Obama would get a tremendous amount of “walk the talk” points that would ice his nomination in 2016 and probably be forever known as “the uniter”. And Democrats might have the White House locked for 16 years.
You’d have a pretty large number of Obama supporters feeling let down, either by him or by the whole process, and I’m not sure how they would bounce back. Some would be really mad: “I went out and canvassed and donated [$XXX] and he quits while he’s winning?”
Any talk about what this would mean in 2016 is hopelessly premature. I’ve seen people try to play the “they could hold the White House for 16 years” game before, but it’s absurd. Obama and his VP choice could do the same, in theory. It’s too soon to predict most of what’ll happen in 2008 and almost anything that will happen in 2010. 2016? Forget it.
Wow – I’ve encountered a lot of silly ideas during this campaign, but, sorry to be so blunt, this is the silliest yet.
You might as well ask the leading runner in the Boston Marathon to quit within sight of Copley Square because he could always try to win the race a few years from now.
To take this seriously…
I would be highly disappointed, and would not really care about Obama in 2016. He can’t replicate all of the things that make his candidacy great. It’s not about him, so much as it is about the moment. It’s important that he win now, in my opinion, instead of in 8 years because we need to fix the country now. We’re really on the edge of serious problems that need some serious attention. A half-hearted at solving the looming energy problems simply won’t do it.
So this would be different from a Hillary superdelegate coup because it wouldn’t be her fault. I suppose I’d vote for her reluctantly, although i wouldn’t need to given my current location.
I would feel betrayed if Obama quit now since there is no logical reason for him to accept less than the top of the ticket. Here is an illustration of Hillary’s logic in dangling the veep spot for Obama.
The only comparable instance I can think of would be Perot’s dropping out of the 1992 race in mid-July (when he was virtually in a 3-way tie with Bush and Clinton), and re-entering the race at the beginning of October. While he still got 19% of the vote that November, he never attained his previous levels of support.
Really? I would question his motives. What’s all this talk about him being the candidate of change, and then he embraces the candidate of the status quo?
Really? I can think of lots of people who would think this was a dirty, back-room trick by the Clintons.
If that’s directed at me, I thought you were aware that I’ve been an Obama supporter for some time. But even if I weren’t, I’d still think the thesis in the OP is a terrible idea.
BTW, I hope this doesn’t turn into a pile-on towards the OP. Nothing wrong with asking these “what if” questions, so I hope he/she doesn’t take any of the replies personally.
