MyDD :: Unity Ticket W/Poll

Unity Ticket W/Poll

by LDFan, Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM EST

Wow...what an election season! For a political junkie like myself this was truly the gold standard of a primary season.

As we enter the final contests there are powerful statistics out there we would be wise not to ignore...

The fact is that nearly one third of Clinton supporters and nearly one third of Obama supporters say they would NOT support the other in the general election.

The days of "I'm sure her supporters would vote for me but I'm not sure my supporters would vote for her" are long...long...gone.

I am a strong, strong Hillary supporter. However, I am well aware of how catostrophic a McCain presidency would be. Therefor, I do not fall into the above category. That being said, I know many, many people who feel DEEPLY offended at the way she has been treated by the media, the party leaders, and many of Obama's supporters. They plan to either stay home or even go so far as to send a protest vote to McCain.

You know the "outrage" people say African Americans and young people would feel if Obama was "denied" the nomination. Well...millions of Women, Latinos, and Older Democrats feel that way right now.

I truly hope that should Obama win; his campaign realizes this outrage is both real and heartfelt. Personally, I cannot see any solution other than the two of them running together.

On that note, both have ammassed enough delegates that neither could be denied the VP slot IF they wanted it.

If you read the DNC rules you will see that the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are selected the exact same way. There is no doubt that either could get the needed super delegates to put them over the top if they wanted.

That being said, I think we need more than one or the other demanding the VP position. We should recognize that each represents clear and distinct factions within the party!

Obama: African Americans, urban liberals, Young people

Clinton: Women, Seniors, Blue collar workers, and Latinos

These demographic realities have been present for months and are not changing. Nor will it be solved through endorsements (see the help Maxine Waters, Maya Angelou, Bob Casey, provided).

The Democratic Party has a history of turning into a circulor firing squad and 2008 will be no different if these factions are not united on a joint ticket.

You may think it will be enough to say "It's the Supreme Court stupid" but the fact is it won't be. Once people pour their heart and soul into a candidate that wound does not heal easily.

In the last three weeks I have spent over 100 hours calling Oregon on behalf of Hillary. The phone bank I call from has been filled every day with committed Hillary volunteers. Obama won't just need their votes, he will need their energy as well (and vice versa).

I know lines have been drawn in the sand...but believe me...if this party is going to win in November it MUST be united!

Personally, I truly believe a unity ticket is the only way that will happen.

Poll

Votes: 48
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Election, Unity Ticket (all tags)

Permalink :: 85 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Unity Ticket (2.00 / 1)

thoughts and comments :)

by LDFan on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:09:40 PM EST

I think the last thing Obama needs (none / 0)

is Hillary's super-high negatives dragging him down. Plus, it wouldn't exaclty fit in with his them of "change" if he picked such on old-guard, corporate-friendly, insider/DLC/establsihment candidate, highly divisive running mate.

He should pick someone who is relatively fresh, scandal free, unapologetically progressive, and with high favorables like himself.

by Deano963 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the last thing Obama needs (none / 0)

hahahaha.

thanks for repeating the Obama meme (as well as the republican talking points)

1/2 of the voters in this primary voted for Hillary - the majority of registered democrats voted for Hillary.

perhaps it is Obama supporters who need to get over themselves. Obama is not the fresh face that you think he is.

by colebiancardi on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:35:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the last thing Obama needs (none / 0)

What part of what I said is "republican talking points"?

Just over half of the voters in this primary voted for Obama. ;)

And yes - he is a fresh face. He is a break from the politics of old - the politics of personal destruction that Hillary and her disgusting ilk like Mark Penn specialize in but don't solve any of the country's problems.

Republicans would LOVE to have Hillary on the ticket to attack from now until November.

Hate to break it to ya, but you need more than partisan Dems to win a GE. Hillary has no Independent or Republican appeal. In fact, she will drive those two groups to the polls just to vote against her. This is why open primaries that allow independents to vote are such a good thing. If we hadn't had so many open primaries, we might be stuck with Hillary as our nominee!!!

Thankfully, the process gave us the more electable candidate with more than just appeal to his own party.

by Deano963 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:48:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the last thing Obama needs (none / 0)

"If we hadn't had so many open primaries, we might be stuck with Hillary as our nominee!!!"

"Thankfully, the process gave us the more electable candidate with more than just appeal to his own party."

This person admits that Hillary is favored by Democrats in the Democratic primary!

Then he/she goes on to gloat that Independents and Republicans handed it to Obama!

There's your operation chaos or as it was orignially known the "stop Hillary express"

by LDFan on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow - you really can't read..... (none / 0)

Except that the Republicans who voted for Obama in the primaries were actually voting FOR him, unlike the ones who voted for hillary, who did so only b/c their lord and master Limbaugh told them too.

Sorry, you're trying to twist my words. It's not gonna fly. Republicans who voted for Obama didn't do so to cause chaos - they did so b/c they want him to be President. The Republicans who voted for Hillary did so b/c Limbaugh told them to.

And as for Indpendents favoring Obama in almost every single contest (including places she won like Ohio ;), yeh - that's a good sign for him and a horrible one for Hillary. She is very weak outside of the base of the Dem party.

by Deano963 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:58:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow - you really can't read..... (none / 0)

Deano...are you aware that Sean Hannity for weeks was telling his millions of listerners to vote in the Democratic primary against Hillary?

Are you aware that the majority of house members who lost their seats in '94 were connected with the house banking scandal?

Are you aware that Bill Clinton (who you gleefully deride) ushered in the greatest 7 years of economic prosperity in this countires history?

No...obviously you have some sort of hatred towards Hillary Clinton so you gloat in the idea of Republicans and Independent tipping the scale in a DEMOCRATIC primary

by LDFan on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow - you really can't read..... (none / 0)

Um....I do not "gleefully deride" Bill Clinton. You need a reading comprehension class if that is how you are taking it. There's a deiference between pointing out the consequences of someone's actions and taking pleasure in their misery.

I simply stated the fact that his Presidency broke the Democratic majorities in the house and senate and that his many scandals made Gore such a weak candidate that he lost to an incredibly unqaulified and terrible candidate - George W Bush.

by Deano963 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:37:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow - you really can't read..... (none / 0)

1.) Any student of American politics knows that times when all three branches are controlled by one party are few and far between; 92-94 was one of those times...not to say a loss of at least one house was inevitable...but history has a funny way of pointing that out.

2.) Rep's controlled the Senate quite a few times during the 80s, it was the house which was D since '54.

3.) There was NO WAY we were holding the house after the banking scandal came out...no freaking way

by LDFan on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow - you really can't read..... (none / 0)

You keep telling yourself it's not Clinton's fault. Oh, and it's not Hillary's fault she lost the primary either...it's all those damn sexists that voted against her! Yeh - that's it! There's absolutely NO WAY that Hillary could have lost this primary b/c of her stance on the issues, corporate connections, Mark Penn, disregarding small states, extremely negative and desperate campaigning, gas tax pandering, race-baiting........

by Deano963 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:02:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow - you really can't read..... (none / 0)

oh, I see. Republicans who voted for Obama will vote for him in the GE, whereas Republicans who voted for Clinton won't vote for her in the GE.

yep, you give way too much credit to Rush Windbag.

and Hillary got a ton of indies as well. In fact, she has closed that gap quite a bit since the initial primaries. Just look at the exit polling.

if it is a unity ticket, Obama's side will get all those indies and "honest" republicans and Hillary's side will get the actual base of the party.

that is a winning ticket, if you ask me.

you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Are you trying to state that the base of the party is not important at all? Take them for granted?

that is a fine line you are walking, my friend.

by colebiancardi on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:06:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow - you really can't read..... (none / 0)

Um....YES.....b/c the Republicans who were voting for Obama were doing so WAY back during IOWA....and NEW HAMPSHIRE....and SOUTH CAROLINA.....not late in the game during states like Texas. Ohio, Mississippi, Indiana and NC (b/c they were commanded to by Limbaugh to keep Hillary in the race).

The FACT is that Obama had many republicans crossing over to vote for him EARLY in the process(which suggests they acutally WANT him to be President, unlike the repubs who voted for Hillary), while Hillary's came later in the game at the command of Limbaugh.

Her winning margin in both Texas and Indidan was, according to exit polls, made up of Republicans who said they woud NOT for Hillary in the general. LOL!!!! Her margin in Ohio would not have been 8.8 points and her blowout loss in MS would have been even larger! She would liekly have lost both TX and IN w/out the precious help from Limbaugh. Pathetic.

by Deano963 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow - you really can't read..... (none / 0)

I know Republicans who voted for Obama in the primaries and intend to vote for him, or at least are open to voting for him, in the general.

Every single Republican that I know who voted for Clinton hates her guts and voted for her to hurt the Democratic party.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:04:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unity Ticket (2.00 / 1)

You make a good case, and perhaps this is the route that will be taken. But probably not; I think there's other ways Clinton can assuage her voters to bring unity to our party, and I think there's other things that she can do that would be of more benefit to her and her skills than Veep. And it may be more strategically beneficial for Obama to pick someone else for the VP slot- Strickland (though he denied any interest), Webb, Sebelius, etc.

Anyway, I think that if Clinton is going to be the VP, she and Obama should agree on it, not through her delegate numbers.

And I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Clinton's made Obama a stronger candidate than he ever could've been without her. If he wins, it will be in no small part (and likely solely) because of the experience she gave him this primary season.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:19:09 PM EST

Re: Unity Ticket (none / 0)

She gave Obama experience in this election cycle by attacking him like a republican would go after him?

You are definitely correct there.

But I think his response and continued winning during this election has shown that whether Clinton did this to him or not, he would still prevail against the republicans.

That said, it has certainly sped up the timetable for him because he could/would not go after Hillary Clinton as strongly as he is now doing to McBush. Now the gloves are coming off, and it's a beautiful thing to see. :)

by Yalin on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unity Ticket (2.00 / 1)

I've come around, after really resisting the idea, to Clinton being the best choice for Obama's VP for a few reasons:

She has earned that, with this entire campaign, not delegates or votes, but with her obvious strengths.

This divided party needs to heal. This is the best way to do it.

And, she is qualified to take over as President and would have the same ideological constituency as the President would.

by mady on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:30:15 PM EST

Re: Unity Ticket (none / 0)

I am not qualified to make this decision, thank god.

Is it better to have someone working against you from the inside or working against you from the outside?

Hobson's choice.

McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.

by catilinus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:43:32 PM EST

The Choice goes to the Nominee (none / 0)

I think either candidate deserves the freedom to choose the VP of their choice.

Forcing a VP either way does the candidate and the VP no good.

The VP serves the will and at the will of the President forcing Obama or Clinton to choose them as Robin to their Batman would only to be for your feelings.

If people truly respect their candidate they should not try to force them to be the second fiddle to the other and give them the freedom of choice the deserve.

I know this could come off as self serving as I'm a Obama supporter and hence am arguing for his freedom but this is a position I have heald from the beginning.

John Edwards is a good example, I am sincerely convinced John Edwards would rather be AG than VP.

Jim Webb, Sec of Defense or Sec. State...

With so many opportunities for Sen. Clinton that allow her to flourish I think you all do her a disservice of pigeonholing her into the role of VP, honestly.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:45:43 PM EST

However... (2.00 / 1)

If either one of them wanted the VP slot, there is literally no way the other could stop it.

She will walk into the convention about 100 delegates away from either 2,025 or 2,209.

I guarantee you there are that many super delegates who WITHOUT question would vote for her if her name was placed as a VP candidate

by LDFan on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unity Ticket W/Poll (2.00 / 1)

-----------
You know the "outrage" people say African Americans and young people would feel if Obama was "denied" the nomination. Well...millions of Women, Latinos, and Older Democrats feel that way right now.
-----------

The outrage would be there because Obama won the nomination on every metric that every other nominee has won it. For him to be denied in the face of that would indeed cause outrage. Hillary Clinton doesn't have the delegates to be the nominee, and by that singular metric, she has no right to be outraged should she not win.

Her supporters would no doubt be saddened, but outrage is only deserved when you are denied something that was rightfully yours based on the rules. There's no claim there.

-----------
That being said, I think we need more than one or the other demanding the VP position. We should recognize that each represents clear and distinct factions within the party!

Obama: African Americans, urban liberals, Young people

Clinton: Women, Seniors, Blue collar workers, and Latinos
-----------

Obama won Blue Collar Workers and Women in about half of the states that he has won. And in polling done recently in California and a few other states that Clinton won, Obama is now beating her.

Personally, I think Clinton invalidated herself as a potential VP candidate the moment she said that McCain is capable of being President, along with herself. But Obama is not.

That was one of the low points of this nominating contest, and quite distressing coming from Hillary Clinton.

by Yalin on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:48:23 PM EST

You may be right about her comment being fatal (none / 0)

but she was voicing a perspective shared by millions and many of us on her side felt that someone should say it.

by lombard on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be right about her comment being fatal (2.00 / 1)

What reasons do you have to believe that Obama is not ready to be President but Hillary Clinton is ready?

by Yalin on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:18:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unity Ticket W/Poll (2.00 / 1)

We feel OUTRAGED about the Florida and Michigan situation

We feel OUTRAGED that the rules regarding super delegates (they are by definition free agents) were tossed aside in favor of a "pledged delegate lead"

We feel OUTRAGED that a win in the Washington Caucus (where a few thousand people participated) netted Obama 26 delegates while 300,000 person win in Ohio (where 2 million participated) netted Clinton 7.

We feel OUTRAGED that a popular vote lead is scoffed at as being the "will of the people" while a delegate lead (where a 100,000 vote loss can net you more delegates) is, of course, "the will of the people."

We Feel OUTRAGED that there was no revote in Florida and Michigan

We Feel OUTRAGED at the way our candidate has been treated...and will never forget the way Matthews, Cafferty, Olbermann, and the like treated a wonderful woman, a great democrat, and the recipient of the most votes in Democratic primary history.