Rasmussen finds that 38 percent of Democrats think Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race, while 29 percent say she ought to mount an independent campaign for the presidency. I think we can safely assume that's not going to happen.
« Department of Impractical Schemes | Main | Math You Can't Use »
McCain's Best Shot
15 May 2008 11:42 am
Comments (53)
"I think we can safely assume that's not going to happen."
We can? Based on what?
25% saying Obama should drop out, that's just precious.
Almost 30% of Democrats want to fracture the party? Yuck.
Someone on some blog suggested that in many (maybe most places, I don't recall) it's too late to get on the November ballot. But this would be a mechanical factor. Personally I don't see her being interested in that, but if the mechanics rule it out, then it's not a big discussion to have.
"I think we can safely assume that's not going to happen."
We'll see. I promise she'll threaten an independent run when she negotiates with Obama for her money back and whatever else she wants.
Primaries : superdelegates :: General : electoral college
Yep, there appear to be a decent number of Clinton supporters who want her to run an independent candidacy. Which I personally find unsurprising, but I also doubt she will bite (that would end her political career and destroy the Clintons' legacy).
Rasmussen aparently oversampled the completely freakin' crazy demographic because Larison says that 19% of black people think Obama should drop out. hurwhaaaa?
We can? Based on what?
The money she doesn't have and wouldn't get.
A threat to run an independent candidacy would be an empty threat. This is particularly true if she can't even technically do it, as El Cid suggests. But it's even true without that.
She knows that she won't win with such a candidacy, and that doing so would give the election to McCain. So the only reason to do that is because her hatred of Obama is stronger than her own personal ambitions, because, as DTM says, it would destroy her political career. She wouldn't win, and she'd be persona non grata in the party for the rest of her life. There's no way she'd do that just to get revenge against Obama.
The only alternative would be that she's so deluded as to think that she has a chance to actually win in such circumstances. I do believe that Clinton is still campaigning because she really does think she can win the Democratic nomination, but even my credulity of the Clintons' credulity only goes so far.
Billary would be far more likely to hire hit men to take Obama out than they would to mount an independent campaign.
Actually, the rub-out option wouldn't shock me in the least -- if, that is, I read about it in a history book 100 years from now. Happens all the time in history books.
Even though it's basically unrealistic for her to mount an indie campaign, it would be fun. 1860, 1912, 1968... I think we're due for a campaign with more than 2 participants reaching double digits. Throw in a pinch of Barr and you got yourself a party.
"We'll see. I promise she'll threaten an independent run when she negotiates with Obama for her money back and whatever else she wants."
Yeah she'll probably get what she wants and then still stab him in the back.
In my dreams it would play out just like the movies. Hillary would reveal her true snake like form saying something like "you think I give a damn about the country?". Obama would smile and then reveal that he has been recording the whole conversation.
Hillary has repeatedly said that she will support the Democratic nominee for President, even if it is not her. There is not a shred of evidence that I am of aware of that supports the idea that she is contemplating a third party run. So the issue here is not what Hillary will do.
The more important issue is what will Hillary's voters do. I have no doubt that that the party regulars will fall into line behind the nominee. I do have concerns that a significant portion of marginally involved voters who selected Hillary will not be inclined to support Obama.
My favored solution to this problem would be for Hillary to be the nominee. If that is not to be, then I think the second best solution is to have the process play out to June 3 and Hillary then give a speech where she says that she is supporting Obama, because she believes that she cannot win the nomination and that Obama would be infinitely better than McCain on the issues that matter to the voters who lined up behind her.
I think she should accept a VP offer from McCain.
LoL, the people at Correntwire are fucking insane. They talk MyDD and TalkLeft insanity to a whole new level.
We can? Based on what?
Um, how about her statements, less than 24 hours ago, that picking McCain over Obama would be a "terrible mistake" and that
I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama.
But other than that, yes, she sure is a ruthless snake.
My favored solution to this problem would be for Hillary to be the nominee.
Why not Mike Gravel?
She knows that she won't win with such a candidacy, and that doing so would give the election to McCain.
Does she? I'm not sure.
I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is.
Note that she doesn't specify who "we" are. Democrats? Hard-working white people? The Clintons?
I can definitely see her pulling a Lieberman and declaring herself the official nominee of the Democrats Who Voted for Hillary Party.
Ephus,
That, of course, is the usual way for these things to work: the loser endorses the winner and then campaigns for the winner (which in this case would include both Hillary and Bill, the latter being a considerable factor in all this). And I really don't think there is any strong evidence that wouldn't work as well with the Clintons' supporters as it usually works.
CLINTON/LIEBERMAN'08!!!!!
Are we so sure that Clinton wouldn't consider running as McCain's VP?
I could see a situation where she argues that Obama just can't win because white people won't vote for him, and he only has the nomination because of procedural technicalities and excluding Florida and Michigan (this is the hook that would allow her to renege on her promises to support the Democratic nominee -- she'll say that that support was premised on counting all of the votes, which didn't happen). So, in the interest of party and country, she thinks the best of a bunch of bad options is to run with McCain on a unity ticket.
As for whether McCain would do it, if it looks like he would lose otherwise, he might.
I wonder what would happen if you got a bunch of the 29%ers (EWdard or whatever), the Ron Paulbots and the people sending around Obama is related to a gay porn star chain e-mails in a room together. They would probably have a lot to talk about, like sharing methods of extracting microscopic government-controlled nanabugs from under your skin.
You have to love how the first comment on the CorrentWire thread on Edwards endorsing Obama is this:
"Fuck Him [Edwards]
Submitted by myiq2xu on Wed, 2008-05-14 17:57.
And the pony he rode in on.
—————————————————————-
“We must separate loyal party members from counter-revolutionaries. The first shall inherit our glorious future. The second must be purged from us and history” -Mao Zedong"
Yep, quoting a leader who killed tens of millions of his own people, was willing to have his country nuked by the US in WWIII and was the biggest ideological influence on Pol Pot. That's how you look sane.
Are we so sure that Clinton wouldn't consider running as McCain's VP?
That belongs in "Simple Answers for Simple Questions." I tell you what: if you can name three positions that Clinton and McCain have in common and Obama doesn't share, I'll wear a silly hat. I'll give you the gas tax holiday; what are two more?
Note that she doesn't specify who "we" are. Democrats? Hard-working white people? The Clintons?
Good point. Also, did you ever think that Kerry might have wanted Bush to win, since they were both in Skull and Bones? And who did kill Vince Foster, anyway?
"I tell you what: if you can name three positions that Clinton and McCain have in common and Obama doesn't share, I'll wear a silly hat. I'll give you the gas tax holiday; what are two more?"
Well, there is the biggest one of all: They don't want Obama to be running for president as an incumbent in 2012.
Aside from that, didn't they both support the bankruptcy reform bill in 2005-06 (Clinton didn't vote, but if I recall she was not opposed to it)? Obama opposed it.
Maybe Larry Craig was a little premature in refusing that VP spot.
Joe, responding to your second point: Clinton opposed the bankruptcy bill, and in fact reportedly convinced Bill Clinton to veto it in 1998. See here. (Before people get any ideas, I should mention I voted for Obama.)
As for this:
Well, there is the biggest one of all: They don't want Obama to be running for president as an incumbent in 2012.
I have to admit that I assume you're joking. Because Clinton and McCain are both currently running against Obama, they should be on a ticket together? Hey, why didn't Bush pick Bill Bradley as his VP in 2000?
In all seriousness, if Clinton had any thought of not endorsing Obama when he's nominated, do you think it would make sense for her to say that she's going to endorse Obama if he's nominated?
DTM,
My concern is that there is a cohort of people who have voted for Hillary who are not dyed-in-the-wool Clinton supporters, but rather have supported the campaign because either (1) she was the first woman to have a credible shot at the nomination of either major party or (2) she ran as the more centrist and "meat and potatoes" candidate. I am not sure that either of those is transferrable, particularly if Hillary is not on the ticket at all.
If Obama is the nominee, we all (except Al) will have to work hard to get to 270. I am looking for the path that gets there the most easily.
"In all seriousness, if Clinton had any thought of not endorsing Obama when he's nominated, do you think it would make sense for her to say that she's going to endorse Obama if he's nominated?"
In all seriousness, I think you are probably right.
That said, Clinton clearly has a big incentive to say that she will enthusiastically support the nominee if it is Obama -- there are a lot of Democratic voters (primary and superdelegate) who would turn on her in an instant if they thought otherwise. Whether or not she will actually support Obama when the time comes is another question entirely. Yes, she will look like a flip-flopper if she does not. But if she can find some hook to justify her stand ("My support was contingent on counting all of the votes, and I refuse to support a candidate selected by such an undemocratic process" or somesuch), then I could see her doing it. Partly because I think she is exceedingly vindictive, and partly because that might give her another chance in 2012.
""Fuck Him [Edwards]
Submitted by myiq2xu on Wed, 2008-05-14 17:57."
This would be the same low IQ troll who spends so much time over at Balloon Juice getting kicked in the rhetorical junk for his relentless pro-Hillary sliming of Obama?
That is so funny. He spends half his time over there whining that he can't possibly be a tagged as a blinkered Hillbot because, dontchaknow, he originally supported Edwards.
Et tu, Myiq2xu? Et tu?
I have no idea if Clinton would take a VP slot from McCain, but I do know McCain would never offer it to her. There is no way she would bring him enough votes to outweigh the massive revolt that would cause in the GOP.
Ephus,
First, I think it is important to keep in mind these were the Democratic primaries. Accordingly, while it is almost certainly true that there were a good number of female Democrats who supported Clinton over Obama for the Democratic Party's nomination for your reason (1), I don't see why they would then be likely to support McCain over Obama, who is neither female nor a Democrat. And that is the general problem with these arguments: it is not that Obama is a perfect substitute for Clinton, but rather that he is a better substitute for Clinton than McCain would be.
Second, I don't think it is accurate to say Clinton consistently ran as more centrist than Obama. Indeed, she actually attacked Obama frequently from the left, such as by sending out mailers questioning his pro-choice bonafides and his commitment to universal health care. Meanwhile, Obama continues to outperform Clinton in head-to-head polls against McCain among independents. So I think a much stronger case can be made that among truly marginal voters in the general election, Obama actually has more support than Clinton.
Generally, it is always going to be the case that the losing candidate will have a few supporters who do not convert over to the winner. But I don't see any reason to believe Clinton's supporters are less likely than usual to convert over to Obama, as opposed to the normal loser-to-winner situation. Indeed, again I think a stronger case can be made for the opposite conclusion, largely because of the likely influence of Bill Clinton--meaning if Bill endorses and campaigns for Obama, I think that will in fact convert more of Hillary's supporters than Hillary alone could convert, which may result in an even higher conversion ratio than usual.
"I don't see why they would then be likely to support McCain over Obama, who is neither female nor a Democrat."
Hmm. Let me try to think of a reason why older white women might not vote for Barack Obama. I'm just gobsmacked on that one!
Partly because I think she is exceedingly vindictive,
Evidence, please? Aside from killing Vince Foster, I mean.
and partly because that might give her another chance in 2012.
You mean, as the candidate who betrayed her party and cost the Democratic Party its best shot at winning the White House? I'm just concerned that the appeal might not be that universal, if you see what I mean.
Evidence:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134012
"You mean, as the candidate who betrayed her party and cost the Democratic Party its best shot at winning the White House? I'm just concerned that the appeal might not be that universal, if you see what I mean."
To paraphrase Bill Brennan, you can do anything if you have the votes. If she were to run in 2012 with a massive following, you could easily see her winning the nomination under the right circumstances (i.e., a bunch of legitimate candidates stay in through Super Tuesday). She might be widely disliked among certain Democratic constituencies, but if she brought enough voters to the table, that would be overlooked. But she would have to play the game in a way that withholding support from Obama would be seen as justified by her supporters.
Hey Labert, when will you start a 'We Can't Let That Damn N***** Win' Watch to describe Hillary's 'electability' argument like your 'WWTSBJQ' watch?
You should all clean up your own cesspool before you start complaining about other people.
That belongs in "Simple Answers for Simple Questions." I tell you what: if you can name three positions that Clinton and McCain have in common and Obama doesn't share, I'll wear a silly hat. I'll give you the gas tax holiday; what are two more?
2. Whether or not you should 'sit down to negotiate with our enemies'/general Iran policy.
3. Trade agreements with Singapore and Chile.
I'm actually not sure of the third one, but I do kind of want to see the silly hat.
Joe,
The group to which I was referring wasn't "older white women." It was "female Democrats who supported Clinton over Obama for the Democratic Party's nomination" because "she was the first woman to have a credible shot at the nomination of either major party."
And in fact, as I noted to Ephus, I think it is important to keep in mind these were the Democratic primaries. So even your group is not yet a true Clinton support group, because you would have to add the qualification "Democrats" in there (e.g., something like "older white female Democrats".
So, will older white female Democrats vote for Obama over McCain? I'm willing to bet the vast majority of them will. How about you?
If 1) Clinton doesn't endorse Obama and the Clintons don't do everything to make sure Obama wins and 2) Obama loses in ushers in 4 more years of the Iraq War (plus whatever weirdness abroad McCain can cook up), she will be prime for a primary run. Rangel, one of her supporters, is starting to get fed up with her publicly and he has a lot of pull in the city, which anyone would need to win the Democratic nominee for New York Senator. After another four years of Iraq, there will probably be also a whole bunch of independents and liberal Republicans in New York (the type that often vote for Republicans for governor but Democrats for the White House) who would register as Democrats just to make sure she didn't get the nomination. If she is actually that dumb, she is well on her way to the town of persona non grata, population: 2.
"So, will older white female Democrats vote for Obama over McCain? I'm willing to bet the vast majority of them will. How about you?"
Depending on your definition of "vast," I'd agree. But that's not what you were saying before. You said that you couldn't imagine any reason why Clinton's core supporters would vote for McCain over Obama. I think that is wrong. I think that her most loyal constituency is older white women (mostly Democrats). I also think that some nontrivial number of these older female voters probably would have difficulty voting for a black man, and will likely vote for McCain for that reason.
Joe,
No, that isn't what I said. And in fact, I already acknowledged that not all of Clinton's supporters will convert to Obama, just as not all of Obama's supporters would have converted to Clinton.
"No, that isn't what I said. And in fact, I already acknowledged that not all of Clinton's supporters will convert to Obama, just as not all of Obama's supporters would have converted to Clinton."
I'm not saying you said anything else. But you did say: "Accordingly, while it is almost certainly true that there were a good number of female Democrats who supported Clinton over Obama for the Democratic Party's nomination for your reason (1), I don't see why they would then be likely to support McCain over Obama...." I was merely saying that one "why" might be that some older white women won't vote for a black man.
DTM,
Two points:
1. Although these were primaries for the Democratic nomination, many of the states have open or semi-open voting rules, such that independents and/or Republicans have been allowed to vote in the Democratic primaries. Early on, Obama had the better polling among this group. More recently, Hillary has been doing better among the cross-over voters.
2. The evidence that Obama would find it harder to convert Hillary voters is in the exit polling. For whatever reason, Hillary supporters self-report as less likely to vote for Obama in the general than Obama voters self-report willingness to vote for Hillary. You may not like this; you may believe that it is the result of racial animus; but there is actual evidence that you cannot wish away.
The question is, if Obama is going to be the nominee (which is looking likely, even if unwise in my opinion), how does he get to 270+. The two possible answers are either:
A. Concentrate on bringing Hillary's voters into the fold and capturing Kerry (which means holding Pennsylvania) plus Florida and Ohio. Obama has derided this strategy in the past, but I believe it is by far the more prudent course.
B. Try to put together a winning coalition without Florida or Ohio (and possibly Pennsylvania), by flipping Nevada, New Mexico, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia and/or Iowa.
Either coalition A or coalition B get you over the top, if successful. I would sign on today if success were guaranteed for coalition B. I just believe that coalition B is less likely to be achieved (and if it is - coalition A would probably come along for the ride in a landslide).
The VP choice if you are pursuing coalition A is someone who can campaign effectively to blue collar audiences in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio and traditional Democratic constituencies in Flordia. That list appears to me to be: Hillary Clinton or Dick Gephardt (who would not be as effective in reaching out to women).
The VP choice if you are purusing coalition B is someone who can reach out to swing voters in Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and/or Iowa. That list would include Richardson, Vilsack, Gephardt, Daschle, Webb, Kaine (Warner does not appear available), McCaskill or Sebelius.
DTM,
Two points:
1. Although these were primaries for the Democratic nomination, many of the states have open or semi-open voting rules, such that independents and/or Republicans have been allowed to vote in the Democratic primaries. Early on, Obama had the better polling among this group. More recently, Hillary has been doing better among the cross-over voters.
2. The evidence that Obama would find it harder to convert Hillary voters is in the exit polling. For whatever reason, Hillary supporters self-report as less likely to vote for Obama in the general than Obama voters self-report willingness to vote for Hillary. You may not like this; you may believe that it is the result of racial animus; but there is actual evidence that you cannot wish away.
The question is, if Obama is going to be the nominee (which is looking likely, even if unwise in my opinion), how does he get to 270+. The two possible answers are either:
A. Concentrate on bringing Hillary's voters into the fold and capturing Kerry (which means holding Pennsylvania) plus Florida and Ohio. Obama has derided this strategy in the past, but I believe it is by far the more prudent course.
B. Try to put together a winning coalition without Florida or Ohio (and possibly Pennsylvania), by flipping Nevada, New Mexico, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia and/or Iowa.
Either coalition A or coalition B get you over the top, if successful. I would sign on today if success were guaranteed for coalition B. I just believe that coalition B is less likely to be achieved (and if it is - coalition A would probably come along for the ride in a landslide).
The VP choice if you are pursuing coalition A is someone who can campaign effectively to blue collar audiences in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio and traditional Democratic constituencies in Flordia. That list appears to me to be: Hillary Clinton or Dick Gephardt (who would not be as effective in reaching out to women).
The VP choice if you are purusing coalition B is someone who can reach out to swing voters in Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and/or Iowa. That list would include Richardson, Vilsack, Gephardt, Daschle, Webb, Kaine (Warner does not appear available), McCaskill or Sebelius.
Joe,
Right, that is what I actually said, which isn't what you claimed I said. I could point out the differences, but they should be completely obvious.
I have no idea if Clinton would take a VP slot from McCain, but I do know McCain would never offer it to her. There is no way she would bring him enough votes to outweigh the massive revolt that would cause in the GOP.
Building on what DTM said, consider this: isn't it the conventional wisdom with the Operation Chaos crowd that Clinton should be the nominee, simply because Republicans will come out in droves to vote against her, more so than Obama? That she is the GOP's best bet for unifying people behind McCain? If she were to wind up as McCain's VP choice, what would that do to Republican turnout? All the people who before would have voted for McCain so they could prevent another Clinton administration would now be forced to vote for Clinton! More than enough Republicans' heads would explode at the prospect of having to vote for a Clinton for anything (and imagine Limbaugh's reaction) - especially with the very real prospect that McCain could pass away before his term is up. That would leave Clinton in the Oval Office.
To sum up, the strange irony would be that Republicans, having voted for McCain/Clinton, would be to blame for a Hillary Clinton presidency. When one thinks about it, such a ticket would be the best way to keep GOP voters away from the polls. It might even spark a third party run from someone to the right of McCain. (Huckabee anyone?)
Matt: "I think we can safely assume that's not going to happen."
Matt once again reveals his youthful inexperience in the ways and degree to which people can be scumbags.
Sure, she's not going to run as an "independent" - she's not stupid enough to think that would gain her anything real.
What she IS going to do is fight all the way to the convention and beyond with lawsuits. Either the DNC gives her the VP slot - so she can undermine Obama for the next four years in preparation for her 2012 run if he wins or guarantee that he loses if he doesn't - or she will screw Obama's campaign over and guarantee that he loses the election, so that in 2012 she can whine about how any other candidate is "just another Obama" compared to her magnificence.
It's pure Mafia extortion - a typical Clinton attitude.
This poll was probably paid for by Clinton just to put pressure on Obama and the DNC to cave in and appease her.
And people are worried about Obama "appeasing the Islamics"! They should be worried about him appeasing this asshole Clinton! It will be a disaster!
Hillary's supporters feel betrayed by the Democratic Party. It isn't just a question of voting against Obama. We are furious that the Party turned their back on Hillary. This nomination process is rigged. The endorsements after Hillary's blowout win in WV confirm that.
The voters are still turning out despite the MSM blackout of Hillary. They can see through the lies. The Party cannot ask for loyalty when they have dismissed their best candidate. Even Republicans are disgusted by this crooked process. Many of them had planned on voting for her in November. However, there is no way they will vote for Obama.
Your theory of the "whiny" Hillary supporters is nonsense. The Democrats have turned a deaf ear to the plight of FL and MI even when a revote could have been arranged. The crooked Democratic Party wouldn't stand for anyone getting in Obama's way.
Many of you stated that the race was over in February or March. If this is true, why has Hillary earned the votes of over 16,000,000 people? Even when she won in the big-swing states of OH and PA, you belittled and demeaned her voters. It shows the real character of Obama and some of the people that he attracts. It is the dark side of humanity.
By rigging this election, the Democrats have lost their moral authority and given the Republicans an opening to win in November.
You're a freak show, Ward.
"The nomination process was rigged".
Talk about conspiracy theories - now your whole notion reduces to somehow the black guy coerced the whole DNC into conspiring against your candidate - who nonetheless, no doubt due to her personal charisma, managed to get nearly half the delegates and popular vote.
Next, you'll be telling us Obama planted the bombs that dropped Tower Seven on 9/11.
Take this freak show down the road, you nut.
Comments closed May 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Good God. 29%? That's rather more than the number who will answer yes to any question you happen to poll them about.
Posted by John | May 15, 2008 11:46 AM