home

SUSA MI Poll: More Support For Unity Ticket

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

For the first time SUSA included Hillary Clinton among the potential VP picks for Obama. This was in Michigan and with the exception of Edwards, every other one of the names being floated in the SUSA polling got Obama destroyed against a McCain/Romney ticket.

Michigan is actually the kind of state where you might think John Edwards might help Obama more than Clinton but it simply was not the case. More and more it becomes clear that Hillary Clinton is the must pick VP should Obama become the nominee.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama Says He Will Be the Nominee Tuesday | Late Night Open Thread: Working Girls >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA MI Poll: More Support For Unity Ticket | 225 comments (225 topical)
    Hillary MUST be on the top of the ticket. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:21:35 PM EST
    Someone told me today they read BO was going to put a woman "who wasn't divisive" on the ticket.  That would be Sebelius, I assume.  What a disaster ticket in the making.  No FP experience between them.  

    Hills MUST be on top.  She can win.  We'll take BO as VP, though we are not so happy about it.

    Obama and Hillary should not be a ticket (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by felizarte on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:33:55 PM EST
    The republicans will use Hillary's issues against Obama and vice versa.  The two will have no synergy.  Obama will be better off picking another running mate and hold Hillary to her promise of campaigning her heart out.

    The same for Hillary,.  She should pick a running mate that reinforces her strengths and softens her weaknesses.

    With these two running together, the republicans would want to emphasize anything that might be perceived as conflicts between the two.  

    Parent

    In my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:40:11 PM EST
    the public would be fascinated by the soap-opera aspect of the storyline.  I believe it would make it hard for McCain because the Democratic ticket would suck up all the oxygen.

    Parent
    History suggests (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:35:45 PM EST
    that runningmates only add, and do not subtract.

    Hillary needs to be LBJ to Obama's JFK.

    Parent

    OMG- This so much does not work for me (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:43:09 PM EST
    Obama as JFK? the wish of a toad do become a prince.

    Parent
    It's a different time (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:24:44 AM EST
    The Rev. Wright issue will be back; Michelle Obama's "I'm proud . . . comment will be repeated over and over again; Obama's bitter/cling remarks will be in play.  

    There's nothing Hillary can do about that.  And then, what will be the HealthCare plan?  Hillary/s or Obama's?  What about the gas tax holiday?

    I personally prefer Hillary to be the top of the ticket and picking someone else more complimentary to her.  If she is not the nominee, she's better off staying in the Senate and shepherd her causes via bills she could introduce.

    Parent

    She could be (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:56 PM EST
    Cheney to Obama's Bush.

    Parent
    hillarifying (none / 0) (#220)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:05:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Uh-oh (none / 0) (#228)
    by nene on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:39:57 AM EST
    You know what happened next.

    Parent
    Not gonna happen (none / 0) (#179)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:53:11 AM EST
    So don't worry about.  Obama's far too arrogant to let any Clinton be on HIS ticket.  He'll pick someone who couldn't possibly over shadow him,  some quiet unknown, like Jim Webb of Virginia.  While someone like that won't add much to the ticket, he won't outshine Obama.  I'm afraid Obama's ego won't allow any real powerhouse, like Hillary, on his ticket.

    Parent
    What you mean "we?" (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:23:27 PM EST


    Parent
    The typical Hillary supporter, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:24:36 PM EST
    who doesn't really care for Obama at this point, but is pragmatic enough to see how this would have to play out.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:31:53 PM EST
    What does "a woman who isn't divisive" mean?

    I'm guessing it's code for "anyone besides Hillary or Ann Coulter."

    Parent

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#28)
    by standingup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:36:58 PM EST
    Ferraro!

    Parent
    Obama's group fantasy (none / 0) (#48)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:43:39 PM EST
    is that they will have absolute power.  They will get the Congress, have rule of the party and their so called bipartisanship will be because they squelched all other voices in the party.  At this point any unity efforts by Obama are for absolute power of his wing.  The only choice is to resist.

    Parent
    This so reminds me of (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:36:17 AM EST
    the run-up to Dubya's Presidency.  

    I tried to think today of the similarities between the Obama campaign and the Dubya campaign.  Both were light on experience.  Both had powerful insiders behind them (as advisors).  

    Unfortunately, we got to see how a Dubya presidency played out.  


    Parent

    both are built on illusion (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by kempis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:14:08 AM EST
    Bush was a "regular fella."

    Obama is "The Grrrreatest Orrrrator of Our Age!"

    In reality, both are balloons filled with the script in the teleprompter. And that's evident when they're  unplugged.

    Parent

    Tut Tut (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Rictor Rockets on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:32:51 AM EST
    There are many parallels to Hillary and Bush as well, especially in regards to cronyism.

    Hillary has shown that she cares far more about "loyalty" than about people who will tell her when she is wrong, will call her out on it. Look at James "JUDAS" Carville, her hitman and consigliere.

    I think a lot of the reason that SD's are nervous about calling it right now is that they remember how ruthless the Clintons and their DLC clique are. They're trying to muster a backbone to share amongst themselves.

    Obama isn't the devil, and Hillary certainly is no angel.

    Parent

    Obama will be a drag (none / 0) (#69)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:25 PM EST
    on down ticket candidates. The Democrats stand a chance of unseating Mitch McConnell by Bruce Lunsford. Rasmussen has McConnell down 5% (49% - 44%) against Lunsford. Vito Fossella (R NY CD 13) is up for grabs and the Republicans can't find a strong candidate to go against any of the proposed Democratic candidate. But none of this will happen if Obama is the nominee.

    Parent
    Yep. Remember that letter that Congressional (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by kempis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:20:06 AM EST
    Dems sent pointing out that Hillary polled MUCH better in their districts than Obama did?

    I know I sound like a broken record, but I know that here in PA, the Dems picked up seats because they ran candidates who strong on national security while opposing the Iraq War. Obama may have opposed it, but he's too weak on national security to win in the  'burbs and rural areas. It would not surprise me to see the 06 gains reversed to considerable degree if Obama leads the ticket.

    How much help it would be to have Hillary on it, I don't know.

    At this point, I'd rather Hillary not be on the ticket. I'm not sure that she alone could make the ticket a winner, and god knows she'd get blamed for the loss if McCain ends up the president.

    I think she can promote "unity" in other ways and stay in the Senate. Then she can run in '12.

    Parent

    Dame Edna? (none / 0) (#100)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:59 AM EST
    She'd be a man for men and a woman for women.  The ultimate triangulator! ;-).

    I've been working too much.  I think I'm going crazy.

    Parent

    Non-divisive woman ? (none / 0) (#213)
    by andrys on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:43:25 AM EST
    That sounds like a woman who's busily in the kitchen!

      Why choose a woman?  We're not in this because Hillary's a woman.  It's that she's so incredibly interested in and totally involved with the tedious details of our country's (and our world's) problems and how we might fix them.

     Re divisiveness as usual from Obama supporters themselves,
    here's HuffPost showing how to do that, on behalf of Obama.

    Here's one of today's special "HuffPost's Pick".

      It got their check mark and orange box for an especially good post.

    "And all you folks who are going to start screaming at me...I'm not gay or lesbian hating, But the only folks I know personally, who are voting for Hillary, are TRULY mullet-wearing, tatooed, toothless, uneducated, minimum-wage earning she males.

    I don't see any men supporting Hillary. I don't see any women supporting Hillary. I don't see African Americans or Native Americans supporting Hillary. I see the weird folks...the tatood, mullet sporting, illiterates...the toothless...the lazy....supporting Hillary. Normal folks...single moms, hard working families, regular gays and lesbians, single celibate folks....we're all supporting someone other than Hillary. Despite what Hillary and Media will tell you...only the freaks are supporting Hillary...that has become her base...at least here in the south..it's really sad."

    I'm so optimistic about Obama and media in their ways of showing faith in Hope and New Politics.

    Jerilyn - do you know anyone who knows Arianna?  Does she actually stand behind this kind of 'seal of approval' for that kind of post on her site ?

    Parent

    There are (none / 0) (#225)
    by Nadai on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:20:40 AM EST
    18 million "mullet-wearing, tatooed[sic], toothless, uneducated, minimum-wage earning she males" in this country?  Wow.  I never would have guessed.

    Parent
    Top of the ticket (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:34:42 PM EST
    simply must be Hillary. Let's nominate her.

    He won't pick Hillary for his VP. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by vicsan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:04 AM EST
    In fact, one of the first things his people started screaming after Hillary committed the greatest sin by mentioning Bobbie Kennedy's assassination was.... "SHE JUST LOST HER CHANCE TO BE THE VP!" They were just waiting for an excuse to give him an "out" on choosing her as his running mate. He won't pick her.

    PLUS, Michelle isn't very fond of Hillary and Hillary is too good to be on his ticket. Why should she help him win? Just look at how she's been treated by him, his campaign, the DC elites, theDNC and his supporters.

    Lose her chance? (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Foxx on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:32:38 AM EST
    Who are all these people who think Hillary WANTS to be VP? That she is just yearning for it? Give me a break!!

    If she takes it, it would only be for the good of the party.

    I fervently hope she does not.

    Parent

    Answer. (none / 0) (#227)
    by Rictor Rockets on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:33:44 AM EST
    Who are all these people who think Hillary WANTS to be VP?

    Bill Clinton, for one...

    Parent

    Maybe he should choose Cindy (none / 0) (#91)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:50 AM EST
    McCain. I know she would earn a lot of votes for Obama.

    Parent
    She's got deep pockets. (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:19:41 AM EST


    Parent
    No who else has got deep pockets? (none / 0) (#127)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:23:43 AM EST


    Parent
    or Laura Bush! (none / 0) (#133)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:26:50 AM EST
    I mean, talk about a unity ticket that has everything!

    Parent
    Yeah, BF_killer will keep Obama in (none / 0) (#137)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:28:44 AM EST
    line.

    Parent
    She's certainly (none / 0) (#144)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:16 AM EST
    passed the CIC threshold -- what with being first lady for 8 years and all.

    Parent
    He won't pick Hillary for his VP (none / 0) (#190)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:06:23 AM EST
    and this is why he will lose the election. You have no idea how the Obama campaign has split the party down the middle. When Hillary drops out you will see a big bump in McCains polls. She will take with her all his hopes with her.

    Parent
    This only shows (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:22:48 AM EST
    that Hillary can both carry Obama on her shoulders to a win if she is the veep and has a better chances of winning herself if she is the presidential candidate.
    Whereas Obama as of now is the weaker presidential candidate and weaker veep candidate for Hillary also.

    Yet we are being told that Obama is the inevitable nominee and that we should be grateful beyond everything if Obama offers Hillary the veep position.
    Can life be more unfair!

    Anyways, I still hope that if Hillary looses this nomination she should wait it out and stake her claim for 2012. By being Obama's veep she will only harm herself further because then if Obama wins the GE all his faults thereafter will be blamed on Hillary by the Obama loving media.
    And I can also envision a term where team Obama will be constantly trying to undermine team Hillary instead of getting any job done.

    You know (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:31:16 AM EST
    I was just reading the comments at an ostensibly pro-Hillary blog and I could not believe the vitriol directed at Hillary and her supporters in the comments by Obama supporters. Why do those blogs put up with that crap?

    No wonder so many folks who are for Hillary come here.

    My gawd, are there no more safe havens for reasoned discourse anymore?

    There's here. :) (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:31 AM EST


    Parent
    I've noticed the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:36:13 AM EST
    Why are so many democrats SOOOO angry and SOOOO nasty?   That's one thing I really hate about my party.  I wish we could stop it.  It doesn't do us a bit of good.  

    Parent
    hate to say it, but... (5.00 / 6) (#165)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:41:58 AM EST
    many of the things Bill O'Reilly used to accuse the "angry left" of doing have been revealed this primary season.  He wasn't that far off the mark.

    For example he used to rail about possible anti-Israel sentiment on the left and especially at the orange blog and I was among one of the people who used to fight back against those people way back in the day.

    Keith Olbermann and his rants have made O'Reilly reasonable by comparison.

    Parent

    This primary race has been a bit (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:51:19 AM EST
    of a revelation for me as well.  Seems the GOP side has not been wrong about quite a few things which I always denied.

    I've always been fairly conservative  but lately I just keep turning further right.  Soon I'll be calling for more tax breaks for billionaires and more wars if this thing doesn't end soon  :-)

    Parent

    was it MYDD or Taylormarsh? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:37:15 AM EST
    I used to visit MYDD but it has been swamped by an army of rabid anti-Clinton jerks that have drowned out much of the reasonable discussion there.  Taylormarsh has a lot less trolls but they do come out at night.

    You know what one of the best Hillary blogs is?  Hillaryclintonforum.net

    It is growing dramatically in the last few weeks according to Alexa and it is almost completely troll free.  Just Clinton supporters having pretty positive conversations.

    Parent

    The problem is that there is no place (none / 0) (#167)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:42:04 AM EST
    that Obama supporters and Clinton supporters can have reasoned discourse.  At least in my mind that's what the problem is, I don't speak for BTD of course.

    Parent
    how about right here? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:28 AM EST


    Parent
    Aha! I was just going to add my 2 cents about that (none / 0) (#185)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:00:44 AM EST
    As an Obama supporter I do enjoy coming here and have been doing so for about 6 weeks, I think.  I am very careful where I comment though.  Some issues are like a briar patch and I stay far away.  Other times I don't comment when I know that I can't be reasonable (any discussion of Obama giving the finger for example).

    Considering my candidate choice I'd say I've gotten along fairly well and have enjoyed my time here and those that I have come in contact with.

    Though I was suprised when someone jumped all over me for slamming Joe Lieberman.  Guess I'll have to stay away from that discussion too.  No way I can be rational about Joe.

     

    Parent

    was it because (none / 0) (#230)
    by isaac on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:09:55 AM EST
    lieberman is obama's political role model (outdoing one another on who is more reasonable by spouting and giving credence to repug memes)?

    just a guess

    Parent

    No and when Obama (none / 0) (#231)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:05:35 PM EST
    lost an election in Chicago he didn't leave the party.  Obama has campaigned for other Democrats and he has pledged to do so for HRC if she should win the nomination.

    No matter what the subject matter some must find a way to slam Obama.  ODS.

    Parent

    heh... (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:38:45 AM EST
    and some of us came here just to relocate the actual discourse we'd come to appreciate.

    Me? I'm here for the bbq and your charming presence.

    ;-P

    Parent

    Gosh (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:17 AM EST
    I wonder what blog you could mean, given the plethora of pro-Hillary blogs out there.

    What's even funnier is how they whine and stage demonstrations any time there is the slightest whiff of moderation.  It's like they think they have a constitutional right to bully.

    Parent

    You're talking about Jerome's place (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:25 AM EST
    I assume?

    Let's just put it this way: you and Jeralyn provide a better environment here than can be found anywhere else with the same traffic, so far as I am aware. At least in the political arena.

    Parent

    over at MYDD, the change was obvious (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:02 AM EST
    sometime around 1 month ago there seemed to be an orchestrated "wave" of nasty, bad natured pro-Obama GOONS (the only appropriate word) that took over many of the threads and started recommending diaries en-masse.  For weeks prior to that almost all the diaries and commenters were pro-Clinton.

    I got the feeling that they came over to that blog in an effort to "conquer" it and expand the orange army.  See, to many of them it seems to be a video game.  A World of Warcraft primary.

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:47:01 AM EST
    The Creative Class in action.

    And the only way to hold them at bay is to run a site as Talk Left is.

    Parent

    Like the attempt (none / 0) (#187)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:01:59 AM EST
    by the Blog Pirates way back when?

    Parent
    Blog pirates? (none / 0) (#193)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:08:31 AM EST
    I know of only one.  His webpage is the best in the universe, he claims.

    Parent
    There were several... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:11:47 AM EST
    it was a year or two ago over at the orange. A group of these guys who called themselves pirates came in, wrote a few stupid talking point diaries and announced that the Orange had been boarded and conquered.

    Apparently they did something similar to Shakespeare's Sister before invading the Orange.

    It was an interesting afternoon.

    Parent

    hah (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:16:16 AM EST


    Parent
    no one... (none / 0) (#201)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:17:56 AM EST
    got to walk the virtual plank.

    Tho' many were banned that day.

    Parent

    I post on another board (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:42:00 AM EST
    where some of the Republicans actually support Hillary.  I guess they get a kick out of watching the Obama supporters get riled up.  

    Parent
    The Obama folk are extremely aggressive and (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by andrys on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:07:34 AM EST
    and, as a group, not very hope-filled in that older-fashioned way we have used the word.  A lot of venom there.

    Maybe the pro-Hillary site you mention has a host or hostess who's more worried about what happens after June 3, and, testing the currents, has let it be known that Obama supporters while welcome before when not insulting Hillary supporters, are now just plain welcome.

      That's to keep the space viable because it has been, unlike this place, too dependent on the fervor of Hillary supporters who were looking for an insult-free zone and a sort of chat space! -- and unless the focus is changed, the site traffic more or less dies after June 3 if Obama is the clear presumptive nominee (and then survives more investigation up to August convention) because members there have been promising not to support Obama.  From what I've seen all Democratic blogsites do have a focus to support Democrats in this election.  This is the site most of us would come to, no matter what happens in this election, because the moderators have a focus on Reason and Civility and because they are so well-informed.  As a result the base here reflects that focus.

      Now Obama supporters are overrunning that other site (if it's the same one I've been watching) and insulting away, which is not very helpful to Obama's presumed unity-message.
    But since he has been making good use of good cop/bad cop in the RFK/June debate (sending Olbermann rant to the entire press while saying they were moving beyond it), his followers may just take their cue from him.

      See some media criticism of that Olbermann comment.

      And current pro-Hillary members from the site I've been watching have announced plans to withdraw from all that unnecessarily poisonous atmosphere from the newly enabled Obama supporters.  (No moderating seen.)

      I don't know what will become of the cyber portion of Democrats because I have not, in 48 years, seen anything as divisive as what I see in Obama supporter comments directed at Clinton supporters.  While there is a little of the same done by Clinton supporters, it's overwhelmed by the volume and depth of it to Clinton supporters.  It may be because the Obama campaign has been able to afford paying hundreds of bloggers, per tv news headlines seen, and because Clinton commenters are generally not inclined that way.

    Parent

    Every pro-Hillary (none / 0) (#216)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:50:09 AM EST
    site that I go to, and I go to many, is constantly swarmed by Obama trolls. The confluence does manage to eradicate the nasty ones most of the time. Other places, not so much. Civil discourse? Maybe that's the biggest change of all.

    Used to be Dems/Libs had to duck Conservative trolls all the time. Now? Obama trolls worse. Much worse.

    Parent

    TL is a safe haven (none / 0) (#224)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:55:56 AM EST
    for reasoned discourse?

    well I guess as long as you are pro-hillary.

    Parent

    We are so screwed (5.00 / 5) (#152)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:34:18 AM EST
    If we can't win Michigan, we're just screwed.  The more people learn about Obama, the less they like him.  We can't win Florida, we're likely to lose Ohio and Michigan.  

    Sorry guys, I hate to insult my own kind, but Democrats were dumb to vote for this untested, unvetted, unknown, candidate, Obama.  Too many of us fall for the nice speech and empty suits. We let our emotions over run our brains. I just pray that we're not stuck with him on the top of the ticket.  There is no way we're gonna win with him. This is just making me sick.  We should have won this easily.  

    On top of all that, we'll never hear the end of the race issue.  Obama will lose, and the voters will be called racists, forever. We will have to hear over and over what racists we all are.  I am SOOOO friggin' sick of the race issue, when for 95+% of Americans it simply is NOT an issue.  Obama losing has nothing to do with race and everything to do with who he is, or rather, who he isn't.  I am so bummed.  

    Today on talk radio am, the moderator (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:47:04 AM EST
    (don't know who it was) asked if anyone ever heard Obama discussing substantive issues with factual support sans script.  This question stemmed from an earlier comment about his comment about his great uncle's military experiences. Moderator suggested his skill set might be law teacher/lawyer, not policy advocate/polititian.  

    Parent
    even us profs... (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:59:30 AM EST
    talk about some substance.

    Parent
    Worth noting... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Siguy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:23:57 PM EST
    Romney's family is deeply linked to Michigan and his dad was governor there.

    This is a weird poll because usually they tried a bunch of GOP veeps, not just Romney, who frankly, is not going to be the nominee.

    Obviously it's still troubling that Obama is listed as losing this race at the moment, but I find this poll particularly strange and pointless given the Romney element (which drags in every other state poll they did).

    The primary story of Obama's polling numbers is simple: he loses the match-ups because Clinton supporters don't vote for him and all Republicans vote for McCain. Hillary does better in these same polling match ups because Obama supporters say they'll vote for her and so she gets a higher percentage of Democrats (there are exceptions, such as Arkansas, West Virginia, and Kentucky).

    I still think Hillary would be a more electable candidate, but the race is quite clearly gonna go to Obama and I'm not convinced yet that she's the best VP choice given the gas tax and other issues she's brought up that would mess up Obama's message. Still, if she could actually bring her supporters to the table so that Obama got the 80% of Democrats he should get, then it's a ticket that would almost certainly win.

    She's the only choice (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:18 PM EST
    I'm not happy with it, either, but anybody else simply won't be acceptable, given the number of voters who chose her. If Obama puts a token woman on the ticket it is going to signal the world that it doesn't really matter who runs, as long as it's a women. This would insult every woman who supported Clinton. It would be as if Clinton won and chose a black running mate - a token black, so to speak. We don't want a "token" woman. Clinton's appeal has nothing to do with her being a woman, and any suggestion otherwise is insulting and demeaning.

    It may not be the best option - it may be the only option.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:33:43 PM EST
    It really makes no difference as long as you're just measuring the relative merits of the Democratic VP candidates.

    If you're trying to go further than that and argue about whether Obama would win MI against McCain, then I agree that the Romney name has significant cachet in the state.

    Parent

    If McCain wants to put Michigan as a focus (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:37:07 PM EST
    then Romney is his man no question.

    Parent
    McCain/Romney (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:31 PM EST
    probably also takes CO in a walk.  So much for the Western strategy.


    Parent
    It bothers me quite a bit that we win NO (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:24:08 PM EST
    MI matchups.

    Would be interesting (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:12:13 AM EST
    to do a Clinton/Obama poll with the same McCain matchups.  Might win then!

    Parent
    the crosstabs make no sense (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:25:32 PM EST
    The A-A vote for instance is absurd.

    What is REALLY interesting id the big junmp for Obama among women voters with Clinton as his VP.

    Parent

    Good catches (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:27:10 PM EST
    The meager black support for Obama simply isn't credible. Fix this SUSA!

    Parent
    You two have been saying forever (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:44:25 PM EST
    MI and FL won't go Dem. in the GE if their delegates aren't seated while it still matters.  Were you excluding AA voters in those states if Obama is the nominee?

    Parent
    If I am one of the 2 (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:54:07 PM EST
    I said MI was more in play than it should be because of this. I actually expected Obama to win MI.

    but if McCain picks Romney, it seems that MI can only be won by Obama/Clinton.

    And if that is true for MI, it must be true for PA I think.

    Parent

    Uh, obviously. (none / 0) (#54)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:46:17 PM EST


    Parent
    michigan is possible not florida (none / 0) (#55)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Look at our state (none / 0) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:53:43 PM EST
    not is this nuts or what?

    McCain/Huckabee wins California?  go figure.  this state is nuts and no one believes me or am I reading something really wrong here?

    Parent

    We are Cassandras, pure and simple. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Can you or the resident polling masters (none / 0) (#107)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:13:32 AM EST
    explain the McCain/Huck combination winning California?

    Parent
    I think it's simply wrong (none / 0) (#110)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:15:24 AM EST
    We're not losing California. My suspicion: cruddy Hispanic sample.

    Parent
    Only a fool thinks CA is in play. (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:28:14 AM EST


    Parent
    Singing: I am fool then (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:22 AM EST
    cause...I just keep remembering back in the Bradley election.  California is never what you think it is.  

    Parent
    I think it's in play too (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:54:42 AM EST
    Just nobody realizes it.  

    Parent
    But (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Jane in CA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:37:45 AM EST
    if you keep telling yourself CA's not in play, then you can imagine doing all kinds of evil things because your vote won't count anyway.  Like ... I dunno ... sending McCain $10 or $20 everytime Obama or the DNC asks for money and cc'ing them on your response? "Another donation to McCain from a Clinton supporter and former Democrat!"

    LOL.  Not that I'd ever do something like that or anything :)  What was Donna Brazile's email address again?  LOL.

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:31:51 AM EST
    I live in SF, and i know several people that are considering voting for mccain in the fall.  All somewhere on the LGBTQI spectrum, and if it looks like the prop against gay marriage isn't going to pass it'll probably be much more likely.  

    I will vote for mccain, vote independent/dem in other areas, and oppose several state and federal dems that have failed, failed, failed at leadership (federal) and good government (state).  At the local level, since we have IRV I will trend ind/green->dem.

    The party needs to be slapped hard at the national level and at the state level (though it's probably pointless at the state level).  Supporting/enabling misogyny, abandoning the working class, selectively disenfranchising voters as a result of party politics, and helping a noob hijack the primary....  Not to mention discouraging people from supporting issue groups and instead trying to get them to fund the party directly (which will not improve policy at all).

    IMHO, a randomly selected group of 12 people would have done better than the democratic leadership in this election.  


    Parent

    Combo of military, immigration, (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:15:40 AM EST
    and all those Appalachians tipping the state east.

    Parent
    it's name recognition (none / 0) (#221)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:10:18 AM EST
    screwing with both sides i think:

    who's rendel? hagel? sebelius?

    and what portion said "don't know?" vs opted for "unknown dems" vs opted for "known repubs"

    Parent

    And white vote too (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:28:31 PM EST
    According to this poll, Obama loses A-A voters if he picks Clinton which seems impossible to believe.

    ewhen you look int side the numbers you see that Clinton helps him in every group he needs help with - whites, women, seniors, Latinos.

    Parent

    That's the nail in the coffin (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:40:27 PM EST
    for not picking her as VP.  The assassination rumor was really big in the AA community.  What Axelrod did is link her to that possibility.  I tell you this was all planned.  They knew what they were doing.  Axelrod, killed the unity ticket, cause he does not want the Clinton's around.  This was the tactic.  Absolutely, no way a black SD sticks with Hillary now.  He has destroyed that chance.  This was the swiftboating that was in Rove's wet dreams.  

    Parent
    Daily Howler has a great article about this (none / 0) (#53)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:45:59 PM EST
    Somerby

    Parent
    I read it. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    It was brilliant.  The damage was done.  There will be a special place for Axelrod.  

    Parent
    I agree. Hillary will always be suspect (none / 0) (#138)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:14 AM EST
    because of this.  This unity ticket is overrated.  It's not a simple one plus one equals two.  It is more like -1+1=0.

    Nah! I think Hillary should just take it all the way to the convention.  There won't be a nominee until the convention.

    Parent

    Yeah, it does (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:29:58 PM EST
    You're obviously right about the unity ticket.

    And this black sample really bothers me. It's FUBAR.

    Parent

    Oops not Latinos (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:31:41 PM EST
    But thatmust be a quirk.

    she has to at leaqst be neutral for him with LAtinos.

    but the white numbers and the women numbers are really statistically significant.

    this poll is obvious.

    clinton is the CLEAR choice. Hands down.

    Parent

    Hispanic sample can be ignored. (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:33:47 PM EST
    At 2%, it's meaningless.

    Parent
    All those groups, huh? (none / 0) (#11)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:30:17 PM EST
    Prolly best to put her on top then.

    Parent
    Kidddo (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:32:59 PM EST
    If I could I would, but I can't make it happen.

    Now I am trying to figure out how we can get him across the finish line. This polls is strong evidence that Clinton is the one to do that.

    Parent

    Here's how we get him over (none / 0) (#24)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:35:04 PM EST
    the finish line.  Seriously.  We run him as VP.  He builds a resume.  In 8 years, those working class whites will be eating out of the palm of his hand.  That's the ticket.

    Parent
    I think that's (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:03:00 AM EST
    Passive aggressive and condescending.


    Parent
    You know what? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:35 AM EST
    you have grown beyond tiresome.

    Do me a favor and stop commenting in my threads.

    Parent

    Hey kiddo (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:18:46 AM EST
    It's not our fault you got the primary wrong.


    Parent
    Yeah, but it's too late, I think (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:34:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Of course it's not too late. (none / 0) (#56)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama/Edwards Does 2% Better (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:49:32 PM EST
    than Obama/Clinton.

    McCain/Romney 43%  Obama/Edwards 40%  16% Undecided
    McCain/Romney 45%  Obama/Clinton 40%  15% Undecided

    Black vote looks screwy all across the board. Hightest percent (Obama/Edwards) is only 67%.

    Parent

    But that's my point (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:56:29 PM EST
    No way Obama/Clinton get 51%. It gets 95% of the A-A vote, just like Obama/Edwards.

    the only choice that moves Obama up with whites and women is Clinton.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:30 PM EST
    Almost all of the black vote is Obama's, and no one he could choose would change that. The problem is with. . .everyone else. If you turn up the black support to where it should be, Obama begins to look better.

    Parent
    Would a female VP (none / 0) (#9)
    by Chimster on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:29:43 PM EST
    be a slap in Hillary's face?

    I think so. It would tell me that Obama likes the idea of a female running the country alongside him, just not Hillary.

    Do we have to go through a VP vetting process as well since the VP is only a heartbeat away from the presidency?  Doesn't sound very promising.

    I'll go with a wild card prediction: John Kerry as VP.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:02 PM EST
    The issue is not really whether it would be offensive to Hillary, but whether it would be offensive to her supporters.

    Unless it were clear that Hillary didn't want the job, I have to think that the choice of a woman other than Hillary would alienate more women than it would mollify.

    Parent

    You got that right. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:41:05 PM EST
    Well, I wasn't sure if the population of this website was truly representative, so just to be sure, I polled my household before posting :)

    Parent
    hmmm (none / 0) (#223)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:38:45 AM EST
    well, my cat Marmalady (aka marma_w_itch) seemed pretty unhappy with the idea of another woman.  She's generally in line with the lesbian vote...soo the CA vote might bump a couple points.  

    Who was it that was polling NC cats?

    Parent

    There we go again with the Unity Pony (none / 0) (#12)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:31:28 PM EST
    The chances for it to happen are now below zero.

    He won't offer it. If he does offer it, she's not going to take it: much better things for her in many other capacities as discussed in other threads here.

    Nada, no way, rien de rien, capish?

    Looks like (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:31:44 PM EST
    Edwards would be the best pick for Obama here.
    Nope (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:34:30 PM EST
    You need to read the crosstabs.

    According to this, Obama loses A-As by picking clinton. That makes NO SENSE.

    In the key demos Obama needs helps with, women and whites, CLINTON really helps him. No one else.

    This poll is strong evidence that Clinton is the right choice.

    Parent

    Occured to me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:37:01 PM EST
    They'd made such a good team in that one debate.


    Parent
    You say this (none / 0) (#64)
    by phat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:56:26 PM EST
    But I wonder.

    Clinton has been very effectively painted as a racist.

    Would that suppress the vote among African-Americans if she were on the ticket?

    Parent

    Uh, no. Honestly, really, come (none / 0) (#66)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:57:39 PM EST
    on now.

    Parent
    With Obama at the top of the ticket? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:20 PM EST
    Ridiculous. Note, SUSA has been unable to poll A-As right this entire campaign.

    I have been adjusting their numbers on A-As for a while now.

    With every other demo they are spot on.

    Every miss they have had has been because they mess up the A-A vote.

    Parent

    Why that is I don't know (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:59:35 PM EST
    They did just fine with Philly mayor last year.

    I almost wonder if people are lying about being AA just to screw with SUSA.

    Parent

    What would be a good term for that? (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:03:20 AM EST


    Parent
    Polling failure (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:12:18 AM EST


    Parent
    Well at least it is consistent (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:04:13 AM EST
    I know how to adjust for it. 90-10 at least for Obama in primaries.

    I say 95-5 in the GE.

    you know that landslide everyone wants? The Unity Ticket will deliver it.

    Parent

    I hope (none / 0) (#92)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:51 AM EST
    Lots of Hillary's map would be off the table, but it's probably the best we can do. And if it's good enough to win, that's good enough for me.

    You might shoot Jay Leve an email to see if he's looking at ways to improve his AA correctness. He seems always willing to engage on that sort of thing.

    Parent

    Seriously (none / 0) (#141)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:30:48 AM EST
    That was just a guess.

    I don't have any other explanation other than a bad sample.

    No reason to get upset at me.

    The bad sample is a better explanation, but I thought I'd throw that out.

    Sorry for the interruption.

    Parent

    It seems as though (none / 0) (#39)
    by sander60tx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:40:03 PM EST
     the VP choices with the most name recognition poll better... Clinton or Edwards help the most, followed by Gore.   I think a lot of people don't know who the others are.  But whoever is chosen will become well known.  So, I'm not sure how useful a poll like this is at this time.  Nevertheless, I've been very curious to see how the so-called "unity ticket" would fare in polls.  It is interesting that this poll contradicts the notion that Clinton would be a drag on Obama.  That is encouraging news!

    Parent
    If Name Recognition is a factor (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:42:17 PM EST
    Kieth Olbermann is Obama's man.


    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:05:55 AM EST
    90% of the country has no effing clue who Olbermann is.

    Parent
    And that's not high enough! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:04 AM EST


    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:39 AM EST
    Yeah.

    I know.


    Parent

    diogenes (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:35:30 PM EST
    You are prohibited from ever posting in my threads.

    Always. Every day. You can only post in Jeralyn threads.

    that is a constant and unshakeable rule.

    But will he be able to do that after all the (none / 0) (#27)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:36:40 PM EST
    effort by his campaign and the MSN to make her look so totally irredeemable a human to the american public.  The primary attack against Hillary is that she's been giving the Rebubs (sorry Republicans)  strategy to go after Obama, could just as easily be turned against  Obamas' supporters -i.e. Their attack strategy could be used against Hillary by the Rebubs.  If she's such a horrible person why did Barack choose her, what does that say about his judgement?  (Or some such nonsense.)

    I've got to start typing faster...

    Polling isn't predictive (none / 0) (#29)
    by s5 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:36:59 PM EST
    Just because the ticket polls well in the abstract doesn't mean it would win. An Obama/Clinton unity ticket would need plenty of other ingredients to win, including a coherent message and teams who would fit well together. If the unity ticket turns out to be flawed in practice, then these poll numbers will be the ceiling of their support, not the election results.

    Oh come on (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:39:51 PM EST
    Obama/Clinton are not abstract now. You must know that. this is just BS from you.

    If you want to REALLY test the strength of that ticket, you can. you can argue that the other names  or most of them might not be predictive but Obama/Clinton? It is just ridiculous to argue that poling them together is not meaningful Hell, it may be the only actual meaningful ticket polling you can do.y

    Parent

    It is abstract (none / 0) (#57)
    by s5 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:50 PM EST
    Because the general election hasn't started. They haven't campaigned together. They haven't combined resources. They haven't put together a unified message. Other than the occasional nods to "of course I'll help elect the nominee", they've done nothing together besides squabble and disagree. We have no idea what the combined ticket would be like in practice.

    You may believe the combined effort would work well, and there's a strong case that it would, but there's also a strong case that the union would fall apart or appear disjointed to voters. I just don't believe that the high support is much beyond "those are the two people I've heard the most from and I'm most comfortable with".

    Parent

    Absurd (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:00:52 AM EST
    These are the most known quantities in the entire Dem Party.

    they almost NEVER will be campaigning together.

    You rehabilitate and reactivate Bill clinton.

    this is a sure fire winner.

    It would be INSANE not to pick Clinton as the VP. Simply insane.

    You solve all your unity problems and then get the 3 best pols in the Dem Party who complement each other so well in their appeals.

    Honestly, only a fool or a child would not see it.

    Parent

    Do you sense you are winning any (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:04:20 AM EST
    converts here?  

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:06:25 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm with BTD. (none / 0) (#199)
    by Chimster on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:14:25 AM EST
    If precious wins,  I want Hillary on the ticket. It really is the smartest move the Dem party can make. People's memories are short. Maybe not the people on this blog, but the majority of voters memories are short. They would make a great team. Broken hearts will be mended and McCain won't stand a chance against the dynamic duo.

    It's my second choice, but I'm for it if we're cornered.

    Parent

    I'm for the Unity ticket. (none / 0) (#95)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:09:23 AM EST
    Just with Hillary on top.  I mean, I'm reading in the comments  let's rehabilitate Bill, let's get Hillary on the ticket, these two could increase our share in Congress and win Obama the Presidency!  I say, if they are going to do all that work, may as well make Hillary president.  Obama can be her VP.

    Parent
    I don't that counts as a convert. (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:25:31 AM EST


    Parent
    Rehabilitating BC (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:05:22 AM EST
    could net 4-5 extra house seats. He was instrumental, for example, in the TX-23 runoff last December.

    Parent
    Isn't it the Obama campaign and (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:00 AM EST
    media in need of rehab; as opposed to Bill Clinton?

    Parent
    With Clinton supporters, yes it is (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:12:56 AM EST
    With Obama supporters it is the Clintons who need the rehab.  Naming her as VP rehabs two birds with one stone, so to speak.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:18 AM EST
    andgarden stepped into that one.

    Thinks Clinton needs to be rehabilitated.

    If andgarden and BTD are serious about a Unity ticket they will implore the Obama community to beg.  To apologize loudly.  And ask nicely.

    Let's face it.  The ONLY reason why they're proposing the Unity ticket is because they're afraid Obama will lose without it.

    So who needs rehabilitation?


    Parent

    My goal is to win in November (none / 0) (#157)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:38:07 AM EST
    I believe that Hillary shares that goal.

    It is not a secret that I think Hillary is a stronger candidate, but I believe that she will not be the nominee. So where do we go from here? A unity ticket.

    You might not care whether a Democrat wins the White House in November, but I do.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#168)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:43:19 AM EST
    If you care, don't say the people who figured they'd be better candidates from the get go need to be rehabilitated.

    Turned out they were right.


    Parent

    Rehabilitated (none / 0) (#172)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:56 AM EST
     in the eyes of Obama supporters you dumbass.

    Parent
    Obama supporters (none / 0) (#182)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:58:55 AM EST
    Are wrong about that.

    The ONLY thing that needs to happen for the Clintons to be rehabilitated in the eyes of an Obama supporter is for the Obama supporter to change.  For them to admit they were wrong.

    If you do something to rehabilitate yourself in the eyes of someone who is wrong, you are basically saying they are right.

    And that would be wrong.


    Parent

    gobbledygook (none / 0) (#184)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:59:45 AM EST
    Goodnight.

    Parent
    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:05:29 AM EST
    Here's how it works.

    I say "Andgarden is a liar."

    Then someone else shows up and says "Hey andgarden, here's something you can do to rehabilitate yourself in the eyes of edgar08."

    So then you have a choice.

    You can do that thing.

    Or you can say "Edgar is wrong."

    I say Obama supporters are wrong.  When they figure out they need Clinton to win, and articulate that in a way that doesn't demean Clinton's supporters, then I'll think about getting on the Unity ticket bus.

    Parent

    I say go for broke (none / 0) (#212)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:55:09 AM EST
    I think the chances that Obama will ask Clinton to be VP are worse than the chances that she could win the nomination.  All through the process he and the DNC gang have incorrectly assessing the risk of their big gambles, and they hate her.  They'd rather chance it that putting someone else on the ticket would win them the GE than put her on the ticket -- she is everything they are trying to destroy.  Time and again Obama's arrogance has outridden sense.  There's no reason to think that would change for the VP pick.

    It'd be easier to convince a sizeable chunk of SDs to take a good hard look at the electoral map than to convince the Obama gang to make nice with her.    If he loses in November, all that happy cash turns into Monopoly money when the clock strikes midnight.

    Her trajectory is upward and his is flat, flat, flat.  She has time.  She can make her case.  Every days she wins her case a little more.

    BTD is right that the only way the Democrats can safely win the GE is with a Unity ticket.  But the Unity ticket is not possible with him on top, not because it's an insult or repulsive to many Clinton supporters, or a phenomenally bad idea for her but because it will not happen.

    So let's go for broke.  My girl's gonna come through.  

    Parent

    Reactivate is the better word (none / 0) (#139)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:30:10 AM EST
    The Clintons will be fine with or without Obama needing them to win.


    Parent
    I guess I'm a fool, then.... (none / 0) (#126)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:23:20 AM EST
    because I don't see Clinton helping Obama in the long term.

    The idea of a Obama/Clinton ticket appeals to voters who crave unity, and want to see people working together.  

    But the reality is that Clinton can't make up for Obama's deficiencies as a candidate because Obama's problems are less about his lack of experience/preparation than about who he really is.... and Clinton does change that one iota.  If anything, the choice of Clinton by Obama would be seen for what it is -- an act of insecutiry.

    And lets face it, if there was ever a dream ticket for the right-wing noise machine, its Obama/Clinton.
     

    Parent

    Coherent messages are not the problem! (none / 0) (#34)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:19 PM EST
    Hillary would be a good trooper as VP candidate---no question.

    Parent
    Oh I see (none / 0) (#35)
    by s5 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:57 PM EST
    It's polling against Romney in Michigan. But if McCain chooses Romney, then we win the election in every other state (except Utah).

    There are other Michigan natives McCain (none / 0) (#45)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:42:30 PM EST
    could pick that would likely seal the deal for him in Michigan but wouldn't have Romney's Mormon drag. Candice Miller for one.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#73)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:59:18 PM EST
    but Candice Miller (ugh) would have absolutely no clout in the other 49 states.  Michigan isn't THAT critical.

    Parent
    There was a second Michigan poll out (none / 0) (#37)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:39:49 PM EST
    today (saw it on Google News front page) that also had Obama trailing McCain by 4.

    Same poll I think (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:40:24 PM EST
    But I will check Ras.

    Parent
    Nope, it was done by EPIC-MRA. (none / 0) (#50)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:44:37 PM EST
    I won't link because I don't want to screw up the site, but in Google news just search for "Michigan Poll". It's the first one that comes up/

    Parent
    This doesn't seem right... (none / 0) (#47)
    by jtaylorr on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:43:36 PM EST
    Obama only gets 60% of the black vote?
    Not to mention, they have Wayne county 44-42 while Kerry took it 69-29.
    I guess we have to wait and see if this is an outliers.
    (But honestly, only 60% of the black vote?! How is that possible?)

    A polling glitch. (none / 0) (#52)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:45:07 PM EST
    Common.

    Parent
    If MI is trending repub (none / 0) (#51)
    by ajain on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:44:39 PM EST
    Then what margin or error does Obama have?
    I mean even if he wins IA,CO,NM & NV, if he loses MI,FL,OH & NH isn't he in big big trouble?

    If he loses Michigan, he has to win Ohio. (none / 0) (#59)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:48:20 PM EST


    Parent
    There's no must about it. (none / 0) (#72)
    by realitybites on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:59:11 PM EST
    As the winner he gets to pick his VP and it's not going to be Hillary.

    You don't go from "Shame on you Barack Obama" and "McCain and I have passed the CIC threshold" and "McCain and I bring years of experience and Obama brings a speech he gave in 2002" .. to "you must pick me as VP".

    Obama is going to vet his own choices. If he personally feels that Hillary is the best choice, then she'll be VP. If not, she won't be.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:06:45 AM EST
    Amazing, after Obama's campaign has accused Hillary of race-baiting and attacked her character by claiming she'll say anything and do anything to be elected, his supporters still can't get over something as trivial as "shame on you."

    Touchiest people in the universe, as we see every day at this site.

    Parent

    ZOMG! (1.00 / 2) (#96)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:22 AM EST
    The irony, it burns!!!

    Parent
    Both sides hate it (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:00:14 AM EST
    so it must be right! heh.

    Parent
    Great (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:02:02 AM EST
    Le't s effing lose in November.

    Are there any effing grownups in the Dem Party?

    Parent

    Unity Caucus, party of 5. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:04:11 AM EST


    Parent
    Hey! Party of 6! (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:08:35 AM EST


    Parent
    That gets my vote for sure! (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:16:34 AM EST
    If there were any effing grownups in the Dem party, Obama would not be the nominee.


    Parent
    Great (none / 0) (#125)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:23:09 AM EST
    So now the 16M+ folks who voted for Obama are not grown ups?

    Parent
    Evidently not, (none / 0) (#153)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:35:34 AM EST


    Parent
    Hehe (none / 0) (#161)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:35 AM EST
    "Shame on you 16M+ voters who are not grown up and voting for Obama.

    Parent
    Bargaining stage (none / 0) (#101)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Ah, I see. ::waves to the Creative Class:: (none / 0) (#106)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:13:03 AM EST


    Parent
    You've voting Obama in the fall right? (none / 0) (#111)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:15:32 AM EST
    Right?

    Parent
    Even after everything, yes. (none / 0) (#117)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:17:43 AM EST


    Parent
    Hat tip to ya (none / 0) (#120)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:20:23 AM EST


    Parent
    no, along with millions of other Democrats. (none / 0) (#121)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:20:54 AM EST
    That makes Obama look rather unelectable, doesn't it?
    Reality therapy, anybody?

    Parent
    Take some advice from BTD ... (none / 0) (#140)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:30:39 AM EST
    and speak for yourself only :)

    Parent
    Take some advice for me, and (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:24 AM EST
    stop your silly bullying.
    The polls back me up----Obama will hemorrhage Democratic support. In fact, this was true long before the campaign because so intensely bitter.

    Parent
    Sorry if you felt bullied (none / 0) (#151)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:57 AM EST
    I won't reply to your posts anymore.

    Parent
    Great (none / 0) (#186)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:01:11 AM EST
    and so now when and if Hillary suceeds she will announce then that she isn't looking to be VP. I really hope she lets him have it, I don't want her to have to make excuses of why they didn't win. Obama is going to be rejected by half of women, half of the latinos, mor than half of the working class people and half of the older genaration. That is not going to be a winning tichet. Honestly McCain will the other share plus his core,and that gets him the election very easily.

     

    Parent

    Uh? Growups? (none / 0) (#215)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:48:32 AM EST
    No there aren't.

    Parent
    Maybe it's my mood... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:09:02 AM EST
    and the fact that I got the "I'm disappointed in you" from my mother about something else...

    But dude, as much as I adore you and your fight for this, I just don't see it happening.

    Jeralyn's earlier post about the new Victory speech suggests that he has no real underlying interest in encouraging some sort of unity ticket.

    Maybe tomorrow I'll see it. But right now? ::sigh::

    Let me put it this way (none / 0) (#99)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:46 AM EST
    I think this unity ticket is now much more likely than a hillary nomination.

    (That ought to get some people upset!)

    Parent

    you certainly know how to stick (none / 0) (#124)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:23:06 AM EST
    a paper clip in the wall socket, don't you?

    Parent
    My philosophy (none / 0) (#130)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:25:24 AM EST
    is to get painful things out of the way.

    Parent
    well... (none / 0) (#148)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:50 AM EST
    there is that.

    Finally, Danger Kitty has cornered the mouse that has been plaguing her for ages.

    Mouse has been captured and relocated to a neighbor's bush.

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:40:31 AM EST


    Parent
    Funniest thing ever... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:46:54 AM EST
    My cat does not have a clue beyond "Oh cool...small running thing...let's play!"

    Parent
    The must pick? (none / 0) (#97)
    by halstoon on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:26 AM EST
    Really? It would seem that if you're gonna go by SUSA, Edwards is the must pick. By your rationale, Gore is a 'must pick' since he polls equal to Clinton, and they both actually lose Obama a point (which seems to be your true agenda); in that case, maybe it is just what you want.

    If people know how to read a poll (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:22:20 AM EST
    they would understand. Not to say that you do not.

    But when folks are  juvenile fools, not that I am saying you are, they blind themselves to the obvious. Not saying that you do.

    Parent

    With Clinton, Obama got the highest percent (none / 0) (#104)
    by rjarnold on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:12:37 AM EST
    of Democrats. The reason Edwards did the best is because that ticket got the most Independents. I think that Edwards may end up being a strong VP choice if Obama doesn't pick Clinton.

    Nah. Edwards is a terrible choice. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:13:55 AM EST


    Parent
    Why? He's probably at least the best (none / 0) (#132)
    by rjarnold on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:26:26 AM EST
    non-Clinton choice.

    Parent
    Nah. He just lost the last time at bat. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:28:19 AM EST
    He showed no growth as a candidate.  Just not a good pick.

    Parent
    Edwards hasn't won an election since 1998. (none / 0) (#145)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:20 AM EST
    He spent years and years working on Iowa but couldn't win there, despite being a much better fit for that state then Obama or Clinton. He didn't really help Kerry in 2004, the voters passed him over twice in primaries and he doesn't do anything for Obama in terms of experience or gravitas.

    Yeah, he may be better then some Kansas Governor nobody has ever heard of, but he still isn't the magic bullet people are hoping for.

    Parent

    Edwards has "Joementum" (none / 0) (#194)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:10:00 AM EST
    enough said?

    Parent
    Edwards and Obama (none / 0) (#134)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:27:41 AM EST
    Are perfect for each other.

    Edwards goes on the attack.

    Obama says "Who me?"

    Parent

    "Edwards goes on the attack" (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:07:27 AM EST
    No offense, but I don't think you're thinking too clearly tonight.  Edwards in 2004 hardly lifted a finger for Kerry.

    Edwards is a complete non-entity politically.  He has no pull anymore.  Could even hurt Obama with white males.

    Parent

    I was thinking more like (none / 0) (#195)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:10:25 AM EST
    During the MSNBC debate where Edwards opened the assault on Clinton giving room to Obama to attack without seeming like he was that bad.


    Parent
    They don't need Edwards for that (none / 0) (#205)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:26:33 AM EST
    MSNBC can handle that role just fine at the next debate for Obama.  They're pretty good at "opening the assault on Clinton and making Obama look good in the process, no?

    Anyway, I was never a fan of Edwards.  Never.
    At one point though, I WAS on the Obama bandwagon.  For about 2 weeks in late January.  It was over at DKos and I found mysekf really advocating for him.  Once the kool-aid wore off, I felt guilty and ashamed.  I went in the showed and wept and cleansed myself of the past.

    Parent

    MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:28:54 AM EST
    Won't be on the attack on McCain.

    They may not turn on Obama, but they won't attack McCain either.  

    Obama will need someone to attack McCain.

    Parent

    He is their darling, you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:33:25 AM EST
    but maybe it depends on who the moderators are.

    Anyway, Obama is not going to be the nominee.

    You heard it hear first.  I called it way back when the first Jeremiah Wright tape came out.  I'm sticking to the prediction for better or worse.

    Parent

    He won't be the president (none / 0) (#219)
    by kempis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:26:06 AM EST
    ...not with Jeremiah Wright as a prominent figure in his life for 20 years, but he'll be the nominee, I'm afraid.

    I think the Democratic party has taken "out-of-touch" to a whole new level....

     

    Parent

    Maybe Elizabeth Edwards could go on (none / 0) (#204)
    by Grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:25:59 AM EST
    attack?  She did pretty well, attacking Ann Coulter...  

    Parent
    What does it tell you about where we are (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:13:56 AM EST
    that Obama is weak with Democrats AND indys?

    Parent
    Well, I won't say, but I am sure you (none / 0) (#112)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:15:36 AM EST
    know what I am thinking.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:17:27 AM EST
    The issue was A-A. edwards got him to 67, ridiculpous BTW, and clint had him at 51. SUSA just ca not poll A-As. It just can't.

    Parent
    that's crazy (none / 0) (#143)
    by rjarnold on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:31:18 AM EST
    I didn't notice that.

    Parent
    Interesting. (none / 0) (#128)
    by OrangeFur on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:24:10 AM EST
    I had no idea that Romney would be that powerful a draw in Michigan from the VP slot. If McCain can take Michigan, the Democratic map just got a lot tougher.

    One thing Atrios said many months ago that I thought was insightful: whoever the Democratic nominee is, if that person loses, he or she will quickly be an outcast in the Democratic Party. There can be no excuses for losing in such a Democratic year.

    Or as the bride's disapproving sister said to Jerry Maguire right after the wedding: "You f--- this up, I'll kill you."

    Kill in a metaphorical way, of course.

    We can hope it's not just the nominee (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:40:56 AM EST
    who gets cast out if there's a loss.  Perhaps the whole DNC hierarchy will get canned.  That would be a very positive thing IMHO.

    Parent
    Maybe along with (none / 0) (#171)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:39 AM EST
    A few blogging "leaders" too.


    Parent
    never gonna happen! (none / 0) (#188)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:02:58 AM EST
    CDS alone will fuel their vampire-like existence for a few more years no matter what.

    Parent
    Not if they (none / 0) (#191)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:06:41 AM EST
    want the White House.

    Right now I'm trying to figure out who REALLY wants the White House and who is just trying to get Clinton supporters to feel better.


    Parent

    crashing the gate vs going inside the house (none / 0) (#198)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:13:40 AM EST
    I guess some of them might be content with a nice picnic on the lawn, maybe T-P some of the trees and then they'll get bored and go home to watch Keith Olbermann.

    Parent
    Pony (none / 0) (#173)
    by nellre on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:46:28 AM EST
    I have assumed the unity pony comes from the "there's a pony in there somewhere" story.
    I can find Reagan's version, but the one I recall predates Reagan (I think) and is about a boy who believes he will be getting a pony for Christmas... and starts searching for it in a dung heap.
    The definition of a cockeyed optimist.

    I am, in fact, an optimist, and believe Hillary still might be the nominee.

    me too (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:20:09 AM EST
    I think her chances are pretty good.  Even if things are "rigged" against her, that doesn't mean the plan always succeeds.

    Things could have gone much, much worse for Clinton over the last 2 months.  Many things have actually fallen in place for her at just the right moments to barely keep her in the running.  Giving her just enough time... to allow people to really think about what has happened and snap out of it.

    Parent

    Here's some support for a Unity (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:10:58 AM EST
    Ticket (warning:  Huff Post):

    UNITY TICKET

    One of the rationales:  Republicans dislike Hillary Clinton so Obama would be impeachment -proof.  

    As far as (none / 0) (#203)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:20:40 AM EST
    Obama would be a Speech giver handing our unity ponies while Clinton does what she needs to do from the VP's office, that works for me as far as a Unity ticket is concerned.

    Parent
    it would work for me also (none / 0) (#207)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:30:31 AM EST
    but to tell you the truth, I've seen a lot of women express resentment about such a scenario.

    Parent
    Clinton as VP would be great for Obama (none / 0) (#229)
    by nene on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:47:52 AM EST
    Not so much for Hillary, I think.  She would be blamed for everything that went wrong in an Obama administration and get none of the credit for anything that went well.

    SUSA MI Poll: More Support For Unity Ticket | 225 comments (225 topical)