Anyone think a Hillary/Obama Ticket would be unstoppable?

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Putting the two together would ruin Obama.

Why is that?

I think Obama would benefit enormously from running alongside Hillary. What Obama has on his side is incredible charisma; what he lacks is political experience. He'd benefit from the high-level exposure and of course the experience of working as VP alongside Hillary.

I think we are about to enter a mini-golden age of Democratic rule in the USA, i.e., 8 years of Hillary as President, followed by 8 years of Obama as President.

Hillary is unelectable....thats just the way it is.If Hillary is the democratic candidate...I see 4 more golden republican years.

It's not true just because you say it is.

I see a lot of people, mainly disgruntled males, claiming Hillary is unelectable. None of you other to explain why you think she is unelectable. National polling in the USA indicates otherwise; Hillary does have enough support from the USA population to win the election.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Stunt
I want to see a fiscally conservative Democrat; i have yet to see one enter.

what do you mean by fisacally conservative? someone who balances the budget, doesn't spend to vast excess building up monstrous national debt? wouldn't that be someone like Hillary Clinton?

I think Hillary/ Obama probably would be unstoppable. I guess it all depends on what "average folks" think and want. People who hang out on this forum tend to be pretty extreme. If you just went by what you read here, you'd get the idea Hillary Clinton is very much hated by the American public. But actually, polls of a more representative cross-section of the public show she is one of America's most admired women.

Someone who will be prudent with spending to help balance the budget.
Someone who has experienced making tough fiscal decisions and a proven track record on this front.
The number one issue for Americans should be 1) Budget 2) Economic Sustainability 3) War.
I have yet to see anything from Hillary on this front other than her 100% support of the status quo in Iraq.

Then you haven't paid attention to her record as a senator, or as first lady to the most fiscally responsible president we've had since Carter.

Thats total BS...rofl

feel free to present facts, figures indicating that the above comments are "total BS"... otherwise, we will have to dismiss your comments as mere wishful thinking.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
It's not true just because you say it is.

I see a lot of people, mainly disgruntled males, claiming Hillary is unelectable. None of you other to explain why you think she is unelectable. National polling in the USA indicates otherwise; Hillary does have enough support from the USA population to win the election.

Here are some nice polling numbers
Newsweek:
Hillary v McCain: on 1-17 she wins 48-47, however a month ago she won 50-43 not sure why such a swing

Hillary v Giuliani: 1-17 she loses 48-47, a month ago it is flipped. This is HUGE because Giuliani is totally out of the picture politically, and yet he beats or ties her. He gets back out there and starts running and reminding people of who he is his numbers go up.

ABC/WaPo has Hillary beating both Giuliani and McCain, but only beating Giuliani by 2 points.

Hot line has both McCain and Giuliani beating Hillary bad, nearly 10 points.

George Washington Univ. has Hillary losing to both of them again.

Investor's Daily again has her losing to both of them, the good news here is she beats Romney, but no one knows who Romney is.

Hillary's problem is that everyone knows who she is and what she stands for, it is unlikely that she is going to win over a lot of convert during the next two years. I think Hillary had to get into the race because Obama got in the race and she can't let him build a lead or anything. Hillary's strategy has to be similar to Bush's in 2000, act like the front runner and scare everyone else from running against you. Only McCain tried to run again Bush, everyone else knew they had no chance; Hillary is not having the same effect.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I think we are about to enter a mini-golden age of Democratic rule in the USA, i.e., 8 years of Hillary as President, followed by 8 years of Obama as President.

What is this "we" crap Mr. Gay Australian?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just a thought? the Democrats already get something like 90% of the black vote. Therefore, what good does placing Obama on the bottom of the ticket do them?
Will they now get 91% of the black vote?

Now someone like Richardson who is Hispanic and from the South West makes FAR more sense to help ?balance? out the ticket. Hillary bumps up the female vote for the Democrats and Richardson bumps up the Hispanic vote, which would be hard for the Republicans to counter. (Edwards was a worthless VP candidate, I doubt he gets that chance again. A Richardson/Obama ticket might make sense though, although they are more likely to look for a ?red state? Democrat who might help them win a state like Ohio or one of the large southern states.)

Which is why so many people want Condi to run, or at least be the VP. As a black female she would help to counter Hillary?s appeal and make blacks more likely to vote Republican. Now put a Giuliani at the top and Condi at the bottom and you have a nice balanced ticket. Condi also works for Romney or Newt, but McCain would most likely go with someone from the south of Midwest.

Note: A VP is picked for only two reasons: 1. too help win states the nominee might not get on their own (Edwards, Mondale, Qualye), or 2. too add foreign policy experience to the ticket (Bush 41, Cheney) (Of course every once in a while you end up with VP Gore who does none of the above)

First, Indiana was a lock for George Bush I as that state hasn't gone Democratic since 1964. Bush picked Quayle as not to have a VeeP overshadow him.

% of votes isn't as important as the number of votes. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, he would maximize the number of African American voters in terms of turnout. The percentages may still be the same but the numbers of votes would increase. I am not sure who will be the nominee though I suspect it will be Hillary Clinton but if Obama is placed on the ticket, it could increase the number of Africian American voters that do vote. It would depend on how the race evolves but I am not sure Clinton will want someone who is that charismatic to overshadow her but she may have no choice i.e Kerry with Edwards.

I suspect that Richardson would be a good VeeP candidate as you stated above but he also has political baggage when he was Energy Sec. and as Governor of NM ... plus personal baggage of lying about being drafted by the Oakland As. First rule in VeeP selection is to do no harm. I am not sure Richardson fits that yet.

My choice is to focus on the first thing and pick a VeeP that can help me win a important state like Ohio or Florida i.e. Governor Strickland in Ohio or Bill Nelson of Florida.

Lastly, no way would Republicans go with two pro-choice nominees in Giuliani and Rice. They would melt down and splinter if that happened. McCain is the likely Republican candidate and he may go with Pawlenty or some other governor.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Hillary's strategy has to be similar to Bush's in 2000, act like the front runner and scare everyone else from running against you. Only McCain tried to run again Bush, everyone else knew they had no chance; Hillary is not having the same effect.

Was it not you claiming "Hillary is sucking the air from the room" a few weeks ago?
She seems to be having some effect(based on your theory). Three Dem candidates have dropped out so far.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
I suspect that Richardson would be a good VeeP candidate as you stated above but he also has political baggage when he was Energy Sec. and as Governor of NM ... plus personal baggage of lying about being drafted by the Oakland As. First rule in VeeP selection is to do no harm. I am not sure Richardson fits that yet.

My choice is to focus on the first thing and pick a VeeP that can help me win a important state like Ohio or Florida i.e. Governor Strickland in Ohio or Bill Nelson of Florida.

Bill Nelson won't carry FL for any Democrat IMO...
FL is becoming a red state and no longer a battleground state (unless the new Gov. there F*ks up).

OH, CO, NV, NH, NM, and IA are where it's at..

What baggage is Richardson carrying from the governor's office?
And AFAIK, everyone has their own baggage...There's no clean slate candidate.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Obama rides the winds of change. The winds of change are rising.

Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away
In the wind of change!

*guitar solo*

wee weee wee wee wee weee weedle wee weeeee de wee de weeeeee de wee de woodle we woooo...

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: chowderhead
I suspect that Richardson would be a good VeeP candidate as you stated above but he also has political baggage when he was Energy Sec. and as Governor of NM ... plus personal baggage of lying about being drafted by the Oakland As. First rule in VeeP selection is to do no harm. I am not sure Richardson fits that yet.

My choice is to focus on the first thing and pick a VeeP that can help me win a important state like Ohio or Florida i.e. Governor Strickland in Ohio or Bill Nelson of Florida.

Bill Nelson won't carry FL for any Democrat IMO...
FL is becoming a red state and no longer a battleground state (unless the new Gov. there F*ks up).

OH, CO, NV, NH, NM, and IA are where it's at..

What baggage is Richardson carrying from the governor's office?
And AFAIK, everyone has their own baggage...There's no clean slate candidate.

I consider any state with an average margin of victory within 5% in the past two general elections to be a battleground state. There are a lot of them but I would put Florida and Ohio at the top in terms of "gets" for Democrats. Ohio because it is a winnable state where a populist even a liberal one can win. Florida because it is a fast growing state that Democrats will need to be competitive in the future. Democrats won two house seats and came close in a third ... in a state where the seats are heavily gerrymandered. They won the CFO position, came close in others and picked up some state legislature seats I believe. Yes, the Florida state party needs a lot of help but you can see how someone like Lieberman on the ticket, energized and maximized the Democratic Jewish vote in Florida back in 2000. Senator Bill Nelson, a former astronaut, could be good for a few ticks upwards in this pivotal state if you camp him out there 24/7.

Richardson is a good guy with a great resume but the Los Alamos thing was under his watch as Sec. of Energy and the state Treasurer in NM had to resign for alleged corruption. Nothing directly at him but it still doesn't look good.
He could definitely maximize the Hispanic vote and could potentially lock that swing group into the Democrat's corner (60-40% or better) for a long time.

If Iraq continues to be a huge issue, I could see any of the Democrats selecting Gen. Wes Clark as the VeeP. That would also be a good choice IMO.

 

[animalia]

Originally posted by: homercles337
We have never had a woman or a black man as VP, let alone president. All the misogynists and racists of red states would use every ounce of power and money to never let this happen. Unstoppable? More like suicide. An ever worse situation would be Obama for pres with a muslim running mate.

exactly. they'd win new york, california, all the big cities, etc. and lose the election

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I think we are about to enter a mini-golden age of Democratic rule in the USA, i.e., 8 years of Hillary as President, followed by 8 years of Obama as President.

What is this "we" crap Mr. Gay Australian?

if your armed forces just stayed in your own country, if 'you' minded your own business instead of invading countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people, then maybe you might have a point. but actually, non-US citizens probably have as much of an interest in the outcome of the USA presidential election as US citizens. In some cases, e.g., as with the Iraqi people, their lives will depend on the outcome of the election.

 

[SSSnail]

The funny thing about this whole thing is... the rest of the world thinks Hillary would make a good president.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

No.

But I do see some who would use it to guilt Americans against voting for anyone else.





Since Hillary has announced I expect the press orgy to commence, get ready for story after story about how great, loveable, and charming she is. The other contenders for the Democratic nomination won't even know what hit them

 

[ericlp]

why so many people want condi to run????? I'd never vote for her. After all the BS she stands up for bush every move.... She is worthless ...

I think Clinton has a good shot at it. I believe that who ever gets nominated for Democrats will have a HUGE advantage over the republicans regardless of who they choose...

I doubt a Clinton/Obama relationship will not happen... But my prediction is... With all of Hillary's backing (huge power)... And to zing it up with Bill Clinton supporting her.... It's pretty easy to see who will most likely win this one.

That's my prediction....

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The US is too sexist and racist to elect anyone who is not a white male.

:roll: Not this again. I am from Tennessee and spent the last year being called a racist because I could not bring my self to vote for a black candidate... Harold Ford Jr. Despite his liberal voting record and the crime ridden family he comes from, the only reason I did not vote for him in the U.S. Senate race in Tennessee is because I am a racist. :roll:

Obama? I don't want another Jimmy Carter in the white house. Hillary? If her last name was not Clinton and the wife of Bill... where would she be?

It has nothing to do with sex or race.

 

[Genx87]

If Hillary gets elected, we will have had a Bush or Clinton in the Whitehouse for at least 32, possibly 36 years if she is re-elected(1980-2012\16).

Monarchy anybody?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Too many people dislike Hillary to ever vote for her. Pairing her with someone who is better liked won't increase her vote count. So unstoppable - no. I actually think an Edwards/Obama ticket would fare better. And I guess I think that Obama is going to be a VP candidate at best.

At the end of the day I think Hillary gets more votes than Obama. I think she will be the next president. I'll put it this way. If she gets beaten it will be in the democratic primary. No one from the republican side can even come close to beating her.

 

[aidanjm]

great in-depth article on Hillary

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Since Hillary has announced I expect the press orgy to commence, get ready for story after story about how great, loveable, and charming she is. The other contenders for the Democratic nomination won't even know what hit them

have you seen her in a decent interview - say with Tim Russert on his Sunday program? She actually is charming. I never get the impression of coldness or aloofness, which is how she -used- to be described. Maybe she has, like a fine wine, improved with age.

 

[jman19]

Definitely NOT unstoppable. How does this ticket deal with any of the problems the Dems had in the last presidential election?

 

[senseamp]

Hillary is not going to pick Obama to be her running mate. I don't think she wants both her husband and her VP stealing her spotlight.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Genx87
If Hillary gets elected, we will have had a Bush or Clinton in the Whitehouse for at least 32, possibly 36 years if she is re-elected(1980-2012\16).

Monarchy anybody?

Uh, what does that have to do with a monarchy? :laugh:

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Stunt
I want to see a fiscally conservative Democrat; i have yet to see one enter.

what do you mean by fisacally conservative? someone who balances the budget, doesn't spend to vast excess building up monstrous national debt? wouldn't that be someone like Hillary Clinton?

I think Hillary/ Obama probably would be unstoppable. I guess it all depends on what "average folks" think and want. People who hang out on this forum tend to be pretty extreme. If you just went by what you read here, you'd get the idea Hillary Clinton is very much hated by the American public. But actually, polls of a more representative cross-section of the public show she is one of America's most admired women.

When did Hillary ever balance the budget?

 

[NakaNaka]

I think Hillary would pick Wes Clark as her running mate and it would be a pretty formidable ticket.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: NakaNaka
I think Hillary would pick Wes Clark as her running mate and it would be a pretty formidable ticket.

Wes Clark? That loony?