The Combined Obama and Clinton Map

by: Chris Bowers

Wed May 21, 2008 at 21:59

I know that the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket isn't very popular around these parts. However, for the moment, try to set your dislike of that ticket aside, and consider this map:

Obama and / or Clinton 300, McCain 152, Toss-up 86

(Dark Blue means "Solid Obama / Clinton," or Obama / Clinton +10% or more
Light Blue means "Lean Obama / Clinton," or Obama / Clinton +4.1%-+9.9%
White means "Toss-up," from between Obama / Clinton +4.0% to McCain +4.0%
Light Red means "Lean McCain" or McCain +4.1%-+9.9%
Dark Red means "Solid McCain," or McCain +10.0% or more

NE-01 and NE-02 are toss-ups, while NE-03 is solid McCain)

That's a pretty sweet map. It combines the Clinton and Obama maps against McCain, taking the best Democratic performance for each state. The result is a blowout, where Democrats hold a statistically significant lead in states with 300 electoral votes, and McCain's "solid" states drop to under 100 electoral votes. If Democrats were to gain only five more points on this map, an entirely doable proposition given the overwhelming Democratic advantage among fundraising and volunteers, and this is a realignment map. At that point, Democrats would win over 400 electoral votes, something we have not accomplished since 1964.

I don't know if having Clinton and Obama on the same ticket would mean that the ticket would produce the above map. However, I do know that we are not going to achieve a realignment unless we win all of the states where one candidate or the other is strong. We need Obama's strength in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon and Washington. We also need Clinton's strength in Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Ohio and West Virginia. If we are going to truly realign the country, we need to win all of those states, plus a few others like Texas, North Carolina, Virginia and Indiana, four seemingly red states where both candidates are performing reasonably well.

In other words, we need to combine the Clinton coalition with the Obama coalitions, rather than arguing over whose coalition is superior. The nomination campaign is over anyway, so that argument is moot and academic. And, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the most obvious way to combine the Clinton and Obama coalitions to put them both on the ticket? It isn't a perfect method, and it won't work out like the above map, but it is probably the best method available. And really, when one looks over the conservative crop of names that are being floated for VP, like Strickland, Webb, and Bayh, isn't Clinton actually preferable to all of them, too? Not to mention that we are going to have to heal the party, and giving Clinton the VP slot is probably the fastest way to do so.

I've been an advocate of a "reinforcing" VP pick for a while now. I even arrived at Sebelius by process of elimination, using my basic logic. However, as time goes on, I have to wonder if political concerns, not to mention the general weakness of other available options, actually makes Clinton the best choice for VP. It isn't ideal, but it could be the best of imperfect options. And that is a pretty sweet map.

Chris Bowers :: The Combined Obama and Clinton Map

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

That is assuming (4.00 / 5)
That Clinton for President and Obama for President voters would also be Obama/Clinton for president voters which I do not think is perfectly accurate.

Personally I'm coming around to a Obama/Edwards ticket. I think he brings all the strengths of Clinton but without the baggage. Despite his support of the war he would be a reinforcing pick beacuse he has apologized for it. Sure he has ruled it out. But then again, hasn't Clinton?

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

except (0.00 / 0)
I think [Edwards] brings all the strengths of Clinton but without the baggage.

Really?  Edwards has the support of half the Democratic electorate?

[ Parent ]
I don't see Obama/Edwards as working out (4.00 / 2)
He doesn't have strong electoral pull and he didn't help before.

Besides, he has roughly the same experience as Obama and Obama will be attacked on experience.  My understanding is that he did not enjoy being a VP candidate.

I think he'd make a great attorney general.

[ Parent ]
Yes. He'd Make A Great AG, But (4.00 / 2)
AGs don't help the ticket.

The best evidence we have is that he does have strong electoral pull.  We have the head-to-heads from 2007, where he outperformed both Clinton and Obama, and we have the just-completed SUSA poll from Pennsylvania, where he's several points stronger than Rendell against every VP matched with McCain.

If he's stronger than Rendell in PA, then who's going to be stronger than him across a whole range of states, including Virginia and the Carolinas--states that will stretch McCain past the breaking point?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
wow (0.00 / 0)
If he polls stronger than Rendell in PA, that's pretty impressive.  I'm not wild about Rendell, but I thought he might be a highly defensible choice for VP.

I still wonder if that would last through the attacks on lack of experience for both Obama and Edwards.  Maybe it will.  How did Edwards figure in 2004 in states like Colorado? Ohio?

[ Parent ]
Yeah, No One's Ever Attacked Edwars Before (0.00 / 0)
Oh, wait....

Yeah, sure it's an effect that's bound to wear off some.  But wouldn't you rather have them need to work on eroding our advantage, rather than the other way around?

Especially since they're, like, broke?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I'm very intrigued by this PA polling. (0.00 / 0)
Has similar polling been done in any other state?

"The lightning whelk is strong, attractive, capable of growing to be one of the largest shells on the beach--and it opens to the left."

[ Parent ]
CA, NM--Both Similar re Edwards Impact--14 More To Come (0.00 / 0)
SUSA has announced it's done 17 states, but only 3 have been released so far.

In New Mexico, SUSA has Obama and McCain tied. Edwards is the only running mate who gives Obama the edge--and does so vs. every McCain running mate, from +3 vs. Huckabee to +9 vs. Pawlenty.

In California, SUSA has Obama over McCain by 8 points.  Edwards is the only running mate who improves on that--from +9 vs. Huckabee to +15 vs. Pawlenty.

But, of course, no one expects Rendell to do that well in other states.  The PA results are clearly the most probative on that point.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
They had some odd VP picks (4.00 / 1)
SUSA could have picked better possible VP choices. I would have polled Webb, Sebelius, Edwards, Richardson. Forget Hagel, it's not gonna happen. And forget Rendell, he's too much of a Clinton blowhard. Of course, polling Edwards is like polling Gore, a decent pick but one that also won't happen. If I took out Edwards, I'd poll Claire McCaskill.

They also poll some lame picks for McCain. Lieberman? Romney? Yeah right. They should poll Huckabee, Crist, Pawlenty, Lindsey Graham.

Of course most of these VP polls are merely asking for name recognition. I don't think Sebelius would be nearly as bad a drag on the ticket as the polls suggested. I mean really, would Obama lose female voters because he has a woman on the ticket? It doesn't make sense.

[ Parent ]
it's clinton who's strong in Nevada not Obama (0.00 / 0)
We need Obama's strength in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon and Washington.



Obama 40
McCain 46

Clinton 46
McCain 41

Obama only gets 65% of the Democratic base vote.  Not only is this further proof he needs's further proof that, despite the Obama Conventional Wisdom she is as much a map expander for real as he was touted to be, but actuallly seems not to be.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
The obvious often times (4.00 / 1)
proves to be that which least provides what is necessary to produce the desired results.  In this case, to assert that the best way to win the states that each candidate has won is to combine them on the same ticket is a far too simplistic method and does not consider the complexities and nuanced differences of each campaign.

You ask that we set aside our differences.  I ask that you respect the judgment of the nominee.  If Sen. Obama chooses Sen. Clinton, well, I don't like the idea, but I will accept his decision.  I hope he choses better--there are many better alternatives.

Respect the judgment of the nominee (4.00 / 6)
I'm not convinced of my own reasoning here-mainly I am just throwing out ideas. However, the notion of just sitting back and respecting the judgment of the nominee is way too passive and sychophantic for me. Support Obama, sure. Surrender our judgment to him--that is the path of destruction for any movement or independent media.  

[ Parent ]
Chris ... (4.00 / 6)
I get what you are saying ... but have you looked at all the ramifications?  Do you realize what having Hillary as a VP would mean(if Obama wins)?  Are you confident that Hillary and Bill will not seek to undercut Obama in any way?  Are you prepared for the wingnut onslaught if Hillary is on the ticket?  How will her being on the ticket fit with his change message?   Don't you think Republicans will hit her on the war vote?  I am not saying an Obama/Clinton ticket can't win .. I am just asking if you have thought out what could happen as a result

[ Parent ]
I completely agree (4.00 / 4)
Trusting that Obama will make the right decision is not only misguided (most likely) but lacking in all measures of self-respect. If we're not qualified to choose a first-rate vice-president, then what makes us so good at selecting presidents? Why don't we just leave these tough decisions to people who know better?

I made this same point the other day on Daily Kos and got flamed as though I had spat in the very face of all that is good and holy.

[ Parent ]
The map sure looks pretty, but I worry about (4.00 / 7)
Obama being subjugated in the public's mind to Bill....I can't see him being meek and I think Obama needs to look strong.

I also worry about increased republican turnout due to a Clinton being on the ticket.

It's getting to the point that Obama might look weak if he picks her.

[ Parent ]
frackin' exactly (4.00 / 1)
It's getting to the point that Obama might look weak if he picks her.

I was thinking through this idea until I read that.  I think that would definitely make him look weak.  Great insight.

[ Parent ]
My concern, too (4.00 / 1)
The last thing we need is another VP in there claiming their own authority and operating independently of the President.  Policy issues and such aside, Hillary seems to crave secrecy and loyalty every bit as much as Cheney does.

Obviously, she doesn't drink the blood of the innocent like Cheney, but the idea that the Vice President can take a lead in policy over POTUS is one that needs to be smacked down hard permanently.  Give the VP a solid dossier and some important issues, as well as the diplomatic duties, but make it damn clear that their job is to support the President.  I just can't see a VP's office staffed by Mark Penn and cronies as doing anything but undermining the President.

[ Parent ]
I'm not convinced (0.00 / 0)
that anyone except those on the inside of Sen. Obama's circle, or at least on the periphery of the circle of power-elites that are always prevalent in public office has any real input into the decision-making process.  To say that one must respect the judgment of the politicians we elect is precisely what representative governance is.  It really doesn't matter if you or others feel that our role is limited--severely limited--when it comes to advising the nominee/President-elect.

As far as the notion of just sitting on our hands and waiting for others to make decisions on our behalf--OF COURSE that is not the right approach, but nor is the belief that our little diary/blog will influence the nominee.  It would be more genuine to accept that what we can do is limited, but real; that we can affect decisions by direct participation in the process (elections, and yes, even contributing to this blog--by generating enthusiasm FOR participation, NOT by presuming that we are advisors).

You are not surrendering your judgment to the nominee; you have already made your judgment, with your vote.  In our representational form of governance, you have to trust that your elected representative will properly represent you and others.  If s/he does not, then you may seek redress.  In the meantime, you, like the rest of us, can participate in democracy by engaging in civic affairs.  I have no difficulty with any of that, but I do point out, again, that we are not the nominees advisers.  

[ Parent ]
Like Chris Said... (4.00 / 2)
Look how well respecting the judgement of Bush turned out for the GOP.

We're a democratic republic, not a monarchy.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Our system does NOT (0.00 / 0)
provide the mechanism for election of a VP except through election of the President.  To assume that we can dictate to the nominee who that VP will be is foolhardy, and dilusional.

You want to make recommendations to the nominee, go ahead.  But one think I am sure of is that Sen. Obama does not take advice from this or any other blog.

[ Parent ]
Setting aside (4.00 / 1)
Bowers,  I am willing to set aside my increasing um distaste of Clinton at least to look at this map.  And definitely I like what I see.  We could do much worse than Clinton as the Veep on paper at least.  The concern I have is this:

- Normally its thought that the Veep doesn't add all that much to the ticket with Johnson in 64 being the standout exception. So I wonder if you cannot actually simply combine their electoral strengths.  I mean Clinton as Veep is less interesting than Clinton as POTUS to voters.  So combining Obama's and Clinton's maps probably does not give a true picture?

BTW, The Oregonian (sorry no link) now projects OR as 32-20 Obama due to him squeezing enough extra votes in the 4th and statewide to give him an extra delegate in both.  This is an upward revision for them.

Again (4.00 / 1)
I applaud this effort at looking at the Veep choices from all angles.

[ Parent ]
'60 not '64 (0.00 / 0)
    LBJ was the Veep on the 1960 ballot; I believe he won a landslide running for Prez in 1964. I don't know how much HHH helped the ticket, though he provided geographic balance in that year.

I'm a Prius Progressive, not a Limousine Liberal

[ Parent ]
interesting Pelosi quotes (0.00 / 0)
I found the quotes in this dailykos diary interesting.  Not sure what it adds in terms of evidence, except that it seems Pelosi does not think it will be an Obama-Clinton ticket.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

I don't think she'd say that if there was any chance (0.00 / 0)
of it happening.

[ Parent ]
I can say with confidence... (4.00 / 6)
That Nebraska is not in play if Clinton is Obama's running mate.

Nebraska's one of those states where the conservative base is not very energized this year. If you put Clinton on the ticket, they will be.

I imagine the same can be said for a lot of the interior west states (Colorado), and states like Virginia and North Carolina.

Sorry, it's not as simple as combining the maps. Each candidate has their own strong areas of the country, but Hillary has significant weaknesses in the areas that Obama is strongest.  

Further Reading

Are you sure about that? (0.00 / 0)
Survey USA poll just came out showing Clinton beating McCain in North Carolina, down 3 in Colorado (Rasmussen), and running at about the level of Obama in Virginia, only slightly worse.  Both candidates have different coalitions to help them get elected.  

I'm not sure I completely by the theory of how much she energizes Republicans because I haven't see any indication of that in this primary...I'm sure she'll energize some voters but she brings a large amount of voters, many of them swing voters into the fold with her.

I'm also not discounting your argument because you may be right, but I would think polling would pick up some energized Republicans even now, but again, I haven't really seen that.

[ Parent ]
She's been praised... (4.00 / 1)
...and adored by right wing news sources for months now... Sure, they would turn on her, but they have effectively neutralized many of her negatives for the long term.  She's run a Karl Rove campaign.. it's no wonder that Republicans would like her.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
they'd turn on her in a SECOND (4.00 / 5)
If Obama actually made the mistake of picking Clinton as VP, all these Republicans who are praising her would pounce on the pick in a split second. Your neck would hurt, it would happen so fast.

They are being nice right now because they know she's lost, and they want to help her undermine Obama. If she were on the ticket, Rove would bust out his fifty file cabinets of anti-Clinton research and tell his lackeys to go to town. You have no idea how ugly it would be.

What would Clinton say? "Oh Karl, but you said such nice things about me back in May?" "Dear Richard Mellon Scaife, what about our cordial tea party back in April?" They would tell her to take a flying f--k.

I don't think Obama is dumb enough to pick Hillary. This map by Bowers is pure fantasy. Even if you showed me polling where an Obama-Clinton ticket kicked ass, I wouldn't put any stock in it. The right wing has not been unleashed on Clinton, and it would get really ugly and undermine Obama's whole message. He would look small compared to the attention put on Hillary and Bill.

[ Parent ]
Chris Bowers' worst idea ever (4.00 / 7)
And I say that as a big fan, Chris.

How on earth can Obama run for commander-in-chief with a running mate who said he hadn't "met the commander-in-chief threshhold", though his Republican opponent had?

How on earth can Obama, whose campaign is predicated on the idea of giving everyone a voice in the political process, have as his running mate the woman whose campaign insisted that every state he one was not one of the important ones?!

How on earth can Obama, who is running on a platform to "change the way the game is played in Washington", have as his running mate one of the icons of DC and DLC establishment politics?!?

How on earth can Obama, who insists on not taking a nickel from lobbyists, have as his running mate a woman who receives millions from corporations, and who served on the board of the largest corporation in the U.S.?!?!

And that's to say nothing of the fact that the two of them simply must HATE each other by now.

This would be the single best way to completely undermine Obama's entire message and convince everyone that he was nothing more than a cynical, calculating, split-the-middle politician. It would throw Hope '08 out the frickin' window in one fell swoop.

And that hypothetical map you have produced is nothing but pure fantasy; there is no reason to believe that a combined ticket would so directly inherit their strengths on a state-by-state basis. Do you honestly think all the Appalachian folk of WV would suddenly vote for a black man just because Hillary is his running mate?

Dude, you know way better than this. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in '08 and the Republican brand is so badly battered that we could probably get a monkey elected President as long as it was a Democratic monkey and it opposed the Iraq war. In fact, it's such a good opportunity that we can overcome the country's inherent racism and get a black man elected for the first time ever -- and a really talented one at that.

We don't need some wacky, undermining, pipe-dream pseudo-unity ticket to do it. Obama should win, and win solidly, regardless of his running mate.

Kill the "commander-in-chief" meme (0.00 / 0)
One thing that really needs to happen this election is that Democrats kill the "commander-in-chief" meme dead.  We vote for a President, not a "commander-in-chief"  The President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces only.  I would further argue that he is such only when he actually takes the field to lead the Army, but I realize that is a more extreme interpretation.  But I don't think FDR ever called himself "commander-in-chief"; he gave Marshall general direction and then often didn't talk to him for weeks at a time.  Compare that to Churchill's role as PM/MoD.


[ Parent ]
You are surely correct (0.00 / 0)
The President is far more than a Commander in Chief.  But, can that notion be "killed" unilaterally?  Especially with the "war hero" McCain all but wearing his uniform on the campaign trail?  

The military is an object of near-worship in this nation (not veterans, mind you, but that's one aspect of American Schizophenia). The military mind-set infects every aspect of our thought and action. On the Right, the Left, and the Center. People can debate whether the US is a "christian" nation, but is there any doubt ours is a "militaristic" nation?  

On that background and within that frame, the "CiC threshold" will be with us for a very long time.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
The problem with this proposal (4.00 / 5)
Is that the rationale is entirely based on electoral maps. This argument for Clinton as VP is not based on whether she'd make a good president (the most important consideration) or indeed whether she'd have a progressive influence on an Obama administration (and I don't think she would).

I think your electoral logic is pretty solid, if a little rough, and I don't doubt that Obama-Clinton would wipe the floor with McCain. However, if I could demonstrate that Obama-Hagel would win by an even greater margin, would he be a preferable choice? Not for me, because I'm more concerned with what these people will do once they're actually elected to office.

Please rekindle your advocacy for Russ Feingold.  He would be the single best choice for vice-president, and indeed president, if it came to that. I believe he would have electoral heft in the "Clinton states" of Florida and Ohio, not to mention reinforcing Obama's themes better than Obama himself. This site is all about giving voice to progressive values, without compromise, so we shouldn't encourage such mainstream notions as an Obama-Clinton ticket.

I'm fed up with her candidacy, pissed off with compromise, and I want to vote for Obama-Feingold.

Of course she would be a good president (4.00 / 1)
half the Democratic electorate thinks she would be a good presidient.

And she's more progressive than he is....maybe we would have real health care reform...something I don't think he were work as hard for or know as much about as she does.

I think if she's not on the ticket....all those women who are so angry now they could spit....and I mean angry.... will stay home at the very best.  This is not just an offensive choice, it's a defensive choice.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
Substantially less than half.

I also don't really think that Hillary supporters will stay home.  I don't have any more proof of that than you have proof of your assertion, but this is a once-in-a-century kind of election and I doubt that most citizens motivated enough to vote or caucus in a primary would stay home for the general.

[ Parent ]
she has more Democrats than he does (0.00 / 0)
from Iowa on....his margin of victory has always been Indies and actually the Democrats who have self identified as Democrats have voted more for him than her.

Iowa changed its rules this year and allowed Indies and Rep to vote...that's how he won Iowa....not with Democrats

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
self-identified Democrats vs. Democratic electorate (0.00 / 0)
Those who participate the Democratic primary system should be considered part of the Democratic electorate, regardless of their self-identified affiliation.

[ Parent ]
humph (4.00 / 1)
Well, you're right about on thing.  Picking Clinton would definitely be offensive.

Give it a minute.

[ Parent ]
can't say I a m not a good straight man (0.00 / 0)
I knew someone would say that..  what the hell....she's his ticket to the White House..

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
Half the entire electorate thought Bush would be a good president. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
"I think if she's not on the ticket....all those women who are so angry now they could spit....and I mean angry.... will stay home at the very best."

I mean, I can understand the concept of "protest votes" and "abstention" from citizens (like myself) that don't consider themselves part of the Democratic Base (or, GOP Base, for that matter), but from what I understand the people you are talking about DO consider themselves the base of the Democratic Party.  So, what's the rationale?

I'm asking because I truly want to know how a hard-core Democrat comes to this decision. I'm not trying to piss you off, or attack you in some kind of passive aggressive way, I'm confused.

I just cannot fathom the reasoning.  And this is from someone who cast a protest vote in the Presidential election for 2004 (and NOT for Ralph Nader).

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I am not talking about hard core Democrats (0.00 / 0)
The Obama people have consisitently underestimated the new people she brought into this process......and lots of them are not hardcore Democrats....

In one diary about the NC poll showing her winning the state in the GE and Obama losing , the diarist thought the Clinton women were voting for MCCain out of never occurred to him that these were Republican and Independent women who wanted her and were not motivated by Obama.

Those millions of women, many of whom never vote at all ....they were the ones I was referring to....they could be angry enough to vote for McCain or just stay home....hardcore Dems will eventually vote if not work for him......but those millions and I mean millions of women just don't give a fig for Barack Obama and love her.

without her on the ticket he courts losing.....because the working class who have supported Dem beer track candidates won't support a wine track candidate like Obama...talking about changing the process does not motivate them...talking about changing their lives as she has done...that motivates them.....Obama loses them without her.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
That makes more sense (0.00 / 0)
But, can't a similar case be made for the new voters that Obama has brought into the race?  They are not hard core Democrats, either, and will likely be very put-off by the path Clinton would have to traverse in order to secure the nomination, or even the VP slot. (although the latter could be handled with political adeptness that could minimize the effect)

Seems like a wash to me.

In my personal struggle to determine how to vote this year, pulling the lever (actually coloring an oval) for a Dem ticket that includes Clinton would be very difficult. She and Bill have pretty much fulfilled every negative aspect that I expected from them during the primary. The out-standing issue is appointments to the Supreme Court. With McCain in the WH, I'd have to depend upon the Democrats in Congress to stand up and confront him and that seems a losing bet, given recent actions (or non-action, as the case may be) on that issue.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
If Obama wisely decides to put her on the ticket (0.00 / 0)
he will bring the vast majority of his supporters with him....he will be the president after all.  That's who you vote for.

And the right wing assault of the last 15 years is what you dislike about her...don't buy into it....the basic right wing assault on her is fundamentally sexist becasue as first lady she threatened the entire right fundamentalist basis of their view of the world.  the basic fundamentalist view of the world from the christian right to the moslem right to the political right has to do with keeping women in their place...which means down....

They have created the Hillary Clinton you hate.....she's not like that.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
I don't "hate" Hillary Clinton (0.00 / 0)
Nor do I think it was the "right wing assault" that created the divisive campaign that she has run against Obama.

When I say I expected this from the Clinton machine its based on the political expedience that she displays, most clearly revealed by her support for the AUMF, despite her apparent misgivings.  She always seems to be talking down to me - telling me why I think what I think, and how wrong I am.  Just like you are doing here.

Despite your implications, I'm not any kind of religious fundamentalist, and I happen to think that a "woman's place" is anywhere they want to be. But more critically, I don't think its MY place to pretend to grant that kind of access.  I'm no gate-keeper and I resent your trying to paint me as such.  No woman has to prove anything to me, well nothing more than any other human being that chooses to try and get me to vote FOR them.

Note the emphasis on "FOR", please.  Given the situation in the Supreme Court, its very likely I'd manage a vote AGAINST McCain, even if Clinton were at the top of the Dem. ticket.  But, as of this moment, I can vote FOR Obama.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
of course you're not a religious fundamentalist! (0.00 / 0)
I know are a progressive Democrat...

I was just making the point that lots of the negative character flaws that you find in her are  the end result of a 15 year media spin camapign which used the fear of strong women to generate those very talking points,....

Matthews is the Id there...he makes it very clear that it's feeling threatened by strong women that motivates his biased perspective

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
Its becoming clear (0.00 / 0)
that you don't read my posts.

If you did, you wouldn't try to claim, indirectly of course, that I'm intimidated by women, strong or otherwise.

Nor that I'm any kind of Democrat.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Obama loses them? (0.00 / 0)
In your mind only.  This is example number 8392 of this logical error.

You have no freaking idea what percentage of women will or will not eventually come around.  History shows that it will likely be a high number.

You are pissed because your'e a partisan, and you think everyone feels like you do.  Mistake.

And in every Prez election, registered D's vote Republican.  Bush got many D votes in 2000, for example.  It always happens.  There are R's who vote D who never bother to change their registration either.

[ Parent ]
I'm wrong? (0.00 / 0)
Go read Chris's new post which shows Obama's in trouble...I've said that all along...

Women and blue collar Dems are not reliable votes for him...she needs her on the ticket

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
not reliable does not equal "lost for good" (0.00 / 0)
I generally value Chris' opinion's highly.  But I've watched more elections than he has.  I've been a paid staffer on (small) campaigns. He's wrong sometimes. He's wrong on electability, for example.   See my comment on that post, which was ill considered.

No D is a "slam dunk" this fall.  But external conditions are favorable.

I don't think Obama needs HRC.  However, I can be persuaded that she might be one of his best possible picks.

[ Parent ]
Re: Of course she would be a good president (0.00 / 0)
I'm not remotely convinced she would be a good president. A "good" president doesn't threaten to "obliterate" Iran or go out of her way to flatter lobbyists as "real Americans".

I'm not sure that she's more progressive than Obama, but I do know that neither candidate is as progressive as they should be. This is why I think Obama would benefit from a genuinely progressive collaborator as vice-president, and I think Russ Feingold is the outstanding candidate for this role.

Regarding your point about Clinton women staying home or voting for McCain, I just find it hard to believe that millions of Democrats would be so, well, petulant, when women's rights would be severely threatened by a McCain presidency.

[ Parent ]
read my comment upthread re them not being hardcore Democrats (0.00 / 0)
what would you do if she were the nominee?

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
If she were the nominee... (4.00 / 1)
I'd reluctantly vote for her and lose a lot of enthusiasm for the next four years.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.00 / 1)
the argument people use against Feingold is, "but he's so awesome in the Senate!" -- without really considering he could be even awesomer as Vice President. If nothing else, he'd be one of the President's top two advisors (the other being, I expect, Michelle Obama), which alone is worth a ton.

[ Parent ]
I love the map, but (4.00 / 3)
I'm not sure why you'd take the better of the two performances in each state. That's just adding all of Obama's favorables to all of Clinton's favorables, and not factoring the unfavorables. Also, if I understand correctly, this is all 'two against one.' Instead of pitting C & O against McCain, shouldn't we measure them against McCain and somebody? (I know that's not feasible, but I hope you see what I mean.)

The map is bogus (4.00 / 5)
The map is a complete fantasy. Why assume no one is voting on the basis of anything negative about Clinton or Obama? You could just as well make a map by combining their matchup results by taking the worst of each, which would result in a McCain blowout.

[ Parent ]
Or you could take the best of McCain's (4.00 / 1)
performances and add them to the best of Romney's or Huckabee's, and probably end up with a blowout for McCain.

I agree, I don't think it works this way.  I don't think you can just add their best performances and get a result that means anything.

However I do agree that many or most of Hillary's supporters will be needed for a Democratic victory in November.  That might happen anyway as they take a closer look at McCain.  But some might really be self-destructively angry enough to sit out the election or vote for McCain.  Would any other VP candidate help?

"The lightning whelk is strong, attractive, capable of growing to be one of the largest shells on the beach--and it opens to the left."

[ Parent ]
Does this have anything to do (0.00 / 0)
with what Natasha wrote yesterday?

Sebelius isn't weak, she's kick ass (4.00 / 3)
She's kick ass. Vetoing dirty coal plants and voter ID takes spine. Compare Sebelius vetoing voter ID in Kansas to Clinton's   ID remarks and complete disrespect for the actual processes of the Democratic party (ie, all states count and delegates decide the race, and WA counts the same as MA).

Sebelius has low name recognition but that will change in a hurry as soon as people start to see her as potentially the first woman President. She helps in neighboring CO and MO, puts KS in play, helps in OH, helps generically with women, helps generically with Catholics AND she fights hard and clean for what's right.

John McCain

And she WON (4.00 / 3)
Shouldn't the future of the planet be what matters to us?

Sebelius vetoed the coal bill three times. One time they where within 1 vote of overriding her. But she has won and now they have given up.

Sebelius is a fighter. She shows what progressives can do when they stand strong.

Sebelius is the strongest choice for vice president.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
So Far, Polls Say "Not So Much" (0.00 / 0)
The three SUSA running mate polls so far show her having no impact.  This isn't to say that that can't change.  But she has yet to make her mark.

Edwards, OTOH, has a huge impact.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
This, of course, (4.00 / 4)
has nothing to do with the fact that Edwards has been in the national spotlight for all of the last Presidential election cycle and for much of this one, while Sebelius is still an obscure Kansas governor who gave an admittedly mediocre response to the SOTU. Nothing at all.

If it weren't for the fact that Romney at least does badly, I'd say the poll is completely worthless and measures nothing except name recognition (with McCain's top choice being Huckabee, completely coincidentally someone else who's gained national prominence). Name recognition and familiarity aren't worthless, of course, but by November the difference -- if we consider parallel universes where each of the potential candidates in turn are chosen -- won't be anywhere close to as pronounced as it is now.

(I'm also really surprised they didn't poll Obama/Clinton, which seems like the elephant in the room to me.)

[ Parent ]
She sure as hell (4.00 / 2)
makes Tim Kaine here in Virginny look like a wuss, comparatively -- and he actually has DEMS in control of an entire house of the legislature, which she emphatically does not!

I think the Catholic bona fides have been vastly underrated so far in her appeal. Yes, Barack has had problems in 'working class white' areas of Penna, 0hio, etc. -- but those areas are chockful of Catholics that will like what she has to say.

I continue to think she'll be the VP pick.  

[ Parent ]
Let's see (4.00 / 1)
Sebelius doesnt put Kansas in play (McCain +18 in last two polls).  She will also probably have little effect on neighboring states and none on Ohio, where she hasn't lived in ages.

She doesn't help him with foreign policy or "experience."

She doesn't help him with white working class voters.

She doesn't help him with latinos.

She is likely to be seen as a patronizing "female replacement" by many women who supported HRC.

Other than that, she's great.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
Doesn't help him with white working class voters? (4.00 / 1)
Uh, do you remember the book, hmm, what's it called ... oh yea, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" You know, the book that talked about how Kansans were the perfect example of an electorate voting against their own interests?

Well, take a look here. This is SUSA's last poll of Kansas before the election, and it pretty much nailed the final tally. Her margin of victory was 58-41.

She won those making less than 40k, 65-31; those between 40k and 80k, 60-37; those more than 80k, 54-43. It might be said she did best among the working class. Similarly, she won those that did not attend college 65-35, her best education demographic.

Whites in Kansas comprise approx 91% of the population, so I'd say she appeals to working class whites.

Her best age demographics were in the boomer and older categories, which is where Barack currently needs help. And she dominated amongst women, 61-36.

In fact, once the country gets to know her, I'm guessing she'd be a great asset with all these demos nationally.

[ Parent ]
Whatever you thinkg about Sebelius, the National I.D act is a winning issue... (0.00 / 0)
Democrats hate it, Republicans hate it, just about everyone who lives outside of the beltway hates it. This idea has been posted in previous OpenLeft diaries, but the National I.D. act is the perfect Democratic wedge issue.

Take my home state for example, Georgia. Now completely run by Republicans. Both of our Republican Senators voted for the National I.D. act. At the same time the Republican controlled state legislature passed a law basically saying the state was totally opposed to a national I.D. and would do their best to not enforce it.

This is an issue that goes to the heart of true liberals (civil liberties) and at the same time can pick off even some of the most far right Republicans. Believe it or not their are a lot more liberties-obsessed righties (think Ron Paul) who actually care more about civil liberties than making sure homosexuals continue to be oppressed. These voters are ripe for the pickens and this is a perfect wedge issue for Democrats in southern states especially.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
Why did they oppose the National ID? (0.00 / 0)
"At the same time the Republican controlled state legislature passed a law basically saying the state was totally opposed to a national I.D. and would do their best to not enforce it. "

In MN it was attacked by the DFL-led house and senate on personal privacy grounds, while the GOP reps and our GOP Governor dissed it as an "unfunded mandate", strongly implying that IF the Feds put up the $$$ to pay for it, they'd get on board.

So, it seems a pertinent question to ask why the GA state legislature voted agin' it?  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I could be mistaken but I'm 95% sure the opposition was for privacy and civil liberty concerns and nothing to do with funding. (0.00 / 0)
The Georgia state GOP did try to pass a law requiring IDs for voting, but thats a completely separate issue.

The inside-the-beltway crowd like our GA senators basically just cosign anything Bush or the national party asks them to, even though the National I.D. is very much hated on the grassroots level by both the left and the right.

Saxby also originally voted for the immigration bill, but there was so much outcry from the talk radio Republican crowd he had to renig.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
It could well be that the MN state GOPers (0.00 / 0)
are just trying to find a way to spin their opposition in a way that distinguishes them from the DFLers, that much should be considered.

But, Pawlenty has been pretty consistent with the "unfunded mandate" theme (on NCLB, for example), so I think his support could be "bought" with some Federal cash. It would make sense, too, because we just up-dated our driver license system a few years back and we're currently running a deficit, so why throw more cash at a "problem" that was so recently solved.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I have to say (4.00 / 2)
that the map looks good, however I don't think it's a given that the map would look this way after the election.  Also, my concern about that ticket is the question of who is in charge?  Any percieved slight by either Obama or Clinton would put their supporters in an uproar.  Either Obama wasn't putting Clinton to good use or Clinton is overstepping her bounds.  It doesn't have to be true, it just has to be percieved that way.  I just think it's a no-win situation for both of them.  And don't think repubs wouldn't exploit the situitation.  

Imagine, for a moment (4.00 / 3)
That George W Bush was elected president, and instead of retreating to the background, his father ran his mouth, publicly debated his decisions, and generally jockeyed for the limelight from the sidelines.

Oh, and that Barbara Bush was a former president who did the exact same thing, but worse.

That's what you'd have if Bill/Hillary became Obama's VP team.

That being said (4.00 / 5)
Obama has to make this HIS party if he's going to govern effectively.

If he picks Clinton as VP, they're still in the game, and he has to share leadership of the party.

If he doesn't, she and Bill retreat to the wilderness in the Senate or NY Governorship (prob not sexy enough) and it's his party.

It might cause some heartburn for a couple of days, but not picking Clinton will work out fine in the long run.

[ Parent ]
Obama / Clinton (4.00 / 4)
Contrary to the popular wisdom, I think Hillary Clinton is an incompetent nitwit.  Look at her campaign- do we need any more evidence?  I can hardly imagine a more poorly administrated political campaign, especially when we consider the extraordinary headstart that she enjoyed.

She has also made it clear that she will put herself ahead of the best interests of the Democratic Party.  We don't need someone like that on the ticket.  Political expediency is appealing sometimes, but in this case I think we need to stick to principles.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with your term (4.00 / 2)
But on the whole I have to agree that her competence, experience and judgement are overrated. "Inevitable" rapidly turned into desperate, against a relative "nobody" who outplayed her at every turn. All that's left is the end game, and I suspect that Obama has one all set to go, at the right moment, which will be very shortly. Forget about her questionable ethics and shifting relationship with the truth. On a purely political level, she's overrated.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Chris (0.00 / 0)
I'm totally just throwing this out there, but I'm surprised that I haven't seen more talk about putting Dean on the ticket.  There is no doubt that he could be President should something happen to Obama.  Also, I'm not sure I can think of a better reinforcing pick for Obama.  Smart, aggressive, tough and moderate.  

My first choice is Brown, but I'm curious why I haven't heard you at least put it out there.

I made this point here last week... (0.00 / 0)
when you were promoting the Edwards pick as a reinforcer.  I recall taking a lot of flack (tho not from you Chris, Paul and I had a little discussion) for pointing out what a pretty map the two of them could produce.  Although I pretty much would prefer anyone but HRC, I do agree that if our first priority is winning big, with a 'mandate' for the work that needs to be done, than Clinton is perhaps the strongest choice

What's in play (0.00 / 0)
While I see no good reason to believe an Obama/Clinton ticket produces the above map, it does give an interesting view of what is theoretically in play for the Democrats.  

I'd be fine with an Obama/Clinton ticket if it weren't for Bill.  Perhaps he can be assigned to Hillary's Senate seat or something like that to keep him busy.

Unity Ticket is bad math (4.00 / 2)
Forget the maps. There's a very simple reason why a Unity Ticket is a bad idea. People struggling with a choice will fall back to finding a reason to vote against one of the choices.

Both candidates have their potentially high negatives. By that I mean things about them that would cause voter pause and cause them to vote against them. What would happen is that you'd combine those negatives, not cancel them out. The ticket's negatives would be the sum of both (less any overlap).

I can think of a dozen other reasons why the "Unity Ticket" is a bad idea, but this is the main one.

That's The Ticket (0.00 / 0)
This is probably one of the smartest things Chris Bowers has said about this campaign. Well, maybe not...

I have been relentless in my criticism of the left for the way that Clinton and her supporters have been treated by bloggers on the left from almost day 1 of this campaign. I have no apologies for this and would do and say it again in a heartbeat.

However, the argument Bowers makes is the most sense for a GE. I don't know what other Clinton supporters think or what they will do. At this juncture, though, there is no other VP candidate who brings this kind of positive to the election. They may have gubernatorial experience, but they don't have a) the huge base of supporters/voting bloc that Clinton has; b) they don't have the connections that Clinton has; c) they don't have the organizations and people in place that Clinton now has across the country.

You can talk about the negatives, but Obama has plenty of his own that are going to be huge problems in the Fall. Clinton's will be far less problematic (which is what many of us have argued for some time). And I don't see that her Iraq war vote - particularly in light of what she has proposed - will be that toxic. And frankly, in spite of what the left thinks and says, I think Clinton will be far more progressive on a number of issues that Obama isn't: health care reform, energy, jobs.

This is a good start. Still a long way to go, however, before Obama convinces us that a) he has what it takes to win a GE with or without Clinton; and b) that he can and will rein-in the sexism and nastiness of his out-of-control online "children."

Thanks (4.00 / 1)
I always like being called a child online.

And the policy differences between them are very minor, so calling her far more progressive is unfounded. But I'm not going to get into an argument with a bunch of talking points that bear no relation to reality, since I can pretty much predict all of your comebacks.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
No freakin way (4.00 / 4)
I'm sorry, but Clinton as VP is a terrible idea. You are assuming that putting her as VP would suddenly allow Obama to be competitive in Arkansas or West Virginia? I don't think so. And there are MAJOR reasons why she is a horrible pick for Obama.

1. He can't trust her.
2. Her quotes this campaign (Obama isn't qualified, he "chose" his pastor, etc.) would become endless fodder for the McCain folks
3. All the Clinton scandals would remain relevant.
4. The media would continue to focus on the Clintons, Clintons, Clintons.
5. Again, Obama CANNOT trust her. Look how crazy she is acting right now, comparing Florida's DNC debacle to Zimbabwe??? She'd be a liability on the campaign trail and in the White House.
6. Just because bitter Clinton supporters are telling pollsters that they will vote for McCain instead, doesn't mean Obama needs to put her on the ballot. After Clinton concedes, most of these voters will come around anyway.
7. Say goodbye the the change message if we have a Clinton or Bush on the ballot for the 9th presidential election in a row.

Ultimately, I think Obama can put all of these states (except for Arkansas, WV and South Carolina) in play. But we'll only get a real sense once Hillary concedes and her supporters (older woman particularly) get over their grudges and start telling the truth to pollsters.

Tin-Foil Hat theories... (0.00 / 0)
I know comments like this are destined to be troll-rated. But I think choosing Hillary as VP would drastically increase Obama's chances of being assassinated. Not pointing no fingers, just sayin.

The last time a Democratic nominee choose his hard-fought primary challenger as his VP was JFK. Lyndon Johnson also happened to have prior CIA connections.

I'm not totally looney, I doubt this would actually happen. But were I Obama, I'd play it on the safe side.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

I wouldn't want to try and govern (4.00 / 1)
with Hillary and Bill scheming down the hall.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

My thoughts exactly. (0.00 / 0)
I could see her undermining him the whole time.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
Clinton is a Bad Choice for VP (4.00 / 1)
For 30 years, Democrats have been doing what they thought would win them elections (mostly moving to the "center"). And those choices have, instead, lost them one election after another. To win, Obama has to be the change candidate who argues against politics as usual, against the beltway, against the Iraq war. Clinton represents the continuation of Bill's politics and support for the Iraq war.

Chris' insight that Obama needs a reinforcing VP is right on. Kathleen Sebellius, Sherrod Brown, Russ Feingold, John Edwards, Janet Napolitano, and Howard Dean would all be much better selections. Each of them would reinforce the change meme and support Obama's main themes. None of them would overshadow Obama. And, as I recall, only Feingold has said anything particularly negative about Obama that could be used against him in the campaign.

Clinton is smart and capable -- a great asset to the Democratic Party. She is an incredible advocate for women. I really want her to continue to play an important role in pushing for progressive legislation and serving as a role model for women. But I think she would be a terrible VP pick.

When did Feingold dis Obama? (0.00 / 0)
I know he had some pretty negative things to say about Edwards, but the only thing I remember him saying about Obama was that he is "one of the most intelligent people I have ever encountered" or something like that.

[ Parent ]
Oops. (0.00 / 0)
Oh, whoops, I think I confused his dismissal of Edwards with Obama. I don't remember him saying anything negative about Obama. Sorry about that.

[ Parent ]
Depressing Commentary on the State of Party Unity (4.00 / 2)
Although there are numerous insightful comments on this thread, there is nonetheless an ugly undercurrent that bodes poorly for Party unity in the fall.

You would think that we might be able to have a more dispassionate discussion of the pros and cons of an Obama/Clinton ticket here, but I guess my naïveté is showing again.

FDR picked John Nance Garner, JFK picked LBJ (who brought him Texas), LBJ picked Hubert, Carter picked Mondale, and Reagan picked HW Bush. These were not just geographic balancing picks, but conscious attempts to bring together party factions. In a country as diverse as ours, it still looks like pretty good politics to me unless somebody can articulate (as some of the better comments did) good reasons why it wouldn't be as effective in this campaign.

Senator Clinton has won some 17 million votes in the primary campaign. Whatever you think about her, or Bill Clinton, or her campaign, that's just too many votes to be thinking (in any serious way) about reading her out of the Party. Save some of the rancor for Joe Lieberman -- we're all going to need it when he addresses the Republican National Convention.

I don't think, however, that she would be as effective a VP choice as some others. The corporate media would be relentless in whipping up melodrama about "tension" between the "Obama and Clinton camps" -- and there are way too many peripheral people (Donna Brazile, get ready for your close-up) anxious to get on camera and to feed the beast. We'll be trying to have a grown-up conversation with America, and the media will be dumbing it down to "who is wearing the pants in the family" (and that's about as nice as it would get).

I'm intrigued by the polls Paul has noted showing some real strength with Edwards, but I remain skeptical about his appeal, given his lacklustre performance in 2004 as a VP candidate and his inability to make more of a break-through in Iowa. He remains an interesting possibility notwithstanding the disclaimers because of his undoubted credibility on "lunchpail" issues (assuming he learns to hit back good-naturedly at the TV media about their haircuts and homes). Given Senator Obama's strengths as a campaigner, I'm still inclined to recommend a VP nominee with a strong national security background -- Wes Clark, as long as you keep him off the stump and in TV studios.

Clinton's map just good enough (0.00 / 0)
Check Clinton vs. McCain map
Hillary does not need to have Obama on the ticket to win


Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox