November scenarios

[flaja]

I think that the winner of the election in November will depend mostly on whom McCain chooses as his running mate.

If McCain doesn’t have an evangelical running mate, he won’t have anything to counter the black vote in the South. This means that Obama will win regardless of whom his running mate is.

I think a McCain/Huckabee ticket would beat any Obama ticket that didn’t include Clinton. Evangelicals would outvote blacks in the South and Democrats in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and West Virginia would resent not having Clinton on the ticket, so McCain would have a better than even chance of winning these states.

A McCain/Huckabee ticket would have a better than even chance of losing to an Obama/Clinton ticket because Obama would have a good chance of winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and West Virginia.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Welcome, Flaja.

Heck, it would beat any ticket that did include Clinton. Clinton's negatives are not merely political, they are personal, and they make working with her as your second banana something close to impossible. There's a whole nation out here that would greatly enjoy voting against Hillary -- as many times as she makes it necessary. They don't want a Saul Alinsky-trained, tax-and-spend-more-than-you've-got socialist, the Government is your mother and your father girl anywhere near the Oval Office, especially after the experience of having had one there during the Clinton years.

Or else you've got an electorate lobotomized by bread and circuses -- and need to replace it with a better electorate. Essentially, an electorate that prefers adult thinking.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Welcome, Flaja.

Heck, it would beat any ticket that did include Clinton. Clinton's negatives are not merely political, they are personal, and they make working with her as your second banana something close to impossible. There's a whole nation out here that would greatly enjoy voting against Hillary -- as many times as she makes it necessary. They don't want a Saul Alinsky-trained, tax-and-spend-more-than-you've-got socialist, the Government is your mother and your father girl anywhere near the Oval Office, especially after the experience of having had one there during the Clinton years.

Or else you've got an electorate lobotomized by bread and circuses -- and need to replace it with a better electorate. Essentially, an electorate that prefers adult thinking.

Don’t get your hopes up that a ticket that has Hilary will be voted down just because it has Hilary. Anyone who insists that that there is a large anti-Hilary vote should remember that this country was stupid enough to put her husband in the Oval Office twice.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

Don’t get your hopes up that a ticket that has Hilary will be voted down just because it has Hilary. Anyone who insists that that there is a large anti-Hilary vote should remember that this country was stupid enough to put her husband in the Oval Office twice.

H-i-l-l-a-r-y....

[Ibby]

www.fivethirtyeight.com

[TheMercenary]

I think it is less important who McCain chooses than who Obama chooses. A strong crossover VP for Obama will give him a good chance of winning if McCain does not choose Huckabee.

[glatt]

I think Obama should not choose Clinton as a running mate because she is very polarizing.

If he does not choose her, either she will back him or she won't. If she backs him, then he can count on the votes of most of her supporters. If she doesn't back him, then some of her supporters will stay home out of spite, but many will vote for Obama because he is closer to their ideal than McCain is. The feminists who supported Clinton are not going to want another conservative president appointing judges to the Supreme Court. They will vote for the lesser evil.

Obama should instead choose a candidate that is less polarizing, and is closer to the middle. I'm thinking Webb. Webb is strong on military and guns and used to be a Republican. He's the closest thing to a moderate that the Democrats have.

The thing about going to the middle, is that there are more voters in the middle than on the edges. Obama needs to go to the middle with the VP.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by glatt

I think Obama should not choose Clinton as a running mate because she is very polarizing.

If he does not choose her, either she will back him or she won't. If she backs him, then he can count on the votes of most of her supporters. If she doesn't back him, then some of her supporters will stay home out of spite, but many will vote for Obama because he is closer to their ideal than McCain is. The feminists who supported Clinton are not going to want another conservative president appointing judges to the Supreme Court. They will vote for the lesser evil.

Obama should instead choose a candidate that is less polarizing, and is closer to the middle. I'm thinking Webb. Webb is strong on military and guns and used to be a Republican. He's the closest thing to a moderate that the Democrats have.

If Obama puts Webb on the Democrat ticket, would Republicans, who don’t like McCain, vote for McCain anyway just to protest Webb’s party-hopping? Would anti-military, anti-gun Democrats vote 3rd party or stay home to protest Webb?

The thing about going to the middle, is that there are more voters in the middle than on the edges. Obama needs to go to the middle with the VP.

Not true.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...cially_liberal

As of November, 2007:

24% of Americans are fiscal and social conservatives.


17% of Americans are fiscal and social moderates.

14% are fiscal moderates and social liberals.
9% are fiscal and social liberals.

11% are fiscal moderates and social conservatives.
10% are fiscal conservatives and social liberals.


6% are fiscal conservatives and social liberals.

On fiscal and economic issues alone 43% of Americans are moderate while an almost equal number (41%) are conservative.

On social issues alone 30% of Americans are moderate and 30% are liberal while a greater number (37%) are conservative.

It is a myth that a majority of Americans are moderates. Fiscal-social conservatives make up the single largest component of American society. And 45% of Americans are conservative in some form or another, while only 42% are some form of moderate.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I think it is less important who McCain chooses than who Obama chooses. A strong crossover VP for Obama will give him a good chance of winning if McCain does not choose Huckabee.

Who would Obama’s options be for gaining crossover votes? Could Obama put any kind of moderate on the Democrat ticket without alienating liberals?

[TheMercenary]

I agree. I really don't have any good ideas for him but I think he needs to choose someone with some experience in government. Maybe a state gov or someone like that.

[glatt]

Good point, Webb has no experience.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Good point, Webb has no experience.

If you say so.

[TheMercenary]

Ha! maybe he is a good choice!

"This is why, were I Obama, I would look at the left-liberal case against Webb - on the grounds that he's too anti-feminist, too pro-military, too skeptical about affirmative action and immigration, too hostile to Hollywood and academia - as an advertisement for the pick."

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/a...ainst_webb.php

[tw]

Last time a VP choice made a difference:
Kennedy selected Johnson.

[TheMercenary]

Nixon chose Ford.