Clinton-Obama
 

Comment from Castro on CNN today: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...et-invincible/

A number of articles have been written about this in the past: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...1211/11gop.htm

So, two questions.

1: How realistic is a Clinton-Obama ticket?

2: What are the chances of winning if the ticket is Clinton-Obama vs. Clinton-[white male] vs Obama-[white male]? Rate them in order of how likely each would be to win the White House.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

what about Obama-Clinton? is Hilary that big a favorite at this point that that's a crazy idea?

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

1. How realisitic? not a chance. Clinton has already unleashed her dogs on Obama, there is no way she can possibly be on the same ticket w/o being ripped apart by the republicans.

2. I dont know




I did like the comment from that CNN article:


There you have it folks a vote for Clinton/Obama is a vote for communism.






Personally, in the next few months when hillary really starts tearing Obama apart, he will no longer be a viable candidate at all anymore, she is going to be doing the job for the republicans imo.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
what about Obama-Clinton? is Hilary that big a favorite at this point that that's a crazy idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillary has already been in the white house in a ceremonial/advisory capacity, i don't think she'd want to do that again.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

Hillary has it locked up. I actually see Edwards as more of a threat to Hillary than Obama.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. How realisitic? not a chance. Clinton has already unleashed her dogs on Obama, there is no way she can possibly be on the same ticket w/o being ripped apart by the republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree. Candidates unleash the dogs on each other all the time in primaries and then kiss and make up for the general election. You must not be old enough to remember George Bush calling Reagan's supply side economic plan "voodoo economics."

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. How realisitic? not a chance. Clinton has already unleashed her dogs on Obama, there is no way she can possibly be on the same ticket w/o being ripped apart by the republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree. Candidates unleash the dogs on each other all the time in primaries and then kiss and make up for the general election. You must not be old enough to remember George Bush calling Reagan's supply side economic plan "voodoo economics."

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not, I think that in todays media enviroment, things like that are no longer possible. you cant get away with any inconsisttencies or slip-ups anymore, becuase people will constantly be reminded of them.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that in todays media enviroment...you cant get away with any inconsisttencies or slip-ups anymore, becuase people will constantly be reminded of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
how do you explain the iraq war? in fact, w.'s entire presidency?

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that in todays media enviroment...you cant get away with any inconsisttencies or slip-ups anymore, becuase people will constantly be reminded of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
how do you explain the iraq war? in fact, w.'s entire presidency?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the democrats dont know how to run a good campaign, and that Kerry lost the vote because of the constant bringing up of the issue of swift boats, and flip-flopping, Howard Dean lost for simply getting too excited, and being mocked mercilessly. The Republicans are light years ahead of running smart campaigns.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that in todays media enviroment...you cant get away with any inconsisttencies or slip-ups anymore, becuase people will constantly be reminded of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
how do you explain the iraq war? in fact, w.'s entire presidency?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the democrats dont know how to run a good campaign, and that Kerry lost the vote because of the constant bringing up of the issue of swift boats, and flip-flopping, Howard Dean lost for simply getting too excited, and being mocked mercilessly. The Republicans are light years ahead of running smart campaigns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Voodoo economics was not a slip-up or inconsistency by Bush or Reagan. Bush used the term repeatedly in the primary, including the debates, to criticize Reagan.

I think that the VP job would be very attractice to Obama, as it represents his cleanest route to the White House, short of winning the primary this time around.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton has already unleashed her dogs on Obama, there is no way she can possibly be on the same ticket w/o being ripped apart by the republicans.


[/ QUOTE ]

She'll get ripped apart by the republicans no matter what. Obama running on her ticket would just be on the very long list of complaints against her.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

If Castro likes it, it must be good for Amerika.

From my trip to Barnes and Noble to get a book for my 5 year old:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_87r1Q_uqq6E/...00/Hillary.jpg

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

very plausible IMO.

One of Clinton's primary problems is she generally comes across of unlikable. Obama on the other hand is probably the most likable candidate, people generally want him to succeed. Obama's main weakness however is his inexperience and qualification which is Hillary's primary strength. Additionally I think the Democratic base AND swing voters will feel much better and be more likely to vote for Hillary with Obama on the ticket. Hillary is likely to do really well with the black vote regardless in a general election so i don't think thats much of an issue.

I don't think whatever is said in the primary between the two will be an issue. it will depend on how strong Hillary is (assuming she gets the nomination) and whether Obama wants the job.

2) clinton - obama (clinton would never be VP)
clinton - white male
Obama - white male

based on my belief Obama's inexperience is to great a hurle to overcome in a general election

Castro's opinion in a non factor of course

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

Nobody would be crazy enough to be President with Hillary as VP anyway. They would get depressed and Fosterized within a month.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
Im not, I think that in todays media enviroment, things like that are no longer possible. you cant get away with any inconsisttencies or slip-ups anymore, becuase people will constantly be reminded of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the actual administration it's a perfect example about how in todays media environment, you can get away with ..... anything?
People doesn't really care, they're busy with American Idol or the last sex-murder-whatever scandal; but they do feel pretty patriotic when they do vote.

To OP: I like more an Obama - White Male ticket than an Obama - Hillary.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

Clinton may choose Edwards over Obama.

However I'd say 2:1 it would be 1 of those two. Which one? No Idea, 50/50 IMO.

YOu guys say no way obama b/c they talk smack? LOL, that means nothing. The destiny of USA dosnt rely on some little feud that took place 1 year ago. Clinton will say "who will make my agend go smoother", and then they pick.

If the race is close (Go REPUBLICANS!!!) i think 80% she will pick obama, b/c he is black and will easily sway election her way.

Now, has hilary locked the spot? No. I mean it is 5 months till things get hairy, and alot can happen by then. Is she a favorite? Yes, but not a lock IMO. I think obama has a chance, however it looks like next time will be the one, while this one looks more favorible for hilary.

I'd say 25:1 that if it was clinton obama they would win.
clinton edwards would prolly be more like 15:1
clinton white male prolly 11:1
obama clinton 4:1
random two dems 4:1

why so low on obama clinton? IDK, he seems the most radical of the three big guns, + he is black, and america is kind of racist, even the dems. (republicans werent voting that way anyway)

ed: i was laying way too much [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

I'd say the most likely tickets are:

Clinton/Edwards
Obama/Edwards
Edwards/Obama


The 2 without Hillary would be much more likely to win. Too many people have already decided they hate her, and some of them are people who would vote for the other Dem candidates. There's decent chunk of the American electorate that won't vote for a black guy. The real question is how much of an overlap there is. Maybe the people who won't vote for a black are also the same people who wouldn't vote for Hillary anyway. My guess is that Edwards is the first choice for both Hillary and Obama.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say 25:1 that if it was clinton obama they would win.
clinton edwards would prolly be more like 15:1
clinton white male prolly 11:1
obama clinton 4:1
random two dems 4:1

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton may choose Edwards over Obama.

However I'd say 2:1 it would be 1 of those two. Which one? No Idea, 50/50 IMO.

YOu guys say no way obama b/c they talk smack? LOL, that means nothing. The destiny of USA dosnt rely on some little feud that took place 1 year ago. Clinton will say "who will make my agend go smoother", and then they pick.

If the race is close (Go REPUBLICANS!!!) i think 80% she will pick obama, b/c he is black and will easily sway election her way.

Now, has hilary locked the spot? No. I mean it is 5 months till things get hairy, and alot can happen by then. Is she a favorite? Yes, but not a lock IMO. I think obama has a chance, however it looks like next time will be the one, while this one looks more favorible for hilary.

I'd say 25:1 that if it was clinton obama they would win.
clinton edwards would prolly be more like 15:1
clinton white male prolly 11:1
obama clinton 4:1
random two dems 4:1

why so low on obama clinton? IDK, he seems the most radical of the three big guns, + he is black, and america is kind of racist, even the dems. (republicans werent voting that way anyway)

ed: i was laying way too much [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are using events that happened after 2004 to justify. Bush hadnt really [censored] too much up (comparatively) before the 2004 election. And the public DOES care, look at his popularity rating...its not great. If you think that the "destiny" of the USA wont rely on one little instance of slip-ups, or something similar, you must have not followed the last Presidential election too closely.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

Obama adds basically nothing to Hilary's base, so I can't see them on a ticket together. I remember hearing that Obama polls highest among blacks and women, but Hilary is already beating him in both.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

I agree, I do not think a Clinton/Obama ticket will happen and if it were to, I think that would help out the Republicans more than if Clinton were to "play it safe".

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

I think the republicans are in deep deep doo no matter who the dems pick.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

I agree with the last few posts. There is nothing gained by adding each other to the ticket, and if anything, it could create a more polarizing ticket.

I think the VP will be either Bill Richardson, who is very popular in the Southwest (key swing states) and among Hispanics (could win Florida), or John Edwards (due to popularity).

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

I thought Castro was confirmed dead. Guess Katie Couric was wrong.

I think upon winning the nomination Clinton will make a right turn to seem less radical (Newt Gingrich will probably help her do this, as he seems to be infatuated), and then to keep the moveon base she will pick a left wing radical as her running mate.

My guess is a Hilary Clinton - Ségolène Royal ticket.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

Clinton-Warner

ship it

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the republicans are in deep deep doo no matter who the dems pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

youd be very very wrong to think that.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the republicans are in deep deep doo no matter who the dems pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

youd be very very wrong to think that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he wouldn't be.
Hillary is the least electable of the Democratic frontrunners and is still polling ahead of every Republican in almost every swing state.

Bush and the assorted scandals of the last couple years have tarnished the Republican image to a Nixonian degree and I don't see anyone running in 2008 who has the chops to pull them out of the muck.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

I don't know about that. The last two elections have been extremely close. I don't see anyone who voted Republican sitching to vote for Clinton/Obama. On the other hand, there are enough middle of the road Hillary haters who would vote against her on general principle. The Republicans would need to put up a very generic, non-offensive candidate to have an excellent (better than even) chance of beating Clinton/Obama. With Obama as the Presidential candidate, I think I could get elected.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the republicans are in deep deep doo no matter who the dems pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

youd be very very wrong to think that.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong.

Change election favors Dems
Iraq-favors Dems
polling shows the american public favors Dems with a 10+ spread on virtually every single major political issue except for national security which they tie with Reps for.

Reps have an incredibly weak field.

Polling shows that in many swing states that went for Bush...a large % of indep now identify themselves as democrats or leaning towards democrats on many issues they use to be against..SS,health care,deficits,etc

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

I was 5 years old when Bill Clinton took office, so this may just be youthful ignorance, but it seems to me like Hillary's main political accomplishment was to marry Bill. I doubt she would get elected to the senate without the limelight thrust upon her by Bill, one of the most likeable politicians of my admittidly short lifetime.

I guess my question is this, why is everyone so gung-ho over Hillary? Just a longing for Bill, or does she have some skills I don't know about. It seems the primary criticism of Obama is his inexperience, yet Clinton hasn't spent much time there either and seeminly has a free pass. Does being first lady really prepare you to be President?

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was 5 years old when Bill Clinton took office, so this may just be youthful ignorance, but it seems to me like Hillary's main political accomplishment was to marry Bill. I doubt she would get elected to the senate without the limelight thrust upon her by Bill, one of the most likeable politicians of my admittidly short lifetime.

I guess my question is this, why is everyone so gung-ho over Hillary? Just a longing for Bill, or does she have some skills I don't know about. It seems the primary criticism of Obama is his inexperience, yet Clinton hasn't spent much time there either and seeminly has a free pass. Does being first lady really prepare you to be President?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a reasonable point that doesn't get made enough. Clinton has 'experience'? She has been a Senator for two whole years longer than Obama (during which time she showed such excellent judgment as voting for the Iraq war...)

I don't necessarily think it matters, as barring something unforeseen, the Dem Primary is the election sort of like the NBA Western Conference finals. All the plausible GOP candidates suck (and I mean as candidates, my opinions of their politics aside)

Romney is the one candidate who panders more transparently than HRC.

McCain is ancient, and I don't think that there are many people who really buy that our solution to foreign policy problems is to invade more countries and blow more things up. Plus caving on torture and pandering to the Dobsonites goes a long way towards removing the moral high ground he ran on in 2000.

Giulliani is uhmmm CRAZY, and I think having the FDNY savage him is probably fatal since his greatest claim is as the hero of 9/11, but the undisputed real heroes of 9/11 aren't having it.

Sam Brownback is both crazy and not smart.

Fred Thompson is not ready for prime time, which is ironic since he's on prime time.

Who the hell is Mike Huckabee?

And Ron Paul, while interesting, is the kind of guy for many that the more you learn about him, the less you actually like him. (E.G. he thinks that it was a mistake to fight the Civil War. GG black vote...)

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

There is NO WAY Obama would be Clinton's VP.

If anyone thinks this is possible I am willing to make wagers, feel free to PM me.

Clinton's VP (or any dems) is Richardson.

I said it.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

I think a Clinton - Anyone ticket is the least likely to win. A lot of people have already decided that they hate Clinton, few people are in love with her (how many clinton bumper stickers do you see?), and most people seem to like her because the idea of having Bill as a first husband would be cool. I still think a Clinton ticket would have an easy 2:1 shot over any republican because they have such a bad rep now.

I really think Obama - Anyone stands the best chance @ winning. A fair number of people seem very passionate about him. He's black and he's new but I don't see those as major problems, probably benefits. If you aren't going to vote for a black president chances are very slim that you'll vote for any democrat. He's inexperienced - meh, who really cares. The pundits might but I don't think voters do.

My born-again christian bush loving (at least until recently) mother-in-law loves obama. Read his book and everything. She's very pro-life and is still seriously considering voting for him. Hillary - not so much.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
My born-again christian bush loving (at least until recently) mother-in-law loves obama. Read his book and everything. She's very pro-life and is still seriously considering voting for him. Hillary - not so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF is Obama's appeal to older Republican women?
I've seen a couple interviews on TV with women who just LOVED him, but wouldn't consider voting for another Dem.

Also, don't underestimate the reverse psychology effect. Many moderate whites would embrace the chance to vote for a moderate black as a way to prove to themselves that they aren't racist.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

Seth--

Could you elaborate on the Paul comment--"It was a mistake to fight the civil war."

He seems like a really cool guy...I'd be interested in hearing about a potential bad side to him.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

Obama would get about 10x more middling votes from less conservative republicans. I voted for Kerry and that was the first D I ever voted for. Obama would have a shot at my vote, while I would never vote for Clinton. I would write myself in before I would do that. Or maybe vote for "None of the above".

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
Seth--

Could you elaborate on the Paul comment--"It was a mistake to fight the civil war."

He seems like a really cool guy...I'd be interested in hearing about a potential bad side to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

When he was on Bill Maher's show this spring they talked about it. His full response isn't quite as crazy as that (he thinks it would have been resolved economically, as it was in Britain and other former slave states, and that would have worked out better for everyone. Aside from presumably the people who would still have been slaves from 1865 to 1900 or whenever...I think most historians would disagree with him as a factual matter, but working from his premises, it's not the most ridiculous argument ever) but how many people are going to get past the initial "WTF?" reaction? And there's all kinds of stuff like that.

Now, he will undoubtedly maintain a certain appeal to the Buchananite, isolationist wing of the American right, much like Chuck Hagel, as those are really the only visible conservative pols who AREN'T suggesting that the solution to all problems is more bombs and/or "manliness" - and this one aspect explains both of their popularity to liberals. But once you actually get in there and kick the tires, he's got some ideas that are pretty out there.

I'd still probably vote for him over any other GoP candidate (and I might do that in the primary, to the extent that our primary matters) as I think that as a small-government libertarian type, the amount of actual harm he'd do is limited, but I'd still take every single dem with the possible exception of Biden over him.

Also, if these last 7 years have taught us anything, it's that the "really cool guy, I'd like to have a beer with him" metric is a VERY bad method for choosing a president. (FWIW, I think that fact goes along way towards explaining HRC's popularity - she might not be likeable, but damnit she'll get [censored] done...)

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]

WTF is Obama's appeal to older Republican women?
I've seen a couple interviews on TV with women who just LOVED him, but wouldn't consider voting for another Dem.


[/ QUOTE ]

He has a nice smile, duhhhhhh.

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
she might not be likeable, but damnit she'll get [censored] done...)

[/ QUOTE ]

not trying to flame, but what has she got done?

Re: Clinton-Obama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
she might not be likeable, but damnit she'll get [censored] done...)

[/ QUOTE ]

not trying to flame, but what has she got done?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying it's the perception (as I wrote somewhere today, the notion that she has loads of 'experience' on Obama is something of a crock, which he dealt with VERY well on his recent Daily Show appearance, saying something along the lines of "what people really want when they talk about experience is that someone has demonstrated good judgment, which is something of a shot across the bow of every single other major candidate, since he was the only one who vocally opposed OIF in 2002. Of course he was just an Illinois state senator, so he could take that position without some of the meta-implications faced by Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, et al. But A) tough, this is NFL football; and B) I don't care, sometimes right is right for it's own sake you craven so and sos...)

I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved in this thread, I get too worked up about such things.