0
   

If Hillary Tries to Push her Way on the Ticket, Obama Should

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 09:54 pm
sozobe wrote:
Since I still have the Pollster window open from another thread:

CA:

Obama 50.7
McCain 41.8

NY:

Obama 50.2
McCain 38.8

And this is probably a low point for Obama. McCain's been free to campaign against Obama for a while now, while Obama's had to fend off both McCain and Hillary and is not the nominee yet.


Before the general election in 2004, the polls showed Kerry beating Bush by 20 percentage points.

Dewey beats Truman!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 04:51 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Before the general election in 2004, the polls showed Kerry beating Bush by 20 percentage points.


Got a cite for that, Finn?

Nimh was on the job here back then too, and this post from Nov 2nd 2004 shows a bunch of polls -- nowhere near a 20 point lead for Kerry in any of them (Bush leads in some, Kerry in others, all close):

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=991716#991716

Again, I expect things will only get better for Obama from here -- some fluctuations, of course, but a big bump when he's actually the nominee (Kerry became the nominee way earlier) and additional improvements when, a) he can focus on just McCain instead of the double-barreled attack from McCain and Hillary, and b) when the media can focus more on McCain. Guy's been getting an incredible pass so far, by and large.

There may of course be big news of some kind that shifts things in one direction or another -- bad news for Obama, bad news for McCain. But just within usual parameters, I expect Obama to improve his numbers from where they are now.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 04:58 am
IMO, The overwhelming majority of Democrats are going to vote for Obama whether Hillary is on the ticket or not. The same can't be said for Independents and they are the people that will decide the final outcome of the November election. I think Obama would benefit from telling Hillary to take a hike with that voting segment.

There are very few drawbacks for him to NOT have her on the ticket and the gains easily outweigh any possible advantages.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 05:39 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Pretty damn creepy to be factoring assasination into one's plans.


i'm sure if she gets the vp nod, the clinton brothers already have it planned
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 07:12 am
fishin wrote:
IMO, The overwhelming majority of Democrats are going to vote for Obama whether Hillary is on the ticket or not. The same can't be said for Independents and they are the people that will decide the final outcome of the November election. I think Obama would benefit from telling Hillary to take a hike with that voting segment.

There are very few drawbacks for him to NOT have her on the ticket and the gains easily outweigh any possible advantages.
I concur completely. The base should back their candidate regardless... save a few bigots, morons and bitter fools. Independents will indeed decide the election and we tend not to like Hillary much.
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 08:24 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Of course he would be, but does anyone still really believe that he is an agent of so-called New Politics? If they do it's because their desires have trumped their reason.


I tend to think he Will make some dramatic changes, but K Street will keep on tooting along in the same old fashion.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I keep wondering why Hillary would want to be VP.


When Clinton was considered the nominee a year or so ago I figured she would never want to take the low-rent position of VP. But as her fortune has changed I think she'd take the position.


Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Wouldn't it just frost her ass if something happened to Obama and Bill Richardson became president?


It would frost her posterior if Obama selects B. Richardson in the first place. Obama is too smart to alienate the Clinton's in that way, remember, Hillary wields a lot of power in her current 2nd place position. Once she concedes to Obama she will have chalked up a lot negotiating power within the party. It will not be the end of her by any means.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Pretty damn creepy to be factoring assasination into one's plans.


Yet another thing to worry about, how grim.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 11:25 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Before the general election in 2004, the polls showed Kerry beating Bush by 20 percentage points.

Nonsense, of course, as Soz already pointed out. But dont let facts get in yer way...
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 10:48 pm
nimh wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Before the general election in 2004, the polls showed Kerry beating Bush by 20 percentage points.

Nonsense, of course, as Soz already pointed out. But dont let facts get in yer way...


14, I recall. But not before the GE. In March.

Bill is now saying that Hillary wants on the ticket. I really think she deserves it. Let's face it, this race is very close to a tie. There are all sorts of problems with the match-up but Obama can always claim he did it out of party unity. And, ultimately, I don't see how this ticket could lose.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 10:50 pm
fishin wrote:
IMO, The overwhelming majority of Democrats are going to vote for Obama whether Hillary is on the ticket or not. The same can't be said for Independents and they are the people that will decide the final outcome of the November election. I think Obama would benefit from telling Hillary to take a hike with that voting segment.

There are very few drawbacks for him to NOT have her on the ticket and the gains easily outweigh any possible advantages.



It would be a disaster if it becomes public that she wants on and he refuses her. I think that it is one scenario that might give McCain a chance.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 10:51 pm
woiyo wrote:
Buy a bullet proof vest.


Doesn't Obama already wear one?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 10:55 pm
sozobe wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Before the general election in 2004, the polls showed Kerry beating Bush by 20 percentage points.


Got a cite for that, Finn?

Nimh was on the job here back then too, and this post from Nov 2nd 2004 shows a bunch of polls -- nowhere near a 20 point lead for Kerry in any of them (Bush leads in some, Kerry in others, all close):

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=991716#991716

Again, I expect things will only get better for Obama from here -- some fluctuations, of course, but a big bump when he's actually the nominee (Kerry became the nominee way earlier) and additional improvements when, a) he can focus on just McCain instead of the double-barreled attack from McCain and Hillary, and b) when the media can focus more on McCain. Guy's been getting an incredible pass so far, by and large.

There may of course be big news of some kind that shifts things in one direction or another -- bad news for Obama, bad news for McCain. But just within usual parameters, I expect Obama to improve his numbers from where they are now.


I expect a 15 point lead for Obama over McCain once Hillary concedes, if she ever does concede and if she wants the VP job and Obama refuses, she could make it very ugly.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 11:17 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
nimh wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Before the general election in 2004, the polls showed Kerry beating Bush by 20 percentage points.

Nonsense, of course, as Soz already pointed out. But dont let facts get in yer way...


14, I recall. But not before the GE. In March.

Nope, not back then either.

There was one single CNN/Gallup poll in February 2004 that had Kerry up by 12%, but even that was a rather extreme outlier. In no single 10 days of polling throughout 2004 did the average Kerry lead in the polls ever top 5%.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 11:21 pm
Probably thinking of the "unnamed" Democrat before Kerry got the nod. That guy was kicking ass.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 11:22 pm
nimh wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
nimh wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Before the general election in 2004, the polls showed Kerry beating Bush by 20 percentage points.

Nonsense, of course, as Soz already pointed out. But dont let facts get in yer way...


14, I recall. But not before the GE. In March.

Nope, not back then either.

There was one single CNN/Gallup poll in February 2004 that had Kerry up by 12%, but even that was a rather extreme outlier. In no single 10 days of polling throughout 2004 did the average Kerry lead in the polls ever top 5%.



According to Chuck Todd, Kerry had a 14 point lead in March of 2004. And Chck Todd can't be wrong as he is one of my Myspace friends. Smile


http://creative.myspace.com/design/myspace/decision08/Chuck_Todd_profile.JPG
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 11:59 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
According to Chuck Todd, Kerry had a 14 point lead in March of 2004. And Chck Todd can't be wrong as he is one of my Myspace friends. Smile

Really? How odd. He works for MSNBC, right? Because this was the result of an NBC/WSJ poll in March 2004:

45% Bush/Cheney
45% Kerry/Edwards
3% Nader

That's from the Polling Report site, because I didnt just want to go on my own data from back then, I might have missed a poll at the time.

That page shows as well that also in March 2004, Fox had results varying from a 5-point Bush lead to a 5-point Kerry lead on two different occasions, IBD/CSM had Kerry up by 3 points, CBS/NYT had Bush up by 6, Newsweek had Bush up by 2 or trailing by 1 depending on whether Nader was factored in, the LA Times had Kerry up by 3, ABC/WaPo had Kerry up by 4, and CNN/USAToday/Gallup had results varying from an 8-point Kerry lead to a 4-point Bush lead, depending on whether Nader was factored in, at two different occasions.

There's a bunch more like that too. All in all the race was pretty much tied back then. If there was any poll that had a 14-point Kerry lead (let alone a 20-point one) that I missed in my table at the time and cant find back on Pollingreport right now, it was definitely not representative of what the polls overall were saying.

Still curious what Todd was referring to, though - so if you have the time to pass on a link please do.

Oh, and Bill is right: a generic no-name Democratic opponent of Bush did have a generous lead in at least one poll at the time... that "unnamed" Dem sure did kick ass. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 12:06 am
I was being sarcastic about Todd being infallible. Simply being one of my hundreds of admirers does not grant one infallibility. Smile
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 06:48 am
Why does she DESERVE to be on the ticket? What is that idea based on?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 07:13 am
Lots of chatter on this issue btw.

Yesterday:

Quote:
The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said "no." Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.


(emphasis mine)

goes on to say:

Quote:
And that is all that anybody needs to know to understand the childish and wounded behavior of Senator Clinton yesterday, grandstanding hypocritically to senior citizens in Florida, telling them they should consider themselves under sniper fire in Bosnia, er, Zimbabwe, aggrandizing herself as some kind of civil rights leader (MLK? or LBJ? She didn't say this time) and attempting to corner 30 members of the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee that will meet on May 31 to resolve the disputes over whether, and, if so, how, delegates from Michigan and Florida might be seated at the convention in August.


http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248

I did notice a shift in tone. Not sure if I believe this stuff or not. (I've seen The Field referred to a few times but not sure of reliability.)

That post also contains info on a Time magazine report by Karen Tumulty, about Bill pushing hard for Hillary to get VP:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1808470,00.html

Now, in the NYT today, there's more about BILL pushing, with some implications that it's more his preference than hers.

The photo that goes with it captures a moment I noticed:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/23/us/23veep.600.jpg

Before Hillary gave her victory speech in Kentucky, Bill was hugging her and kept hugging her longer than she wanted to be hugged, apparently, and while he was still right there she launched her speech and kind of wrenched away from him, and he went uh and then walked off.

Anyway, the quote:

Quote:
While Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers insist that she is determined to win the Democratic nomination, friends of the couple say that former President Bill Clinton, for one, has begun privately contemplating a different outcome for her: As Senator Barack Obama's running mate.


Quote:


Quote:
"If she's not going to be the nominee, then he wants her in the second spot," said one friend of the Clintons. "In the long run, it's the best way for her to run again in 2016."

Time magazine first reported Mr. Clinton's interest in the No. 2 slot for Mrs. Clinton on Thursday.


Then, surprisingly (and I saw another quote about this, will have to find it):

Quote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/politics/23veep.html

I don't know if this is just him being gracious or if he means it.

Here's the rest of it:

Quote:
"I can tell you this. My goal is to have the best possible government. And that means me winning. So, I'm very practical in my thinking. I'm a practical guy. One of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln. Awhile back, there was a wonderful book written by Doris Kearns Goodwin called 'Team of Rivals,' in which she talked about how Lincoln basically pulled all the people he'd been running against into his Cabinet. Because whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was, 'How can we get the country through this time of crisis?' I think that has to be the approach one takes to the vice president and the Cabinet."


Hmmmm....

I'm certain he would consider it carefully rather than dismissing it out of hand. I can't quite imagine him doing it... but we'll see.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 07:27 am
I don't believe Hillary is trying to get the VP slot.... but I do think the news media is trying to wring out yet more viewers and keep this soap opera going...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 08:21 am
Hey now!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=apUvejwrj_bw&refer=us

Quote:
Clinton Campaign in Talks With Obama About VP Slot, CNN Says

By Chris Dolmetsch


May 23 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is in formal talks with Senator Barack Obama's campaign about becoming his vice presidential running mate, CNN reported, without citing anyone specific.

The two Democratic campaigns are talking about ways for Clinton, from New York, to drop her bid for president that may include joining the Illinois senator's ticket, CNN reported. Talks are in a ``very preliminary'' stage and are described as ``difficult,'' the network said.


"Difficult," eh? Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 10:25:08