Home › Blogs › Soren Dayton's blog ›

Bipartisan VP thoughts

Submitted by Soren Dayton on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 14:26
in

Just some random thoughts that I have had watching this. I have been too busy to focus on blow-by-blow, which may or may not help for clarity.

First, the Republicans:

  • It really feels like the pro-choice thing is a hip-fake. One option is that it is a hip-fake for Mitt Romney. Another is that it is a way of telling moderates that McCain is thinking about them even if he is not capable of giving them something.
  • It sure feels like the Romney campaign is back in full gear. I mean, why today, of all days, does Mark Halperin have a link to something about Romney's healthcare plan? This is exactly the sort of tactic that the Romney campaign excelled at in the primary. Romney's problem is like Obama's. All the great tactics, etc., will only get you so far. In the end, "the dogs won't eat the darn stuff."
  • Thinking back to the 3 subgroups (see the POS presentation after the jump on these groups) that the McCain campaign thinks that they need to move, I wonder who helps. This feels like a list for Tim Pawlenty or Carli Fiorina, except for the 3rd:
    • Rehab Republicans. I think that they are mostly back. Mostly "the Mac" being "back" was enough to move the dial on them. Someone too convention probably is mildly repelling.
    • "Walmart Women" Who would do that?
    • Facebook Independents.
  • Wouldn't Joe Lieberman put the exclamation point on "old"?

Really only one thought on the Dems:

  • Perhaps Patrick was right. A very good source is telling me that multiple DNC members have told him that Hillary is the person. While not immediately intuitive, Clinton is the candidate who one can easily imagine helping with Barack Obama's numbers. Which seem to be ... in bad shape? Who else would fundamentally shift the numbers? You could see her bringing Democrats back home, etc., in a way that none of the other candidates could.
  • By the way, she would probably school most Republican VP candidates in the debates. And she and Bill know how to attack attack attack.

But what do I know?

Read this document on Scribd: 20080204

 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

HRC makes a lot of sense on

Submitted by Tom Readmond on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 15:41.

HRC makes a lot of sense on paper, but I just can't see Bill working out very well either as a campaign surrogate or as "second spouse" in office.  Hard to say, though.

Intrade has been giving Biden a substantial lead, but his proclivity for shooting off his mouth makes him as hard to imagine as HRC.

What all this tells me is that nobody knows anything, but the guessing game is a blast, and I just hope it doesn't leak before I receive my text message.

Picking Hillary

Submitted by Chris Palko on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 19:56.

would be politically brilliant but a disaster for governing.  Hillary is the only VP candidate who could actually have a political impact as her army of white women would rally around the ticket.  it would be the strongest VP pick since LBJ in 1960.

But if Obama wins, it would be a soap opera White House.  Hillary surely thinks of herself as Presidential material, and Bill still thinks he's the best man for the job.  An Obama-Hillary ticket means there would be three "Presidents" in the White House.  I think Obama would want to avoid that.

Many won't be taken in by a hip fake..

Submitted by Rensen on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 19:56.

John will lose some of his momentum if he tries the hip fake for Mitt move.

He just lit a fire on the religious right with his Saddleback showing, and could reinforce that with a 'do no harm pick.' John is proving that he could pull this off on his own merit, once he doesn't select a vp who could be a potential drag on the ticket NATIONALLY. (Does anyone seriously think Mitt has massive appeal to independents and Hillary voters?)

For better or worse, many of the socially conservative activists and political junkies have an ingrained opinion, supported as they see it by documented evidence, (including Mitt's endorsement of a pro-choice over pro-life GOP candidate in a recent local race) that Mitt is not reliable on the issues that matter to them.

In many minds, his current pro-life positioning is no more believable than some of Barack's lurches to the center.Selecting Mitt, for many on the fundamentalist religious right would be just as bad as a Lieberman/Ridge pick, and would have the same result. Folks sitting out the election.

That is a reality, as much as the radio talking heads would like to world to believe that they speak for EVERY conservative as they spin away in their efforts to force Mccain's hand.

Similarly, I am sure that there are many in the Mitt camp, who probably would be hard pressed to stomach a Huckabee selection..which the media has studiously ignored as a possibility, in spite of the fact that he has basically had as much exposure as the candidates themselves because of his speaking engagements around the nation and the world these last months.

From where he's standing, Mccain is in the drivers seat. His personality and message are becoming ever more compelling. The entire base is becomming energized by HIS decisive rhetoric, and His messaging. He does not need a veep who will be a distraction from Him for any reason, much less because they are controversial even within his own base.

If it really is down to Pawlenty/ Romney. I'd go with Pawlenty who will blend nicely into the woodwork in a non threatening way...to anybody... and build the campaign around Mccain himself. He's proven he's worth the suport on his own merit.

Really can't speak for what may happen if millions of values voters feel that they got run over by the straight talk bus, but I'm betting it wouldn't be pretty.

Hillary

Submitted by stl on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 20:56.

Yeah, I'll buy that.  Denver would be one serious love-fest.  Big Bounce. Hillary as attack dog.  More mature, more gravitas.

Not only that but the media who were down on her would feel ever-so guilty and make it up to her as #2.  Media field day.  The Dems have re-united, the country has been saved.
 
For the dems this is a critical election, the start of  a generation of governance, a transformative America.  They want to win big time, it's their turn.
 
Plus, the Clintons were in charge of the 90's, boom times.
 
Obama/Clinton will win big.
 
Please let me be wrong.
 

 

Obama/Hillary is a desperation move

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 22:09.

It will 'work' short-term but fail long term.

Short term it unites the Democrats, but they would mostly come home anyway.

It's the rainbow ticket, but the whole concept is overrated.

Downside:

It will be another "hey, the wrong person is in the P slot" ticket. Clinton has more experience than he does, yet the pair between them have the same narrow partisan political background.  So it adds little to the 'gravitas' gap.

Hillary is a known divisive, baggage-carrying *NON-CHANGE* ticket. She lost precisely because she couldn't pull off a change message while carrying around her ex-Pres husband and touting her own (thin) experience resume.

Long-term it unites the GOP as well. The anti-Clinton voters will go McCain.

Then it comes down to a slugfest for independent voters - and McCain wins, on experience, on judgment, on leadership (more decisive), and on a track record of bipartisan accomplishments.

The Hillary supporters who want her in 2012 might realize that the calculus is *still* the same: An obama loss now sets up a hillary nomination and win in 2012.

I agree

Submitted by Soren Dayton on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 06:26.

 

Short term logic. Long-term insanity both for the campaign and, god forbid, actually governing.

The Bill factor

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 22:26.

Then there is Bill Clinton, who would do to the obama campaign what he did to the Hillary campaign.

This is a nice reminder that Bill will be quite happy to pitch in and say the most unhelpful things possible to the campaign and in general make it all about him and not the candidate. You'd have to be crazy to want him on your campaign tour bus.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/bipartisan-praise-from-bil...

Bill's big ego doesnt sit well with the Democrats eager to win this year.

 

 

Bill

Submitted by Buckland on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 22:37.

Can you imagine the problems he would cause in an Obama administration. Former president with free movement in the West Wing. Commenting to the press on what Obama's doing wrong, how he should have done it. Upstaging Barack at every turn.

Freakin' nightmare. That alone is enough reason to just say no to HRC.

Obama needs to pick Hillary.

Submitted by CF on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 21:00.

Doing so may well bolster the already strengthening John McCain. Additionally, selecting Clinton undermines Obama's message of change and could alienate some supporters of both. This selection may also be a relief to McCain who could count on Clinton hate to galvanize his base while allowing the senator from Arizona to choose a centrist or liberal running mate to appeal to independents and Democrats.

Hillary

Submitted by stl on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 21:29.

I agree it would galvanize the base. Here's the good news:

  -Would you like to see Hillary as president someday 43% yes/49% no (NBC News/WSJ poll).

Ok, we have 49% that may have problems pulling the lever for Clinton

But here's the other side:

  -Clinton Supporters: Obama 60%, McCain 23% Undecided 12% (CBS/NYT poll)

What other VP candidate could give Obama an immediate boost other than Hillary?  Many of the 40% would come back home and be enthusiastic.

Obama is in a slump....this would give him an injection of energy and the Big Mo.

 

Any obamamentum wiuld be diminished in short order.

Submitted by CF on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 23:34.

McCain then gains momentum when he picks a Democrat to be his running mate. Besides, there is no indication that Obama supporters and Clinton supporters would rally to the "dream ticket" after what those two have been through.

I don't know who Obama will pick but

Submitted by mnmod on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 02:07.

I am pretty sure it is not Hillary.  The waiting game has gone on too long, only a couple choices will seem exciting (Warner or Clark)  after all the hype.  Seems like there is much less buzz around Mccain's choice ( I predict Pawlenty), maybe because it is more than a week away. At least we'll soon have the conventions for distraction

HRC

Submitted by blhendrix on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 10:24.

Unless I missed something, did Obama not hire HRC's former campaign manager, Solis Doyle, to serve as chief a staff for Obama's VP selection?  My understanding was that Ms. Doyle did not leave HRC '08 on good terms, so her selection should have eliminated the possibility of HRC as VP under Obama - unless Ms. Doyle is about to be thrown under the proverbial bus.

As for whether HRC would be a good pick, it would make Obama look desperate - which he very well may be.  Plus, he would have to live with the clip of HRC saying McCain was ready to be president and Obama gave a speech two years ago.  Talk about awkward moments in Obamaland.  Not to mention, Bill's said as much that Obama's not qualified to lead.

However, Obama picking HRC would fire up the base - the GOP base, unless McCain were to select a VP that was less than conservative.

Obama/Clinton, unifying .... us

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 11:22.

However, Obama picking HRC would fire up the base - the GOP base, unless McCain were to select a VP that was less than conservative.

I agree Obama/Clinton would be like Satan/Baal to the GOP. We would have a unified and fired up party. It may unite the Dems too and would make the race a more traditional one. That only works more and more against the image Obama has tried to create. The more he looks like a same-old left-liberal Democrat doing the same-old stuff, the more he sinks in the mire that Dukakis and Kerry found themselves in.

Advantage McCain.