I'm seeing Harold Ford, Jr. on television talking about how maybe an Obama-Clinton ticket would be the best way for Obama to appeal to white working class voters. I think there's no doubt that enhancing his appeal to white working class voters should be an important considering in thinking about a VP choice. But when you consider all the possibilities, does anyone seriously think that Clinton is the politician with the most appeal to white working class voters? I think the evidence is clear that she has more appeal to them than Barack Obama does but she hardly seems like the best possible choice.
« North Carolina | Main | Narrow Wins »
Obama-Clinton
06 May 2008 08:53 pm
Comments (68)
She apparently has a great deal of appeal to white working class voters who are Democratic primary voters.
My sense is that the ones who are not Democratic primary voters tend to like her rather less.
Ed Rendell . . .
. . . would be a better choice to appeal to white working class voters and he is clearly in the Clinton half of the Democratic Party.
Clinton is a terrible choice for Obama and probably wouldn't take the second seat anyway.
Does anybody have any interesting VP candidates?
I think he should nominate Bill Clinton for veep. What a bold stroke that would be!
She is the only one running against him. So yeah, she might appeal more than he does. But, yeah, there are no doubt better choices than her. Her negatives are way to high.
How about Obama-Huckabee?
Jim Webb.
And he reinforces Obama's message of judgment on the war.
And he can well take on Lindsay Graham when McCain picks him.
Exactly. It's as if everyone has simply forgotten Hillary's huge negativity numbers.
Exactly. It's as if everyone has simply forgotten Hillary's huge negativity numbers.
Why would Clinton want to be the VP on a ticket with an inexperienced, conservative, unelectable, pro-war stealth-Muslim elitist who's all talk and no action?
Better she sit this one out.
I don't know about "white working class" but I think there is as real a possibility of women voters staying home with Obama as there is a risk of African Americans staying home with Clinton.
In general, I don't really think a VP does much except at the margins... but primary this might be the exception. I'm not a fan (I prefer Jim Webb) but I am open to the possibility... the real question to me is how bad Clinton Derangement Syndrome really is.
Bayh. Wouldn't be my choice, but IMO he is the favorite, and from an electoral standpoint the right call.
Someone over on DKos just made the great point that Hillary appeals to a lot of folks who still love the Clintons. But that doesn't mean that she needs to be on the ticket. Once she is not on the ballot, most of them very likely will vote for Obama. So any talk of "needing" HRC, particularly given her skyhigh negatives is absurd. Yes, many people love her, but even more dislike or hate her (including many of us who used to like and/or respect her, before this miserable campaign season).
I think Obama-Hillary is the best alternative so as not to risk alienating many of her voters who might otherwise stay home or vote for McBush, as some polls have suggested that they might.
Spot on! I'm willing to bet that a lot of those conservative Dems are like my WWII vet step-father. He voted for HRC in TX because he'd never vote for a black man. Come November, he's McCain, all the way.
As to HRC as VP, does anyone really think Michelle Obama would let Bill anywhere close to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue??? No way will she allow him to cause mischief anywhere near the Oval Office...
Matt, you can stop questioning as soon as you hit the words "Harold," "Ford" and "Jr.".
The dude is utterly vapid. He ran as a republican-lite in 2006, then couldn't figure out why he was the only major democrat to lose.
Matt, you can stop questioning as soon as you hit the words "Harold," "Ford" and "Jr.".
The dude is utterly vapid. He ran as a republican-lite in 2006, then couldn't figure out why he was the only major democrat to lose.
Gentlemen, Ladies: those of you who express such admiration for Jim Webb, may I ask if you've taken a look at his voting record? By 1980's standards, the man is a conservative. That makes him a moderate by today's standards. Progressives, liberals, and others of that persuasion should not want this man in the White House, however good he might be on Iraq.
He'll never be a Lieberman, he's too honest for that, but he's not going to be a committed progressive, either.
What Obama really needs is insurance against assassination by crazed Limbaugh gun nuts. He needs to pick somebody black or Latino. Bonus points for female, but need not be.
Certainly, picking someone who can connect to poorer white voters - whether that's a Clinton supporter like Strickland or Rendell, an Obama supporter like Tim Kaine, or someone who so far as I know hasn't endorsed, like Sherrod Brown or Jim Webb - would make a lot of sense. And within that category, or even outside of it, picking someone strongly identified with the Clinton camp could help to heal the party.
But Clinton would be a disaster. Not only has she said all sorts of things about Obama that would be thrown at the ticket; not only would adding her be the antithesis of "Change"; not only would it undermine the campaign's entire Iraq narrative; not only does Clinton remain unvetted, with none of her financial dealings examined and none of the Clinton foundation's dealings even disclosed; not only would adding her to the ticket bring out the Republican base like nothing else; but, beyond all these electoral questions, what if the ticket overcame all those problems and won?
Imagine an Obama-Clinton White House. Obama will have to appoint a lot of ex-Clinton officials, if only because anyone who was an ambitious Democrat interested in public policy a dozen years ago worked in the Clinton administration. They're the ones with the experience, and they'll be seeded all through the administration. Does Obama want an administration of which an unknown but significant fraction may be more loyal to his veep than to him? A veep with a complete policy staff of their own more experienced in the executive branch than is his (see: Cheney, Dick)? Not to mention Bill, wandering around with nothing to do but interfere with the working of the administration.
Really, just an unadulteratedly terrible idea.
Here's the logical gap I don't understand - why does Group X going for Clinton or going for Obama mean that Group X doesn't like, or won't vote for, the other candidate? Maybe they just like one more? Maybe it's not that working class whites don't like Obama, but that they have fond memories of the last Clinton administration. And maybe they'd gladly vote for Obama with a solid (non-Clinton) VP choice.
Rich, those folks will vote for Obama in December. Just show them McCain's "judicial committee" list and hand them a wire coathanger. If that message isn't clear enough (they are apparently "low-information" voters), tell them MCCAIN WILL FUCKING OWN YOUR DAUGHTER'S VAGINA IF YOU DON'T VOTE HIM OUT OF EXISTENCE.
... the real question to me is how bad Clinton Derangement Syndrome really is
It's bad. Very bad. I have it. And the only cure is the sight of Obama nominated solo in Denver.
I agree that Webb is strong on foreign policy and should be appealing to the working class, but he might not be a good enough pol. Rendell is a very good politician. He or Casey might help with white working class Catholics. I don't know that much about Janet Napolitano, but it would certainly be bold to choose somebody from McCain's home state. Perhaps she'd put Colorado in play and swing New Mexico toward the Dems
... the real question to me is how bad Clinton Derangement Syndrome really is
It's bad. Very bad. I have it. And the only cure is the sight of Obama nominated solo in Denver.
Your coathanger is invisible to me.
That's how bad it is.
Why won't it be Richardson? It'll be Richardson.
One of those big Montana guys would be great, as would McCaskill however it's spelled or Sebelius.
I'm assuming that Bayh thing was a sick joke.
Has John Edwards announced that he'll never, ever accept the Vice-Presidential nomination? Because he's the super-obvious choice otherwise.
Yes, exactly. If the Clintonites argument is right that Obama has suffered lasting damage among white voters who are now coming out against him --- this is a counterfactual --- then they're not voting for Hillary Clinton per se, they're voting for the white alternative to the scary black man.
But since there's no denying Obama the nomination at this point, for purposes of boosting Obama's appeal among white voters, Hillary Clinton's not even in the top 20 VP choices.
This is the point where Cal and Petey et al are going to have to swallow their own arguments, since if they're right about Obama's problems as a candidate, and they're still invested in a Democratic win in the fall, they'd better demand that Obama doesn't put Clinton on the ticket.
Webb, Kaine, Bayh, Napolitano, Sebelius, Biden, Tester, Schweitzer, Jim Doyle, Gregoire, Dodd, Pryor, Durbin, Harkin, Nunn, Baucus, Casey, hell even Rendell and Corzine, or even Hagel if he wants to go crazy, or Feingold if he wants to make me really happy, probably Richardson too --- whatever their respective merits as candidates --- do more to boost Obama's appeal to whites than Clinton does, without creating a 5'4" turnout and fundraising machine for Republicans. And that's just off the top of my head.
Edwards will look like the pancake that he is when he endorses tomorrow
"Here's the logical gap I don't understand - why does Group X going for Clinton or going for Obama mean that Group X doesn't like, or won't vote for, the other candidate?"
I agree, Hillary is beating Obama among women and the elderly, but I am confident that he will do well among women and optimistic that he will do almost as well among the elderly as Democrats usually do. However, white working class voters, the so-called Reagan Democrats, have been the swing voters since at least 1980. Obama needs those votes. The fact that Hillary, who has not always endeared herself to the working class, is beating him among that group, either shows that she has come an awfully long way or that he has a lot of work to do.
For low information voters, perhaps this graphic would be instructive:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegatecalculator/index.html
I don't care for Claire Mccaskill's politics, but she can handle her own in an argument. She certainly would bring the women's vote back.
Matt,
There is no way there is not going to be an Clinton Obama ticket. If either one drops the other it will end the party. The only question is who gets the top spot.
There is no other person of stature other than each other at this point who would not be seen as a huge insult to half the party.
Exactly. Its not like Hillary is, in reality, the candidate of the white working class. If Edwards were still in the race, he would be winning a huge percentage of these voters.
However, though Obama shouldn't pick Hillary, I agree with J.W. that he might have to pick what Hillary represents, and that is the first woman president. He could do this with Sebelius or Napolitano, both of whom are very compitent and good choices.
Having said all that, the more I think about it the more I am convinced that he must pick Jim Webb. Webb isn't just appealing to white working class voters, he has made winning the white working class, specifically, a central theme of his '06 senate campaign ("Its time for Reagan Democrats to come home" is how he puts it). He is a proud representative of this group, and captures their alienation with the Republican party. Webb, and only Webb, encompasses the only way Democrats can win big again, the way they did during the New Deal era. Of course he can't do this alone, but his politics, ideas, and persona would be a huge step in that direction.
It also doesn't hurt that he's a great attack dog, incredibly well versed and experienced in foreign policy, and yet simultaneously doesn't have the "insider-Washington" persona that Joe Biden does (while still, maintaing strong foreign policy credentials--4 years in the Pentagon and a Navy Secretary doesn't sound as "insider" as being a 25 year senator). The fact that he's not a great "politician" in the classic sense--not good at fundraising, rousing speeches, hugging babies--is not much of an issue when the man ahead of him is Obama.
Ed Rendell. Think Team of Rivals.
He's Jewish, will deliver PA, and is popular with "downscale" voters. Sure he's prone to gaffes, but he'd be the VP pick, so nobody would care as much.
Continuing on Rendell, he has sort of a McCain as democrat quality, as he is perceived as a straight shooter and straight talker.
I agree Obama must somehow appeal to lower and middle class white, blue collar voters, especially those lacking an advanced education. However the candidate most likely to help him with that demographic slinked off in disgrace nearly a decade ago. Five months is insufficient time to rehabilitate David Duke for the general election.
And one other thing in response to Jack Webb.
Jim Webb's voting record is actually quite progressive. He takes a hard line on immigration and voted for telecom immunity (I think). Also, he loves guns.
But, he basically stands in agreement on every other major issue, especially the ones important in this election or any election. He is in major agreement on all economic policy--taxes health care, etc. and of course most closely aligned with Obama than any other candidate on foreign policy. Even on the other social issues, he's pretty much a mainstream democrat: pro-choice, pro-civil unions and anti-banning gay marriage. So I would say whatever record you're speaking of is highly exxagerated.
Tim Kaine all the way. (Catholic, gives you Virginia, fresh face -- reinforces Obama's change message.)
Rendell doesn't want federal office because his wife would have to resign her judgeship. Also, he doesn't really add that much in PA outside of the Philly suburbs which, primary aside, Obama owns against McCain. Rendell would also be unable to do Eagles Post-Game Live if he's veep, as well.
"However, white working class voters, the so-called Reagan Democrats, have been the swing voters since at least 1980. Obama needs those votes."
Democrats need to ask themselves why he won't get them (if in fact that is true - and exactly what is the evidence for that, other than primary polls which aren't predictive of the general election?)
"The fact that Hillary, who has not always endeared herself to the working class, is beating him among that group, either shows that she has come an awfully long way or that he has a lot of work to do."
Or Democrats need to ask themselves whether those people are racist and whether Democrats need racist votes to beat McCain.
And if so, why?
McCain should be a slam dunk defeat based on Iraq alone. So why is it that neither Obama nor Clinton can beat him by a serious margin in the early polls?
And what's going to happen to their lead when the Iran war starts? I STILL have not heard ONE Democrat address that possibility. Whether you believe an Iran war is inevitable or not, how do you address the POSSIBILITY and its impact on the election?
There are three Republicans I'd put ahead of Hillary Clinton as good choices for VP. Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and Olympia Snowe. Hillary Clinton is the worst possible choice for VP. She drives GOP turnout and she makes Obama's rhetoric about judgement and changing DC into just so much hot air. Obama picking Clinton as VP is like the frog giving the scorpion a ride across the Potomac. Just say Hell No to Clinton as VP.
"I think there is as real a possibility of women voters staying home with Obama as there is a risk of African Americans staying home with Clinton."
I don't believe this. The gender gap is explained by precisely the kind of issues that McCain is bad on and Obama is great on. Obama is just the type of male who can do well with women, and McCain is just the type of man to do horribly with women. Kerry was just the sort of hyper-military male that could make the gender gap disappear, which is exactly what happened in 2004.
If the tables were turned and men found themselves in November without a man to vote for (even if they were used to having one), I don't think they would stay home because of it. And since I don't think women are any more spiteful or prone to be sore over this kind of thing I don't believe they stay home for that reason in November.
"The fact that Hillary, who has not always endeared herself to the working class, is beating him among that group, either shows that she has come an awfully long way or that he has a lot of work to do."
She's come a ways, but not that far. These are *Democratic* voters we're talking about, after all. They're not cruising liberal blogs, they're not concerned about the "symbolic" meaning of an Obama presidency, and they have a strong connection to the Clintons. Bill Clinton did just fine among working class white Dems. Asking why they're not flocking to Obama is kind of strange considering that they have another candidate, still alive, who they know better and have supported for quite a while. They don't have a tangible reason to switch like African-American voters have had since around November 2007. Obviously when Hillary is defeated they're going to rethink things and I think they're going to go overwhelmingly to Obama.
I have to think that about the *only* Dem who won't help Obama on the ticket with white working class voters is, well, Harold Ford...
~
Now, can we please stop with the man love for Jim Webb, or worse - a Republican like Hagel?
If there's one thing the last 16 years have shown, it's that the VP slot is not a balance on the ticket, either ideologically or geographically. Rather, it's a complement. So it becomes a pretty simple calculation: who is the very next best person who should be President?
If you think the answer to that is a Republican, then I don't really understand what you are doing in the Democratic party.
Jim Webb is an asset to the Democratic party - about as good as you are going to get from a Senator from VA, but he's just not that progressive - for the very simple reason that you aren't going to get great progressives elected to statewide office there. If you *are* a progressive, you should be setting your sights a little higher than the best you can get away with in Virginia.
[And just as an aside, if Obama is looking to counter the knock that he's too inexperienced on the national stage, I'm not sure how picking one of the few guys who has served *less* time in the Senate than him does that...]
I say Al Gore. He's got plenty of experience at the VP job. Would bring all the good memories of the Clinton years while being distanced enough from the Clintons themselves. Has also been right on everything since early 2001.
Now, convincing him would be pretty hard.
I love Brian Schweitzer as VP, look him up on YouTube if you're unfamiliar with him. My short list is him, Sebelius, and Kaine. Bayh and Wes Clark are at the top of my list if you think you need a Clintonite.
"I think there is as real a possibility of women voters staying home with Obama as there is a risk of African Americans staying home with Clinton."
I don't believe this. The gender gap is explained by precisely the kind of issues that McCain is bad on and Obama is great on. Obama is just the type of male who can do well with women, and McCain is just the type of man to do horribly with women. Kerry was just the sort of hyper-military male that could make the gender gap disappear, which is exactly what happened in 2004.
I would like to believe that NO DEMOCRAT is foolish enough to sit home or vote for McCain... however... there seems to have been a large uptick in misogyny across the board, and I've heard from a fair number of older women(like my mother) about how it feels like the young, charismatic, inexperienced MAN coming to take the promotion they deserved. We can obviously debate the logic of that, but I think it is a real sentiment.
Is it mitigated my the prospect of President McCain? I hope so, but I just don't know.
Big Russ, I submit. He's full of the homespun wisdom of the common folk, and he'd help coopt Lil Russ.
Wes Clark if Obama if both parties could agree. Jim Webb would be good too. Really really really need the military cred and hammer back when it's questioned.
Gore first, but Rendell, Schweitzer, Napolitano, since Gore is likely to say 'no way'. All pretty progressive, good on environment, good governors, swing states or red.
I say Elliott Spitzer.... IN YOUR FACE!!!
Gore first, but Rendell, Schweitzer, Napolitano, since Gore is likely to say 'no way'. All pretty progressive, good on environment, good governors, swing states or red.
Well, you all know my favorite: Angelina Jolie!
Let's see McCain's pick beat HER! Even with the drugs, bisexuality, knife play in bed, French-kissing her brother - she'll still beat any Republican VP pick. The woman has HEART and that beats a politician any time.
Only problem might be that Obama wouldn't get noticed, which would be bad for the Dems.
(I'm only somewhat joking here, for those who can't tell.)
Besides, if Obama drops dead during his Presidency, wouldn't you like to see Brad Pitt as "First Lady"?
55:
How awesome would a VP wearing a bollo tie be? Talk about bad ass!!
Even with the drugs, bisexuality, knife play in bed, French-kissing her brother - she'll still beat any Republican VP pick.
What do you mean "even"? Don't you mean because?
You're right, McKingford - those are all reasons I'd vote for her - and I'm an anarchist.
And no doubt whatever Republican McCain picks will be discovered to be either a child molester or somebody who hangs out in rest rooms. I mean, the odds are pretty good that's the sort of candidate he'll end up with if he picks pretty much any Republican.
We probably shouldn't put any purple state senators on the ticket because we need them in the Senate, so that removes people like Webb, McKaskill (sp?) and Salazar, as well as Warner running for the Senate in Virginia (who otherwise would probably be the obvious choice). We probably also shouldn't nominate anyone known for sexism or being grabby (Webb, Richardson). Both people on the ticket can't legally be from the same state, so that gets rid of Durbin. Edwards would be an obvious choice if not for 2004 making it looks like he's just repeating what's already been done. It will probably be better to offer Edwards a cabinet position or a special office/czar position than to make him VP. The same goes for Gore, who would probably be more embarrassed than honored to be VP again (but Obama should do whatever it takes to get him to run the EPA or State). Kaine has all of the best fundamentals, but sadly, I think working-class whites and conservative leaners/independents would find him kind of gay, which ironically is part of what endears him to me. Getting someone who could easily piss off Latinos (who represent a major part of the party's future) with their immigration stances is a third strike against Webb. Rendell has difficulty staying on message.
My top choices, in order:
Sebelius
Schweitzer
Napolatino
Feingold
Chafee
Cleland
Zinni
Strickland
Clark
Biden (but carries the problem he said he would be willing to serve on a McCain ticket, which hurts him as an attack dog)
Nunn
Harkin
Bayh
Casey
Sanchez
Hagel
Snowe
Pelosi
Lugar
The obvious just piss of Republicans choice would be Ron Paul.
Also, much of Obama's problems with white people, especially working-class white people in areas that have seen steel mills move away (Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania) comes from older white women voting for another older white woman. They are more likely to vote for a Democratic than older white men. Sebelius probably stands a good chance of helping to make sure older white women stay for Obama and has shown an ability to appeal to cross-over voters in a Red State without having to do things like switch to being anti-choice. She probably has the best chance of helping Obama both solidify the Dems and then reaching out to white non-Democratic men. In addition, it will be hard to attack her without looking like you're attacking someone who reminds a lot of people of their grandmother and hating grandma is downright un-American (which also makes one wonder if McCain is thinking about nominating Dole).
TIM KAINE.
Not Jim Webb. While Kaine gets to appoint the successor, there's an opportunity with Webb and presumably Mark Warner to lock down Virgina. As McKingford said, you're not likely to get a better looking trio in political terms representing that state, and that's important given that Kaine can't run for re-election next year.
That might in turn make Kaine a useful choice, though he's a bit plastic, and the Lt. Governor is a Republican. Wes Clark? Perhaps. Richardson? Perhaps, though I dunno if he gets past the vetting.
But certainly not Hillary. Obama's election map is completely different, and the places he wants to campaign out west -- and ones where superdelegates and candidates want to see him top of the ticket -- are places where Hillary goes down like a turd in the punchbowl.
Ultimately, Obama needs someone who's an anti-Cheney: a Veep who'd be capable of succeeding, but noone would imagine running a shadow government and claiming an entire new branch of government.
I'd really be tempted to go with someone like Schweitzer, because it would make it very clear that Obama's campaign map reaches out to the big square states. You'd get the urban-rural contrast, and the anti-Cheney thing. Schweitzer's been (appropriately) critical of Obama's healtcare plan, which would be one of those quotables that Russert wanks over, but that's not a huge thing.
"Or Democrats need to ask themselves whether those people are racist and whether Democrats need racist votes to beat McCain."
Well, there are racists and then there are racists. Take somebody like LBJ. Just casually, the guy's gut reactions to black people were negative and belittling, but all the same he knew that civil rights were the way to go, and he went ahead and implemented a lot. I think there are a lot of Americans out there who may be more comfortable with a white candidate than with Obama, but who nevertheless could certainly overcome that if they know the Democrats are still better than the Republicans. The hardcore racists, no, of course they're not going to vote for Obama. But I think there are probably significant numbers of people who voted against Obama in the primaries *even for racist reasons* who could nevertheless vote for the guy in November.
You might be correct, Adam, but the sort of Clinton supporters we've seen here tonight who swear they will vote for McCain makes me seriously question that.
I believe that at least some of Clinton's supporters aren't really "Democrats" in the classic sense. They sound more like right wing Republicans - and I suspect they will vote that way if Clinton doesn't get the nomination.
And I think this is what Clinton is counting on to torpedo Obama's candidacy AND his electability. She would rather see McCain win and herself get another shot in 2012 (in her dreams after this debacle, in my opinion) than see Obama win and prove himself a better President than she would be (if in fact he does.)
Hillary doesn't help one iota against McCain. The Dems want a VP candidate who can sway independents (like yours truly) and moderate Republicans... this is not anyone with the last name of Clinton.
Plus, with the Obama's campaign so focused on returning civility and pragmatism to politics, wouldn't it be great if all of Clinton's pander and mud-slinging got her absolutely nothing?
Has John Edwards announced that he'll never, ever accept the Vice-Presidential nomination? Because he's the super-obvious choice otherwise.
Screw that, nominate Elizabeth Edwards. She supports the same policies, she's a white woman, and she has a spine. Cancer schmancer.
I voted for Hillary and I will tell you this - if Obama doesn't at least offer the VP spot to her, then I will not vote for him. It's not like he won decisively over her in this primary - it will likely be a 51-49 split. Bringing Hillary aboard (or at least offering her the chance) will be a big olive branch to the disappointed 49% of the party.
Bayh would make sense if Indiana had a Democratic governor. As is, I think that Clark is probably his best bet if he wants to go with a Clinton supporter.
Richardson would be a great choice except for the fact that Obama probably needs to balance out the ticket with a white dude.
Still, Richardson gives the ticket a fighting chance in much of the southwest. Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado. I think even Texas might be competitive with Richardson on the ticket. Gore should have picked him in 2000 instead of Lieberman. If he had he almost certainly would have won, even without Florida.
Hillary would unlikely serve as VP. She would need to be the boss. In 2008 she'll be about as old as McCain is now and would really not stand a chance. There's no benefit for her in being second banana. I always thought a Clinton-Obama ticket made a lot of sense. An Obama-Clinton ticket makes no sense at all.
And no one would pick Edwards for VP. I love the guy, but he's a loser. He was the VP pick in '04 and he lost. Unless you're Nixon, you don't get a second bite of the apple in presidential politics.
Tim Kaine is the obvious choice. It would basically assure that Obama takes VA and NC in the fall. Possibly GA too. Then, they have to call out Strickland and Rendell to put up or shut up and take care of business in PA and OH. For what it is worth, PA should go Dem, although it could be close. Ohio is another story. But once McCain says 100 more NAFTA's, Ohio will be over too.
Comments closed May 20, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Precisely Matt!
"she hardly seems like the best possible choice."
Couldn't agree more!
Posted by trin | May 6, 2008 8:59 PM