Could the convention force Hillary onto the ticket?
May 15th, 2008
Will the “dream ticket” happen whether Obama likes it or not?
An interesting scenario on what could happen at the Democratic Convention in August over the party’s V-P choice is set out in this piece from Huffington Post.
Jason Linkins puts it like this: “You imagine being on the floor in Denver. Hillary’s delegates, NEARLY HALF THE DELEGATES, are demanding she be on the ticket. These are true believers who have stuck with Clinton through thick and thin. To them, putting Hillary on the ticket is a crusade..Most Clinton delegates are women, most Democratic voters are women, and they’re going to just accept some middle aged white governor that Obama is rumored to want? No way. They are in your face. Hillary supporters from back home are jamming your Blackberry. This and more horror scenes flash through your mind in a nano second.”
It sounds possible.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Watching Clinton’s speech from Tuesday, with all its gracious remarked about Obama, I think she’s now campaigning for VP.
The following article is referenced (which I read earlier this evening).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html
I’ve been trying to find out the rules as to how the VP nomination is determined (with no success). I always though it was decided personally by the party Presidential nominee, but the linked article above implies that is not the case.
Does anyone have any definitive knowledge on this? Any links?
Great artcile Mike. Food for thought!
If Obama made it known he didn’t want Hillary for Veep, would she seek it like this? Would it not play straight into the Republican hands then if it was forced like this?
What is the normal convention? Does the Presidential Nominee announce who he wants and then the delegates vote endorsing that?
Democrats should go with Clinton.
Yes she is a power obsessed lying haridan, with a trail following Whitewater that inspired the script of Prison Break and liar husband who pushed through dubious Presidential pardons during his last 3 hrs of office following exchanges of “envelopes”…
but hey, Britain has Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and NuLabour.
How could he deny her the VP, without sounding like a mirror image of her?
By insisting on respecting the will of the pledged delegates, he almost has to respect the fact that Hillary has 47.3% of the pledged delegates. It might not make the most political sense in some ways, but you can see how she could make it hard for him to do otherwise.
There were people saying that she wasn’t interested in being VP. What do they think?
4 - That is right. Officially the Convention chooses both halves of the ticket. Remember the days when the Convention was an actual event and there were numerous ballots. The VP could form part of a deal. However nominally it is always the nominees choice.
Hillary could threaten Obama and it would be up to him whether to call her bluff. Ultimately I don’t think it will happen. If Obama decisively doesn’t want it I don’t think she will get it.
2 - See this link. It says Edwards was nominated by acclamation at the Convention in 2004.
Obama will be the leader of the Democratic Party. No one will want to get onto the wrong side of him, his donors and the election machine he has built and the rest of the party will come to rely on.
7- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Democratic_National_Convention#Edwards.27s_address
Cant see them forcing her on Obama.
1 I think not. Should Obama win the Presidency by 2016 when she could next stand she would certainly be strongly challenged. Her USP as the first serious woman candidate could well be gone how many more Sebelius’s may appear and she would be almost Dole like in age.
OTOH should Obama not win in November she is surely better off not being on the ticket but having a veto on who is so by 2012 she has the biggest I told you so argument in History.
New Reseaerch 2000/D.Kos Presidential Poll for Alaska :
McCain 55% .. Clinton 37%
McCain 49% .. Obama 42%
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/15/12326/5308/445/516209
Whenever we discuss the VP spot on here, someone will express the view that this or that candidate is not good enough because they are too old, too young, too inexperienced, too black, too white, too polarising, etc.
Surely the main point is whether they complement the electoral deficienies of their POTUS ticket candidate? The VP candidate is not the main reason to vote. Obama needs to secure the white, beer drinking blue collar workers’ votes. Both Edwards and Clinton help him in this. The question is whether Hillary’s negatives outweigh her positives?
Obama/Clinton could quite easily lose the election as their negatives are different.
There are also much better qualified candidates as he needs someone with more experience on the ticket.
Nobody ran for veep, any votes gained in the presidential contest are therefore meaningless. Being the veep requires different qualities, not least being someone who doesn’t bring as many negatives to the table as Clinton does.
On another related subject -
Having previously mentioned that I consider Alaska to be in play in November here’s a good kos diary outlining why - McCain is not liked there, third parties will siphon votes and Obama is well within sight in opinion polls.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/15/161956/257/229/516409
12 - And as if by magic, the shopkeeper appears….
13. Stjohn, part of the problem is too much detail, too many little things are used to rule people out, often on partisan grounds.
On Hilary though, Obama as the nominee elect at this stage should get to pick, not have it pushed on him.
[13] - You also have to weigh up the risk that a gaffe from the VP could derail your entire campaign. For that reason it is tempting to go for a safe pair of hands, which, on the evidence of the primary campaign, and the interventions by Bill in particular, Hillary would not be.
15 - showing your age! Must get that on DVD, including the the episode the BBC banned.
13. stjohn, I agree. Given the sophistication of polling carried out by political parties, I would think it would be relatively simple to poll to see whether Clinto positives outweigh negatives…. I’m actually suprised taht we haven’t seen a public one yet (that I know of).
17. That wouldnt be an issue. Hilary knows what to do.
15/18 ukpaul/SBS.
Time to lock up the shop ….. it’s been a long day in committee !!
G’Nite all …. ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
18 eh
18 - ukpaul was quoting from Mr Benn, a classic children’s TV series of the 1970s. Not to be confused with Mr Bean!
18 - They banned Mr Benn!?! Why?
The Guardian is reporting that the latest U turn is on 42 day detention.
25. No surprise. Brown is in suirvival mode. To pick fights when he can cave in but hang on in the hope of weathering things is the only way to go.
Pathetic as it is….
19 - Rasmussen has done one. It was basically half-and-half. The thing going in Clinton’s favour is that if the Democrats unite the base they are highly likely to win. Clinton makes that more likely than less.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/hers-if-she-wants-it.html
Its always possible that the Clinton lobby at the convention could force Obama’s hand… but I think it unlikely.
She simply brings nothing to an Obama ticket, sure she’s done well with white, working class voters in the primaries but there is no guarantee that would translate into the general, even where she at the top of the ticket (which she wont be).
There is just no advantage for Obama having her as veep (interestingly the reverse would not be the case IMHO) and potentially plenty of disadvantages were she to appear on the ticket… in the end political calculation will determine who Obama picks as his VP and that means the chances of Clinton making it onto the ticket are slim to nill.
26. It’ll be hard to cling to office very long with those well-gnawed fingernails…
25/26. Chris A and Yokel. But he said only this morning in his Today interview with John Humphreys that 42 day detention would go forward? That was my impression anyway.
True or false, his judgment as to when to fight and when to cave in is appalling.
24. Don’t know about a ban, I think there was one episode where they’ve changed the script so Mr. Benn now asks some children to check with their parents before following him on some adventure.
On QT. Now Alan Johnson is, “Taking no lectures from …”
Oh dear!
Boring, I know, because I’ve said this here 2 or 3 times before, but about 6 weeks ago - I think around the time of the Texas primary, it was clear, at least to me, that Bill was then attempting to negotiate the Veep slot for his wife, I suppose as a face saver for her and to enable the Democrats to close down the contest having secured their dream ticket.
For one reason or another, this didn’t work - I suspect Barack wasn’t having any of it. Yet having still failed to kill her off, he may now be forced to be more accommodating.
24, 31 - I understand there was an epidsode where he put on a prisoner’s garb. Not sure why it was banned, but I think it is on the DVD.
Newsnight: Michael Crick “surprised” if Labour hold C&N….
It’s not on the Guardian’s website yet, but here’s the front page.
Rasmussen poll for Kansas:
McCain 55 Obama 34
McCain 53 Clinton 39
Interesting that Clinton is doing so much better despite Obama winning the caucuses handily, showws the limits of crossover as Ben says.
Also indicates Kansas is out of touch. Might knock the Sibelius stuff on the head. Really don’t get at all what she brings to the ticket. Little likihood she brings the state (see Edwards in NC in 2004). She has no foreign policy experience and would be seen as a real snub to Clinton to put a different woman on the ticket. Her State of the Union reply didn’t go down well. Just don’t see her adding the gravitas and experience that Obama needs in a VP.
37 -
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/kansas/election_2008_kansas_presidential_election
Notice both Brogan and Dale are saying that C&N is much closer than people seem to think.
I am not sure that Brogan would say that if he didn’t think it.
39 - three way fight or two. Do we know other than the poll?
Re. the defection speculation on the last thread. Given the rapid implosion of this government, could a large number of Labour MPs resign the whip and sit as an independent group, depriving the government of a majority and forcing an early election? They would certainly be doing the country a huge favour.
40 No mention of the Lib Dems. I’d say 2.
41 - They could but I highly doubt it. If a large group is upset they would try to change the leadership first. The path you suggest would endanger their seats.
O/T In Henry’s absence and on a whim, I had my first self-selected tennis combi bet this evening, backing Nadal to win the second set of his match against Murray (for whom I have a considerable dislike), either 6-0, 6-1 or 6-2. In the event, he sneaked in with a 6-2 win, thereby taking the match, making me a modest £16 richer overall.
How did I do Henry?
41 No - turkeys & Christmas.
44. Didn’t he do well!
Peter, Brucie’s on This Week later.
43. 45. You are probably right, but I just find it very hard to believe this fiasco can drag on for another two years.
39 Sally - Is Iain Dale saying that - I thought his comments today were quite bullish about the Tories prospects?
30. I heard a story about all kinds of compromises a couple of weeks ago based exactly on the 10p job, keep the 42 days but effectively water it down so far that you cant taste the origibnal flavour.
46 Thanks, I’ll try and catch it - Good gyme, good gyme!
@47:
Meh. We’re a species adept at dragging fiascos on for decades, maybe even centuries.
It’s one of our most enduring habits.
Peter I haven’t looked today. It was from yesterday:
‘There is a huge expectation in the political media of an easy Conservative win. I don’t subscribe to that school of thought at all. I think it is going to be incredibly close, and the Conservatives have got to guard against any false over-confidence.’
This was Brogan, also yesterday:
‘Step Three is doing better than expected in Crewe and Nantwich next week. Labour is matching Tory efforts by ordering all MPs to go North and pound the streets. The aim is to avoid matching the result of the local elections and a massive swing to the Tories. We are told that the seat is more marginal than people realise; a narrow defeat, in current circumstances, would be a relief (now that’s expectation management…)’
Just saw Newsnight, could have punched that Labour ‘toff’ minder there and then who was by Tasmin ensuring that a Timpson banner was blocked out - if that Labour ‘toff’ is around, how many votes do you think that stunt won your party?! That was just so despicably pathetic, I’m lost for words, a perfect metaphor of the complete vacuosness shallow narrow minded self serving rump that is todays Labour party. Gwyneth would be quite rightly turning in her grave at the Labour campaign in C&N, if there’s anything I’ll remember from this bye-election then that will be it.
Ben, I know you don’t like Hillary, like many Obama supporters, but it’s clearly not literally true that she would bring nothing to the ticket. I don’t think he has a sensible choice but to reach an amicable agreement with her one way or another, just as she’d have had to with him if she’d got another few per cent. If he went out of his way to snub her, lots of her supporters would sit on their hands - McCain isn’t an ogre, after all. But you’re underestimating your man - he’s too professional for that. Whether the deal will involve the VP slot I doubt, as neither side looks that keen on it - Mike’s thread a week or two back summed up the other options very well.
Anyone read anything into Alan Johnson’s performance on QT so far? I think he has played a straight bat and has been loyal to his boss. But I also sense he has one eye on the prize?
Still can’t see it happening. Once Obama crosses the magic line of most delegates he becomes the de facto leader of the party. If he makes it clear behind the scenes he wants someone else on the ticket, I can’t see many delegates going against his will in the VP vote.
53: No, hunchman, I didn’t see the clip, but Gwynneth would give a contemptuous snort (she was very good at snorts) at Tory supporters like you pretending to speak for her.
54. She brings things to the ticket, but more negatives than positives. Just look at the fivethirtyeight poll above shows a -4 help/hinder ranking among Independents.
54 - I think he should put Clinton and Edwards onto a special one off reality show to fight over who becomes the Attorney General, Secretary of State or some such post.
Lock them in an office with access to the world’s media and a range of weapons, they’d get an audience of millions.
58. A -7 actually.
55. I think the Labour Party could do a lot worse than Alan Johnson (G. Brown for s start) Johnson is relaxed, affable, reliable and perhaps most importantly easy to communicate with. Is he perfect? No. He’s still pretty dull next to David Cameron and I qoule guess a lot of people in the country would have no idea who he was, but he would at least compete with the Tories and I think Labour voters would be much more likely to turn out for him than the miserable, dour, usless Brown.
57 - Nick, correct me if I’m wrong but I never saw Gwyneth fight anything other than highely principled campaigns in C&N, based on policies and not cheap minded stunts like I alluded to. And I should know given I spent my first 10 years of life in Haslington, and then the next 8 in Newcastle-under-Lyme with my parents still living in Keele.
@57:
And yet, Mr Palmer… And yet you’re happy to speak for Gwyneth by implying that she’d be happy with Gordon’s C&N tactics.
Tasteful.
@61:
Alan Johnson comes across as too much of a bitch, frankly.
64. Really? I don’t get that about him at all. I think he seems a throughly nice, decent, pleasent chap in the same way John Major was.
55 I think Johnson’s playing it well. He’s an affable chap and a good choice for the party to put on the show tonight. He comes accross as ‘one of the audience’ who’s got to the top. Health’s not a bad job.
John Pienaar was speculating on Five Live today that if C&N is bad for Labour, then Brown will react with a snap reshuffle. But I can’t see him moving Milliband, Smith or Darling, so am not sure what he has in mind.
55. GIN. Agreed he would be much better.
54. Nick, while it’s true many of us Obama supporters don’t like Clinton you’ve left off two words: “any more” - and that comes from the disgusting way she and her husband have campaigned.
Pretty much any candidate who could be considered as a Vice President brings something to a ticket. The question is: does she bring the most? The answer is surely that she does not.
Clinton has a problem because I don’t think she wants to be VP; reports say she doesn’t want to return to the Senate because of the little support she’s received from fellow senators (this is absurd, in my view, but whatever); and she doesn’t want to be Governor of New York, a post she’d win in a landslide.
She needs to take some time between the end of the primaries and the Convention and work out what she does want.
Incidentally, I think Obama should go further than naming a VP; he should name Edwards as his Attorney General; and if she wants it, Clinton as his Secretary of State or Secretary of Health; there’s no reason why he should only name his running mate.
This would broaden his options immensely as it rewards supporters of candidates who aren’t going to be VP; in many ways more significantly as, unless the President’s likely to die in office, I’d much rather be in the cabinet than chairing the Senate!
39. What’s going wrong wuth the Tory campaign, then?
68. The best person he could name in a cabinet is Richardson - would help him a lot with Hispanics.
Levy on This Week.
Alan Johnson has sparkle. He’s in the hunt.
69. They haven’t spent 3 billion on it.
62/63: I’ve not implied anything about her views - I knew her personally but wouldn’t pretend to know what she’d think about a particular tactic. But I’m entirely sure that she’d be derisive about your speaking for her, and quite cheesed off that you were doing it against her daughter. Why don’t you just speak for yourself?
68: yes, that’s a good plan, I think, Adam. Snag is that Cabinet members are sackable so Obama could dump her shortly after winning, but in practice it’s unlikely.
57 Who do you speak for Nick?
68 - No guarentee for Clinton with NY Governor, especially if Guiliani or Bloomberg were to run. I don’t see her accepting a Cabinet position. The US Cabinet is completely subservient to the President and has to follow their policy.
As I’ve said Obama would be foolish to let personal considerations get in the way. The huge advantage of her as VP is that it immediately unites the Democrats. Ultimately people don’t vote for a VP, but it would make things a lot easier for Obama, allowing him to spend more time wooing independents. People have also talked about the Bill negatives. If Hillary is the VP candidate he will stump among the white working class for Obama.
There are negatives with Hillary but they are not huge. The biggest reason to not go for her would be fear of what governing would be like.
Socrates - What effect, if any, do you think the House GOP losses will have on the Presidential race. Some articles I’ve been reading suggest McCain will try to distance himself from Congressional Republicans. Will this insulate him from some of the damge or will it damage him with the base, and in terms of GOTV?
This is beginning to look like the final scenes of ‘Fatal Attraction’ where the ‘Bunnyboiler’ played by Glenn Close [sorry, don't remember her name] cannot be stopped….
**
C4 look back at an earlier incarnation of Cameron:
http://tinyurl.com/62zrha
74.The Labour campaign is a disgrace. Only someone who has sold their integrity or lost their spine can defend it. I guess 62 and 63 were impling Dunwoody senior had done neither.
She may have defended her daughter out of family loyalty [we won't ever know]. What’s your excuse?
Quite frankly I am sick of the Labour party bringing out the ‘how dare you’ about Gwyneth when it suits them.
SHE DID NOT CONDUCT CAMPAIGNS LIKE THIS.
Her daughter is. It is being condemned from many sides.
It stinks. So does your support of it.
If you can’t either see the problem or admit it I pity you [whether you want me to or not].
76: Broxtowe.
Alan Johnson’s performance on QT just shows how Labour have become the Stupid Party now. They had someone normal, likeable and appealing to voters like him, and yet they annointed a loser like Gordo.
81: I don’t mind you criticising the campaign - I’ve not expressed an opinion about it either way. But you shouldn’t claim to speak for Gwynneth.
81 hear, hear.
We are watching the death throes of a party. Labour knows it. They feel they have nothing to lose.
However, it is like a snakebite, the more they thrash about, the faster the poison pumps through their veins.
We neednt get angry with Labour. Soon, they shall bother us no more.
82 Pity you dont speak for the people of Broxtowe.
Well, you will have to face the people’s reckoning at the next election.
If you had remembered to represent the people, you would fare better.
84 - OK, so what is your opinion? Actually, I rather hope you don’t answer that question: your silence will likely be far more significant bearing in mind your pbc rule.
77. It doesn’t unite the Democrats - or at least it would only be the facade of unity. If Gordon Brown’s Deputy Leader was John McDonnell, Labour wouldn’t be united. It would be sham unity, and utterly counter to the message Obama has run on: a different style of politics. A unity of such a type would show Obama as weak, weak, weak.
And I’m sorry Kieran but: “there are negatives with Hillary but they are not huge”?!!! Are you serious? She’s the most divisive, polarising Democrat in existence. She is hated - literally hated - by large swathes of fly-over America. If that’s not a major negative I don’t know what is.
You may say fly-over America isn’t going to vote Democrat and we’re back into exactly the same disagreement about the state of US politics: the Clinton view that America is intractably polarised or the Obama view that the map can be completely re-coloured.
Only those who simply do not get how or why she hasn’t won the nomination; don’t get why Obama is inspiring never-before-voteds and independents to vote Democrat advocate Clinton on the ticket. And that’s the reason why she absolutely cannot be on the ticket.
I thought the Postie was a shoo-in for the deputy leadership last year and backed him heavily accordingly. I also had a saver on Hillary Benn should the party go all cerebral. I had not a penny piece on any of the other candidates. Net result - loss of around £230, far and away my worst outcome of the year and I never saw it coming, least of all in the shape of Harperson.
If he couldn’t cut it for that meaningless role (meaningless that is, apart from the huge coverage incl QT and Newsnight, etc Specials inexplicably given over by the Beeb), just what chance does he have in going for the big job. IMO he’s just too old - Labour will be looking for someone aged 45 years max, especially if they face the prospect of between 4-8 years in opposition.
84. There is only person who claims to speak for Gwyneth and that is her daughter when she claimed to be a ‘chip off the old block’ [and the Labour Party who chose her for that very assosciation].
Then she went on to produce leaflets LabourHome say are reminiscent of the BNP.
We are not saying we speak for Gwyneth. I think we are rebutting the attempts by others to suggest they do. We are attempting to separate her from that over which she has had control and that could bring her name into disrepute by assosciation.
Its a shame it is left to us and not those who knew her.
55: ‘But I also sense [Johnson] has one eye on the prize?’
Well, it’s now blindingly obvious to me that Brown is finished, kaput. Whether we’ll get the obsequies in a few weeks time after a disastrous Labour showing in Crewe (as I suspect) or whether things will drag on till the Autumn is academic.
My only interests now are:
i) Who will be the next Labour leader? (Please let it be Frank Field - I stand to make a packet if that outsider comes in!)
ii) What spin will Labour put on throwing Brown to the wolves? It will obviously be along the lines of ‘Gordon was a great Chancellor but ____________________.’ However, try as I might I’m unable to fill in the blanks. I can’t even think of something Hazel Blears would have the cheek to utter. Any ideas folks?
90 should read , over which she has NO control.
The Times: “Eleven shadow ministers benefited from donors’ ’secret’ cash”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3941867.ece
I think its a bit rich how some of the Tories on this site are complaining about Labour’s C&N tactics when day upon day they heap incessant abuse or personal attacks on Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and other posters on the site who have different political views or opinions to them.
Adam, don’t forget when Nick comes across to leafy Putney to help you out, we’ll have a pint of Youngs (sort of) at The Green Man, plus anyone else interested (MTF?).
I have to say that after 3 years in the job, I’m not too impressed with our new MP - she doesn’t smile much does she and takes everything sooo seriously.
Andrew Neil says it would be bad news ‘if, after all of this, he still looses’.
This is the story that will run if he does lose.
Labour have ‘upt the anti’.
96 refers to C&N.
91 Is this PB’s answer to HIGNFY? I suggest: “now wishes to spend more time with his family”
94. And other posters critisise Tories. We ALL have a go at each other.
We are talking about the tactics of the BNP.
Do you not see a difference?
How sad.
96 it would be bad news ‘if, after all of this, he still looses’
Er, well yes - isn’t that yesterday’s glimpse of the blindingly obvious?
95. And the polo-necks, Peter, the polo-necks! It’s a crime against Putney!
Equally obvious, however, is the fact that it would be very bad news for the Tories should they lose, especially after the entire shadoe front bench, Dave included, have each made several trips to C&N.
That sounds like a very civilised idea, PfP - a mini-pbc convention. Let me know if there’s a by-election, Adam, then I’ll come over and PfP can lure us off the trail for a drink.
On This Week both Levy and Abbott tacitly acknowledge Brown’s shortcomings as PM but their defence against him being replaced is that there is no one available that is better!
On PB.com that is a valid argument. But for a leading Labour dignaTORY and a Labour MP to make that point is strikingly sad for Labour’s prospects and also wrong in my view.
101 I knew there was something - that’s it, exactly!
103. We’ve got a Tory councillor in Roehampton who disappeared to Bournemouth just after he got elected - so the very best I fear I’ll able to do for you is a council by-election (and that I highly doubt - with a majority of 52 on Wandsworth Council they can afford to carry absentees), so I’ll have to come up with another ruse to tempt you to Putney, Nick…
88 - Give me poling evidence on this exraordinary Clinton hatred. Before Rasmussen stopped polling her Clinton had unfavourables at 52/53% compared to 48/49% for Obama. The GOP machine will throw lots of muck at Obama between now and November and have lots of material. Wright, Rezko and bittergate for a start. He wil be hated by the people that hate Clinton now. The Conventional Wisdom on this is completely overblown IMO.
The Brown / McDonnell analogy doesn’t work. They have big ideological differences. Clinton and Obama largely agree on policy, their differences are in terms of personality. Second there is a long history of balance between President and VP. Take Bush Snr. and Reagon, very different personalities on the same ticket.
Clinton wouldn’t detonate his change or unity messages. What could represent change more visually than a ticket with a Black man and White woman? Also, it would show a capacity to reach out and work with opponents. So far he has only talked about doing that. But you’re overplaying the importance of the VP. In terms of message they would subordinate themselves to the nominee.
Finally, you don’t get the passion for Hillary among millions of voters. In terms of popular vote it is something like 17m - 16.5m. Why did Obama win? He inspired people and brought out millions of new voters. But how did Hillary compete with him for so long? By doing exactly the same thing. Think about the thousands who donated after OH and PA despite Hillary being up against the wall. Millions of people will be disappointed when she loses. Obama can probably win those people over, but Hillary as VP would make the healing process quicker and harness the enthusiasm.
Of course independents are important, but as Bush showed in 2004 the Bas matters more. Polling shows Democrats now considerably outnumber Republicans. Their positive entusiasm will outweigh GOP hatred. Plus uniting the base would free Obama to spend more time wooing independents.
Don’t get me wrong Oabama can still win without Hillary, but it would be easier and safer with her.
105. Well, if she graduates to turtle-necks, we really will have to take action!
103 Nick - it’s a deal.
55.stjohn, I read somewhere last week that there was a strategy to push Alan Johnson into the media spotlight in some sort of Deputy PM role because he is more affable and able media performer, acting as a sort of outrider to Brown?
I was just thinking tonight as I watched QT that he had increased his media role this week and I thought it indicated some substance in that story.
106 Don’t be too hard on the absent Councillor, Adam. Be honest, if you lived in parts of Roehampton, Bournemouth must seem a very appealing alternative. I appreciate that in your position you couldn’t possibly respond to that comment!
107 - Clinton made it impossible for her to be on the ticket because she positioned herself in such opposition to Obama and as a representative of the status quo. It was the chance she took but she lost.
Having someone with contrasting negatives is also a poor choice, someone with similar negatives does not lose you voters, someone with different negatives loses you voters. Those who say they would not vote for Obama added to those who wouldn’t do so for Clinton is a sizeable number, some would change their minds but it’s too big a problem to take a risk with.
Frankly, she is far too risky a choice.
110. Wouldn’t surprise me. He’s basically the human face of Labour right now. Ther are very, very few characters left in the government that you can really relate to, Alan Johnson is in a tiny minority.
I’m not saying he’s perfect by any means, and I think next to Cameron his shortcomings would be obvious, but he’s human, approachable, seems affable and pleasent enough. He doesn’t inspire, but he would get Labours core vote out and ensure a dignified defeat at the general election and probably ensure the Labour Party has a good chance to win the following election if Cameron makes a mess of things. Surely thats got to be better for Labour than blundering on with Brown and quite possibly seeing the Tories voted in on an 80+ landslide?
112 - Clinton did not position herself as a representative of the status quo, maybe the status quo ante, but not the status quo.
Her policy platform was about significant change from the Bush years and she styled herself as a fighter. Her method of achieving change was different but to say she wasn’t for change is disingenuous. Her problem was she focused too much on inevitability and experience early on.
The Democrats who supported Clinton and who are saying they wouldn’t support Obama are more likely to vote for him if she is on the ticket. It would also mean Obama would have to spend less time reaching out to those voters. Lets not forget she has energised new voters as well. Take her fundraising it blows McCain and most historical records out of the water. Just happens that Obama has done even better.
107. On polling it’s not just the headline figures (I’m also not a Rasmussen fan); it’s also the solidity of those figures. Hillary’s unfavourables run deep and have been founded over a long time. I also note her unfavourables represent a majority of the country; hardly impressive. As I say: the most polarising, divisive Democrat in America.
I think you’d struggle to construct an argument that Obama’s negatives are similarly solid and immovable; and more to the point - how responsible is Clinton for dragging those unfavourables up by the way she has campaigned; utterly disgracefully.
On the change message, sorry but I just don’t buy tokenism. Obama doesn’t represent change because he’s black: he represents change because he’s different. Clinton isn’t change because she’s a woman - she isn’t change because she doesn’t get why change is needed, other than through the drab partisan blinders that see it only as Democrat vs Republican.
A counter argument to that, which I don’t subscribe to but is at least valid, is that you can have too much change: that a black candidate is change enough and what’s needed is something that white men (48% of the electorate, after all) can comfortably vote for.
We just can’t afford this “base matters more” polarity - it’s poisonous and the Republicans are better at it. The Clinton argument about the electoral map only works assuming the status quo - turnout of what: 50-55%, at best? What if turnout’s 60%? What if it’s 65%? Or 70%? Does the base matter more then?
No. The base becomes secondary - and that’s absolutely essential to enable a President realign the country. The US need a landslide mandate after too long of divisive knife-edge results. Clinton stops the Democrats getting there.
113 He’s also surprisingly bright. I say “surprisingly” only in the context that he had, I believe, a pretty basic education, but you don’t get to head up a major union unless you’ve got it upstairs.
94.”I think its a bit rich how some of the Tories on this site are complaining about Labour’s C&N tactics when day upon day they heap incessant abuse or personal attacks on Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and other posters on the site who have different political views or opinions to them.”
You are having a laugh with that comment aren’t you, because I can’t believe that a poster is no longer allowed to criticise an election campaign strategy because Tory posters on this site are nasty to the other parties?
You don’t believe that a particular strategy in by election campaigns might not have a bearing on the result for that party good or bad?
From where I am sitting its beginning to grate that Nick Clegg opens up every first question to Gordon Brown with a pop at the Conservatives. Its almost like he goes into the chamber every week muttering I must remember to slag off the Tories first before I criticise or question the party in government…..Grown up politics it ain’t!
44. Good work that man.
116. Basically he’d be John Major (90-92) but without the surprise win. I think theres a very good chance Labour would poll above 30-33% with him, where as with Brown, I think Labour are looking at polling several points under 30% in the general election, quite honestly.
118 LOL, thanks Henry! I’m beginning to appreciate the fact there are only two rather three outcomes - pretty obvious, I admit.
I also like the concept that rankings and form really come to the fore, unlike some, especially team sports, where although there can be an outstanding favourite, it’s quite possible for example for one side to get lucky, against the run of play with a late goal/penalty say in the case of football. In cricket, even the weather can wreck an otherwise certain looking bet.
115 - Obama’s unfavourables are not as grounded as Clinton’s but I think you are naive to think that this will not be the case by November. The GOP have plenty of materials to scare their base with, as well as some independents.
Blaming Clinton attacks for Obama negatives is ludicrous. The main reason for them is bittergate and Rev. Wright. Neither were attacks from Clinton. The Clinton campaign has not been dirty by American standards and has benefitted Obama. Better to get the baggage out of the way now, it will be old news by Nov and Obama has found ways of dealing with these attacks.
Substantively Clinton offers change. Universal healthcare is a pretty big change.
Adam - you’re an election agent. You know that winning ultimately is about 50%+1. Of course it would be great for Obama to win in a landslide, but a Democrat hasn’t won a majority of the vote for a generation. It is a safer stategy to shore up your base, giving you solid foundations to build from. I’m not talking about the electoral map but states everywhere. I’m not saying neglect independents but that these people will be attracted by the top of the ticket more than the VP.
Betting the house on independents is a needlessly risky strategy. The Democratic base is far bigger than the Republican base, certainly compared to 2004. If they are united they will win. If Obama is able to win a landslide he will do it with or without Clinton. If not then having a candidate that will rally the base could be the difference between victory and defeat.
Oh, I dunno, Adam, a council by-election sounds a good enough excuse to xcome and meet you and PfP. I didn’t mean you had to shoot the MP to get me to come!
111. Peter, that’s outrageous - and I’ll happily respond!
First off, I used to live in Roehampton High Street, though I appreciate you said “parts of”, by which I presume you mean the Alton, rather than the Village. I also went to Elliott School a rather long time ago and plenty of my friends came from the Alton.
Have you actually ever been there? I mean: not just driven past it with your nose in the air, but actually walked through it? I know Tories usually have to be dragged there kicking and screaming, and when they do we get hysterical (and own-goal-scoring) absurdity like this:
http://www.stuartking.net/blog/2008/03/in-their-own-words-conservative-neglect.htm
But in reality, yes the Alton has problems but we’re actually talking about a rather well-designed estate with fantastic views across Richmond Park; huge expanses of green space; a variety of different sized homes catering for students through young families to sheltered accommodation; just about the only vaguely affordable homes in Putney; an increasingly diverse community and a crime rate BELOW the London average.
I know you were being jovially flippant about the absentee Tory councillor, but if I may break with the humour for one second, isn’t there is a serious point here: even if you and Cllr Allen (above link) are right about the Alton (after 30 years of Tory responsibility for it) doesn’t such a place need committed councillors, not one dragged back from the seaside every six months to claim his £9.5k allowance and avoid a by-election?
110. ChrisD. Well I would have thought that a sensible strategy.
One of Mike’s most recent articles argued that the less we see of Brown the better for Brown and the better for Labour. Sadly, I think this is right. What has also been the case for some time is that we have had a dearth of serious Labour front bench ministers presenting their case. Mike has also made this case repeatedly.
My take on it is that things are now so desperate that Gordon has finally let slip the dogs of war and we are now seeing those same hounds scent blood and hunt accordingly.
78. Not much difference. McCain was already aware he has to distance himself from Bush in the public eye, at the same time as cosying up to them to get badly needed funds. He will carry on the same policy.
107. It’s hard to show it from polling evidence, but if you just talk to people about Clinton you can see how hackles are immediately raised, even among politically apathetic independents, many of them women. Clinton would energise far more people against the Democrats than for them.
Nick Palmer: Gwynneth Dunwoody good at snorts. Well, and so are sows. Personally, I always found her a strongly opinionated windbag. She knew lots of things, but, unfortunately, most of what she knew was wrong.
124.I agree that its a sound strategy for the government at the moment. Alan Johnson really is very easy on the eye and the ear and his relaxed persona also shows of a genuinely nice guy. And I say that as a female Tory!
“You know that winning ultimately is about 50%+1.”
But governing isn’t and with it you end up with the Bush/Cheney way of doing so. America needs better (and so does Britain where even 35% will do).
Obama is the new energy, he is in the heart.
Clinton is the old energy, nastiness politics personified.
The idea is filling more than a few column inches right now and keeping the pundits chattering. But can we get real about this, please, Mike? It aint ever gonna happen!
127.Apologies for the mistakes, I type too fast and have a touch of dyslexia that even the spell check does not hide on here sometimes.
121. Clinton only began being about “change” when Obama had so much success on that theme. The beginning of her campaign was about experience and inevitability. She was always running on a return to the Clinton years of the 90s. It’s a completely different agenda to Obama’s change, which involves taking the dirty attacks out of politics and reducing interest group money and lobbying influence.
126 - Unnecessary
125 - Another quick one. Could the MS defeat be good for the GOP in the end by being a wake-up call? Or is it likely to lead to more dis-integration.
Hillary clearly has negatives but I very much believe that positive enthusiasm beats negative hatred. In 2004 the Democrats hated Bush, but he had the GOP base who adored him. The key uestion, and the best argument against her, is that of message. Message is the most vital thing. Obama’s is very powerful and Clinton may dilute it, but I think a) what a VP can/ cannot do is over-rated and b) the dynamic changes as soon as the ticket is formed in terms of how Hillary would campaign.
131 - But the GE is still 6 months away. Hillary has been running on a different message for the last 4. Remember Bush called Reagan’s economic plan ‘voodoo economics’ before joining the ticket.
128 - If in going for a landslide you put the election at risk and you get 48 or 49% and the GOP win again, you’re not going to get any change whatsoever.
122. All options are on the table, Nick. As I say, a few of us may snap if she brings out the turtle-necks!
121. Kieran, there’s the difference between the mechanics of an election (and I’m someone who won my own election by 22 votes in 1994, which is 22 times more than I needed!) and the poetry of an election. Let me turn it around: what’s better for a country: winning the way Bush did, or the way Reagan or Johnson did?
We can always cite precedent, can’t we? Precedent would have said, last year, that the money and organisation Clinton had amassed would win her the nomination. It didn’t. Precedent would have said that America wasn’t ready for a black President. It seems to me to be.
And the very point you make Kieran - that America hasn’t given a Democrat for a generation: not since Vietnam, in fact - is the critical difference between us isn’t it? I see Obama as able to draw a line over that fracture. You see Clinton as able to manouvre within that fracture. I suspect she can, but in so doing, she caps her party’s ability to achieve.
120. The fact that there are only two potential outcomes is very important. The more outcomes to a bet the bigger the slice the bookies take out of a market - I guess that’s why they love the gee gees.
McCain says “by January 2013, Iraq will be a functioning democracy.”
I just like how specific that is!
On the topic, I maintain Hillary is still after the more important job of Senate majority leader. VP is such a pointless non-job unless the President decides to give you power, and Obama won’t do it for Clinton.
134. Sorry, last para should have read hasn’t given a Democrat a majority for a generation.
136. Agree. I appreciate that it’s a little humiliating for her to have been in the Senate as long as she has and to end up with so few presidential supporters there (especially compared to a new arrival like Obama), but it’d be wrong to take that as a sign they wouldn’t want her to be their leader. After being stuck with Harry Reid, just about anyone else would be an improvement.
134 - You may be proved right and I hope you are. It would be great for America and the world if Obama wins in a landslide. However there is a little pragmatic, even cynical, voice at the back of my head questioning it. How about a West Wing analogy. The Vinnick campaign was a great idea - 50-state strategy, don’t slice and dice the country. But in the end it meant he lost.
Maybe it is worth the risk of defeat for the potential success. The argument for Hillary is based on reducing the level of risk and increasing the chance of victory. And lets not forget she does just as well as him in national polls at the moment. You also seem to gloss over the fact that she has energised millions in this process. Are they to be left out in this brave new world?
A landslide is always better than a narrow win, but a narrow win is better than a defeat in my book.
123 Adam - I totally agree with your final para and i’m surprised there isn’t an established mechanism, requiring the absentee Councillor to fulfil his responsibilities or be forced to quit.
Your penultimate para actually sounds like something of a tribute to Wandsworth who, despite the enormous size of the Alton estate do seem to keep it in good nick.
Of course, where you used to live in Roehampton High Street is the posh part - I cut up there on my way to the aforementioned Green Man and on my trips to Majestic Wine.
Do you agree with me that every newly elected (Tory) Councillor in the country should be made to spend a week at Wandsworth Town Hall to discover just how it’s all done at a fair cost to the taxpayer?
136 - I think her designs on majority leader are overplayed. Apart from Lyndon Johnson none have been particularly powerful. The Senate is so collegial that the Majority Leader is not a powerful figure. With our Parliamentary system that is difficult to understand.
OREGON PRIMARY
Very interesting to see an ad on PB for Oregon Democratic US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley. Who is running against fellow Democrat Steve Novick for the nomination, to oppose incubent Republican Sen. Gordon Smith.
As of May 14, 25% of all registered OR voters had returned their ballots to election officials.
Back in 2004, when final OR primary turnout was 46%, the return rate for the equivilent day was 20%. So would appear that the Beaver State is on track for final turnout on March 20 of 50% or slightly above.
132. Could be a bit of a wake-up call but not many Republicans seem to be hearing it. There’s always the chance that the increased desperation could just more nasty attacks, which, I believe will work against them this year.
As for the Hillary issue, you’re seeing 2004 in terms of the two bases. Bush won because national security-minded independents sided with a President at war. This time they will probably go with the Democrats because of the mess in Iraq and the economy, and because of a pledge of bipartisaness - Clinton could muck that all up. Your 51% idea is also flawed. An effective President needs a good majority - especially crucial because of the now common use of filibusters. The Democratic ticket wants to appeal to as many places as possible to pick up congressional seats.
Most crucially though, Obama will want someone who he can work with. A second independent power base in the Whitehouse, especially one with a long planned agenda, is something any President would want to avoid.
135 ………. and Vice Presidential fields even more, where the punters don’t even know the “runners and riders”.
143 Socrates
For all the sophistry above and in the articles on RCP, you hit the nail squarely on the head. Obama will want someone he can work with.
In all honesty, can anybody see him working with Hillary in the White House?
145 No!! But he’d sure as hell like to put this contest to rest.
143 - I’m not saying the aim is 51% but that 51% should be the minimum.
At the moment 20% of Democrats won’t vote for Obama. Yes some will come over once he is the nominee. But they will come over quicker if Clinton is the VP and that will free up Obama to appeal to Independents rather than stump in Michigan and Ohio. As the election goes on, if it is close, Obama will be forced back to the 2004 map. The other thing to consider is enthusiasm. If the millions of people Hillary enthused stay on the sidelines Obama is losing a lot of potential energy. And as I say Clinton is doing as well as Obama in national polls so is not ‘unelectable’. The Democrats could easily win 56 Senate seats and have a House majority of 50 even with a narrown Presdential win.
Your last point is telling though. Ultimately I don’t think she will get it because Obama will gamble that he can do it without her. Also, I’m not denying her negatives, but feel her positives need to be highlighted.
146. Barack is too prudent to but short-term anxiety before long-term strategy.
148 - Well lets hope it pays off then.
147. I think you’re putting too much faith in polls which only show people’s preference, not how strongly that preference exists. Clinton is electable but if she was the nominee I’d put it at 50-50, where I give Obama a 60% chance plus.
146 The contest is over, PfP. You really think he’s going to saddle himself with Hillary as VP just to complete the formalities a little earlir?
O/T but sort of on topic. I made this point yesterday but I am surprised the markets have yet to adjust. Obama appears to have a 90%+ chance of being the Democratic nominee. Ladbrokes have him at 1/10. They also have the Democrats to win the GE at 8/15 ie 65%. So for Obama to be POTUS should be 60%, ie 4/6 or less. Ladbrokes have him at 5/6 = 55%. To me he looks value at 5/6 and I have bet accordingly.
It’s interesting how small in percentage terms the differences between 8/15 = 65%, 4/6 = 60% and 5/6 = 55% actually are but in betting terms they are very important. The relative difference must be the key. I will work on this!
140. To me, my penultimate para sounds like a tribute to the residents of the Alton who retain a pride in their estate despite the neglect of their estate by the Tory council!!!
And do I agree that all Tory councillors should spend a week in Wandsworth? Let me frame my answer this way: there are certainly some lessons in efficiency that councils Labour, Lib Dem and Tory could learn from Wandsworth; but don’t fall for the hype everyone: there are unique and non-transferable reasons for Wandsworth doing what it has done.
And of course there’s a downside to it too: notice the complaints about the number of potholed Putney roads; notice the sky-high council rents; notice the poor estate services; notice the poor state of Putney High Street; notice the high number of complaints about street cleaning; notice the closure of Wandsworth Museum and over 20 schools since 1990; notice that care-service responsibilities have almost entirely been dumped on the voluntary sector; notice that Wandsworth’s the fly-tip capital of London…
Most people aren’t council tenants and don’t need care services; don’t send their kids to local schools and will put up with embarrassing town centres and grubby, fly-tipped streets compared to the potential risk of paying higher council tax. But equally, don’t deny these are problems which other boroughs (and I cite Hammersmith & Fulham when it was Labour-run and Kensington & Chelsea as two that do better on all of these measures) do not have to anything like the same extent.
Don’t get me wrong: paying virtually no council tax was very nice indeed, and I can understand why many vote Tory in council elections (though nowhere near as many as to justify the Tories winning 87% of the seats). I’m just saying that there are things Wandsworth gets wrong and which people aren’t happy with - they’re just not unhappy enough with them to vote for change.
Interesting to see what happens if and when a council election coincides with a higher turnout general election though…2010?