I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but while what you say may be true, I find Hillary so devious that idea isn’t appealing.
Might be because that isn’t the topic of the thread.
That seems unlikely. I expect it would be regarded as selling out by quite a few Obama supporters, who’d vote for some third party or not at all.
Mostly because if Hillary ran as Obama’s VP, he would win much more narrowly over McCain and the Democratic majority in Congress would be smaller with her on the ticket in either spot.
It’s simple really. I’m a small-government, civil-liberties, no-deficit, world-is-watching kind of voter. I feel like I would make a natural Republican, but I also have a strong belief that the President needs to be a statesman, and so I’ve never supported G.W. Bush, whom I regard as barely literate and stupidly stubborn. I supported McCain in the 2000 primaries when I felt like he stood for change.
Today I support Barack Obama, because I feel that my current priorities for a President are:
(1) We need a statesman to restore our standing in the world
(2) We need to remove the random extra-legal bullshit that Bush/Cheney have established (torture, extraordinary renditions, revocation of habeas corpus)
(3) We need to take extraordinary measures to save the economy
(4) …and then we need to do all the other stuff that keeps America ticking.
I support Obama because I feel he’d be outstanding at the first two items, and would look for innovative and bold ideas to make the third item work. An excellent staff – perhaps including Sen McCain as SECDEF or Sen Clinton as Chief of Staff? – could help make this work.
I think Hillary would be a failure on the first count, a holy terror on the second, and would tax-and-spend her way to the third count. She’d probably be excellent at the fourth item. If she tried to get Obama for VP, I hope that he would consider it, because given his wife’s position on a second run for President, that’s the only way we’ll ever see him sitting in the big chair.
I think McCain would do well on the first count, would absolutely stop torture, and would use traditional conservative measures (cut spending!) to accomplish the third item. He might not be Hillary’s equal at the last item, but I feel like I can at least trust him not to install a bunch of Bush lackeys and cronies to do the job.
So my answer to the OP is simple: I’d vote for McCain.
For that to be appealing in any way, you’d have to think Hillary Clinton would make a good president. I don’t, and I think a lot of other people don’t. I don’t want to live under a Hillary Clinton presidency, and I don’t want to see Obama hitch his name to her wagon only to have it sullied by 4-8 years of association with her. It’s not about getting somebody with a D by their name in the White House at any cost, I’ve voted that way before but I’m not doing it again.
As a resident of Illinois, I’d rather see Obama keep his Senate seat than play Constitutionally Mandated Bench Warmer to the Clinton co-presidency. I’ve heard 3rd party suggestions that he could run for Illinois governor to pick up executive experience as well which he’d probably be sure to win and couldn’t fuck up any worse than our current state chief executive. Not an option if he’s VP since the election will be in 2010.
Please. I support Obama, as well, but getting carried away with statements like these doesn’t really help matters or stay particularly true to what Obama is trying to stand for. I seriously doubt McCain or Hillary would even begin to approach Bush in terms of disastrous policies and destroying of freedoms. And there are much, much worse options for President, including those that have been (sorta) in the running, like the Republican runner-up Huckabee. The man doesn’t even believe in evolution! Can you imagine that type of attitude towards science being reflected in national policy? And he’s publicly stated that he wants to bring the Constitution more in line with the Bible! The man’s a nutter, and he was a semi-viable candidate for a while!
As for the OP, it would depend on how big the margin of victory for pledged delegates was. If under 20 or so, I wouldn’t really care, and would still vote for the Dem. nominee. If it’s 50 or more, then I’d probably just vote third party, or write in Obama (assuming he’s the one who gets super’d out). Anything in between, I’m not sure. Note that I’m not actually frightened of a McCain presidency (despite many misgivings about the man), which is the only reason why I would use my vote as a statement to the Dems.
You and I have certainly exchanged our share of barbs over the years. And so I wanted to let you know that I very much admire this attitude and approach.
Cry.
I’m not a Democrat, but I might as well be for all the Republicans I’ve voted for in the last 16 years. Mindful that it’s there party and not mine, I suppose I would shrug my shoulders and do what I’d do if she won outright: hold my nose and vote for Clinton.
When I walk into the polling place, I’m not looking to punish one party or another for whatever stupid things they’ve done. I’m voting for whomever I think will be best for the country (or will do the least harm to it) for the next four years. As of right now, I’m thinking Obama - Clinton - McCain, in that order. I hope the Dems agree with me.
Well, according to my calculation, using CNN delgate count numbers for committed and superdelegates who have expressed a preference, if the remaining elected delegates are split evenly, HRC would have to get 55% of the remainins superdelegates and that would give her 57% of all of the superdelegates.
To me that is just not right. I could understand if it was close and the superdelegates differed slightly percentage-wise from the popular vote. Butthat kind of gap would be wrong.
And don’t get me started if they decide to count Florida and Michigan.
. . . and I know that it’s “their” party, not “there” party . . . :smack:
Jeez, I forgot about those…what happens if they get seated?? Where are the numbers at?
Absolutely well said. I completely support a political party using whatever internal rules they wish to select their candidate, and they would have every right to wield the superdelegate club to force in Hillary. However, the moral hypocrisy of doing so while running valueless primaries and caucuses would forever foul my view of the party and guarantee that I would never associate my political preferences with or register under that party ever again.
Forever an Independent!
This has happened before and not that long ago. After the Carter administration debacle when the Party leaders decided they needed more influence on the outcome of the nomination process, Gary Hart edged Mondale in the popular vote and Mondale secured the 1984 nomination through unpledged delegates. No one here seems to remember that, so why should it be different this time ?
Well, things might just get more interesting. The Quinnipiac poll has Hillary with a pretty big lead in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I can’t find any Texas polls, but if she wins those three it swings back her way. Maybe.
I think Modale had more delgates though, just not enough to secure the nomination.
Thanks. Seriously, I wouldn’t want my candidate of choice to “win” under those circumstances. I’d be ashamed.
No, I would call it “more interesting” if she were polling better than she had been in those contests. However, the lead she’s currently enjoying is smaller than the lead she’s had in previous weeks. And there are still quite a few unaccounted-for delegates in those polls. And that spread still isn’t big enough.
Even her own campaign acknowledges that there’s simply no way she’s going to gain enough pledged delegates, even with wins in those states plus Texas, for her to overcome the lead he has right now. That’s why their focus is still so heavy on the superdelegates.
Even assuming we are not counting superdelegates, I just do not understand how that can be true. Just going by delegates claimed in primaries and caucuses, Obama’s lead is just over one hundred delegates. There’s still well over 1500 in play, and with some very large states coming up it’s perfectly possible for Clinton to make up the gap.
Poll after poll shows Clinton well ahead in Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Huge double digit leads. If the primaries actually came back with the leads the polls are describing, those three states alone would put Clinton into the lead in elected delegates, never mind superdelegates.
I mean, Obama has a lot of momentum, but it’s just crazy to say Clinton can’t win enough pledged delegates. Of course she can. Obama’s lead is very slim.