So, if you follow American political news, Hillary Clinton is at this point all but decided as the Democratic nominee for the 2008 presidential election, once again proving that there is no election that the Democrats cannot do their level best to fuck up.
However, there is still, I would argue, one last move that John Edwards and Barack Obama can do to counter the total Hillary surge.
The simple problem that the Edwards and Obama campaigns both have is that they’re both competing for the 55-60 percent of the Democratic vote which is anybody-but-Hillary. Depending on where you are and what day it is, one gets 30-35 percent, and the other gets 20-25 percent, and Hillary gets 35-40 percent without even having to try hard based solely on A) name recognition, B) pull within the party and C) dollah dollah bills, y’all. And this advantage has just steadily intensified for Hillary as the campaign’s progressed. The split Obama and Edwards are competing for is working to her advantage because as time goes on, her aura of inevitability grows.
The answer to this is simple. Edwards/Obama 2008. Announce it right now. Never mind that it’s easily the closest thing to a Democratic dream ticket that could possibly be imagined anyway; we speak here of two candidates whose policy positions are, while not identical, extremely similar, and whose appeal to the public is both broad and wide. Joining the two campaigns immediately will allow the larger-by-half anti-Hilary crowd in the Democratic party to finally muster together with full force, and the sole reason to announce a veep candidate later in the term (for a short-term poll bump in late spring) is almost meaningless in the modern media age. I understand that both Edwards and Obama are gambling on a surprise in Iowa, but Clinton leads in New Hampshire as well and beating the Clinton machine in both states will be extremely difficult if not outright impossible.
It’s swim together or drown alone, you guys. Which would you prefer? Do you want another John Kerry-style candidacy in 2008?
Related Articles
17 users responded in this post
I’m still having flashbacks to 2000, let alone 2004. 🙁
Edwards/Obama would be a dream come true, really. Well, either that or Gore picking up the gauntlet that’s been thrown at him by his supporters. Hillary just… eh.
Gore would, honestly, be a bit of a disaster. Never mind that his popularity only lies among Democrats and that Republicans and independents aren’t on his love train; his entry into the race with environmentalism as his primary issue (and it would be no matter what he said) would force every opponent to run to his right, both in the primary and the general.
Latest polls say Hillary’s actually cross over the 50% support mark.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/clinton.schneider/index.html
That’s one poll. I’ll wait for additionals before I consider it more than an outlier.
…oh, and it’s a poll of likely voters. Those always inflate candidates with higher name recognition. Remember Joe Lieberman in mid-2003 having forty percent support and up? Yeah.
Gore would, honestly, be a bit of a disaster.
Yeah, he would. But we shouldn’t have been in this mess! Not that I’m still bitter because, well, I am… but frankly, even the Republicans can’t decide who they like the most with the crop of “winners” they have over there. I think their leading candidate is “To be decided”.
Still, Edwards or Obama really have the best chance, and a ticket with them together… that would rock. Sign me up. Though, just in case, what are the immigration laws like to try and get into Canada from the US?
I remember when Howard Dean was all but actually elected candidate…
While I think it’s likely Hillary will get it, I also think this sense of inevitability is created by the Media who decided the primary winners back in January. Whole thing makes me sick, to be honest.
And to Malakim2099, regarding the immigration laws to get into Canada… Go here:
http://xkcd.com/180/
They’re pretty easy to sum up, though — unfortunately for the vast majority of Americans, the requirements are out of reach.
Y’see, you have to demonstrate that you’re not a total idiot….
😉
I think you nailed it. I’ll make the bumper stickers right away, sir!
Actually, A Hillary/Obama ticket could win. The only real opposition from the Republicans is Guiliani and that guy’s already beyond description.
The problem is that Democrats don’t have to be better people. They just have to be better than the current incarnation of the Republicans. To be perfectly honest, Richard Nixon was a better human being than most Republicans are currently.
There are no viable third options in the USA. There are the Libertarians (who are as socially naive as Communists are economically naive), The Green Party (bunch of whiny tree huggers with no sense of forethought) and a few others that are just dumb as rocks.
I think I’m just going to vote for Mary Carey and be done with it.
There are no viable third options in the USA. There are the Libertarians (who are as socially naive as Communists are economically naive), The Green Party (bunch of whiny tree huggers with no sense of forethought) and a few others that are just dumb as rocks.
The problem with all third parties in the US is that they don’t build at the grass-roots level. They need to start local, get some momentum, and then go to the state and federal level. Instead, they just try and go for the top all at once, which just doesn’t work!
And hey, Mad Scientist, I r smurt! And je parle francais! :p
Sorry, Chris, but your idea has been proposed. And it doesn’t work.
For starters, the anti-Hillary vote is not THAT big. She regularly gets 45+ of the vote in polls these days; it’s not just name recognition, but she’s becoming MORE popular.
Secondly, if Obama dropped out of the race, his support would NOT flow to Edwards, even with an endorsement. This has been polled. A substantial part of his support goes to Hillary, instead, especially amongst blacks, who Edwards is negligible amongst.
Thirdly, Obama and Edwards’ support does NOT derive from a stop-Hillary factor, at least not to the same extent you’re proposing. Both candidates have their own merits.
Fourthly, Edwards is declining; he’s regularly polling not 20, but 10%. Even Edwards-Obama combined poll less than Hillary in most polls these days. If you add in former Obama voters who go to Hillary because they can’t stand Edwards, she’ll get an even bigger boost.
Fifthly, they are NOT identical. One of Obama’s biggest boosts is his anti-Iraq stance from the beginning, as opposed to Edwards, who voted for the war. If he supports Edwards, he’ll lose that advantage.
Sixthly (yes, there are a LOT of reasons here), Hillary is one of the most formidable politicians of her generation. She would find a way to make the whole arrangement into a political minus.
So in conclusion, no, your idea doesn’t work.
Well, there’s a few problems with that ticket. For starters, it might be the least politically experienced ticket since (runs through tickets in his mind…) Eisenhower/Nixon in 1952. And Eisenhower at least had command experience. You’d be teaming up a one-term Senator with someone in their first third of their Senate term, and no other significant experience.
Not to mention that I still don’t even understand how Edwards is still considered a significant candidate, much less actually putting him on the ballot. As mentioned, he’s a one-term Senator…who probably would’ve lost if he’d run for re-election. For someone who’s a litigator, he sure didn’t do particularly well against Chaney in their debate. Heck, what did he do for/add to the Kerry campaign anyway? He’s pretty much a lightweight, and his populist strategy is so at odds with how he actually lives (he’s building an obscenely large house in rural North Carolina and his neighbors there hate him. Now, it’s his business how he spends his money, but it’s the contrast with his attempts to be a populist and voice of the poor that I’m refering to).
On the other hand, I’ve had Obama pencilled in as the 2008 VP nominee for a couple of years now.
The problem with third parties in the US isn’t the quality of those parties (no matter what “Zenrage” may have against the Greens), but the fact that our electoral system strongly prefers a two-party system and the two parties that have seen benefit from this for quite some time now have worked together to put additional barriers in the way of anyone else getting in on their zero-sum game.
I actually like Hillary and would probably vote for her if she won the primary, but I think the biggest problem with her candidacy is that she’s a woman, unfortunately. As much as feminists like to boast about progress and how much it doesn’t matter that she’s a woman, the last two presidential elections have made me rethink the mindset of your average American. I think the country’s still too sexist for her to win, and it scares the piss out of me to think that the Republicans might win AGAIN despite them not really having even a halfway decent candidate and the EVIL FLOWING FROM EVERY PORE.
I think Karellan has a realistic look on the level that feminism has achieved in the States. If Clinton was to be the candidate, and if, as Galloway suggests, Obama became the VP nominee, well…
You’re looking at a female president with an African-American VP.
Will not happen. Not in 2008, at any rate.
I don’t want to come across as bigoted, I just don’t have that much faith in the American voting public (or, if it were to happen in Canada, I don’t have that much faith in Canadians, either).
I can actually see chauvinists and racists turning out to vote against that ticket.
Yeah, I ditto what Jonathan says. I have thought the same thing since they declared themeselves candidates. I mean, you hear about the problems that women and african americans have in the work force, how could the succeed in the politcal arena? Just because the media is too nice to mention it, how many people will only be thinking, “Chick and a Black dude on a ticket? Sheah right”
Great website you have, I’ll definitely come back to check up on more of your posts.