Clinton-Obama

[BigPoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
The GOP is playing this one very well right now, letting the Dems tear each other apart while their own candidates are distancing themselves from the current administration and sticking to their meat-and-potatoes issues. The result is going to be that the GOP has a candidate who is going to seem relatively fresh after the primaries and have a chance to play the 'not-a-Washington-insider' card. Their nominee is also very likely to be a former state executive rather than a Senator, which is another recipe for success. I could see Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, any one of those guys beating Hillary.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Republicans right now are like the Atlanta Falcons, and George Bush is their Michael Vick. They may want to distance themselves from their now reviled leader, but he's been their public persona for so long that it's impossible. When the average American thinks of the Republicans, he thinks of Bush and his failed Presidency. It'll be a while before that changes.

[JaredL]

Firstly, the primaries are too far away for this "Dems don't have a chance if X is elected" or "Reps don't have a chance against anyone" talk, much less for the general election.

Other than the time thing, another big point is that once the primaries are over the election will shift dramatically. Say Hillary and Rudy are the candidates. At that point I think Hillary will be very strongly campaigning on a "look at all the ways that Rudy is as bad or worse than George W. Bush." If (this is a big if) the democrat runs a reasonable campaign they will tie the republican nominee as closely to George Bush as possible. The Republicans are making this pretty easy by going to their base and cranking up the war talk.

On the other side, I would expect whichever democrat is nominated to get the weak on terror, embolden our enemies type stuff. I don't think that will work too well but I also thought the Bush campaign in 2004 was fairly transparent and wouldn't work then either.

That's where I think Hillary will do better than a lot of people expect. IMO Bush won in 2004 because Kerry's campaign was really weak. If he would have gone after the Swiftboat vets and their [censored] immediately and knocked it out before it got steam then he would have been better off. Similarly, he could have attacked Bush a lot better. I don't think Hillary will make those mistakes given her campaigning experience with Bill. I would hope that it would be the same for Edwards if he got in there due to his experience running as the VP but it's hard to say. For Obama who knows. He would be great on that stuff in the debates I think but who knows on the other stuff.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obama-[white male]
Clinton -[white male]
Clinton Obama

President David Palmer was the best thing that ever happened to Obama. I don't think they're a terrible combination, but Obama doesn't bring anything specific to the table for her. Edwards or some Compassionate Dude would fire up the liberals more at this point. Or, if the GOP does go with the experience issue on her, maybe she feels some General would help with that. I personally think Compassionate Dude is better for her than General. I think the campaign works better with Hillary as the tough guy, personally.

But mainly, it's because of the reports that she doesn't like Obama. Supposedly she's been ignoring him on the Senate floor. Hillary is endlessly practical, so that's not a big deal, but she can't run with rumors that she and the VP candidate don't like each other. It puts her in a whole different light.

I do think Hillary gives the best chance to the GOP. There are people that hate the Republican party right now but would never vote for Hillary, and that's a problem. But she does make one good point when this comes up. She notes that any nominee will get attacked and have high negatives. In 2004 I remember talking to someone who said, yeah, she thinks Kerry sounded better in the debates, but she won't vote for him because he flip-flops. Won't vote for him because he flip-flops?!! Who says that?

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

I think Al Gore would have a decent. He could build up the fact that he won the general election in 2000, plus the environmental stuff has been mostly positive for him.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

I kind of feel like Obama does better than Hillary. Yeah, he is black but he is still a young looking male.

Is being black really going to hurt him in Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Penn, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida? These were the states in play last time. The Republicans will probably win Ohio regardless.

edit: Florida wasn't that close in 2004.

[BigPoppa]

The Ohio Republican Party is even more scandal-tainted than the national party right now, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the Dems carry Ohio for once.

Looking at it state by state is a pretty good idea, but I do think there will be a lot more States in play than in any election since 1992.

Can we really see any states where Hillary gets more votes than Gore, Edwards, or Obama would?
She won her Senate race in 2000 by 19% less than Gore carried New York. That's a lot of people who voted for Gore and then voted against Hillary.

Obama plays a lot better among white voters than most other black politicians. He spent a good deal of his childhood being raised by white grandparents in rural Kansas, so he has a common bond there. They seem to like him a lot in downstate Illinois, which is demographically similar to swing states like Iowa, Missouri, and West Virginia where he'd like to compete. I doubt being black will hurt him in places like Florida which have both a lot of black city dwellers and white suburbanites. Remains to be seen in New Mexico, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and other states where the swing vote is almost all rural white folks.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, the primaries are too far away for this "Dems don't have a chance if X is elected" or "Reps don't have a chance against anyone" talk, much less for the general election.

Other than the time thing, another big point is that once the primaries are over the election will shift dramatically. Say Hillary and Rudy are the candidates. At that point I think Hillary will be very strongly campaigning on a "look at all the ways that Rudy is as bad or worse than George W. Bush." If (this is a big if) the democrat runs a reasonable campaign they will tie the republican nominee as closely to George Bush as possible. The Republicans are making this pretty easy by going to their base and cranking up the war talk.

On the other side, I would expect whichever democrat is nominated to get the weak on terror, embolden our enemies type stuff. I don't think that will work too well but I also thought the Bush campaign in 2004 was fairly transparent and wouldn't work then either.

That's where I think Hillary will do better than a lot of people expect. IMO Bush won in 2004 because Kerry's campaign was really weak. If he would have gone after the Swiftboat vets and their [censored] immediately and knocked it out before it got steam then he would have been better off. Similarly, he could have attacked Bush a lot better. I don't think Hillary will make those mistakes given her campaigning experience with Bill. I would hope that it would be the same for Edwards if he got in there due to his experience running as the VP but it's hard to say. For Obama who knows. He would be great on that stuff in the debates I think but who knows on the other stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

JaredL,


i think this is a great summation, and pretty much how I think things play out, hence why I commented that there is no way the dems are a lock. I honestly look at the money, when deciding who I think will win in these things, and most sportsbooks have hill at 4:5 and guiliani at 6:5, this is a fairly close number, this far out. when things start to get more solidified, and banking on the semi-bad campaigns the dems rolled out the last couple of elections, I think its much closer than people think.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
am i the only person looking for a gore/obama ticket?


[/ QUOTE ]

I like it too, too bad it won't happen.

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to hijack this thread, but the democrats have absolutely zero chance of winning if either Hilary or Obama wins the nomination. Obama has a slightly better chance than Hilary but not by much. Either would make a good VP candidate.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have been thinking the same thing for a long time and just can't believe nobody else agrees. The GOP is playing this one very well right now, letting the Dems tear each other apart while their own candidates are distancing themselves from the current administration and sticking to their meat-and-potatoes issues. The result is going to be that the GOP has a candidate who is going to seem relatively fresh after the primaries and have a chance to play the 'not-a-Washington-insider' card. Their nominee is also very likely to be a former state executive rather than a Senator, which is another recipe for success. I could see Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, any one of those guys beating Hillary.

Current polls mean much less than you'd think. Hillary has the highest visibility and her party is on the upswing, it's no surprise she's sitting pretty right now. There's a lot of time left.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillary would have the toughest time winning but she can easily win if she runs well.

Obama has the best shot out of all the dem can. to win but the problem is he'll never get the nomination.

He'd cream Fred Thompson...Rudy would only be able to give him a real challenge.

Hillary or Obama have a far greater chance at winning the presidency than all the republican canidates besides Rudy.

Rudy vs. Hillary is a wash
Obama > Rudy

[john voight]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

how much are we talking 5-10$, or 5k-25k$? Im a low roller, so IDK how bets work here on 2+2.

Am I missing something? You guys think Clinton wont pick obama b/c they disagreed on some stuff and had some popular sound clips taken that put them against each other? The politicians play games. They are not pure ppl who do what should be done. 1 week 2 ppl can be in heated dispute, next week peaches and cream.

OOT McGuiver, I'd put my whole BR on dems winning the election as of now w/ the right ticket. If some [censored] went down 2 months from now, maybe not, but as of right now I'd say it is like 10:1 dems would win election.