to learn not to imagine someone claiming infallible truth when they venture an opinion. You’ll find it easier to deal with different perspectives in blog debates if you can learn that.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Prof Erb — You’ve got a lecturing style that I find silly. How about knocking off all the imperative "Remember blah, blah... " and all the advice, "You’ll find it easier..." in your writing? If you are expressing opinions, including markers like "It is my opinion" and "I think" is helpful. Frankly, in the way you write I can’t tell if you can tell the difference between your opinions and Truth.

As to Clinton — again, the scenario under consideration here is not now, but in August. If the polls show Obama losing to McCain by a large margin and Hillary is running close, what do the supers do?

Sure, if the supers override a small Obama lead and give it to Hillary, or arrange for Gore on the second ballot, the black bloc will go nuts. Whether the Dem leadership could make that up to them is doubtful, but nonetheless, if Obama were scheduled to go down to McCain like McGovern to Nixon, it’s still a valid consideration on their part.

In any event, I do think it’s time once again for Democrats to revamp their primary process, and chuck the supers if they don’t want them to think for themselves.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Let’s pause for a moment and note the passing of one of the true mentors of the American Left, particularly those in the academic world.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Not to hijack a thread (this one seems calm right now), but I wanted to send condolences to anyone out there in the Q and O community and, of course, to any members of their families who grieve over the loss of "Uncle Vitaly." He was certainly a misunderstood man. Surely, The New York Times gets it all wrong when it plants this quote in his obituary:
In “Gorbachev: The Man and the System” (1989), Ilya Zemtsov and John Farrar wrote: “Thanks to his diligence, the Ukrainian opposition was broken with a ferocity hitherto unknown even in the Soviet system.”
And the Times had come so far in acknowledging the Ukrainian Terror Famine of 1931-32, you would think that such a comment, even through a second party, would be impossible. Uncle Vitaly’s "ferocity" in the Ukraine in the 1970s was clearly not "hitherto unknown even in the Soviet system."

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
You’ve got a lecturing style that I find silly.
You are literally fantasizing. Read anyone’s statements, and they’ll make their argument forcefully. You are imagining intonations and intents to fit your biased pre-conception which you likely hold because you know my profession. That’s why when I state an opinion you fantasize I’m "lecturing." When others do (especially those you agree with), it’s just a strong statement. (Though I did the bit about what you should learn at the end of the last post just to have fun with you — play into your biases. I was just playing there).

As for the superdelegates, one can imagine all sorts of fantasies as well (unlikely Obama will be losing to McCain by a large margin and Hillary wouldn’t), but if you go back and read my original post I noted only that this was part of a Democratic civil war, internal to the party, and many would sacrifice even the election to be rid of the Clintons. In a civil war, either side can win. You seem to be thinking I said that only because many Democrats are sick of Clinton and don’t want the Clintons to hold on to power, that means they are all against Clinton. Here again was my original post, which you seemed to think was a "lecture":

Remember, this is a civil war for control of the Democratic party. Many insiders do not like the Clintons and do not want to see them control the party. Obama is their candidate, they want to cut Hillary off, and I suspect many of them would be fine with losing the 2008 election to do it. The Clintons are keen on holding on to power and the money and connections it brings them, and Hillary seems to think she has a kind of moral claim to power. Gore is, despite being Clinton’s VP, more likely an ally of the anti-Clinton side. It’s not just concern about the Presidency that’s dividing the Democrats, it’s a battle for control of the party.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris "teaches this stuff":
(Though I did the bit about what you should learn at the end of the last post just to have fun with you — play into your biases. I was just playing there).
Boris’s Russian dressing: Narcissism mixed with passive aggresion.

Special condolences on the passing of Uncle Vitaly, Boris. If there’s anything you need.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Prof Erb — Ho hum. More lecturing, plus some mindreading. I’m not interested in your advice or your play either. If you’ve got points to make, make ’em.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
As for the superdelegates, one can imagine all sorts of fantasies as well (unlikely Obama will be losing to McCain by a large margin and Hillary wouldn’t)
Prof Erb — If you refer to the lead post that this thread is based on — as opposed to rushing in to repeat your lecture about your pet theory of the "civil war for control of the Democratic party" — you will note that it is based on scenarios in which Obama can’t put together an electoral win against McCain.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
You are literally fantasizing.
I don’t think you understand what "literally" means if you’d use it this way. Likewise for "fantasizing".
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
. I’m not interested in your advice or your play either.
Then why comment on that rather than the points I made?

Steverino, I meant literally. I meant it literally, not figuratively.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"fantasizing" means "engaging in reverie". How is huxley’s criticism of your writing style a fantasy?

You may not like it or agree with it, but it’s not "fantasizing".
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Steverino, did you know that words have more than one meaning? To fantasize is, among other meanings, to imagine something that isn’t there. That’s what he did. Perhaps you need to invest in a better dictionary.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Erb, you are dead wrong on this. Huxley described your writing style as "lecturing". (When he said you have a "lecturing style", he couldn’t possibly have been talking about your speech, he obviously meant you had a "lecturing style of writing." "Lecturing" in this instance was a verbal, a verb serving as an adjective modifying "style".) That’s not imagining something that wasn’t there, it was merely a statement of opinion. You are the one who claimed huxley was imagining you were lecturing, when it was obvious that he wasn’t.

Perhaps you should stop the ad hominem.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Erb, you are dead wrong on this.
Nope, you are. And unlike you’ll I’ll show it. Read the definitions below, cited from an online dictionary. I think it may seem like lecturing to you, Steverino, because I often correct your mistakes or tell you things you don’t know.

Fan·ta·sy /ˈfæntəsi, -zi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fan-tuh-see, -zee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -sies, verb, -sied, -sy·ing.
–noun

(I’ll skip the nouns and go to the verbs, since that’s how it was used)

–verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
11. to form mental images; imagine; fantasize.
12. Rare. to write or play fantasias.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I think it may seem like lecturing to you, Steverino, because I often correct your mistakes or tell you things you don’t know.
Someone who believes a lier like Juan Cole isn’t likely to correct many mistakes. Perhaps you are fantasizing correcting mistakes . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Someone who believes a lier like Juan Cole
I make Juan Cole required reading because he has unique insights and he has proven himself despite the attempts by the radical right wing pro-Israel side to smear him. He is, quite frankly, a superior commentator on Mideast politics.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
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