Have Clinton and Obama sniped at each other too much to allow for a joint ticket?

Seems to me a Clinton/Obama or an Obama/Clinton ticket, in either case folding their campaign organizations and support bases together, would be unbeatable. Which should be obvious to both of them. But they’ve been deriding each other harshly during this primary campaign. Does that make a joint ticket out of the question? I’m tempted to say yes, but I recall that in 1980 Reagan offered the running-mate slot to George H.W. Bush, who had derided his polices as “voodoo economics,” and Bush accepted it.

The fighting is SOP. It will have no bearing on the ticket. But I’m not sure that such a ticket would be “unbeatable”. I would hope Obama would select a less contentious and controversial running mate.

She’d probably feel forced to choose him. He probably wouldn’t feel as strongly in the reverse case.

Obama/Clinton is unworkable. His entire message is moving beyond the divisions of the 90s - how does adding her to the ticket help with that? She also doesn’t substantively combat the inexperience charge he is sure to face against McCain.

Clinton/Obama is unlikely. I’m not convinced he would accept, and even less convinced she would offer it to him. He would likely outshine her on the trail and he doesn’t seem the type to just keep the chair warm as VP. Still more likely than the first scenario, I suppose.

I think both of them would prefer a safe, midwestern governor (like Evan Bayh) or a defense-minded foreign affair expert (Wesley Clark, Jim Webb, etc.).

I suspect if elder Bush had criticized Nancy’s role in his campaign that he and Reagan never would have paired. This has become personal and I imagine feelings have or soon will become bruised beyond the point at which they could ever be repaired in the future. Last night as we were watching the debate reruns, we commented that there’s no way now they’ll ever be ticket mates, this in addition to the fact there are better strategic partnerships anyway. Just can’t see it happening.

My bet is on Bill Richardson for VP, regardless of who is the nominee. He’ll attract Hispanic and south western voters who tend to be socially conservative.

I would have agreed until two things happened. First, we saw how bad of a national campaigner Richardson is. He is good for at least a gaffe a week, something that is ill-afforded. Second, the Republic immigration demagoguery has so locked up the Hispanic vote (at least the non-Cuban vote) that it is not as essential that the Dems target this demographic.

I thought a joint ticket was very unlikely anyway, so I don’t think this makes much difference. Nobody would ever ask Hillary Clinton to be VP. The egos just would not work out. And if she gets the nomiantion, I think she is more likely to pick a governor and reward somebody who has supported her and Bill.

Black man + White woman (or white woman + black man) = “unbeatable” presidential ticket?

I hate to be all pessimistic and cynical about this fine country of ours, but realistically I think that will be perceived as too much too fast for voters.

I look for either candidate to grab a nice rich white man as their VP candidate. I’m not talking smiley Edwards either (too much baggage from last go-around). Somebody like (the forgotten) Mark Warner. White, rich, Southern, decided not to run for president … hell, you couldn’t have scripted a better VP candidate for either Hillary or Obama. Wesley Clark is also an option, lending the white man + impressive military record.

12% of whom are black, and 50+% of whom are women, and 50+% of whom are Democrats? Why?

Trouble is, that adds up to somewhat less than 112%.
Anyhoo, when it gets to the “voodoo economics” stage, let us know.

The Bradley Effect?

Get real, folks!

The personal considerations don’t matter much when choosing a running mate. There have been many tickets where the candidates spent the first half fighting each other for the nomination (Reagan-Bush, for example) and even those where they heartily disliked each other (JFK-LBJ, for example). In politics, you often have to make deals with opponents to get legislation passed.

The main issues is as Jas09 suggested: how would this benefit the ticket? The answer is not much.

If Clinton wins, would Obama as VP gain her many black votes? No, not really. Most of them would already choose her over the Republican candidate. And she gains credibility in the black community thru Bill Clinton, who is greatly liked by black voters. Obama as VP might gain increased turnout by black voters, but most of that would come in large metro areas (which are already won by democrats) or in southern states (which lean so heavily republican that increased black vote won’t be enough to flip them democratic). So Obama as VP doesn’t add much to a Clinton ticket.

Same way, on an Obama ticket Clinton as VP won’t add many women votes – the women she attracts will already be voting democratic.

The VP candidate will be someone who can attract an additional group of voters to the ticket, especially a group that can swing certain winnable states to the democratic side. Richardson, who could attract Hispanic and Mountain states voters is one example. Florida & Ohio are close states, someone from them might be chosen (this assumes they fix their voting machines, otherwise they are lost to the democratic side no matter what, so not worth spending any effort on them).
Regarding “too much too fast for voters”; while I don’t think a ticket with both Clinton & Obama is likely for the reasons given above, I still like the image it creates in my mind: an old, bigoted, white voter exclaiming in horror “a broad and a n*gger nominated for President!” as he clutches his chest from a heart attack, dropping dead months before election day, when he would have voted republican.

A southern democrat would be the best option for the democratic ticket. As far as Obama is concerned, he is attracting more than Black voters. He is attracting young and independent voters, so I think he will be an asset to any ticket.

Unfortunately, there is the reality of social perception and bigotry that a woman and black contender will have to face. They key to winning this election is getting the dems to the polls which seems to be happening in record numbers in the primaries. If the Christian right can carry an election, then why can’t women, youth, and minorities.

Has zilch to do with black votes. The people that Obama appeals to that Clinton does not are middle-left relatively young relatively idealistic folks who really detest “politics as usual” and anything that reeks of political machines, political machinations, phoniness and orchestrated sound bites, and cynically outmaneuvering opponents rather than working towards consensus.

(I myself am politically an anarchist, so I am not without strong sympathy for all that, except that I think all the answers are structural, rather than keyed to persons and personalities)

Having said that, I do not know if Obama would net Clinton a lot of those types of votes so much as he would taint himself in their eyes if he accepted a VP slot on her ticket.

While I agree with you in principle, Mark Warner will not be on the ticket. He’s spending this election cycle bitch-smacking whomever the Republicans put forth for Senate in Virginia. Taking him out of that would place that Senate seat in play.

Also, and not a small consideration, having Warner run for Senate has a damn fine chance of solidifying Virginia’s 13 electoral votes for whomever the democratic nominee ends up being. He’s THAT popular in the Old Dominion and he’ll have coattails.

She won’t pick Obama… maybe stab him in an alleyway or something though. I could see her picking some likeable white Governor, like Ed Rendell, but maybe not him.

As for Obama, I have no idea whatsoever. Does he have any longtime political allies? Whoever it is would have to be perceived as someone who will inspire change and all that good stuff.

Obama also appeals to ‘Republicans Pissed At Bush’. This is a non-trivial number of people. I may not agree with all of the man’s stances, but I am aware they are principled and studied ones.

Rendell likes being a power broker too much to accept a VP nod. He’s also apparently not interested in running for any kind of office. He has endorsed Clinton, however, so he’s obviously her boy.


Agreed, but my read is that many in that contingent would not accept him paired with Hillary, either as the lead or in tow.