by D. Cupples | Today on CBS, Hillary Clinton left open the possibility of a "dream ticket," saying "that may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket." (Don't they look good together?) 
Barack Obama said "it's premature" to talk about that, adding that he's more likely to beat a McCain in November.
That's an optimistic assumption, but it's not a foregone conclusion that most Hillary supporters would actually turn out for Obama (or vice versa).
About half of the Democratic party prefers Hillary, including some very big states that are very important in general elections. About half of the party supports Obama, but the smaller states that he won don't usually make or break general elections.
Hillary said negative things about Obama during the campaign, and Obama (largely through surrogates and supporters) said negative things about Hillary. None of that has charmed or persuaded their opponent's supporters but could be forgiven in the months ahead.
What probably won't be forgotten is Obama's (and some of his media allies') attempts to push or shame Hillary into conceding the race -- even before last night's primaries. Yes, it would have been easier for Obama in the short run if Hillary had dropped out before winning Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island -- but it might have aggravated the divide in the Democratic party.
Calls for Clinton to concede have outraged many Hillary supporters, reminding them of George Bush's tactics during the 2000 recount here in Florida, where his surrogates' stock statement to the media was essentially, "Hey, Gore -- give up, move on, let me have an easy win."
That's NOT what Dems are supposed to be about.
Yes, I've heard about the delegate math: it's unlikely that Hillary will win a majority of pledged delegates. Obama has a small majority now.
I also understand that of the 4,048 Dem voting delegates, 795 are un-pledged delegates (Dem Party). Of that 795 un-pledged delegates, 258 are congressmen, and 27 are governors -- some of whom may not want to vote differently from their constituents.
Then there are 411 un-pledged delegates labeled "DNC members." I don't know how many are elected state or local officials or how many would vote with their constituencies -- as opposed to voting with majorities in some other state or district.
Lastly, 23 are district party leaders and 76 are "add-ons." I have no information on those.
All of this seems to adds up to a major wild card in terms of the total-delegate count -- which is what ultimately counts.
Obama seems to want the unpledged delegates to simply vote the same way that the majority of the pledged delegates nationwide did (i.e., vote for him) -- even if it's a small majority -- and without regard for how their state's voters actually voted.
Clinton seems to want the un-pledged delegates to vote the same way that the majority in the delegates' states voted (i.e., vote for her); in that case, she would take a big chunk just from her wins in California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Ohio.
BOTH HAVE VALID POINTS of view. Whichever way the un-pledged delegates go, massive rancor could erupt within a big segment of the Democratic party.
Remember -- accurately or not -- many Democrats and Independents perceive John McCain as a liberal or centrist. If a bunch of Hillary or Obama supporters feel cheated because their candidate didn't win the nomination, many of them might vote for McCain (or stay home).
If Dems from larger states feel "cheated" by party bigwigs, operatives or un-pledged delegates, I suspect they'll take it out on the party -- creating a whole new wave of Independents.
Whoever wins the nomination will need the other candidate's supporters come November. If the race stays close through June, the only way that I can see a unified party is if there's a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket.
Not that polls are always accurate, but the latest ABC/Washington Post poll indicates that 36% of likely Dem voters want to see the "dream ticket." That's worth considering, because this race really is about the public -- not about the two individual candidates.
For all those reasons set forth above, I don't think it's too early for either candidate to start talking about a joint ticket (at least in private).
Memeorandum has other bloggers' reactions: Donklephant, Taylor Marsh, michellemalkin.com, culturekitchen, Wake up America, Connecting.the.Dots, Macsmind, Vodkapundit, Vox PopoliChronicle of the Conspiracy and Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* Primary Results and How the Polls Matched up
* Hillary Clinton (Candidates' Positives, Part I)
* Obama: Because I Remember (Candidate Positives, Pt. II)
* Gov. Crist Supports New Primary for Dems
* Penn. Governor Notices Media Bias re: Clinton & Obama
.
Good points generally, but your bias shows in some of the spin-infused distinctions you choose to make.
First, "the smaller states that he won don't usually make or break general elections.
Wisconsin, Missouri, Virginia, Iowa, Minnesota may not be huge, but they are not small, and they are indeed swing states that cumulatively could make or break an election. We all know Ohio is both huge and a swing state, but contrary to your implication, most of her big states don't swing elections.
Second, "Hillary said negative things about Obama during the campaign, and Obama (largely through surrogates and supporters) said negative things about Hillary . . .What probably won't be forgotten is Obama's (and some of his media allies') attempts to push or shame Hillary into conceding the race. . .
With the sniping going back and forth (the vast majority of it well in bounds, IMO), how does pressure from Obama supporters for Hillary to concede somehow transcend all of the other partisan stuff to some new, especially offensive level? It all seems of a piece with the primary. I would also note that Obama, AFAIK, has never called for Clinton to concede. In fact, who at the top level of the O campaign has said that Clinton ought to concede? This also seems like spin and maybe just plain inaccurate.
Posted by: biwah | March 05, 2008 at 05:36 PM
re the above post: paragraphs 2 and 4 were quotes from the OP. For some reason the italics are not showing up.
Posted by: biwah | March 05, 2008 at 05:38 PM
Biwah,
How are you?
No, Obama's campaign did not overtly call for Hillary to concede. He didn't have to jump into the fray, because many of his supporters (I mean some media people) did it for him. Thus, he got the benefit without looking bad.
I don't recall George Bush directly telling Gore to "Move on": it was Bush's operatives working through some media outlets.
Obviously, I'm speaking as someone who likes Hillary (and a Floridian, too). Does liking Hillary for my own reasons automatically make me "biased"?
If you support Barack, are you automatically biased?
Lastly, I didn't say that trying to push Hillary out was more partisan than anything else. What I said is that a lot of Hillary supporters would feel disenfranchised and resentful if she were pushed out too early (i.e., before it looked like she really couldn't win).
My overall point is that I don't think either candidate has a good chance against McCain unless they're both on the same ticket. I could be wrong.
I also didn't mean to imply that Barack hadn't won significant states (he won Ill, CN, VA, MD...). I also didn't mean to imply that NY, CA, FL and TX are "swing" states.
But those states combined (our nation's four largest states) carry a lot of electoral-college votes, which are what will count in November.
What is IMO and AFAIK?
.
Posted by: D. Cupples | March 05, 2008 at 05:54 PM
biwah,
Incidentally, Slate says that Obama's campaign is pushing for Clinton to withdraw.
http://slate.com/id/2185831/pagenum/all/#page_start
Posted by: D. Cupples | March 05, 2008 at 06:07 PM
My point, more or less, is that it becomes bias when the "facts" start changing. Simply having an opinion is not equal to being biased, as about 12% of the blogging community seems to recognize.
But media does not equal "Obama surrogate". The media is a free agent that likes to pull the wings off flies if the news cycle slows down a notch, just because it can. The Clinton supporters' backlash against Obama for the media's uneven treatment is one of the signature phenomenons of this primary. It's kind of understandable, but not entirely logical or fair. I am hopeful that now that the media decides it needs to make Obama squirm, we'll all get along better :)
But anyway, the media looks for someone to be marginally ahead, and then jumps on the other person to withdraw. It's what they do in every race. You have to admit that the urgency that creates may not be all bad, in what is an urgent primary. As far as Clinton supporters getting turned off, I think it's just up to them whether they get turned off. You have to discount 90% of the people who say "I was okay with opponent X before, but after (incident du jour) I will never vote for him/her, even against a warmongering Republican." the alternative is to try to cater to them, and that would only invite more trouble, IMO (in my opinion) and AFAIK (as far as I know).
FL is a swing state, and I think is THE swing state where Clinton has a big genreal-elecetion advantage over Obama. But the others are big blue states that either candidate will take easily.
I really like an Obama/Clinton ticket. We have to recognize that these people are both huge, there is no way around the disappointed/disenchanted fallout from either of them losing outright to the other. In the abstract, either one could justify making other VP choices. But in reality, there will be a big sucking sound from either of them losing. You go to november with the electorate you have, not the electorate you might wish for. Or so I hear.
Posted by: biwah | March 05, 2008 at 06:40 PM
I don't see where I changed any facts. Given Obama's consistent arguments about having the PLEDGED delegate lead, it's not a stretch to think that he (via surrogates) really pushed the idea with media allies that Hillary should have dropped out even before March 4. You're right, though: I can't prove it.
Your last paragraph basically restates the whole point of my post: I THINK that a joint ticket will be necessary for either Dem candidate to win.
Incidentally, it's not just Clinton supporters who say that they won't vote for Obama if he wins. Obama supporters have been saying that for longer (though I've no idea of the numbers). It didn't help that Mrs. Obama refused to dodge the question on Good Morning America about whether she would support Clinton if she won.
That certainly could be interpreted (by Obama supporters) as a suggestion.
For many people, this is a very emotional campaign, meaning that logic and practicality are out the window for those people.
Posted by: D. Cupples | March 05, 2008 at 08:58 PM