ABC News says “dream ticket” under discussion
May 8th, 2008
The main political story on ABC News this afternoon is that “..intermediaries” have resumed discussing the possibility of an Obama-Clinton “dream team” ticket…”.
A former top Bill Clinton aide and now ABC News’ chief Washington correspondent, George Stephanopolous, said: “I think it’s very much a possibility and there are others around Sen. Clinton, other top Democrats who think the strongest ticket would be a joint ticket..There are intermediaries discussing this very scenario”
He went on:”..Right now Sen. Obama is probably reluctant to do this, given the feelings coming out of this campaign right now…”I do think that if it were accepted, Sen. Clinton would be under some pressure and would like to accept, I think”
Meanwhile a group of activists party insiders have set up a web-site to promote the the idea and this is getting a lot of coverage.
Latest Democratic V-P betting is here
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
This is spin from a Clinton proxy. I see nothing to suggest Obama’s side are interested - although they can’t be seen to openly dismiss it, for PR reasons.
The only danger from this is that John McCain would think Christmas had come early, and that he was a shoo-in for the White House, and be complacent…
Great Q&A with Cameron on coffee house:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/686456/cameron-answers-your-questions.thtml
My favourite bit was this, which just confirms my gut feeling that he an independently minded, empirically minded Conservative:
“Actually Laffer is not a philosophical reason, Laffer is an economic justification which may or may not be true in particular circumstances. I think it was true when income tax rates were 98% under Labour, there was a Laffer curve effect. I think it is far more difficult to argue a Laffer curve effect when the top rate of tax is 40%. Now that doesn’t mean you don’t want to cut taxes, we do and we will, but I think claiming Laffer in terms of income tax reductions in the UK will be pretty hard…
This is a very difficult area. The straight Laffer argument, there were some taxes that were so high that literally in cutting them you got more revenue in immediately, that was almost like a static effect. I think there is a longer term argument which is that if you are able to reduce tax rates you will, over time, build revenues. For example, corporation tax where we are committed to cutting rates I think that over time that will help keep business in the UK, attract business to the UK, so there is a dynamic case for tax reduction but I don’t think, I am at heart a fiscal Conservative rather than a supply side and I think that it is very important for politicians to stick to some basic rules about not spending money you don’t have and managing the nation’s finances carefully and all the rest of it.”
Why can’t we have that sort of common sense in the US?
Yesterday I called this :
**** ARSE BETTING CALL **** ARSE BETTING CALL **** ARSE BETTING CALL
ARSE is recommending Hillary Clinton @ 10/1 with William Hills to become Vice President !!
*************************************
Sadly the 10/1 has gone but 7/1 with VC is still there.
Note - Thie is to be the Vice President NOT the candidate.
……………………………….
ARSE also recommends the 16/1 available from Ladbrokes (shadsy, end of last thread) on Huckabee to be the GOP Veep candidate.
What would Mrs Obama say about that, Presumably that would mean meddling Bill would be about around the White House and interfering with any campaign. Looks like a distinct non runner to me.
this is the nightmare scenario, obama surely won’t be so daft…she’s busy playing the race card today!!! Besides the vice president MARRIED to the president just doesn’t sound right!. Look at who the source of the ‘news’ is, a former clinton campaign manager who has never declared his personal interest.
During the farce which was the final debate he was 1 of the 2 moderators..and for 45 mins abcnews gleefully went after obama. Obama won’t be so idiotic, he’ll just give her prime top slot at the convention in august and support her run to be senate majority leader in november.
McCain would be able to die laughing.
Would HRC really accept being VP to Obama? Could be a move to test her reaction, I’m not sure that wounds created by her campaign rhetoric would have healed in time.
There was a Private Eye cover with Nixon saying, ‘no ones going to shoot me with Spiro T Agnew next in line.’ Same could apply to Obama.
Charlie Christ popular governor of must-win swing state of florida will be mccains pick.
4. Jack W. Actually, when you suggested thsi bet after the lastest primaries, the 10/1 wasn’t availible (it was a ‘ghost’ on http://www.oddscheker.com as WillHill were not running a market at that point). However, there was 7/1 at VC (which has now disappeared - 6/1 is the current top price).
Those of you with slighly longer memories will remeber I suggest 25/1 on Clinton for VP 3 months ago and again at 20/1 on Sunday.
Amongst the comments was this one:
***************
Don’t bet on that at 100/1. There’s absolutely no reason for Obama to choose someone incredibly divisive with extremely low favorability ratings as his VP candidate when there are plenty of people with more “experience” than she in the Democratic Party.
by Mike (New Jersey) May 4th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
***************
Probably fortunately for Mike (New Jersey) ‘he doesn’t bet’ - laying 100/1 shots is sometimes not good for your health! Now 6/1 on Betfair.
THE NEXT 6 MONTHS
are gonna be fun to watch and to bet !
“- Almost everything we think we know right now will be revised and even overturned during the next six months. This has been a race in which conventional wisdom has often been proven wrong. The improbable or thought-to-be impossible has happened with regularity. It has created a boom market for punditry and opinion offering, and one of the grandest possible spectacles for political junkies in decades. Hold on to your hat. It’s going to be one heck of a ride through Nov. 4.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121020471141475293.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Harold Ford was strongly arguing for the joint ticket as well on TV on Tuesday.
I can’t see it myself as it would undercut Obama’s whole schtick about wanting to change Washington
6. It would be absolutely absurd. There would be a base of operations on Capitol Hill where the Vice-President and her chief staffer/husband would be perpertually trying to wrestle influence away from President Obama to implement their agenda and potentially run in 2016. Every aggrieved congressman and party official would be welcomed into their arms, meaning the President would always have to be giving concessions to keep people on-side as they threaten to go to Billary.
4
Jack ARSE is recommanding to bet on Hucka-boom-boom as VP&?%?&?%&%?
One word: don’t, it’s just not possible.
6
.. or governor of NY….
11. Harold Ford is a key figure in the Democratic Leadership Council, a base where ambitious triangulators hang out and a Clintonian stronghold. It’s an organistation that would continuously lambast other Democrats for appeasement and economic populism - before Clinton became the anti-war economic populist, of course.
Meanwhile Huff Post is carrying this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/08/mark-penn-reportedly-dumb_n_100809.html
The whole Clinton strategy was based on the campaign manager not understanding the electoral system!!!!
LEFT-WING PARANOID FANTASY
Let us indulge in that insane theory the pundirty is often relaying: that this new JFK will get the same death!
Just think about it, for the fun of it!
Hillary is VP, and then Obama is killed… Hillary is Pres.!
9. Well done Chris on the perspicuousnes of your own bottom !!
I wasn’t convinced on the viability of an Obama/Clinton ticket until fairly recently. However anything in the region of 6/1 ish is decent value as a trading bet.
McCAIN AND HAGEE
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1210209924134750.xml&coll=7
The West Virginia Party on Betfair
is over; it was possible to get between 10% and 24% yesterday for a Clinton victory next tuesday.
I booked 3000$ at an average of 13% in several shots.
Not anymore; the only offer is at best 4%.
Too bad!
19. That’s a bit rich when McCain hits out at Obama because some Hamas guy said they liked him.
re Tessa Jowell (previous thread) I’ve just placed my first ever political bet (excitment!!), and have done as Mike suggested (I’ve put £5 on). Will it win? Probabaly not. Can Jowell beat Cameron? Not in a month of Sundays. But 100-1 is very good value imo.
This is a good chance for Obama to stuff the Clintons for good. ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ would be my response. The message goes out loud and clear that the Clintons aren’t welcome. Might win him some more supporters to be so openly defiant of them.
Of course it could lose supporters aswell. But given what he’d have to concede to have the Clintons on board, I’d give them short shrift.
3. We would quite like it here too. Soon.
Didn’t Hillary suggest Obama as HEr VP a few motnhs back?
Anyway, think it’s a non starter and more of a nigthmare ticket than a dream ticket.
Obama’s best plan is to sneak up and nick the ruby slippers whilst she is still stuck under the house.
Is she is on the ticket it makes his campaign a waste of time, I doubt it could ever happen.
Stephanopolous, lest we forget, presided over the most vile debate possible, on ABC. I wouldn’t give him the time of day.
ABC have shot their bolt this primary, at least MSNBC were overtly positive to the winning team not the losing one.
22
The bet is next Lab. leader, DC does not come in to it. Understand what you are betting on.
It’s an interesting possibility, but I still don’t think it’s going to happen. From Clinton’s point of view - would she really want to settle for VP, when it’s a position with very little actual power? She’d be better off aiming for something like the leader of the Senate instead. And from Obama’s point of view - would he want his greatest rival in a position to undermine and possibly succeed him? What would HRC bring to the VP ticket that a different candidate wouldn’t?
While there would be something impressive, even spectacular, about an Obama-Clinton ticket, something about it just seems a little implausible, especially when considering how much the two candidates have attacked each other over the past six months. I’m sure Obama could find some other way of ‘buying off’ Clinton, if he even has to; and I’m sure he can find a better VP candidate who’ll appeal to Clinton supporters without being HRC herself.
For the second time, I’m struck by this very strong feeling that Obama will be the next US pres.
Even GOP senators are becoming Obama-fans:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10206.html
22. I wonder how often people put on a bet of £5 at 100/1 on something, and then years later forget to collect their winnings when it actually happens?
It is a bit difficult to imagine Hillary accepting the VP slot but I don’t think it’s inconceivable. Obama’s autobiog shows that he knows the Clintons well and counted them as friends, and there was obviously a lot of mutual respect when he was still a relatively unknown senator. Obama’s views on key domestic issues like health and education have much in common with the Clintons.
Go for it, guys.
If it came about then the Right, on both sides of the Atlantic, would feel uncomfortable. I have a feeling that Barack would no longer be their blue-eyed boy.
“Charlie Christ popular governor of must-win swing state of florida”
Well Florida isn’t a must win state anymore but I didn’t realise he was sitting at God’s right hand already. Must be good for the evangelical vote at least.
19 - The Hagee article is rubbish, they are starting to get worried about the implications for McCain though. Obama should just leave them guessing if, or when, he might use it. Probably best left as something in reserve.
Rubbish?
Can you be more specific?
It’s interesting for it reveals the way McCain’s might defends themselve.
30. I’m convinced he’ll win by a big margin.
33. He shouldn’t raise it at all. It speaks for itself and political debate should be about issues not these silly relationships.
Why does the little scrolling box at the top right of the screen still give the odds for “Coalition” and “Labor” months after the Australian general election? Is it referring to the next election already?
Jean Dahlman super delegate from Montana apparently declared for Obama today.
21
McCain is trying to position himself as the guy to command the soon-to-come conflict between the Israel-Saudis-US contra Iran, Hibollah and Hamas.
38 - Declared about a month ago, and may reconsider if Hillary wins Montana
http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=8130332
Why would the Saudis fight Hamas?
35
Yeah. I’m building a big position on this potential victory.
But as Rove wrote: in this year, almost anything can happen.
Yet Obama is fantastic.
Virtually un-beatable — even if he’s socialist!
The argument that actively seeking and praising someone’s support is of secondary importance for a start. Obama’s position was one of inertia, McCain’s more active one can easily be perceived as more worrying. McCain has done nothing to reject the support of Hagee, knowing his views are just as unacceptable as the more extreme of Wright’s. He’s had more time than Obama but not a squeak, that will also play badly if the issue is raised later.
The rest is just bluster, opinion without backup.
41
I did not mean that like this
It’s more complexe.
I meant, here, to point antagonist factions in the region.
9. And I still think so (although the possibility that chatter will bring in the price might make short-term betting smart). Clinton is an extraordinarily bad choice for Obama, and he knows it: She brings all of her own weaknesses with no perceivable strengths.
45 you’re kidding. What about women?
Like the Saudi contra Shiite-Iran:
“The risk of a U.S.-Iranian confrontation is growing in part because Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the Middle East are so eager for it. “Behind closed doors, we are praying that the Iranians will make a mistake so that you will have a reason to attack,” one Saudi told me this week. Another prominent Arab official said he hopes the U.S. will strike Iranian training camps just over the border from Iraq.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/middle_east_eager_for_usiran_s.html
41 - The Saudis would only fight Hamas in an adolescent’s war fantasy game.
Actually, the GOP seems to be run by a group of nerdy boys determined to show hard they are, I think we are onto their guilty sweaty-palmed secret.
Jack W
have you been talking to Iain Martin at the Telegraph about Wee Wendy?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/threelinewhip/may/wendyalexandersreferendum.htm
“By an impeccable Scottish contact I am given in Jacobite code a rather horrifying and well-informed version of the chain of events which led to the Wendy Alexander referendum fiasco.”
49 - An interesting snippet from that article:
“PS Alexander is not leader of the Scottish Labour party, despite what the PM says. Instead she is the elected leader of the Scottish Labour group in the Holyrood parliament, a crucial distinction.
Last year she told Brown that this anachronism needed to be dealt with and proposed she become overall leader of Scottish Labour.
He said no, and so like Tony Blair before him, by the terms of the Labour constitution, the leader of the Scottish Labour is one G. Brown.”
Wow this news is huge Mike. Any clues on the source(s).
Yougov
Meltdown
Con 49
Lab 23
LD 17
Ouch!
Breaking News on Sky News - YouGov poll for The Sun
Con - 49%
Lab - 23%
LD - 17%
52. Zeus!
52 - Source: Sky News, by the way.
Oh my god 26 point lead - now let anyone say that the Conservatives need to do better!
41 - The Saudis would only fight Hamas in an adolescent’s war fantasy game.
I agree, and it was never intentionnaly implied inmy post.
Post-modern warfares are complex; cf. Bosnia; you catholics fighting against Orthodoxes; ethno-nationalists allyign with Muslims against each others; capitalists fighting communists…
All of them making temporaliy alliances and then turning against each others….
55 - Simon Heffer seen enroute to Beachy Head…….
52 - If correct, that is truly remarkable.
Please someone put it into Baxter quickly - does it put us over 450 seats?!!
46. There are at least a couple of very talented female options who would have got there without being on their husband’s coattails.
54 This scotland issue will decimate labour at the polls. he either sacks bendy wendy and says no to a refeerendum or he sinks with her. poetic justice indeed.
52
If true
C&N becomes a safe seat - for the Conservatives.
52 was this poll taken before or after Mike suggested Tessa Jowell as potential leader?
Electoral Calculus prediction
Con 469
Lab 129
LD 24
Con Majority 288
Oh joy! Oh bliss! Forget the USA! election now.
And after London how can I doubt YG?
CON GAIN BOOTLE
52 - if there are any blairite outriders passing through tonight - can we note the drop from the low 30s to the low 20s in the polls are a direct result of moving policy further to the right (especially through the redistribution of income from lower earners by abolishing the 10p income tax rate to southern higher earners by implementing tory inheritence tax plans).
the party needs to be moderate and sensible, but it also needs to be recognisably of the centre-left - the alternative is a collapse of support.
LABOUR has slumped to its lowest point since records began in the 1930s, a devastating Sun poll reveals tonight.
And the Tories are enjoying their second biggest poll lead in history.
But Labour would be doing EVEN WORSE if Gordon Brown was dumped for another leader, our exclusive YouGov survey reveals.
The Sun’s survey puts the Tories on a massive 49 per cent with Labour trailing at just 23 per cent - a gap of 26 per cent.
Labour have NEVER hit such lows since polling began in the 1930s.
The only time in history the Conservatives notched up a bigger runaway lead was in 1968.
The results are devastating to Labour.
Cameron … boost
But they make it clear to MPs they would be insane to ditch Mr Brown.
Our poll shows that Labour would be in deeper trouble even if they were led by Tony Blair.
And it confirms potential successors Ed Balls, David Miliband, Jack Straw, Harriet Harman, Andy Burnham, Alan Johnson and James Purnell would ALL make things even worse in voters’ eyes.
Asked if voters would back Labour under a different leader, all of the suggested alternatives have a minus net reading.
This means they would all make Labour’s position in a general election worse.
Lowest ebb
The Sun chose YouGov after they accurately predicted the results of last week’s London Mayoral election.
Their survey shows Labour is at its lowest ebb in history.
It comes in the wake of a disastrous town hall election result last week where Labour got just 24 per cent share of the vote.
The survey confirms that Labour would be better off sticking with Mr Brown.
It will send a clear message to panicking backbenchers they would be crazy to ditch the PM and find a successor.
Mr Brown is banking on a steady economic recovery to show he is in control of the country.
He believes his record as one of Britain’s foremost Chancellors will convince voters he is their only hope at a general election.
Advertisement
But Labour is facing the prospect of losing the Crewe and Nantwich by-election a fortnight from now.
That would be another catastrophic milestone in the PM’s turbulent eight month Premiership.
YouGov asked voters if they would be more or less likely to vote Labour if a string of candidates were leader instead of Mr Brown.
Taking the two results, Tony Blair would have a minus three rating.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw would be on minus four and Foreign Secretary David Miliband the same.
Health Secretary Alan Johnson would also be on minus four as would Culture supremo Andy Burnham.
Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell notched up minus five.
And least popular would be deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman and Schools Secretary Ed Balls, both on minus 10.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1142543.ece
where is polly roger when you need him? Champagne socialists appear to be the ONLY socialists left!
Pah!
Even with a government this unpopular, Dave can’t break through the psychologically important 50% barrier.
I give Dave under six months to improve his performance, or we’ll hear backbench mutterings against him.
I cannot believe the BBC are not reporting this as their main headline on the website. This is major news and the Beeb hate the Tories so much that payback time will come when we sell it off! Perhaps to Murdoch if the Sun does it’s duty !!!!!!
45. Women are by far the easiest of Clinton’s supporters to bring back in; Obama could do it perfectly well enough without even a woman on the ticket. But he will go with either Kathleen Sebelius or maybe Claire McCaskill, which solve that dilemma anyway.
Sorry, that should be 46. I just felt a response was necessary.
Obama would have to be absolutely crazy to tie his election to that of the widely reviled Hilary Clinton. This may seem like a smart move to those focussing only inside the Democratic party and fearful of the damage that a continued Obama/Clinton battle for the nomination might cause to the party, but there is a bigger picture than that - winning the actual election. There is a good reason why Rush Limbaugh is urging Republicans to take part in the Democratic primary and to vote for Clinton; he, like many conservatives, recognises that having Hilary Clinton anywhere on the ticket will galvanise and crystallise enough anti Clinton momentum to see McCain elected President. The effect will be the same if she is either the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate.
“if there are any blairite outriders passing through tonight - can we note the drop from the low 30s to the low 20s in the polls are a direct result of moving policy further to the right (especially through the redistribution of income from lower earners by abolishing the 10p income tax rate to southern higher earners by implementing tory inheritence tax plans)”
Actually you are completely wrong about that. It isn’t the recent vaguely not lefty policies that have done for Labour. It is in fact the electorate seeing the medium term effects of the left wing nonsense that has done it. Such as; the open door immigration policy, the if it moves tax it and then increase the tax approach, the viscious punishment of motorists for needing their cars, the “we are all to blame” approach to crime that has led to widespread disorder and a collapse in public safety. There are plenty more but that should serve to illustrate my point.
It isn’t the vague move to the right that has upset the electorate, it is the effect of 11 years of ill thought through nannystate politically correct, left wing bullying and widespread incompetence.