home

Gallup: Hillary Gives Obama 5 Point Bump As VP

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:54:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Obama can choose to not maximize his chances of winning in November if he does not choose Hillary Clinton as his Vice President. And that will be his choice and his responsibility. I wrote a post that discussed making professional choices when you are running for President. Obama needs to be a professional about this. And a professional would see that Hillary Clinton is clearly his best choice for VP, as this Gallup poll demonstrates:

Obama 45
McCain 45

Obama/Clinton 50
McCain 45

The Hillary Haters in the Media and the blogs will pretend not to notice this data. But they MAY have to notice in November if Obama loses a close election.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< Anyone Watching Obama's Speech? | Want To Solve Obama's "Appalachia" Problem? Put Clinton On The Ticket >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Gallup: Hillary Gives Obama 5 Point Bump As VP | 186 comments (186 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Hillary's the gift that keeps on (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:57:11 PM EST
    giving, even when she's thrown away with the trash. Amazing that they're even polling on this.

    he will probably get (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by bjorn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:59:22 PM EST
    a bump after the saturday event...I decided to let go of any hope she will be VP.  It would be too painful because the press and Obama insiders seem to be putting the kabosh on it already.

    Parent
    perhaps I should give up hope too (none / 0) (#23)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:16:44 PM EST
    on that count. Then if he does choose her we can be happily surprised!!

    Parent
    Personally (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by IzikLA on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:00:07 PM EST
    I think he loses in a close election if she is not on the ticket, that is why I will wish for her as his VP pick which, I think you may be right, might be highly unlikely.  I'm just not willing to wait til 2012 for Hillary to have another chance honestly.  I'd rather Dem's get 16 years in the White House with both of them and that, to me, is reason enough to fight for this ticket.

    Parent
    McCain talks the Maverick up (none / 0) (#190)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:34:56 AM EST
    but really it's all talk.

    With him in office look for a "free-market" voluntary climate change "solution". Seriously. His masters have tamed him in the last 8 years.

    Parent

    Take polls with a grain of salt... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by freethinker25 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:58:24 PM EST
    After all if we had listened to the polls 5 months before the primaries began Obama would not have even bothered running. Even in December Clinton was outpacing Obama by nearly 20 points in the polls. So sorry if I don't believe polls more than a week or two away from voting.

    Hmm (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:59:55 PM EST
    what data will you accept? Primary votes? Demographics?

    What are you looking for?

    I feel confident you are one of those Hillary Haters who would rather lose without her than win with her.

    Parent

    right and I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by miguelito on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:01:19 PM EST
    the ironically named "freethinker25" never believes or cites polls when it shows his/her favored outcome

    Parent
    Nope... (none / 0) (#16)
    by freethinker25 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    I would be very happy if she were on the ticket, but Im not completely convinced she would be the best VP pick. My main concern with her is not actually with her, it is with the fact that she may drive Republicans to the polls that wouldn't other wise go, just to vote against her. I don't know how real that may be and I do think her base of support may offset this, but I think polls taken a week or two after the primary has ended and cooler heads have prevailed my provide a more accurate gauge of how divided the party really is and how much Clinton could help.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:10:36 PM EST
    Because they do not revile Obama now.

    Wake up and smell the coffee, Obama will be what drives them to the polls.

    Parent

    True... (none / 0) (#22)
    by freethinker25 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:15:08 PM EST
    SOME revile Obama and SOME revile Clinton, but if they were both on the ticket it would really rile em up. And no I still dont fully believe the polls, but what I was really trying to say is I don't believe one poll taken a few hours after the primaries are over. Multiples showing the same thing and polling different VP scenarios and how the different VP match ups do in key states will possibly sway my opinion.

    Parent
    I reluctantly have to agree (none / 0) (#24)
    by Y Knot on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:16:48 PM EST
    ... that racism will be as strong an incentive for Republicans to get out and vote as Clinton Derangement Syndrome would be.

    With any luck, there's a large crossover between these two groups.

    On balance, I think Clinton would help more than hurt.

    Parent

    A few months ago (none / 0) (#84)
    by Tzal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:40:24 PM EST
    the whole "Hillary is the only one that can galvanize the Republican Party" meme went away. I'm not sure if it was ever true, but it had some intuitive appeal to it.

    I remember asking a republican friend a few years back why he hated Hillary (this was when she was running for her first Senate term in NY). He couldn't really say why he hated her, but he just did. I get the same response from my repub step dad. He just hates Hillary, and did long before she became a Senator. Now they can point to policy positions as a basis for their hate. But they never needed those.

    At any rate, Obama may not be able to pick her for some of these reasons. Wes Clark is looking pretty good for a lot of reasons, uniting the party being one of them.

    Parent

    Wes Clark (none / 0) (#101)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:49:48 PM EST
    with Obama?

    Again.  The blind leading the lame.

    Let's not do what Bush has done with his cabinet.

    If Clark wants to be Secretary of Defense, I'd be happy.

    Otherwise, with Obama at the top spot and Clark as VP?  No way.

    Parent

    Wes Clark (none / 0) (#148)
    by Y Knot on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:09:42 PM EST
    Retired from the military in 2000.  He's not eligible to be Secretary of Defense for ten years, so that's not an option for him right now.

    I've always liked Clark.  I thought he would've made a good VP choice in 2004.  

    What do you not like about him?

    Parent

    Congress can waive the 10-year limit (none / 0) (#160)
    by wurman on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:17:06 PM EST
    on Gen. Clark as Sec. Defense.

    Congress convenes before the inaugural, so the cabinet approvals could be set up before the swearing-in.

    Parent

    Interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:25:07 PM EST
    I'm not completely convinced Obama is the pest pick for POTUS pick.

    Parent
    That's why I was for Clinton (none / 0) (#141)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:04:45 PM EST
    I don't think he's the best pick for POTUS.  

    It appears there is no good VP for him either (unless he picks Clinton).  Maybe Michelle could be his VP?  Carolyn Kennedy?  John Kerry?  Nancy Pelosi?  

    He was the rising star Democrat.  Unfortunately, they picked him before he rose all the way.  Now there isn't another "rising star" to pick as his VP.  

    Oh wait.  How about Deval Patrick?    

    Parent

    wait (none / 0) (#17)
    by miguelito on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:10:33 PM EST
    so polls taken a week or two after the primaries, THOSE are okay?   So what was the point of saying you never believe polls, back in Dec she was 20 pts ahead?   Makes no sense.

    Parent
    Those polls are great. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Lysis on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:42:26 PM EST
    You can use them to give out delegates.

    Parent
    That's right. She'd be a much better President. (none / 0) (#30)
    by rooge04 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:17:56 PM EST
    She's overqualified for VP.  But I'm sure the 1 term Senator from IL will choose someone that's better qualified than him that isn't Hillary Clinton.  

    Parent
    2 year Senator (none / 0) (#65)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:32:28 PM EST
    He hasn't made a term.

    Parent
    Let's hear your (none / 0) (#37)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:20:10 PM EST
    choices then.

    I can't think of another dem that would help his chances.

    Parent

    Edwards (none / 0) (#41)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:21:21 PM EST
    So says SUSA

    Parent
    I knew that was coming. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:24:08 PM EST
    He didn't help the ticket in 2004 and could barely get votes in the primary, but suddenly he can deliver the presidency.

    Two inexperienced senators.

    Lovely.

    Parent

    Hey (none / 0) (#49)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:24:54 PM EST
    it's what the polling says, not me. Just the same as BTDs polling.

    Parent
    But that is wrong (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:28:44 PM EST
    Edwards does BETTER than the other VP s they are polling on (NOT Clinton) but he simply does not help Obama at all.

    Parent
    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#79)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:37:47 PM EST
    He consistently outperforms all other potential VP picks in helping Obama up his vote percentage in all swing states. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of a good pick.

    Look, you can argue with the idea of polling Edwards support for a VP pick, but any argument you make can be thrown back equally on the Clinton polling.

    Parent

    Now you need to stop (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:52:47 PM EST
    SUSA's Kentucky data just blew you put of the water.

    Edwards is nothing to Clinton as a VP pick.

    Parent

    Kentucky girl here (none / 0) (#117)
    by sociallybanned on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:55:54 PM EST
    I see Edwards as a bitter southern man and not the brightest flower in the bunch.  I don't know why so many like him.  He never appealed to me!

    Parent
    She's won over the voters (none / 0) (#119)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:56:12 PM EST
    in many states.

    She has.

    Not him.

    He's a fool if he doesn't pick her.  She can also refuse.  I leave it up to her.

    Parent

    I doubt he'll consider it (none / 0) (#116)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:55:25 PM EST
    He's done the VP thing, and I'm betting that he's not interested in pouring his heart out once again. He has charity work to do and a family to enjoy. He'll run again, if Elizabeth's health allows it, but I doubt he wants to be a VP to Obama.

    Parent
    Howard Dean (none / 0) (#122)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:57:00 PM EST
    If nothing else, it'll get him off the DNC.  

    Parent
    How about polling (none / 0) (#33)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:18:27 PM EST
    that compares Clinton, side by side, with other potential choices? After all, it isn't a choice between Obama/Clinton and Obama/no one.

    Obama should pick the candidate that helps him win the most EVs. If you don't consider the data-driven counterfactual of how various other people might help him, it's not very useful.

    Parent

    What choices? (none / 0) (#42)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:21:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Answered above. (none / 0) (#47)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:24:23 PM EST
    Edwards.  If Obama's big problem is Appalachian poor white (hardworking, natch) voters, then Edwards, with the economic populism argument, is tailor-made for the VP slot.


    Parent
    So how'd he do last time? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:25:46 PM EST


    Parent
    I think it's safe to say (none / 0) (#80)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:39:06 PM EST
    the message of Edwards in 2008 is a lot more appealing to the segment of voters Obama needs to win than the Edwards of 2004.

    Parent
    Yup... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:47:28 PM EST
    that's exactly why he had to suspend so late in the primary process, right?

    I think it's safe to say that people liked the message...but not so much with the candidate.

    HRC used a similar message and...ran with it...winning those votes quite effectively.

    Parent

    Edwards problem wasn't his message... (none / 0) (#129)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:59:29 PM EST
    ...or him. Most people didn't even know he was running. He couldn't get any press because the "historic" race between a woman and a black man for the primary was sucking up all the air. He could have lit himself on fire and ended up on page 3.

    Parent
    I disagree. (none / 0) (#140)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:03:18 PM EST
    Hillary managed to appeal to the voters.  She maaged to draw them in by working her a** off.  

    Edwards always had to work harder and better.  When he couldn't win either Iowa or NH, I knew he wasn't resonating.

    Parent

    He spent a HUGE amount of time... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:09:44 PM EST
    in Iowa...and came in practically tied with HRC.

    Meh...

    Parent

    Speaking as someone who (none / 0) (#96)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:47:51 PM EST
    initially supported Edwards,  will not vote for an Obama/ Edwards ticket. I DO believe that Edwards in an Obama admnistration would be obscured. I MIGHT vote for Obama/Clinton. There is no way on God's green Earth, Hillary Clinton would allow herself to be obscured. It's for that reason I don't believe he'd offer it to her. His loss.  

    Parent
    Edwards couldn't get those votes (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by rooge04 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:28:58 PM EST
    when HE was the choice. What makes you think he'll get them as the second guy. Edwards' continued appeals to be President seem to prove that he actually CANNOT get many votes at all.

    Parent
    I like the guy! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:34:36 PM EST
    But apparently, not enough Americans do.

    I really thought his "Two Americas" spiel would resonate with the voters in this primary.

    It did not.

    So, no.  Not Edwards.  Obama is going to have to find voters as it is.

    Parent

    Speaking as an Appalachian voter (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:07:14 PM EST
    I love Edwards but I will not ote for him as VP. I simply do not believe his voice would be heard in an Obama administration. I'd rather he stay out of DC and keep working on poverty from outside the beltway.

    Parent
    I Think Edwards Should Definitely Get A Second (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:36:25 PM EST
    chance to prove that he can capture the working class vote as VP. He didn't do very well in 04 but maybe this time around all those Appalachian voters spread across the country will be inclined to vote for VP rather than the top of the ticket.

    Worse case scenario it might not help but it wouldn't hurt.

    Parent

    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#89)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:44:15 PM EST
    Edwards is not running for president.  

    Obama needs Hillary who has been front-and-center for months....

    all across the country.

    The people know exactly who she is.  Edwards is a postscript.

    Parent

    I'm Not A Big Fan Of Hillary Being VP (none / 0) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    on an Obama ticket. Edwards is well known across the country and I think the Good Old Boys Club need to prove that they can make the NEW Democratic Party viable.

    Parent
    He isn't a postscript (none / 0) (#100)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:48:39 PM EST
    I think he does far better work outside the beltway though.

    Parent
    On what do you base that? (none / 0) (#107)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:52:38 PM EST
    Unless you mean he's not a playa.

    Parent
    Let's see (none / 0) (#161)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:17:13 PM EST
    Afte he left Washington he created a platform that covered Health care and was the first to introduce it as well as the firsty with an environmental plan. Hillary kinda cribbed from it which was smart IMO. He also stumped with unions for Hotel Workers Rising. He created the pilot program in Greene county that has seen an nominal success rate. being outside the beltway changed his views on the bankruptcy bill and helped him find his voice on Iraq.

    Do I believe he is a playa. Sure. They all are including Clinton.

    My instincts tell me that Edwards would be voiceless in an Obama administration and that he could potentially be sidetracked by personal matters. I also have some concerns because he did not do as he said on saying in or endorsing. It goes to his credibility with me.  I do not believe that there are enough people in Washington to muzzle Hillary. She has proven that she is a hardcore fighter and has a proven track record during her husband's administration of NOT being a shrinking violet.

    Anyway ways, there you have it,

    For the recrd, I'm one of them voters in the swing state, Virginia but based in SW Virginia, which IS Appalachia.

    Parent

    There's also Latinos and women.... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:54:37 PM EST
    ...so he could splice Edwards/Richardson/Sibelius into a three-headed VP bot or he could run with Hillary. Tough choice.

    Parent
    Edwards message may seem (none / 0) (#126)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:58:48 PM EST
    attractive to the (New and Improved) American-Appalachia, but is it actually attractive?  Do they trust him?

    Obviously his Appalachia-Eve endorsement of Obama last month did nothing to help him there.  Or, if it did, how pathetic a showing was that?

    His relatability factor is pretty low, imho.

    I grew up in a very working-class town, and no one I know from there thought all the much of him.

    Parent

    Edwards had positives that were (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:08:20 PM EST
    turned into negatives by the repubs and the media.

    I really do like him, but I don't think he can help Obama.  Obama needs help.

    Parent

    Believe it or not (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:21:52 PM EST
    what hurt his credibility with me wasn't the GOP but his own decisions. He said he'd stay and fight and promptly didn't. I understand that the decision was financial and personal. That said, it DOES go to his credibility. He also said he wasn't going to endorse and then he did. Agfain, I respoect that he has a right to his personal choice but I see it as a credibility issue.

    I wish John Edwards and his family nothing but the best of luck, but I will not vote for him on an Obama ticket. I'm convinced he'd be better off working outsde the beltway and I am not convinced that he would be anything other than wasted andobscured in an Obama admin. JMO.

    Parent

    How much of the Hillary "bump" (none / 0) (#127)
    by JoeA on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:58:58 PM EST
    is down to her name ID relative to other potential VP picks?  I'm just wondering if that plays a part.

    Parent
    Let's hope polls aren't trustworth (none / 0) (#66)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:33:33 PM EST
    Obama should have a huge "winner of the primary" bump right now, and I don't like that he is barely tied with McCain. There had better be a lot of "healing" before the general election, because these numbers are not going to stand up after the right wing starts attacking.

    Parent
    This is the most striking detail (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:48:24 PM EST
    Where the h3ll is his bump?  When Clinton supporters pointed out that he wasn't performing well against McCain, Obama supporters kept shouting he'll pick up as soon as Clinton is out.  

    Well, he's been inevitable for weeks apparently and didn't go up.  He's gotten the pre-nom and he hasn't gone up.  Maybe he'll pick up after Clinton gives her speech on Saturday?

    Parent

    And as I mentioned on Tuesday... (none / 0) (#162)
    by otherlisa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:17:24 PM EST
    Obama lost South Dakota, by a wide margin, on the last day of the primaries, after he'd already been proclaimed the nominee by the press.

    He has gotten progressively weaker as the primaries continued.

    Parent

    Agreed, freethinker (none / 0) (#112)
    by Spike on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:54:03 PM EST
    Obama is too smart to base such an important decision on a single poll five months before an election. He will have his own set of criteria that he will weigh to determine the best choice in terms of both electoral and governance considerations.

    Parent
    I repeat. (none / 0) (#154)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:14:20 PM EST
    Obama needs all the help he can get, spikey.

    Parent
    Still (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Y Knot on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:00:07 PM EST
    Clinton would be an excellent choice for VP.  I hope he's at least seriously considering it.

    I think he will at the bare minimum give an impres (none / 0) (#15)
    by Clinton2012 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    impression that he gave a serious thought but looking at the people heading his search committee I don't think she has any chance.. and I like that.. then I can vote for McCain without any remorse.

    Parent
    Amen to that (none / 0) (#181)
    by RalphB on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:54:32 PM EST
    I don't want Hillary anywhere near this race.

    Parent
    that's pretty thin gruel (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:13:22 PM EST
    to base any kind of choice on. what's the source of the data? is that a national poll, or an average of state-by-state polls? national polls are meaningless, you know that already.

    unless she's running for pres., it would be in sen. clinton's best interests to stay in the senate, where she can better help rein in whoever of the two (and i'm putting my money on mccain) is the pres.

    endorsing him and campaigning for him doesn't also mandate she waste valuable time, time she'll never recover, as his running mate. there's nothing of value in it for her or her constituents.

    It's a national poll (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:18:06 PM EST
    But I think it is fair to say that Hillary can most help Obama in Ohio, PA, FL and Arkansas.

    Parent
    The evening news (NBC I think/non-cable) (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:24:42 PM EST
    had people on still babbling on about he doesn't need some of the big states he lost to Hillary, since he's expanding the Dems reach into the west.

    Parent
    Who needs voters? states? EVs? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:26:45 PM EST
    Unbelievably stupid thinking. There's the media for you.

    Parent
    Even Mondale won Minnesota (none / 0) (#185)
    by The Other Steve on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    But you're saying Hillary wouldn't have won my state.

    That seems odd.

    Parent

    if obama loses (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Turkana on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:14:51 PM EST
    it's hillary's fault. it matters not a whit what he does or doesn't do.

    With that ticket (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:19:12 PM EST
    I would be shocked if they lost against McSame.

    Parent
    i think they'd win (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Turkana on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:23:29 PM EST
    but whether or not she's on the ticket, if he loses, the shrillosphere will blame her.

    Parent
    Yes, that is true. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:27:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Which may answer the question posed (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:27:05 PM EST
    earlier today:  what next?

    Parent
    For myself, (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:33:51 PM EST
    issues will always trump everything else.

    But I will always love and respect Hil for doing this despite the crappy way Chris Matthews and dKos treated her.

    Parent

    We can tell them to blame us (none / 0) (#73)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM EST
    We wanted to take back our party.

    Parent
    That's ok, I've already ordered my (none / 0) (#137)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:01:43 PM EST
    'Don't Blame Me I Voted for Hillary' bumpersticker.

    The great thing is that it works for whomever wins in November!

    Parent

    Let's (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by tek on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:21:19 PM EST
    all say together:  Why would Barack choose Hillary and have Bill breathing down his neck for four years?

    That's the Obama camp's take on it.  OMG!  Don't want Bill Clinton available for advice!  

    No one really knows if Hillary wants VP.  Her spokespeople say she doesn't.  It seems like a more troubled match than Kennedy/Johnson.

    ON NPR this week, someone stated (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:28:31 PM EST
    JFK and LBJ didn't really see eye-to-eye until JFK was assassinated.  I'm serious.

    Parent
    More data per SUSA: (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:31:40 PM EST
    In Kentucky, VP Clinton Would Move Her Supporters To Obama:
    SurveyUSA interviewed 400 Hillary Clinton supporters from across Kentucky and asked them whether they would support Barack Obama or John McCain in certain situations, following word of Clinton's suspension of her campaign for the presidency. 21% of Clinton supporters today say they will support Obama; 20% say they will support McCain. Another 21% say they will support a different candidate or no candidate at all; 37% say it's impossible to say until they know who both vice presidential candidates would be. Should Obama choose Clinton as his running mate, 57% of Clinton supporters say they will back Obama; 13% would back McCain. If Obama chooses John Edwards, 28% would back Obama; 13% McCain. Should Obama choose a woman other than Hillary Clinton as his running mate, McCain picks up more support from current Clinton backers -- 28% go with McCain, and 21% with Obama.
    Hope Axelrod is getting the SUSA poll (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:36:48 PM EST
    results.  Since he got Obama this far, I have to assume Obama will heed his advice on VP choice.

    Parent
    Are you saying putting Clinton as the VP (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:45:36 PM EST
    puts KENTUCKY in play for Obama?

    That is amazing.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:00:43 PM EST
    Hey, maybe it isn't an irredeemably racist state after all!  Nah, scratch that.  Wouldn't want to ruin a good narrative.

    Parent
    If my math is right, potentially (none / 0) (#94)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:47:16 PM EST
    I read this as: give America a safety net/comforting reason to vote for a guy they really don't quite trust.

    Parent
    57% of 36% (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:50:09 PM EST
    equals about 20% plus Obama's 22% equals 44% for Obama/Clinton vs  37% for McCain.

    Parent
    If Obama can solve his appalachian problem (none / 0) (#106)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:52:11 PM EST
    he puts a stranglehold on Ohio and Pennsylvania, and gives himself a serious shot at Indiana (He delivers Lake and Marion, and Hillary brings up the south).

    Parent
    Bingo! (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:56:24 PM EST
    Electoral college landslide is assured.

    This is becoming more and more of a no brainer.

    You know the polling may leave Obama no choice but to pick Clinton.

    Parent

    It's JFK/LBJ--that's the historical analogy (none / 0) (#131)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:59:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, I've heard 'em all (none / 0) (#166)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:19:21 PM EST
    in this campaign. /rolls eyes

    Why not one more.  This one may be the right comparison, however.


    Parent

    But if the Obama campaign continues to (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:16:28 PM EST
    say it needs to check out each possible VP pick, including Clinton, plus delaying whilst Obama supporters and surrogates downplay Clinton as VP, even as patient a person as Clinton might just say, forget it.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#163)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:18:41 PM EST


    Parent
    If I were conspriarcy-minded, (none / 0) (#169)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:21:54 PM EST
    I'd think that an Obama-Clinton ticket was always the one that was decided upon a long time ago.

    Nah.  

    Parent

    This is a good poll for Clinton (none / 0) (#114)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:54:57 PM EST
    but before saying Edwards does NOTHING, one should note that the poll is only of Clinton supporters in Kentucky. It doesn't poll the general electorate there, so it's an interesting piece of evidence, but hardly conclusive.

    Parent
    Sure it does (none / 0) (#121)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:56:59 PM EST
    Clinton Democrats are, as we have been arguing here, an essential part of the voting public.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#130)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:59:31 PM EST
    it mostly says that Clinton voters favor Clinton. Color me shocked. What about the general electorate? Edwards may bring a different set of voters to the table.

    Parent
    Unless Obama can find a runningmate (none / 0) (#136)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    who will attract voters directly from McCain's "third," there is unlikely to be anyone better. Leaving Clinton voters on the table means giving up a lot of states.

    Parent
    Well, if you think (none / 0) (#165)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:18:54 PM EST
    the general electorate can take or leave 18 million people, then maybe Edwards is a better choice.

    Hillary is a far sturdier campaigner anyway.  Plus, Appalachia loves Bill.  We know now that the Obama campaign expects him to do a lot of the unifying, by some strange logic.

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:58:31 PM EST
    It does poll the General electorate - 37% McCain, 36% Clinton, 22% Obama.

    THEN when it takes Clinton out of the equation, it asks Clinton voters where they will go.

    With Clinton, Obama takes the lead. With Edwards, he stay far behind.

    Your argument just got shot to hell.

    Kentucky - Apppalachia!

    In fact I am going to have fun with this poll.

    Parent

    Go to town man (none / 0) (#132)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:00:01 PM EST
    but don't ever apply for a job in a polling company.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#159)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:16:29 PM EST
    Trumpeting SUSA hurts now does it?

    Let me ask you a question, what do you know about polling? I use it in my work. I know it pretty darn well. I HIRE survey companies. What do you do with survey companies?

    Parent

    KY 40% total McCain or someone else (none / 0) (#134)
    by sociallybanned on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:00:30 PM EST
    So basically, 40% of her supporters either say McCain or someone else.  Interesting and only 21 % support Obama.  

    Parent
    Obama will not pick Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by pmj6 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:31:55 PM EST
    I mean, does anyone out there really believe he'll do that? If that was his intent, he'd have done it by now.

    I expect that his VP is likely to be someone well and truly mediocre, so as not to overshadow The One.

    He really couldn't "have done it by now" (none / 0) (#180)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:51:21 PM EST
    It would look pathetically weak, not to mention irresponsible -- what, a 36-hour vetting process??

    That being said, I think your main point is right: Obama will not pick Hillary.

    Is it too soon to ask if anyone has a second choice?

    Parent

    I hope she gets serious consideration (4.00 / 1) (#8)
    by SpinDoctor on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:01:25 PM EST
    I also thought you be interested in Chuck Todd's conclusion on how Obama has a stronger electoral map today than McCain.  The key passage:

    While both McCain and Obama get to 200 when adding up their base and lean states, it's clear to see that Obama has an early edge with the map. Not only does he have a stronger base than McCain does (153 votes vs. 116), but he also has more potential pick-up opportunities. When you add toss-up and "Lean McCain," Obama has the potential for another 222 votes outside his favored states. By comparison, McCain's toss-up and "Lean Obama" comes to 185. Of course, potential sometimes means just that -- potential. At the end of the day, Obama will likely win few, if any, of those Lean McCain states. But his reach right now seems much longer than McCain's.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/1115257.aspx

    I know many here will discount anything proffered by NBC, but thought it significant nevertheless as it is contrary to what many on this blog continue to think:  that Obama has little chance of winning in November.

    He has Florida as a toss up? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM EST
    Florida is extremely unlikely to go to Obama, unless there is not only "healing", but also mass amnesia. I'm betting he's basing these numbers on Kerry's wins. The polls in Florida aren't that promising.

    Parent
    As a Florida voter with DEEP roots in the state (none / 0) (#155)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:15:01 PM EST
    I can say with some certainty, Obama will not win Florida.

    Hillary, on the other hand, would have.

    Parent

    POTENTIALLY stronger (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:03:15 PM EST
    Actually, Chuck is one of the good guys. He has to do what he has to do around Tweety and Olbermann.

    I communicate with Chuck a fair amount. HE is smart and a good guy imo.

    Parent

    Does she want it? (1.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:17:01 PM EST
    I think it is reasonable to assume she doesn't want to be No. 2. It's a concession she may just not feel comfortable with.
    Then there is Bill to consider. If I were Obama I would not want him anywhere near the White House. [I like Bill - but his magic only seems to rub off on him. For everyone else it turns to dust].
    I would like to see Obama and Hillary on the same ticket [I think]. But I don't believe that if Obama chooses not to have her as VP he is being unprofessional.

    Why repeat Republican talking points and sexist BS (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by rooge04 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:21:00 PM EST
    about both Bill and Hillary. Last time I checked Hillary is in charge of her own life and does not have to keep Bill in check lest he be a rabid dog off his leash.  

    Please desist these kinds of Republican attacks on them as a couple. I heard it through the 90s when they were "co-presidents" and I hear it now. Except this time from Democrats.   It wasn't true then and it's certainly not true now. Ever heard of Bill getting all up in her Senate office? NO.  Because these concerns are ridiculous and untrue.

    Parent

    Please (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by tek on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:26:42 PM EST
    tell all the millions of Americans who's lives were saved by Bill Clinton's administrations that his "magic" turns to dust on other people.  Too bad Obama supporters simply cannot acknowledge that Bill Clinton was a great president who finished out his term--even after being impeached (by the likes of Chris Dodd)--with ratings in the 70%.   But you're all determined to trash Bill because you think Obama needs the space to claim the role of greatest Democratic president.  It might surprise you to learn down the road that is a legacy that is earned, not grabbed by cleverest or most ruthless pol.  

    Now ask me again what's wrong with Hillary Democrats that we just can't get all warm and fuzzy over Obama.

    Parent

    Let me clarify (none / 0) (#90)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:44:22 PM EST
    I like Bill Clinton and think he was possibly the best president we've had since FDR. When I say 'turns to dust' I mean Bill has a political magic that for some reason does not seem to help other candidates as much as it helps him. I mean, he would have easily won a third term in 2000. But everytime he tried to help Gore it actually worked against Gore. It is no secret that Bill himself distanced himself from Carter in 1992 primarily because Carter has a charisma that didn't work for Bill. This is true when you have two very strong politicians. Some matchups are not good. This is not a criticism or a 'republican talking point'.
    And, sorry, but Bill was a major player in Hillary's campaign and he would have a presence in the White House. They are a team. That is not a bad thing btw. It's just not something that some politicians would want to embrace.

    Parent
    Sorry, but did you just say (none / 0) (#151)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:11:04 PM EST
    that Carter "has a charisma that didn't work for Bill"?

    I am completely bewildered by this statement.  Clinton distanced himself from Carter (I don't actually remember that, but I'll go with it) because Carter lost his reelection campaign by a landslide.  A true landslide, not the 51-49 kind that they call a landslide these days.

    Carter has the wise old man image these days (and he is a remarkable man) but that is not how he was thought of in 1992.  He was thought of as a big failure.  Big.  Failure.  Only an insane candidate would seek to align themselves with Carter in '92.

    Parent

    Baloney. (none / 0) (#152)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:11:41 PM EST
    Can you stop it, please?

    Parent
    I think that notion has been disproven (none / 0) (#36)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:19:55 PM EST
    She has said she is interested.

    Parent
    No. She didn't. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by rooge04 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:21:39 PM EST
    She said she would consider it if it was for the sake of party unity. She's not exactly gunning for it.

    Parent
    Considering it (none / 0) (#53)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:26:12 PM EST
    means she has interest....whatever her reasons for that interest.

    Parent
    Would consider is not considering. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:47:16 PM EST
    Can we not agree about the common usage of "interested"?

    Parent
    sure...as long as you agree with me. (none / 0) (#102)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    No, it hasn't been disproven. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:45:07 PM EST


    Parent
    looks that way to me (none / 0) (#97)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:48:13 PM EST
    from her statements and her surrogates' statements, that she is at least interested. My take is that she is strongly interested.

    Her speeches included talk of the VP spot more and more in the past month or so.

    Of course I cannot know her head, but .....

    Parent

    Okay. What has she said? And (none / 0) (#139)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:02:36 PM EST
    by that, I mean her words. Because his side floated her wanting VP to suppress her votes in the last primary and her side said that was untrue. The AP has to retract their story. That was 2 days ago. I think it is a losing proposition for her but that's just my opinion.

    Parent
    I am going by her words (none / 0) (#147)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:08:53 PM EST
    but I don't remember her exact words, sorry.

    Parent
    And that may be the reason for 2012!!! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Clinton2012 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:01:03 PM EST
    I will not vote for Obama v/s McCain based on what Obama's "Just Words" attitude for Clinton.

    Clinton for 2012 -- yes that is coming soon .. !!

    Have any of the polls shown a bump with (none / 0) (#9)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:01:56 PM EST
    someone else on the ticket?  And she's been making it clear lately that it is Obamas' choice to make and almost seems to sound like she doesn't want it.

    I am sure the one with Bill Richardson will give (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Clinton2012 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:05:24 PM EST
    him a bump towards the south!!

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:17:00 PM EST
    He should nominate Richards!

    Parent
    We should all start phoning (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:31:54 PM EST
    in shows and writing letters about how he should pick Richardson. That really would make this campaign fun for me again. Bwhahahaha.

    Parent
    Oh my, that would be wicked fun (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:37:29 PM EST
    and I thank you, Lois.  Rather than fuming when I hear such stuff, I will call in and effuse over that hunky Richardson the Latino Lover and how women would vote for him in a hormonal minute. :-)  

    Parent
    ...son. Sorry (none / 0) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:17:57 PM EST
    in my excitement I forgot to say RichardSON!

    Parent
    LOL, like Richardson? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:06:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Why the bitterness, (none / 0) (#14)
    by Oceandweller on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:07:17 PM EST
    you all sound and act like Hrc will not be his Veep.
    Are you in the secret , No
    we all have heard him, we shall know when he tells us, and if he is the intelligent man we all know he is otherwise how would he have attracted so many people, or do you think we are all nincompoops . We all know that HRC is essential in the winning, we cant do without both of them
    So as we do need both legs to walk we need BHO and HRC that is as simple
    instead of losing precious time rather speak on what is uniting us as possibly a UHCP , right ,
    BESIDES AND TAKE IT FROM A PROFESSIONNAL
    they who laugh, smile and dont linger on bitterness live longer andhappier lives

    Huh? (4.50 / 2) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:17:19 PM EST
    Didn't follow any of that.

    Parent
    Of course, (none / 0) (#20)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:13:28 PM EST
    ...if Survey USA's polling is correct, Obama gets an even bigger bounce from selecting John Edwards as VP

    Just sayin'.

    Not correct (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:17:09 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm looking at the SUSA (none / 0) (#34)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:19:00 PM EST
    polling data now. And it certainly looks correct to me. How do you read it?

    Parent
    Here is how I read it (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:20:51 PM EST
    Clinton is not in their polls and they have not done a national poll comparing them.

    Parent
    But Edwards (none / 0) (#44)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:23:02 PM EST
    consistently gives a +6 to +10 percentage point boost to Obama over the generic Obama/McCain polling question in almost all the states.

    So I'd throw it right back at you; how do you know Clinton is a better choice than Edwards?

    Parent

    Now that is totally false (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:26:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Let's break it down then (none / 0) (#68)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:34:18 PM EST
    Wisconsin
    Generic Obama advantage: +6
    Average Obama advantage with Edwards: +12

    Nebraska
    Generic McCain advantage: +9
    Average McCain advantage with Edwards: +2

    Minnesota
    Generic Obama advantage: +5
    Average Obama advantage with Edwards: +11

    Washington
    Generic Obama advantage: +16
    Average Obama advantage with Edwards: +20

    Massachusetts
    Generic Obama advantage: +5
    Average Obama advantage with Edwards: +14

    Missouri
    Generic Obama advantage: +2
    Average Obama advantage with Edwards: +7

    New York
    Generic Obama advantage: +10
    Average Obama advantage with Edwards: +16

    Iowa
    Generic Obama advantage: +9
    Average Obama advantage with Edwards: +17

    Ohio
    Generic Obama advantage: +9
    Average Obama advantage with Edwards: +15

    Virginia
    Generic Obama advantage: +7
    Average Obama advantage with Edwards: +13

    and so on...

    Parent

    But there is your problem right there (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:36:56 PM EST
    The problem with the SUSA methodology is it puts in unknown names as potential GOP VP choices.

    Look at what happens when it is Romney vs Sebelius for instance. Sebelius hurts Obama according to these polls, like Sebelius is the tremendously disliked figure.

    Parent

    Yep, I anticipate that McCain's VP pick (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:39:19 PM EST
    could, if selected well, really run Obama off a lot of state maps.  If McCain picks a moderate woman, watch out.

    Parent
    I've been predicting Kay Bailey Hutchison (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:40:02 PM EST


    Parent
    I saw her on CNN (none / 0) (#108)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    last night and she said it was not possible for to accept even if asked. She didnt say why tho.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#110)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:53:48 PM EST
    Something about her past, perhaps.

    Parent
    If he picks (none / 0) (#167)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:19:25 PM EST
    Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Obama is in deep trouble.

    She may be a 'feminist for life' but she also has a very moderate stand on gay rights and a wonderful children's health platform.

    Parent

    People like to vote for figures (none / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:39:27 PM EST
    they know. It's a big part of why incumbency matters. It's one one of W's most effective shticks was "at least you know where I stand." It's illogical but emotionally effective.

    Parent
    So are you saying the Edwards advantage (none / 0) (#85)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:41:26 PM EST
    is purely based on name recognition? Hmm...I could make the same argument then about a certain someone touted in this blog entry then no?

    The thing is, Edwards even overperforms Sebelius, Rendell, and others in their home states. It's a pretty powerful argument in his favor.

    Parent

    Listen, I was for Edwards first (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:10:11 PM EST
    I think the world of John and think Elizabeth would make a excellent President also. But, I also saw the disdain from Obama in the debates. I remember John shaking his head like, what is this guy talking about? And, the only incentive I have to vote this GE is a Obama/Hillary ticket. Even though I like Edwards and Wes Clark, it is just not enough for me. So I am only one vote. I will have to wait and see. If not offered to Hillary, than that is too many slaps for me.

    Parent
    You could but you would be making a mistake (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:43:48 PM EST
    Clinton has COMMITTED support.

    It is a ridiculous thing to say.

    Parent

    ...and? (none / 0) (#105)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:52:03 PM EST
    SurveyUSA, I think, makes a pretty good case for Edwards; the cross-tabs show the gains from Edwards in important demographics for Obama.

    Now, Gallup makes a strong argument for Clinton too. Until more polling comes out, I see it as a toss-up.

    Parent

    The KY SUSA results (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:53:50 PM EST
    just blew you out of the water.

    Parent
    No, since (1) they only polled Clinton supporters (none / 0) (#123)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:57:34 PM EST
    and (2) its only in Kentucky. See upthread.

    Parent
    Problem is (none / 0) (#88)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:44:00 PM EST
    that Hillary is a proven vote getter, and Edwards is not. Come to think of it, what was the last election John Edwards won? The South Carolina primary in 2004?

    Parent
    Not for Ohio at least (none / 0) (#170)
    by travc on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    SurveyUSA's Ohio 'vp match-ups' poll was quite interesting.  (Though a few weeks old at this point)
    http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/05/23/ohio-vp-matchups/

    The overall story as I read it, McCain's VP choice really doesn't matter much electorally, while Obama's could help him substantially.  I hope we get a version of this with Clinton included in a few weeks (too soon just now).

    Edwards seems a fine choice politically and on policies.  I'm not saying he would be the absolute best, but all data indicates he would certainly be good.

    Parent

    Edwards is a proven loser, though (none / 0) (#142)
    by Exeter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:05:45 PM EST
    What did he do for Kerry besides improve NC by ##ONE POINT## from 2000 to 2004.

    Parent
    What?!! (none / 0) (#62)
    by dmk47 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:30:15 PM EST
    The Gallup poll doesn't compare Obama/Clinton to Obama/Edwards. SUSA makes a stronger case for Edwards than Gallup does for Clinton; what are you talking about?

    Besides that, arguing about who gives him the biggest bump right now, as opposed to after somebody who is basically unknown is instantly elevated to national prominence by being put on the ticket, is silly.

    Parent

    No it does not (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:34:33 PM EST
    First of all, SUSA was state by state polling and does NOT include Clinton in its list of choices.

    The only way to argue the SUSA polling means anything is to take McCain v. Obama and then just add  Obama/Edwards, as Gallup did.

    Edwards is clearly better known than every Republican VP choice thus the voters know what they are doing - they are voting on the VPs.

    Unless you REALLY believe for instance, that Tim PAwlenty is SO DISLIKED he is losing 10 points for McCain. the SUSA data discredits itself frankly.

    The fact is the SUSA methodology here is simply indefensible. IT is a crock.

    Parent

    I think this is why they get paid (none / 0) (#104)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:50:20 PM EST
    for polling and you don't.

    I fail to see how this is any different than how they are polling Obama/Clinton vs. McCain; it's based purely off of voting for the VP that there is any difference. Just like in SUSAs polls.

    If you added Obama/Edwards, you're going after all the Appalachian voters that he has struggled with.

    For what its worth, I think these polls are somewhat dubious in that unknown VPs will have a chance (although not a great one) to introduce themselves to voters.

    But the very strong strength of Edwards (he apparently is remembered very fondly by the poor white voters, if you look at the cross-tabs) says something. It may be name recognition, but that's what you're looking for in a VP. I think that's why Clinton's getting a boost too - she's favorably remembered by some Clinton supporters.

    Parent

    Ha! (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:55:09 PM EST
    Do you trust their Kentucky numbers? How's that Edwards in Appalachia argument looking for you now?

    Parent
    No I (none / 0) (#124)
    by andrewwm on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:58:29 PM EST
    don't. They only polled Clinton supporters. Of course Clinton is going to do better among Clinton supporters. Edwards may bring a different set of voters to the table though.

    Parent
    I live in pittsburgh (none / 0) (#171)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:24:05 PM EST
    Edwards is a sissy. He has been rejected three times. Remember the you-tube, "I'm so pretty video?" They are both are a little light. After Edwards endorsed Obama, Barack looked weaker, like he needed the white guy. Edwards is a no no, same with Wes Clarke, even though he was a general.

    Parent
    I bet Wesley Clarke (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:17:42 PM EST
    would give him an even bigger one.

    "Wronged" Republican women running back to the right or not.

    Maybe... but that would require alot of voter ed (none / 0) (#138)
    by Exeter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:02:24 PM EST
    Wes Clark isn't a known brand like Clinton. You would have to spend alot of time educating people about him. That said, if not Clinton, Wes Clark would be my second choice.

    Parent
    Clark not Clarke (none / 0) (#175)
    by travc on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:29:27 PM EST
    just a nitpick...

    Wes Clark the former Supreme Commander NATO and 2004 pres candidate would be a decent VP choice, but an incredible SecDef IMO.

    Richard Clarke the former counter-terrorism czar would make a great Nat Sec Adviser.

    Parent

    Keep banging this drum, please (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:29:14 PM EST
    That looks like a statistically significant advantage.

    Did you see the map in NYT front (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:34:31 PM EST
    section today plotting Obama support and Clinton support across the US?  

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:35:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Clinton as VP? When he!! freezes over! (none / 0) (#128)
    by Exeter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:59:16 PM EST
    Don't get me wrong, I'm on board 100% with Clinton as VP. I think she is arguably the only one that would make him electable. But, Obamanation has too much pride to pick Clinton.  

    Believe me, we would be swollowing ours too. (none / 0) (#164)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:18:43 PM EST


    Parent
    No to Hillary as VP (none / 0) (#143)
    by alsace on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:06:56 PM EST
    When Obama fails miserably in November, it should be on his own.  Hillary will then own the Democratic Party, and all those DNC weenies who made up the rulz as they went along will be gone.  
    As I recall, it was after the 1960 election that  Rockefeller dissed Nixon, calling him merely the "titular head" of the Republican Party.  Obama won't even have the title, notwithstanding his recent assertion.

    I agree (none / 0) (#153)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:13:28 PM EST
    Let him drown. He and his surrogates arrogant and that is his downfall.

    Hillary is likable ...enough.  Obama is just not electable.... enough.

    Parent

    Ed Rendell kinda backtracks (none / 0) (#146)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:08:48 PM EST
    here:

    Of all the names he's heard rumored for the vice presidential slot, Rendell added, Clinton is in the best position to help Obama garner the most votes in the fall.

    "Is it absolutely necessary that she's on the ticket for us to win? No," the governor said. "Can Sen. Obama carry states like Pennsylvania without Sen. Clinton being on the ticket? Yes, but it will require her rolling up her sleeves and doing the work for him, whether she's on the ticket or not."

    In the last two days, there has been almost nonstop debate over the viability of an Obama-Clinton ticket - a dream ticket for many Democrats.

    Rendell said today that Clinton will have to decide whether she truly wants the number-two spot.
    WTH? (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:17:22 PM EST
    So either Obama can win PA with Hillary on the ticket, or he can win PA by having Hillary "doing the work for him" if she's not on the ticket?

    I like Rendell, but this was a stupid thing to say, and continues the meme that it's somehow Hillary's responsibility to ensure Obama doesn't lose in November.

    Parent

    With all due respect, Clinton gives him 5 points (none / 0) (#172)
    by halstoon on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:25:20 PM EST
    against McCain by himself, hardly a fair gauge. As for the comparison to Edwards in the SUSA poll, that is a bit misleading. They were asking 400 Clinton supporters. They are still very sore about Tuesday and the whole campaign, so they should be expected to be a bit raw, especially in a place like KY where she really had great support. To say she 'puts it in play' is not entirely accurate; in fact only just over 50% of her supporters would vote for the dream ticket. They didn't even poll a general sample to see where the state as a whole stands right now.

    At the end of the day, Clinton is a non-starter as VP. #1, she's too big a star; the president cannot be less famous than his VP, and Barack would be. In fact, he'd be 3rd on the name recognition list, and that's not a good thing. #2, President Clinton cannot be accounted for. Barack cannot risk having President Clinton making headlines in a negative way, either for something he says, who he hangs out with, or who's paying him his salary. #3, Barack did run to move forward, past the Clinton Era; it would damage his change mantra, considering that she ran her campaign on the premise that she is the master insider of DC. For all the out and out campaigning she is doing for the job, I don't see her getting it.

    Um (none / 0) (#174)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:28:45 PM EST
    They were asking 400 Clinton supporters
    Are you saying that they people who would otherwise vote for Obama would change their minds with Hillary on the ticket and vote for McCain? Because unless that's true, it's perfectly obvious that Kentucky is in play with the dream ticket.

    Parent
    No, and no, it's not. (1.00 / 0) (#178)
    by halstoon on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:32:18 PM EST
    Obama got what, 30% of Democrats? He gets half of her votes (35%) with her on the ticket. That only puts him at about 65% of Democrats, hardly a # that is going to change the color of the commonwealth.

    Parent
    Read the poll again (none / 0) (#179)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:35:25 PM EST
    they looked at support among the entire universe of voters.

    Parent
    How do people here feel about Ed Rendell for VP? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:29:53 PM EST
    Granted, he's not Hillary Clinton. But I thought he was an extremely effective surrogate for her. Along with Stephanie Tubbs Jones, he had one of the two biggest surrogate-debate smackdowns of the season, only Rendell's came at the expense of a much bigger opponent (Bill Richardson).

    He's a governor. Check.

    He's nobody's idea of an 'elitist'. Check.

    He's a bona fide Clinton loyalist. Check.

    He's got far more electoral experience than Edwards, let alone Clark.

    He locks down a key state -- actually the keystone state -- Pennsylvania.

    He helps a lot, I think, in two other crucial states: OH and MI.

    He's Jewish, which not only helps in FL, but also destroys the "he's Muslim" canard.

    I haven't listed this as an actual advantage on other sites: Diehard Obamaphiliacs tend to be notably UNenthusiastic about Rendell. (Too "old politics" for some, I guess.)

    Other than Hillary Clinton herself, can anyone here come up with a more promising, potentially unifyfing addition to the ticket?

    Rendell said last night (none / 0) (#182)
    by stillife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:06:26 PM EST
    on NY1, that he's not interested in the VP spot.  I know all politicians lie, but he made a couple of good points.  Number one, Obama needs a VP with foreign policy experience.  Number two, Rendell is a strong, independent personality who would not do well in the #2 spot.  Rendell didn't go so far to say it, but I think it's true, that he would outshine Obama in personal charisma.

    Parent
    Boys like to play games with complicated rules. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:57:57 AM EST
    Think baseball; think Risk; think Dungeons and Dragons.

    Some of the rules of this particular game are:

    • If you want to be chosen as VP, say you're not interested, without ruling the possibility out completely.

    • You are allowed to list reasons why you would make a poor choice, without any penalty; but you may not give any reasons why anyone else would be a poor choice.

    • If you want to be chosen as VP, you can NEVER have a subordinate circulate petitions arguing that you are uniquely qualified for the position. Even if you are.


    Parent
    Obama will not pick ... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:21:19 PM EST
    a VP that will outshine him.  Thus, no Clinton, Clark, Rendell, etc.

    Parent
    I'll take that as qualified approval ... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:16:46 PM EST
    of my recommendation that Obama tap either Clark or (preferably) Rendell as his VP candidate.

    Parent
    Let the Media Choose, Once Again (none / 0) (#183)
    by Democrats for McCain on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:10:14 PM EST
    I am not going to vote Democrat, the first time in 40 years.  I was an elected Hillary delegate in Texas and was not impressed with the dishonest Obama campaign people cutting in the front of the caucus line to purposely hijack the caucus, and very physically out muscling us while the Hillary people stayed their place in line and saw Obama campaign workers taking down her signs.  I call that trying to steal the election.  That is what we saw at the grass roots level.  We witnessed countless other fraudulent Obama campaign practices going on as well.  I have written to many blogs about this, but the Obama people blocked this truth. I want nothing to do with the Obama campaign ever again, and many of us feel the same, regardless of what the polls say.  Besides, the Obama people are running the polls too.  They are probably clicking right now on the yes button to say that Hillary supporters will vote for Obama.  I am here to state that this will NOT be the case.  I hope that the 17 million people who voted for her will have a silent protest and NOT vote this fall or cross party lines and vote REPUBLICAN.  Our Democratic super delegates are have NO integrity and DO NOT want a woman who is smarter then they are to tell them what to do. They really do not want change. That would be a true change. Her own supporters turned their backs on her.  They all need to be voted out of office when their turn comes around.  The PEOPLE CHOSE Hillary.  The DELEGATES chose Obama.

    Well... (none / 0) (#186)
    by phatpay on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:58:54 PM EST
     I'm hoping she takes the veep spot.
    I'm hoping she does it to draw in the massive amount of support that she has accrued.
    I'm hoping she does so that my daughter can look to one of the highest seats of power in the world and see a female there.
    I have to admit, there is a part of me, that wants to see her accept the VP spot just so the, "I'm so Hill, I'll never support Obama!, crowd has to really consider the consequences of McSame.

    If Obama loses the election ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by This from a broad on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:49:38 AM EST
    If Obama loses then Ed Schultz; Randi Rhodes; Daily Kos; Huff Post, et al, will blame Hillary.  They will not accept any responsibility for their role in this.  Just like the Bush Administration -- they take responsiblity for NOTHING!

    Gallup: Hillary Gives Obama 5 Point Bump As VP | 186 comments (186 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment