The Best Interest of Our Party
There's been a lot of talk this political season about what's "in the best interest of our party" as Democrats. Usually, it's used as a means to try to force Hillary out of the race. Here's my idea of what's in the best interest of our party:
We have two candidates that bring together different coalitions of the electorate. However, we only have one candidate who will be young enough to run again in 8 years.
Since our candidates vary little on policy issues, it would be in the best interest of our party for those two to unite on a joint ticket. Clinton/Obama
Clinton will help us to energize and carry our Democratic base. Obama will help us to energize and carry the youth, swing votes, and even some Republicans. It hasn't been deemed the Dream Ticket for no reason.
For those traditional white middle class voters that Obama seems to have trouble courting, allowing Obama to serve as VP for 8 years will let them become more familiar and trustworthy of him. They won't feel as many Obama supporters have suggested that they "can't take a chance on him" when he has served our country well for those 8 years.
This joint ticket would allow for the potential of 16 years of competent Democratic leadership in the White House. Not only is that in the best interest of our party, but it's in the best interest of our nation.
Clinton/Obama '08 Obama/? '16
We have two candidates that bring together different coalitions of the electorate. However, we only have one candidate who will be young enough to run again in 8 years.
Since our candidates vary little on policy issues, it would be in the best interest of our party for those two to unite on a joint ticket. Clinton/Obama
Clinton will help us to energize and carry our Democratic base. Obama will help us to energize and carry the youth, swing votes, and even some Republicans. It hasn't been deemed the Dream Ticket for no reason.
For those traditional white middle class voters that Obama seems to have trouble courting, allowing Obama to serve as VP for 8 years will let them become more familiar and trustworthy of him. They won't feel as many Obama supporters have suggested that they "can't take a chance on him" when he has served our country well for those 8 years.
This joint ticket would allow for the potential of 16 years of competent Democratic leadership in the White House. Not only is that in the best interest of our party, but it's in the best interest of our nation.
Clinton/Obama '08 Obama/? '16
Advertisement
Just curious why Clinton on the top of the ticket. I could understand if she were ahead, but ...
April 24, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's ahead in electoral votes, he's ahead in pledged delegates.
April 24, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Electoral votes aren't counted in the primary. It's not a measure of anything.
April 24, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an odd statement. They are not counted when distributing pledged delegates, but as Obama can't win with pledged delegates alone, he has urged superdelegates to vote "the will of the people". Clinton will point to the popular vote as the will of the people. After all, we are the country of one person one vote.
April 24, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Electoral votes or superdelegates? I'm confused.
April 24, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I originally wrote electoral vote I mean popular vote. My apologies for the confusion.
April 24, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, well then pardon my comment responding to that.
Since you've amended your comment to:
"She's ahead in the popular vote, he's ahead in pledged delegates."
Actually, it seems to me that Obama is ahead in both.
The only way to put Clinton in the lead is to selectively disenfranchise Michigan - give Clinton her votes from Michigan, but pretend that nobody in Michigan ever would have voted for Obama.
And even that bit of stunning intellectual dishonesty only gets you a very, very slim lead. Hardly a reason to toss aside the rules agreed to at the outset.
April 25, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it possible to determine the popular vote when we have a mix of primaries / caucus states / elections in which voters were told the election will not count?
Seriously.
April 25, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Electoral votes are an argument about electability,* whereas pledged delegates are a closer reflection of the will of the people.** Popular vote is arguably a closer measure to the will of the people, but there are several flaws with it, as well.
*It's not a particularly good argument, since it assumes that the candidate who won that state in the primary will win it in the general, and vice-versa.
**By "people", we mean those who are either registered Democratic (in some states) or those who tend to vote Democratic (in other states). Those that vote Republican are rightfully not included in this term. :)
***One flaw with the popular vote that's not mentioned very often is the tendency of later voters to be swayed by earlier voters. This is the reason (I believe) that states that go later are given a disproportionately larger number of delegates than their size would dictate.
April 24, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I apologize. I typed electoral votes when in my head I meant popular vote.
April 24, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how would said electoral votes be computed?
Don't tell me this is based on the mind-bogglingly obvious fallacy that the candidate who wins a primary will win that state in the general election...
Even based on polls, there is no clear "electable/unelectable" dividing factor here, though it can be argued that Obama has a broader base of support and will put more states on the map.
Fortunately there were rules in place to determine the winner of the Democratic primary contest, so that we don't have to actually sit around coming up with ill-supported metrics that would benefit one candidate or the other. The winner is the one with the most delegates (pledged and super). Period.
Barring an unprecedented collapse of the Obama campaign (one vastly exceeding, say, the impact of Rev. Wright or "Bittergate" media skirmishes), Obama will have an absolute majority of pledged delegates around May 20th. Given current trends, he'll be fairly even or in the lead in the superdelegate count at that point as well.
Will Hillary have the grace to concede at that point? Will she perhaps muster the intellectual dishonesty of arguing that Michigan's delegates should be seated, after implicitly claiming that Obama voters in that state don't count?
Time will tell.
April 25, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except, Hillary Clinton has proven that SHE doesn't have the best interest of the party in mind. She has HER best interests as a priority. We shouldn't reward politicians for that kind of thinking. Ugh.
Brian
April 24, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And there's that point, as well.
April 24, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton had universal name recognition, vast wealth, and an ex-president as her main supporter.
She mis-managed her campaign, squandered millions of dollars, campaigned like a Republican, and you want to hand her the nomination because she's older?
Why didn't she run in 2004. I think she would have had a pretty good shot. She was afraid of losing to the incumbent, Bush. She miscalculated that it would be a cake walk once Bush's 8 years were up.
Pretty poor planning on her part.
April 24, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, because she's older, she should get to be president first? The Clintons don't have a good track record of supporting their VP when he tries to run for the presidency. They also have a history of losing congressional seats for Democrats. If there's going to be a unity ticket, the one who is in second place should become the VP.
April 24, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
*Sigh.* So we're back to "it's her turn?" Sorry, there are no "turns" in democracies. There are elections. Turns are what happen in monarchies and sham democracies.
April 24, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand where you're coming from -- the idea of putting together their two coalitions seems like a surefire hit, right?
My fear is that Obama/Clinton and Clinton/Obama would have several unexpected side-effects:
1. You combine the liabilities of a woman candidate and a black candidate, losing both the misogynists and the racists, i.e. anyone who is "uneasy" about voting for someone who is not a white male, for whatever reason.
2. Part of Obama's appeal is to moderate Republicans and independents who despise the Clintons (my Carolina family in falls into this camp). You definitely lose them when you put Clinton anywhere on the ticket.
3. Obama has virtually no incentive to be a third banana in a Bill & Hillary White House. The fate of Al Gore (losing the big prize after eight years of servitude) is pretty instructive for him, and if denied the top of the ticket I'm pretty sure he'll go back to the Senate to grow older and wiser.
April 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, #2. Especially #2. I know of a couple Republicans who like Obama better than McCain, but might not feel that way if Clinton were on the ticket. My dad will vote for McCain regardless and said he feels tepid about it, but that if Clinton were on the Democratic ticket (as VP), he'd get out and start canvassing, etc. Don't ask me for a rational explanation, but I'm convinced that's how these people sincerely feel.
April 24, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
#1)I would much rather be the party that presents a 21st century ticket at a time when the majority of the country is finally ready for a change, than the party that errs on the side of safety. I believe both are candidates have electability issues, but I refuse to take into account the racists or sexist voters. We are Democrats. We have to believe in the voters.
#3)Al Gore chose to distance himself from the Clinton years during his campaigning, it wasn't the other way around. You and I both know that Bill jumps at every chance to get in the limelight. He lives to campaign. He was much better at it then.
April 24, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, dear Another Reader. You are hardly the first Clinton supporter to make such a pitch. I cannot say that I am any more enthused about the idea now than I was when first it was floated seriously in January.
April 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton. The Ralph Nader of 2008. She can't win, but she's staying in the race anyway regardless of whether it may help the Republicans keep the White House.
April 24, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton, the neo-con? No thanks - I'd like Obama to have a chance before the mushroom cloud explodes.
April 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that if the Democratic party were wise the party leaders would try to finagle to dual ticket with these two candidates to ensure a win.
However, Clinton is currently losing; unless she is able to win in electoral votes come August, it's Obama/Clinton on a dual ticket, not the other way.
Those are the rules and we all play by them.
I wish I were more optimistic about the Democratic party leaders making the wise decision; but they have been making lousy decisions for so long now, I honestly wonder if there's any hope at all left for the Democratic Party.
And to Ms. Facts Are Good. Why should Clinton drop out? She's carrying nearly half the vote. She's a fighter. She doesn't give up on herself or on her supporters. That's a very admirable quality-- unlike Nader, who was a spoiler.
April 24, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton will be a drag on Obama if she is his VP and Obama would be a boost for Clinton as her VP. Clintons supporters know this and that is why they push the Clinton/Obama ticket, Hillary needs Obama, but Obama does not need Clinton. She stands for everything that Obama is against and fighting. She is a political creature, Washington insider and a BIG friend to lobbist.
The best ticket in my view is; Obama/Sebelius
She is warm yet tough enough to run a red State as a two term Governor. Gov. Sebelius is ethical, hard working, self made politician and a moderate.
April 24, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking only for myself, Clinton will not energize me, only induce fatigue. I thought Bill was a decent pres, and an excellent ex-president. The family had their chance, and it's time for someone else.
April 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, a boat anchor would be a better half of a ticket than Clinton.
April 24, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to check in with the Democratic Party leaders about Hillary and "the best interest of the party".
She's a huge liability right now, she can't stay and she can't go. I'll guarantee you that 80% of the Democrats in Washington would give ANYTHING for Hillary to simply move on.
April 24, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is the most ridiculous thing i've read all day.
Obama will be the next president and Hillary won't be on the ticket. The Clintons are done as leaders of the party.
It's time for a new generaton of leadership.
April 24, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and about this:
"However, we only have one candidate who will be young enough to run again in 8 years."
john mccain is 72 and running. In 8 years hillary will only be 68, so she won't be too old to run again. Why doesnt she take the VP spot on your so-called "unity ticket".
And why should the person leading in most votes, most states won, and most delegates won take the second spot?
Thats like saying the team who wins the superbowl is really the second best team and the team who lost is really the best.
Your logic is twisted.
April 24, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The personal leading with most votes should be at the top of the ticket. That person is Hillary.
April 24, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha...that claim makes me laugh everytime i hear because its sooooo false.
its only true if you count florida and michigan and then if you DONT COUNT 13 of the caucus states obama won....
hillary has a problem with fla and michigan being "disenfranchised" but she doesn't have a problem "disenfranchising" 13 other states?
whats up with that?
April 24, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if you include all votes even in the caucus states:
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA
Obama 15,327,917 47.5%
Clinton 15,340,166 47.5%
Clinton +12,249 +0.04%
April 24, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, but that number assumes that number of the uncommitted votes in Michigan were meant for Obama.
Also, even if we assume all of the uncommitteds were meant for Edwards and Kucinich, that 12,000 vote lead will be wiped out by the remaining contests. :)
April 24, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll see. I disagree with that projection.
April 24, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Replace "that number assumes that number" with "that number assumes that none". :P
April 24, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
john mccain is 72 and running. In 8 years hillary will only be 68, so she won't be too old to run again. Why doesnt she take the VP spot on your so-called "unity ticket".
Because we're doing what's in the best interest of the party. Hillary is a stronger candidate now than she will be in 8 years similarly to how McCain was a stronger candidate 8 years ago than now.
Perhaps you missed the McCain is older than dirt campaign...
April 24, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of a number of recent threads proposing a joint ticket, though the others proposed Clinton for VP, the slot she has arguably been running for since it became clear that she cannot win the nomination. As "wayitwas" said on another thread:
Keep in mind that the huge negatives of Clinton and McCain are real, while Obama's are largely creations of the Clinton/McCain spin machines. Clinton's negatives have not been an issue in the Democratic campaign because Obama has been mindful enough of Party unity not to make them an issue. In the general election, we would be awash in Clinton baggage, Clinton staffers, and Clinton negativity, which would suppress Democratic enthusiasm and energize the Republican base.
The sign of relief when Clinton is no longer sharing the center stage of the Democratic will be enormous. Even her current staff and supporters must look forward to the lifting of the heavy burden that defending her record and tactics has become.
Clinton will not be on the ticket. It would be far more productive to discuss real possibilities for Obama's VP (Gore? Webb?)
April 24, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
..that's "sigh of relief" not "sign"
April 24, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It won't be Gore, either. I think he'd be great, but I'm pretty sure that he's stated publicly that he has no interest in being VP again.
April 24, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he's reopened that door a bit, though I can't remember exactly what he said. With his recent successes, he would bring enough to the position that he would elevate its status - it wouldn't be just a repeat performance of his empty role under Clinton. If he were given a meaningful platform and authority for what he wants to accomplish, I'm convinced he would take it.
April 24, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming you're remembering correctly, it makes me wonder if maybe the reason he said it initially is that he had no desire to be VP under a Clinton again.
Now don't go yanking my chain, because Gore as VP would be awesome, but Gore as VP and "given a meaningful platform and authority for what he wants to accomplish" would be… *blinks* … *blinks again* …well there just isn't a word to describe how awesomely awesome that would be.
That said, Gore also has some negatives in red states for reasons I can't begin to understand, although those negatives are no ways near as strong as Clinton's. Also, do you realize just how much it would up the "elite" score to have a Nobel Prize winner on the ticket? If you thought people thought Gore was a little snobby before…
April 24, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: a sigh of relief, I recommend reading the recent post: "People I'm Looking Forward to Not Hearing From Again" By The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve at:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/people-im-looking-forward-to-n.php
We mean it, we don't want to see these people again, not on the campaign trail, not on VP staffs, not as Party spokespeople.
My guess is that people are proposing this joint ticket nonsense as one more divisive tactic to inflame supporters on both sides, but as Nancy Pelosi said, a joint ticket with Obama and Clinton is an impossibility. It won't happen.
April 24, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that people are proposing this joint ticket nonsense as one more divisive tactic to inflame supporters on both sides
As a Clinton supporter, I proposed the joint ticket intending the exact opposite--to unite. Many Clinton supporters have admiration for Obama, but think Clinton is the better candidate.
April 24, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your intentions may be good, but it can only have a divisive effect to suggest that the front runner take second place to the opponent who has used such unsavory tactics against him. There is an array of talent in the Democratic Party who don't have the high negatives and history of divisiveness associated with Clinton. When polls indicate that so many Democrats are distrustful of her, she could only be a burden on the ticket.
April 24, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton will help energise and carry the republican base, too.
April 24, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink