OCCOM BILL wrote:sozobe wrote: A central argument for having Hillary as the VP is that it would be, in fact, unifying. That her supporters would say "Well dang, I wanted her to be the presidential nominee but if she can't have that, I'll vote for her as VP."
Bear brings up the (valid) point that it ain't necessarily so -- that her supporters might say "I'm disappointed in her for accepting the VP slot of that idiot Obama, and I ain't voting for either of them."
As in, the supposed "unity" ticket might not be all that unifying.
This I don't buy. Accept for the very bitter; they wouldn't really need to unify the Dem party, so much, because their instincts will naturally tell them they prefer the team to another 4 years of Republican Rule.
That's parallel rather than in opposition to what I'm saying, though. That a "unity ticket" wouldn't necessarily be that unifying; that still fits with it not being that
necessary (which I agree with).
Bear has already shown an example of a Hillary supporter who wouldn't be swayed by a unity ticket. He currently doesn't plan on voting for Obama, and would be "disappointed" in Hillary if she goes on the ticket.
I doubt he's the only one.
So that one element -- putting Hillary on the ticket -- doesn't even convince some subsection of Hillary voters. Which is what it's supposed to do, that's the rationale -- put Hillary on the ticket in the VP slot so that her voters will vote for Obama.
I agree with you that the vast majority (not all) of her supporters will decide that even if they don't like Obama he's considerably better than McCain. My point was narrower -- that assumptions are being made about what her voters will do if she's on the ticket that might not be accurate.