The Next President?
- Thread starter Guest_
- Start date
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
My own take is that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be more akin to an unelectable object, than an unstoppable force.
Senator McCain already has this in the bag, imo. Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, In November, America will collectively walk to the precipice, look over, see the spectre of either the divisive Clinton, or an African-American, and then withdraw to the safe confines of voting for the old war-hero.
McCain looks like a decent bet at nearly 2/1.
Hillary's got to do some thinking on this one, as Obama has proven adept at reaching a cohort with whom she just doesn't seem to be able to connect with. Having said that, there's no reason to think that McCain will be any more successful than her with the under 30's so my best guess is that a lot of them will vote with their feet as they have done previously, so her inability to reach into this group might not be terminal to her chances.
If she gets the nomination through the back door of the party machinary she is pretty well going to be forced into offering Obama the ticket or seriously risk opening up a wound right across the party. The problem of course is that the two of them don't really seem to get on despite having quite a lot of seemingly common ground. There's no gurantee of course that he'd accept the offer as he's young enough to sit it out rather than risk getting stained with what might be a rocky Presidency. The ethnic vote that he'd bring will vote Democrat anyway, and Hillary has a significant base with blacks and hispanics from the previous Clinton Presidency, so delivering this constituency wouldn't be part of his appeal. His strength would lie in bringing in younger voters, but some how or other she's got to find a way of winning some southern states, principally Florida. I'm not sure an Illinois Senator is going to do that for her. He might very well have out-performed her in all the southern states bar Texas, but the reality is that few will vote Democrat anyway. The blue collar core vote should deliver either of them the industrialised northern states, and the democrat vote tends to hold in the more outward looking eastern seaboard and California
What either of them will need is a Southerner, in much the same way as Kennedy had to take Johnson despite Stevenson being the preferred party candidate. In fact I've got a feeling that nomination was settled at the convention when Bobby Kennedy worked out that California was going to swing it on the first ballot and did some conference floor hot footing in order to secure the super delegates support.
It's inconceivable that Obama would want Hillary on his ticket, as Grasshopper points out, she'd be more likely to cost him the election in the areas where he needs to be strong, and represents a risk he wouldn't need to take. He'd need someone with a degree of gravitas and experience, but is again looking towards someone with a southern base I'd have thought.
There has to be a chance however that McCain might take Guiliani yet, so we could have some fun in this direction still, though logic dictates that he'll need someone to appease the conservative wing of the Republicans even though it's difficult to envisage them voting any other way and he might decide he can take them for granted. That being so, someone like Guliani who could potentially draw in some of the anti Clinton Democrat vote would have an appeal, especially in New York, which would be a fascinating sub plot
I think the Republicans have let it be known that they'd rather face Obama than Clinton Ven. Mind you, it could be an elaborate bluff. I'm far from convinced that Obama has the substance and over a prolonged campaign, they'd fancy their chances of exposing this. Tony Blair might have got away with running a campaign on nebulous things such as 'values' 'visions' and 'things can only get better' etc but it's harder to pull this stunt with the lead times involved in the states
If she gets the nomination through the back door of the party machinary she is pretty well going to be forced into offering Obama the ticket or seriously risk opening up a wound right across the party. The problem of course is that the two of them don't really seem to get on despite having quite a lot of seemingly common ground. There's no gurantee of course that he'd accept the offer as he's young enough to sit it out rather than risk getting stained with what might be a rocky Presidency. The ethnic vote that he'd bring will vote Democrat anyway, and Hillary has a significant base with blacks and hispanics from the previous Clinton Presidency, so delivering this constituency wouldn't be part of his appeal. His strength would lie in bringing in younger voters, but some how or other she's got to find a way of winning some southern states, principally Florida. I'm not sure an Illinois Senator is going to do that for her. He might very well have out-performed her in all the southern states bar Texas, but the reality is that few will vote Democrat anyway. The blue collar core vote should deliver either of them the industrialised northern states, and the democrat vote tends to hold in the more outward looking eastern seaboard and California
What either of them will need is a Southerner, in much the same way as Kennedy had to take Johnson despite Stevenson being the preferred party candidate. In fact I've got a feeling that nomination was settled at the convention when Bobby Kennedy worked out that California was going to swing it on the first ballot and did some conference floor hot footing in order to secure the super delegates support.
It's inconceivable that Obama would want Hillary on his ticket, as Grasshopper points out, she'd be more likely to cost him the election in the areas where he needs to be strong, and represents a risk he wouldn't need to take. He'd need someone with a degree of gravitas and experience, but is again looking towards someone with a southern base I'd have thought.
There has to be a chance however that McCain might take Guiliani yet, so we could have some fun in this direction still, though logic dictates that he'll need someone to appease the conservative wing of the Republicans even though it's difficult to envisage them voting any other way and he might decide he can take them for granted. That being so, someone like Guliani who could potentially draw in some of the anti Clinton Democrat vote would have an appeal, especially in New York, which would be a fascinating sub plot
I think the Republicans have let it be known that they'd rather face Obama than Clinton Ven. Mind you, it could be an elaborate bluff. I'm far from convinced that Obama has the substance and over a prolonged campaign, they'd fancy their chances of exposing this. Tony Blair might have got away with running a campaign on nebulous things such as 'values' 'visions' and 'things can only get better' etc but it's harder to pull this stunt with the lead times involved in the states
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Predicting vice presidential candidates is always a good laugh.
Find it very hard to see an Clinton-Obama dream ticket, but I can see the attraction for Hillary given Obama's appeal to both independents and the black vote (which would not be any higher than normal if Clinton is the nominee- she did a lot of damage in South Carolina). No way Obama would choose Hillary.
Wouldn't be surprised if it was a Southerner, though personally I would much rather see someone who could potentially lock up the vote in Ohio/Pennsylvania.
McCain would never choose Giuliani. His biggest problem is his lack of "conservative credentials", which would only be accentuated were he to choose a social liberal like Rudy. My guess is that McCain will go with a respected conservative to shore up the base
Find it very hard to see an Clinton-Obama dream ticket, but I can see the attraction for Hillary given Obama's appeal to both independents and the black vote (which would not be any higher than normal if Clinton is the nominee- she did a lot of damage in South Carolina). No way Obama would choose Hillary.
Wouldn't be surprised if it was a Southerner, though personally I would much rather see someone who could potentially lock up the vote in Ohio/Pennsylvania.
McCain would never choose Giuliani. His biggest problem is his lack of "conservative credentials", which would only be accentuated were he to choose a social liberal like Rudy. My guess is that McCain will go with a respected conservative to shore up the base
I reckon they've got to campaign assuming they can get Ohio and Pennsylvania, she might get Arkansas which could be enough if recent results are more or less replicated so close they have been, though clearly Florida as the third largest in the college will be the key again. She can probably use her husband to secure the black vote, but the one Obama could seemingly plug into is the under 30's where looks pretty impotent. My best guess is that they'll fail to figure though, as there's little evidence that McCain can reach them either, so the damage to her in thsi constituency needn't be that decisive, it's just that it would constitute a useful block that she can't really have counted on initially
The Republican VP is interesting. If the Democrats field Clinton then there has to be a chance the conservative and evangelicals will be forced into voting for "any one but" etc With this in mind he might be tempted to take the social liberal in the knowledge that he could eat into some of Hillary's vote. The alternative would be for the conservatives to sit at home and thus ensure a Hillary win, which is going to be completely unpalatable to them. To a large extent they might find themselves trapped into voting for any Republican as a stop Clinton candidate
The Republican VP is interesting. If the Democrats field Clinton then there has to be a chance the conservative and evangelicals will be forced into voting for "any one but" etc With this in mind he might be tempted to take the social liberal in the knowledge that he could eat into some of Hillary's vote. The alternative would be for the conservatives to sit at home and thus ensure a Hillary win, which is going to be completely unpalatable to them. To a large extent they might find themselves trapped into voting for any Republican as a stop Clinton candidate
Of course he has! He answered EIGHT consecutive questions the other day
I would be certain that McCain would rather face windbag. As the economic downturn hits home, voters will be looking for proof of competence. The economy must surely be perceived as not being the simplest subject on the agenda and they know that simple minded rhetoric will not be the solution
Not so sure about that. Unlikely to win any states not already in the bag and i would suspect that much of the rest of the country has had its fill of that wing of the party
Sometime the influence of the religous maniacs is exaggerated over here.
Thta case of the poor woman in a coma a couple of years back created quite a backlash in public opinion against the nutters (including Bush)
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Obama has come out and shot down any chance of him taking the VP nom, but pointed out in the process how Bill Clinton's stated number one criterion for a VP back in 1992 was that they are ready, from the first week, to be Commander In Chief, and wonders how Clinton can reconcile this with the Clinton campaign's notion that Obama isn't ready...
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
He's pretty emphatic:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23561059#23561059
There's definitely a point to be made that he shouldn't be seen as responding to Clinton, that as the leader in the race he needs to define the terms of the debate himself.
However, Clinton set up this trap nicely and left only two options for him. If he says nothing and leaves the VP possibility open in the minds of the voters, he risks letting the idea gain traction and allow those who are still undecided to think that they can get two for the price of one if they go with Clinton. That would be a infinitely worse than whatever he's lost by coming out and killing it dead.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23561059#23561059
There's definitely a point to be made that he shouldn't be seen as responding to Clinton, that as the leader in the race he needs to define the terms of the debate himself.
However, Clinton set up this trap nicely and left only two options for him. If he says nothing and leaves the VP possibility open in the minds of the voters, he risks letting the idea gain traction and allow those who are still undecided to think that they can get two for the price of one if they go with Clinton. That would be a infinitely worse than whatever he's lost by coming out and killing it dead.
Personally I think this is an entirely valid point - the logic seems to have escaped the Clinton camp!
They can't have it both ways...
I also think Obama is correct to refuse this 'offer' at the moment. He has nothing ot gain by it - Hillary is a divisive force and if he gets the nomination, then he can start to think about what sort of Veep he needs - pref someone who won't try to upstage him, someone in whom he could have confidence [esp when on a plane :suspect: ] and above all someone with a reputation for financial competence and probity. I don't think Hillary fits the bill on any count, and she's only made the offer to shore up her own chances, not for the good of the party
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/13/cl...raros-comments/
McCain probably can't believe his luck.
McCain probably can't believe his luck.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Ferraro deserves everything she gets, but the horse has bolted. It's too late for Clinton to "pull back". The Dems are in meltdown. The piece is the face of a Democrat realising that there's another 8 years of Republican presidency in store.
Is there not something on this thread somewhere, where Clive claims to know her/ worked with? etc :suspect:
I should also say in Clive's defence (even though he has pledged to "hunt me down and destory me"
) Before any one thinks that would associate himself with such comments, even I'm prepared to speak his defence when it comes to race.
He may be a hopeless right winger, and it may be that we disagree on just about everything, but he's never, ever, exhibited a rascist angle in any of his posts (that I've detected) and much as though I regard him as fair game (as he doubtless does I) It would be totally unfair to suggest that he's her political advisor, and some how complicit in her down fall.
But I do recall him saying she was very nice and he approved of her (or words to that affect)
Clive shrug::
I should also say in Clive's defence (even though he has pledged to "hunt me down and destory me"
) Before any one thinks that would associate himself with such comments, even I'm prepared to speak his defence when it comes to race.He may be a hopeless right winger, and it may be that we disagree on just about everything, but he's never, ever, exhibited a rascist angle in any of his posts (that I've detected) and much as though I regard him as fair game (as he doubtless does I) It would be totally unfair to suggest that he's her political advisor, and some how complicit in her down fall.
But I do recall him saying she was very nice and he approved of her (or words to that affect)
Clive shrug::