MyDD :: Data regarding VP-HRC

Data regarding VP-HRC

by Blazers Edge, Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:53:41 AM EST

Using up my two-post maximum tonight on the issue of empirical evidence regarding HRC as VP. A couple guys got in a pissing match in another diary about how HRC would impact a ticket. One such poster was particularly "concerned" about "Obamacans." PPP is the only other pollster to conduct VP polls besides SurveyUSA, which frankly produced polling results that should be considered suspect given the thirty-forty point gender gaps that such polls were showing. Here's what I was able to find from some June PPP polling:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/ 2008/06/michigan-impact-of-clinton-on-ti cket.html

So, she's a net plus for Obama in three of the four states polled: Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina. She's a net minus in Michigan, which may explain why her name was booed on the two occasions when Obama received a major endorsement in that state.

What also should be taken into consideration from the three states in which HRC is a net plus is that she was a greater net plus than Strickland in Ohio, Edwards and Easley in NC, and both Webb and Kaine in Virginia. Therefore, she outperformed five prominent dems in their HOME states! Only my main man Mark Warner outperformed her in the state of Virginia.

I'm sure someone will dig into the crosstabs and discover that independents and Republicans are less likely to vote for Obama if she's on the ticket and that most of the people answering in the affirmative to the question of "more likely to vote for Obama when HRC is on the ticket" are dems anyway. Well, I'm of the belief that the preferences of those who took the time to register with this party need to be considered just as much, if not more, than unaffiliated voters who are constantly flip-flopping between parties or even worse, "Obamacans" who believe Ronald Reagan was a great president.

Tags: HRC, VP, empirical data, Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 83 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (none / 0)

All we heard, though, was how Hillary was ahead among Reagan Democrats. Something doesn't add up.

And let me say that doing worse in Michigan is a HUGE, HUGE deal. I dont' think we will win VA or NC. We'll get close, and McCain has to mount serious offense in order to win, but we won't get it. We need Michigan. Lemme put it this way. On FiveThirtyEight.com, it gives Obama a 15.8% chance to win while losing Ohio. But when you also add in losing Michigan, he has a 0.98% chance of victory. That site thinks VA is up for grabs, but sees NC as a lost cause.

John Edwards can probably pull in roughly the same number of rural white voters that Clinton would, and he doesn't lose a bunch of voters anywhere.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:08:21 AM EST

Your last sentence is (2.00 / 2)

unsupported, unless you actually consider those SurveyUSA polls with thirty-forty point gender disparities valid. This data shows that HRC was a greater net plus than Edwards in his own home state of NC. Let me ask, if HRC outperformed John Edwards in North Carolina as VP choice, where can Edwards outperform HRC? Perhaps Michigan but I haven't seen any data to show that Edwards is a net plus in that state; he could very well be a net minus like HRC in MI and Obama already has a commanding lead anyway in MI.

Edwards couldn't win white voters (except in SC) against a black guy and woman; so, he'll somehow get white voters as VP against a ticket with a white military veteran?

by Blazers Edge on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:17:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your last sentence is (none / 0)

Gender disparities? This would be the first mention I'd seen of it, do you have a link?

And those polls ARE where I get my info from, but if there's gender issues there, then I'd have to think again. But you mentioned SC as a state where Edwards got a decent number of votes, NC came much later when he was out of the race, so we don't know how he would have done there. But he suffered from a number of problems, most notably a lack of funds. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that if Obama is hoping to attract white rural voters, Edwards will fit the bill. Just another few points in NC among white voters could send Obama over the top.

Look, what I'm saying is that Edwards does pretty well with white rural voters, it's just that he pretty much ONLY does well with that group. But if that's what we need, he'd deliver.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:38:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (none / 0)

Obama and Hillary are going to win MI. It won't be close. Edwards is a lightweight compared to Hillary. I like him but he's not in the same league. He had his chance at VP and couldn't win his home state.

I expect Hillary to be on the ticket. She brings buzz, money and obvious experience. The free media coverage alone makes it a wise choice.

by mmorang on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:36:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 3)

Hillary is key to Obama's chances because the story of PUMA etc dies if she is on the ticket.

If Obama is ahead of McCain all the press coverage will be whats wrong with Obama and it will become a is Obama good enough election. IE if Obama is good enough he wins if not McCain wins and the election is totally all about Obama and not at all about McCain.

The protests by Democrats will then be front and center in the narrative.

Only Hillary as VP totally totally makes that go away.

Obama will either win a MASSIVE victory or he will lose by a LOT. There isn't likely to be a middle ground because Obama is SOOOOOOOO much more charismatic than McCain that he will win unless the press and popular opinion decide he is unfit.

As such Hillary can remove a negative narrative that no other democrat can.

by dtaylor2 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:33:40 AM EST

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 5)

PUMA is not even a story except on a few blogs, where they are mostly ridiculed when not ignored. They are irrelevant. Democrats are already behind their nominee.

This has been a public service announcement for the benefit of the willfully obtuse.

Know Your Rights!

by BobzCat on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:55:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 1)

The news story will read like this.

"There was a protest by democrats against Obama. blah blah blah"

Its unexpected enough to get as much media attention as the media CHOOSES to give it.

Largely hasn't started because Media who hates Obama are waiting and also because the parts of PUMA who are damaging to Obama IE real democrats who love Hillary are still waiting to see if she gets VP and a total she was not at all racist image makeover from Obama.

If that happens most of us come home and the ones that don't are more polarized and hence less democratic party and thus far less newsworthy.

by dtaylor2 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:16:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Secret Media (2.00 / 1)

Largely hasn't started because Media who hates Obama are waiting...

Wait a second, you have me totally confused!

Do you mean the media that we've constantly heard is "in the tank" for Obama secretly hate him? Or do mean the lovey-dovey friendly types like Kristal, Krauthammer, & the friends at Fox? 'Cause it seems like Fox, at least, has already dipped their little pinky into the pounding puma pool of heartache.

Is there some guide that tells us which weeks the media are in Obama's pocket, and which weeks they're not?

Hmmm... you use the word "hates" instead of hate, so maybe you're talking about some singular entity...

And I also lost myself in this line:

Its unexpected enough to get as much media attention as the media CHOOSES to give it.

I really cannot figure out what that line means.

A drink whenever Palin makes a Well-argued, Semantically Intact, Logical and Lucid Argument -- or WASILLA for short.

by January 20 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:49:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (none / 0)

And since many of them have stated that they will not vote for Obama even with Hillary on the ticket, those crazy cats have taken themselves out of the equation.

A drink whenever Palin makes a Well-argued, Semantically Intact, Logical and Lucid Argument -- or WASILLA for short.

by January 20 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:34:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (none / 0)

which of course explains why 3 out 4 diaries (it feels like anyway) on the rec list are always about how weepy PUMA is making the diarist.

by zerosumgame on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:11:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 1)

Totally agree. I have yet to find any real person who does not go to these blogs who has even heard of PUMA, let alone knows what it is. PUMAs are a few hundred people (at best) who have gone off the deep end and are using their rage and bitterness to get attention. To that I say "Meh."

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:33:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama faces problems with women voters (1.00 / 1)

The stumbles and mistakes his campaign made with women voters is a major problem for him, both in votes and funding.

Pretending it doesn't exist or demonizing women voters won't make the problem go away. Its a major weakness for his campaign that needs to be addressed.

by Betsy McCall on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:12:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Demonizing women? (2.00 / 2)

What world are you living in?

John McCain, maverick

by lojasmo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:31:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The reality based world (2.00 / 1)

the one where Dems want their candidate to win.

Obama is barely ahead of McCain in the polls and needs support of women voters to win.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Dems have lost the last two presidential elections, in part because they failed to capitalize on keeping women voters in the Democratic party fold.

Obama's vicious attacks on Dem women during the primary has resulted in even greater losses of women voters. While its interesting that Obama's campaign is now trying to develop a new strategy for winning the election without regaining support of women voters, its a big risk, one he doesn't have to take.

Is it just male ego that makes it so hard for Obama and his campaign to reach out to women voters or is it his inexperience?

by Betsy McCall on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:42:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please demonstrate (none / 0)

ONE attack BY Obama against ANY woman (regular campaigning against Clinton aside)

Oh. Thanks for the driveby TR in the other thread. You may want to add some substantive material once in a while.

BTW, Obama is ahead in statewide polling in all the blue states, and is polling well in various reddish purple states.

The only demographic he's losing is old whites and white males.

John McCain, maverick

by lojasmo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:52:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is where these threads end (2.00 / 1)

the crazed never back up their claims.

by JJE on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is where these threads end (2.00 / 1)

I supposed as much.

John McCain, maverick

by lojasmo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Proof of Obama's problems is in the polls (none / 0)

A recent Rasmussen recently surveyed voters and found 30% of voters could change their mind, and 56% of those are women. Women voters seem to have an "approach-avoidance" problem with Obama. They want to support him, but his campaign turns them off.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/30_of_voters_could_change_ their_mind_between_now_and_election_day_ 56_are_women

Here are some clues:

1. Women voters are as active as male voters in using the internet and its political forums to make decisions about presidential candidates

2. Women voters have been attacked and excoriated by Obama supporters on the internet from the beginning of his campaign until the present. I'm not sure how much of this is Obama supporters and how much is the result of GOP skullduggery, but its been very effective in driving many women away from supporting Obama.

3. The only Dem candidate in recent years to attract women voters coincidentally happens to be the only one who has won. Argue all you want, but the Dem candidate who wins is the one who can attract at least 60 - 70% of women voters, not a difficult task if a real effort is made to engage them. Dem candidates who lost

4. Obama's campaign continues to sell women voters short, focusing only on abortion and reproduction issues which represent a small fraction of issues important to women. Young women voters already support Obama, his problem is in reaching out to older, educated, professional and working women who have a much better grasp of women's issues.

Statistics on who women voters support is hard to come by in recent opinion polls, I'm not sure why. But the problem is there. His campaign and supporters need to decide if they're going to follow the example of Bill Clinton or Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

It seems a no-brainer, but they're still struggling.

by Betsy McCall on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:06:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Before I even click the link.... (2.00 / 1)

I predict that this Rasmussen poll has Obama up by 5% in the female demographic.

That's more than twice the spread than that which Gore or Kerry won in the previous two election cycles.

Okay...here I go.

John McCain, maverick

by lojasmo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:39:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Aww. Only 3% (2.00 / 1)

Oh well.

John McCain, maverick

by lojasmo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's supporters are his problem (none / 0)

Obama may not be the best candidate in Dem party history, but he's smart enough to know not to attack women voters.

His primary campaign against Clinton allowed his supporters to feel free to attack Dem women voters. Once that genie was out of the bottle, his campaign hasn't been successful in putting it back in. Their strategy of attacking Clinton and her supporter using misogynist and sexist memes was a bad miscalculation, if not a surprising one.

Time to get it turned around boyz, before Obama loses.

by Betsy McCall on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, your claim was spurious. (2.00 / 1)

You should really stick to no quarter or one of those other mindless echo chambers.

John McCain, maverick

by lojasmo on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's supporters are his problem (2.00 / 1)

Despite your unwillingness to come up with any example of a time where Obama "attacked a Dem woman," the last line of your diary destroys every little bit of ethos you had left (which already wasn't much).

"Time to get it turned around boyz, before Obama loses."

Thanks, I really appreciate your choice of words. I trust it will be ok if I call women "girlz," right? I like to think of it like a variation on the "Bratz" dolls. I mean, tit for tat and all, right?

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Read my post (none / 0)

Nowhere does it say Obama made the attacks.

by Betsy McCall on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:30:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The reality based world (2.00 / 1)

He's up between six and nine points. In what warped universe is that "barely" ahead?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:58:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gallup daily tracking (none / 0)

says otherwise. Their polling has a MOE of 2%, which may account for some of the variation with other higher MOE polls.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

by Betsy McCall on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:08:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gallup daily tracking (2.00 / 1)

You picked a tracking poll to counteract six or seven regular polls?

Do you understand how absurd that is? Tracking polls are given to considerably more more statistical noise.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:50:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 1)

I do appreciate the data. I don't appreciate the implied insult in the diary (if I'm reading it right).

There's no reason to ignore the repercussions of a decision as important as this one. As I said, thanks for the data. While we're all just spectators on this issue I'd prefer to be an informed spectator. This helps.

"Well, I'm of the belief that the preferences of those who took the time to register with this party need to be considered just as much, if not more, than unaffiliated voters who are constantly flip-flopping between parties or even worse, "Obamacans" who believe Ronald Reagan was a great president."

If I may? I agree with your premise that our own people's opinions should matter more. That doesn't mean we should consider them exclusively. If there's someone who satisfies both groups pretty well I think that only makes sense.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:59:14 AM EST

Yeah, I was needling (2.00 / 3)

you a little bit. I just don't care very much for people who like Obama but at the same time, were cheering on Ken Starr in the 1990s. Many of these Obamacans admire a man in Ronald Reagan who demonized people who looked just like the Obamas in the 80s. I don't care much for the PUMA types either.

by Blazers Edge on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:06:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I was needling (2.00 / 1)

We should take all the votes we can get. I'm not sure what good it does us to twist over whether or not someone cheered Starr in the 90s. We need to win this election today or the country is screwed. I cringe whenever I hear Clinton supporters waxing poetic about "core Democrats" as if they were all that matters. That's a losing strategy if ever one there were.

by Philoguy on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I was needling (none / 0)

Well, you've just boiled down the whole primary: DFA vs. DLC. Fortunately, DFA won.

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I was needling (2.00 / 1)

Some of my closest friends are Republicans. They're wrong about a lot of things, but they're still my friends.

I don't disqualify people based on ideology alone.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:57:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 1)

Obama seems to be doing pretty well
on his own...
even though it is early...
trends in
Ohio
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

PA
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

VA
http://www.pollster.com/08-VA-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

For sure in CA
http://www.pollster.com/08-CA-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

More at:

http://www.pollster.com/

He is not in desperate NEED of any VP...which gives him more options.

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:00:50 AM EST

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 1)

Ya but how many of those Ex Hillary now Obama supporters will actually bother to vote?

No way to tell...

by dtaylor2 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:17:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 1)

For what its worth, I think its down to Hillary or Biden. A month ago I would stomped my feet and told you to go to hell if you had mentioned Hillary as VP, but I am basically fine with it if that route increases his odds of winning more than another candidate. But one cannot base the VP decision solely off of polls. Its a gut decision that Obama is going to have to make that is guaranteed to piss off some people either way.

If I had to bet money I would say Biden is going to get it. It would just flow together perfectly if his trip continues to go as well as today did. He can come back, give a big speech on foreign policy and then announce a genius on foreign policy like Biden as his wing man. Worst case scenario that evens the national security debate between the two campaigns, or in the best case scenario it actually forces McCain to swing the fight fully toward the economy.

But like I said, at this point I don't care who he picks, I just want to destroy the Republican Party so whatever it takes to get that done is fine with me.

by Xris on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:01:24 AM EST

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 2)

Xris

Just want to let you know when people who didn't like Hillary are willing to accept her as VP it goes a long way with people who didn't like Obama but are being asked to accept him as pres.

Thank-You

by dtaylor2 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:19:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 3)

She more than earned respect from me. Clinton was many times tougher than I ever gave her credit for. I may not do a touchdown dance if he picks her, but I will smile inside when I imagine her destroying Romney on national TV.

by Xris on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:29:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (none / 0)

Oh, that would be just beautiful. She'd bury him in a very deep hole and smile while she did it.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 1)

We can "accept" Hillary for VP if she's indeed chosen for that position, but that doesn't mean we support her in advance for that position.

Now there are several people who don't accept anyone other than Hillary in that position. There's a difference between "Accepting only one person" and "accepting everyone except one person" -- and the latter position is the more inclusive one.

by Aris Katsaris2 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:24:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 1)

Clinton has done a lot post-primaries to redeem herself. Some of her supporters, not so much. I'd be fine with her as VP should Obama choose her, though I don't think she's the best choice.

by Philoguy on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:35:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Any WarDem is a bad VP choice..... (none / 0)

...since it would nullify Obama's "judgment" advantage over McBush.

I can see the headlines:

Obama Picks VP Who Voted With McCain To Invade Iraq

or:

McCain Criticizes Obama As Inexprienced; Obama Can't Reply

by Beren on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:11:41 AM EST

Re: Any WarDem is a bad VP choice..... (2.00 / 1)

Most of the Obamacan votes you are concerned about voted for Bush in 2004.

If they can forgive themselves they can forgive Obama for having the leader of the other half of the party as his VP

by dtaylor2 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:20:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Any WarDem is a bad VP choice..... (none / 0)

"Most of the Obamacan votes you are concerned about voted for Bush in 2004."

I've expressed no concern over "Obamacan" votes. And simple logic dictates that if they didn't now disapprove of Bush's policies they would vote for his would be successor, McSame, instead of a Democrat who had the wisdom and judgment to oppose Bush all along.

I also note that you failed to address my real concern that by picking someone who had the bad judgment to vote WITH McMadman and Bushit in 2002 Obama would undermine his best response to McBush's attacks on his experience -- his own superior judgment.

by Beren on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:28:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Any WarDem is a bad VP choice..... (none / 0)

My point was that to GOP who voted for the war this isn't an issue.

The vast majority of America supported Afghanistan and Iraq. When we fought basically this very same war but with higher risk and called the first Iraq war it was one of the most popular things Bush Sr did.

As such most people view the war as a tactical failure not a strategic failure.

Hillary was voting for a war like the first Iraq war and got retards revenge. There is still a case to be made that when attacked by Sunni Arab Terrorists you counter attack an Sunni Arab country which Afghanistan isn't. Since Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Dubai, QUTAR, UAE etc etc are all closer allies and Iran isn't Sunni or Arab the other viable alternatives were Syria and Palestine which are closely allied with the Israel issue and would been problematic in other ways...

Basically it isn't an issue because to the people who supported the Iraq war Obama being a pacifist on this issue wasn't prescience it was luck.

Had Colin Powel been in charge of both the war and reconstruction the Iraq issue wouldn't have been unpopular and Obama would be disqualified for not supporting it as would Hillary had she opposed it. Hillary with her 30 years experience was positioning herself for a likely run at president and Obama's run for president depended on being right on this one issue only if everyone else was wrong and there was no real risk to him in opposing it.

by dtaylor2 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:56:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Any WarDem is a bad VP choice..... (2.00 / 1)

Wow, there is so much wrong with this post that it's impossible to even know where to begin. It does, however, explain a lot about how issues can be viewed in a particular way. At any rate, the results of the Iraq war were predictable enough for anyone who was thinking clearly at the time.

by Philoguy on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:38:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Any WarDem is a bad VP choice..... (none / 0)

No the same people made the same predictions about Iraq war 1 which totally didn't turn out the way they expected.

by dtaylor2 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:42:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Any WarDem is a bad VP choice..... (none / 0)

"My point was that to GOP who voted for the war this isn't an issue."

Since you haven't even addressed my point, I'll take it that you can't refute it.

And I'll concede that your understanding of how Republicans think is better than mine since you're one of them, virtually at least.

Nevertheless, if Obama chooses anyone for VP who voted with Bush/McCain to invade Iraq, he will no longer be able to counter the charge of inexperience with the charge of poor judgment.

by Beren on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:57:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Any WarDem is a bad VP choice..... (2.00 / 1)

Sorry, but you lost me at "retards revenge." Thanks for remaining unhateful for as long as you could.

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Any WarDem is a bad VP choice..... (none / 0)

Surely calling Bush a retard is descriptive and accurate...

by dtaylor2 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (none / 0)

"Many of these Obamacans admire a man in Ronald Reagan"
How "many" is many?
Have any cross tabs on this?

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:13:51 AM EST

You started a substantive diary (2.00 / 1)

And when it was finished you shit all over it with that ridiculous last sentence.

I completely disagree that Clinton is the best choice from an electability point of view.

And even if she was he doesn't NEED her. He's well ahead in the polls despite the loud "unelectable" drum beat that was pounded and pounded by Clinton and her supporters.

The VP spot should not be picked entirely on poll data. He'll have to work with this person for the next four or eight years and that is equally important.

I have absolutely no doubt he is NOT going to pick HRC. In my opinion he'll most likely pick Wesley Clark or Jim Webb.

Gobama!

by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:50:56 AM EST

except Jim Webb has stated (2.00 / 1)

that he will not be a VP candidate, and Wesley Clark's comment would get him destroyed by the media and McCain if he picked him. You may wanna keep up with current events, or now old events like Webb's staying out of the veepstakes before coming here to hit the Clintons.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:21:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: except Jim Webb has stated (none / 0)

Well... History is replete with instances of vice-presidents that turned down the offer before accepting it, and Clark did more damage to McCain than he sustained.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:28:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what other VPs (none / 0)

in recent history have said "not under any circumstances" will he be VP? Yea prez candidates in the primary say "i'm not" or "not looking at" being a VP, but that is different than saying "not under any circumstance" especially after the primary is over. Also, Webb has 1.5 years in the Senate. If Obama/Webb were to lose, he'd have one rough time getting re-elected, and he is not gonna risk that. Clark has been thrown under the bus, and the political corpse is crushed. He is not gonna get picked.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:41:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what other VPs (none / 0)

I agree Webb was pretty non-committal and I take him at his word but Sherman set a pretty high standard. He was my personal favourite and I've given up. But stranger things have happened. And Clark was not 'thrown under the bus,' or at least I disagree with your assessment. I think he knocked a big chip our of McCain and was right behind him all the way. Obama stood up for him pretty well, in the end.

I just thought your response to the previous poster was a bit dismissive, that's all. We are here to trade ideas, not insults, at least I thought that was the idea.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what other VPs (none / 0)

If Clark was picket that one statement would be 2008's version of gay marriage.

Not at all a winning statement from someone I would have other wise liked as a politician.

I think Clark is pretty much done in politics

by dtaylor2 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:00:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: except Jim Webb has stated (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, I really should keep up with current events. I might have been able to weigh in on Clark's comments had I done that.

Oh, wait!

Posted June 30
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/29/2 22330/155/32#32

And I know Webb said he doesn't want the spot. But that nothing precludes him from changing his mind.

But I do appreciate your advice.

Thanks

Gobama!

by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 05:09:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 3)

The only people against Obama/Clinton are republicans and their whores in the media. They know that ticket is unbeatable.

Obama/Biden 08

by W126 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:17:53 AM EST

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (none / 0)

I'm neither Republican nor a member of the media. I'm against it but of course I'd still vote for him if he chose her.

Gobama!

by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 06:30:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 4)

If you are against it then fine you are entitled to your few. But the way you mouthing off is not right. It is insulting to Hillary Clinton who is a great democrat. We need unity, your talking against her is turning people off.

Obama/Biden 08

by W126 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:03:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (none / 0)

And how exactly am I mouthing off? Do share.

Gobama!

by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:37:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (none / 0)

Well we are trying to foster unity.By all means use your opinion but do it in way that doesn't tick people. I have seen your posts. You just need to do it in a measured way.

Obama/Biden 08

by W126 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:11:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Will you stop with the plane (2.00 / 2)

already?

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:29:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will you stop with the plane (2.00 / 2)

No. MOAR PLANZE!

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:01:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey UAP! (none / 0)

Where are you on the planet atm?

Remember, it is OK to land in the same plane you take off it. Just sayin'... ;~)

-chris

Motley Moose, Troll Free Blogging

by chrisblask on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey UAP! (none / 0)

Gobama!

by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey UAP! (none / 0)

Woops. I hit "post" by accident before I even entered anything. I'm at Fort Bragg now.

Gobama!

by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:34:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (none / 0)

Well, I am against it too, does that make me a Republican? What if Obama doesn't pick her? Then we'll have two Republicans on the ticket? Sheesh. We're all entitled to out opinions without the extreme polemics, as long as we have the aspiration for a Democratic victory in common.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bwahahahahaha! (none / 0)

One such poster was particularly "concerned" about "Obamacans."

Mumble, mumble, gripe, gripe, mumble, mumble...OK Obama, whatever you want :D

by soyousay on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:14:20 AM EST

ABC - Anybody but Clinton* (2.00 / 1)

If Obama picks Clinton for VP then will never be free of the McAuliffe wing of the Democratic Party. I never want Terry McAuliffe to cash a gov't paycheck.

* This is hyperbole. I don't literally mean anybody.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:12:04 AM EST

well to win, you kinda need (2.00 / 1)

all wings of the party, and many many Democrats are part of this so-called "McAuliffe" wing. When the Ford wing of the party didn't get the Reagan wing on board in 1976, they kinda lost that election.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

John Kerry had all the wings (2.00 / 1)

So did Al Gore. And yet here we are.

by JJE on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:55:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a gender gap, surprised? (2.00 / 1)

As ridiculous as it is to base an argument on one poll...
if you look more closely at the Michigan results on the question of Clinton on he ticket --

Women
27% vote for him regardless
30% vote for McCain regardless
20% more likely to vote Obama
16% less likely to vote Obama
6% not sure

Men
33% vote for him regardless
30% vote for McCain regardless
9% more likely to vote for Obama
22% less likely to vote Obama
6% not sure

So I think the question you have to ask is --
will women pushed by putting Clinton on the ticket be more likely to turn out than men pushed to McCain by the Clinton factor?

Put another way -- will women excited about Clinton as VP turn out more strongly than men bothered by it -- I'd say the answer is obvious.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:33:28 AM EST

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (2.00 / 1)

I'm fine with Hillary on the ticket, but I'm concerned about Michigan. It is looking more and more likely that Romney will be McCain's VP choice. That will help McCain in Michigan. Anything that hurts the Dem ticket in Michigan against a McCain/Romney ticket is something that should cause concern.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:44:58 AM EST

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (none / 0)

I agree, and while I doubt anyone will admit it, Romney's looks play well with women in the middle and the right. Because NPR sucks during the day (if I wanted to listen to classical music, I'd go to the dentist), I find myself angrily listening to the stupid right-wing radio shows. Limbaugh had a whole day where every woman calling in (all Repubs, no doubt) mentioned Romney's handsomeness/good lucks as a reason they wish he had won instead of McCain. So there is a question of how many total women you gain with Hillary as VP.

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Missing the point (2.00 / 2)

I think everyone keeps missing a very valid point re: VP....that is that the delegates VOTE for VP at the convention. IF BO does NOT chose HR, he runs the risk of roll calls at the convention by her delegates who can DEMAND that she be put on the ticket.

If HRC is not the VP, then Hillary may not release her delegates and she would have around 1900 going into the convention.

This will not bode well at all for Unity.

by nikkid on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:43:41 AM EST

Re: Missing the point (none / 0)

That scenario only plays out if Senator both wants the job and wants it bad enough to play very public hardball.

Possible, but not a given.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:03:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Missing the point (none / 0)

The damage caused by Clinton's strong-arming her way onto the ticket would more than counteract any positive benefit this might have. As a general rule, the combinations which work best are those where the Pres and VP both like and respect each other. Good mojo picks boost the ticket. Bad mojo picks drag them down.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Missing the point (none / 0)

Btw, not implying that Obama and Clinton don't like and respect each other. I don't think we know much about what their private relationship is like.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:30:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Missing the point (none / 0)

Hillary suspended her campaign, but did NOT have to. She could have done what Ted Kennedy and other MALE counterparts of hers have done, which is take it to the convention. She did not do that for the sake of the party.

However, that is not to say she has "given up". She hasn't.

Make no mistake, Hillary WANTS the VP slot, this is evident as her surrogates push for her to be his running mate, they would not do this if she did not want this.

Obama did not WIN, he was selected by a group of SD's that could change their mind at the convention.

This won't happen if she's the VP.

It could happen if she's not.

by nikkid on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:48:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Zogby poll (2.00 / 1)

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?I D=1530

Thank you Blazer for another well thought out diary. Zogby did a poll on VP picks, which I have linked to above. The poll asked if you'd be more or less likely to vote for Obama if he chose the following as VP. The poll did the same for McCain. These numbers are the nets -- the "more likely" added to the "less likely."

For Obama --Colin Powell does the best, but the odds of him running are close to zero -- he could have been a presidential pick if he had wanted to, and he has repeatedly turned down offers. Powell is at +32. Hillary and Richardson are at +5. The rest are negative -- Sebelius, Biden, Bayh, Kaine. (Kaine is a doubtful pick -- the two biggest progressive blogs in Virginia are now taking frequent pot shots at him for being inept.)

For McCain--Huckabee is a +14, Romney a +15, Lieberman a +3. The rest are negative.

I've looked at Survey USA and it generally gibes with this poll. Romney and Huckabee really help McCain, but no one helps Obama very much.

This race is closer than many think, because it seems a lot of Repubs are willing to move to McCain if he has a "real conservative" on the ticket.

No diff to me -- I'm voting for others than these.

by strongerthandirt on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:55:07 PM EST

Re: Zogby poll (none / 0)

The "are you more/less likely to vote for" questions aren't great, because many respondents use them as an opportunity chime in on the various prospects even though they're not really undecided about who they'll vote for. Eg., who doubts that 90% of black voters will probably end up supporting Obama? (but the % who answer "doesn't matter" to these sorts of questions isn't anywhere close to 90%). A similar phenomenon is going on, I suspect, with Republicans who support Huckabee (though I don't want to suggest that the Republican party is totally behind McCain, but many of these "more likely" voters are already extremely likely to vote for the GOP).

And down the line. Just making the argument for better questions. Another phenom which is showing up in these polls, for instance, is that potential picks who don't have a lot of name recognition always cause Obama and McCain's numbers to go down (but this is because there is a shift of voters to the undecided category, but these voters are not likely to change their votes, for most it's more like this, "Don't know anything about him or her, tell me more, and until you do I can't tell you how I might respond"). Again, there's just a need for better questions.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:18:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Data regarding VP-HRC (none / 0)

Thanks for the diary and the data. I think I was part of the pissing match you refer to.

Part of why I suspect Obama will eventually choose her is because no one else exciting is emerging from the pack. Most of the big names seem to be dropping out, and she's been getting a lot of good press lately. Time will tell.

by LakersFan on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:11:21 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.