While enduring a lengthy car trip yesterday, I was forced to listen to about three hours of Sean Hannity on am radio- it was either that, hardcore 70’s country, preachers, or static. Anyhoo, he had a Zogby poller on there who opined that since according to their polling, Obama’s religious affiliations are causing his popularity to shrink at an alarming rate, and now both he and HRC are trailing McCain. He recommended since both have hardcore supporters who wouldn’t vote for the other, making eithers chance to win difficult, if they cared about the Dem Party, Obama should give his delegates to Gore (they say its allowed) and accept the VP slot and HRC should accept some other high position. I love this idea- Gore is the only one of three IMO who can beat McCain now that Obama refuses to denounce his mentor and many whites have a problem with that.
If allowed, does anyone else see this as the only way the Dems can win?
No, because it’s ridiculous. Obama can and will win the nomination unless something really stunning happens, and a one-day fluctuation in poll numbers during this lull doesn’t qualify.
In another thread, there is a poll (Rasmussen I think) that shows Obama was 7 percentage points behind Clinton yesterday… and only 2 points down today. So I wouldn’t put much stock in those things.
Um. No. That’s a *really *bad idea. Gore has already run one terrible campaign, and doesn’t seem to have any interest in trying again. Unlike Obama and Clinton, absolutely none of the primary voters have voted for Gore. His positions on virtually none of the major issues have been presented, let alone vetted (what’s the current Gore healthcare plan?). Both Clinton and Obama supporters would feel insulted by it.
Obama’s numbers are starting to bounce back up after the initial panic Wright caused. If that’s not so, then the superdelegates will give it to Clinton.
Gore doesn’t want to be President…I really wish people would get that through their heads. He has emphatically stated he doesn’t want the job anymore folks.
Even if he DID I don’t think this is a very good idea. Sheesh…Obama has a rough week and people are freaking out. I’ve seen the (very early) polling match up data between McCain vs Obama/Hillary…and they are pretty much neck and neck still (with, IIRC, Obama actually holding a slight edge). And these are early days still!
Leave Gore be! He has made his choice and frankly I think it was the right one.
Y’know… If I were Obama, I’d want people to be confident enough in me for me to collect the necessary superdelegates, but to otherwise have LOW expectations of me.
High expectations are easily frustrated - as we’ve seen this week - and perhaps as a partial motivation for this post. Low expectations are easily exceeded. And, right or wrong, people look at trend lines (unconsciously) and if you are trending up in your perceived skills, people see you as having still more potential - and they vote that potential…
I think this would absolutely guarantee that the Dems would lose. I think Clinton has a 1-in-20 shot of beating McCain, but those are even better odds than this (quite frankly) idiotic scenario. And recent polling doesn’t show any such “alarming rate” drop for Obama. Leave it to Hannity to invite someone who could make such a presentation with a straight face.
Well I was wondering why I’m not hearing much from all the candidates on the global inundation and disaster awaiting us. There was lots of talk and hysteria until the candidates started campaigning. Now were all diddling while Rome burns.
If the superdelegates cared about the Democratic Party, they’d all sign a document stating that they recognize a superdelegate-led overturning of the delegate count would be absolutely devastating to the Democratic Party for 20-30 years to come, and every single superdelegate signs a pledge to abstain (thereby lowering the number of delegates needed to win, which presumably Obama or Clinton can attain).
There is no way - zero - that the loser of the non-superdelegate delegate count can capture the nomination and have an icicle’s chance in hell of winning in November. So why leave the option on the table?
Well, of course there is. Either way, the candidate has a core of followers, and an antagonistic core of opponents. Now, if the core of opponents is outraged and refuses to support the usurper, that still leaves a devoted core of followers. And that also leaves John McCain. Who could self-destruct, either through exhaustion or his famous temper. Or events in Iraq might cast grim light on McCains surgeriffic cheerleading. As it stands, America still retains a good impression of Sen McCain, his recent blunders overlooked in the glare of attention. But as things get tougher: is he more, or less, likely to have such blunders?
In November, I plan to vote against John McCain. If I can, in the same instant, vote for Obama, I will do so cheerfully, for Hillary, reluctantly. But against McCain, most certainly.
Barack Obama will be our next President. Hillary supporters will fall in line and support him, the idea that they won’t is laughable. A few will break for McCain, but in the end there will be enough of a stark contrast that the Wright scandal won’t be much of a factor. If people want to vote for war in Iran and against Health care, then McCain is their man. The contrast will be quite stark.
Besides, watching the debates will be like Kennedy and Nixon all over again.
I agree. To elaborate, I think Hillary supporters tend to represent the politics-as-usual followers of the democratic party. In other words, people with the mentality of “I’ll vote against the other party no matter who my party runs”. Almost every one of Hillary’s supporters will vote for Obama.
The reverse is not true. Obama has seen widespread support in generally apathetic political groups, as well as independents, and even swing voters of Republicans disenfranchised by the neocons. People who you cannot take for granted will vote for Hillary. The apathetic ones will stay home. The independents may go either way. The crossover republicans will vote who would’ve voted for Obama will now vote for McCain, because whether it’s reasonable or not, HRC is among the most hated people in the US.
So if Obama and Hillary hypothetically had 100 supporters/voters each in the primary, in the event that Hillary ran, maybe 75 of those Obama voters would vote for her in the general election, giving her 175 total supporters, whereas about 98 of Hillary’s supporters will vote for him in the general election, giving him 198 total supporters.
That number may be too optimistic if there are racists who will vote for HRC only because they want a non-black democrat, but I’m not sure how many of those there are. I think the democrats risk suffering a far bigger loss from the voters that Obama brings in who aren’t usually actively voting democrats.
I’ve been saying for a while that most Democrats would vote for either one. But poll results in Mississippi showed that Obama voters were more likely to vote for Hillary than the opposite. I think about 60 percent of Obama voters said they were okay with voting for her, and less than half of the Hillary voters said they would be happy voting for him. Granted it’s March and those figures will change a lot, but I thought it was interesting that the results ran counter to conventional wisdom.
Interesting. I don’t have any statistical data to back me up, it just seems logical.
Although I would imagine that there’s a more significant showing of racists who would like to vote democrat, but wouldn’t vote for Obama in Mississppi relative to the national average.
That was Gallup. Rasmussen never had Clinton leading (although Obama’s lead shrank) but you wouldn’t know it because only the Gallup poll made the news cycles.
If Obama rebounds, I agree my OP shouldnt happen. But if he keeps freefalling and more and more stuff comes out about his mentor, I think it would be in the best interest of the party to run the person with the best chance of winning. Gore has done a 180 since he last ran, and there are no negatives attached to him at all, unlike Obama and HRC. No one is going to say they are definitely not going to vote for Gore, which they have with Obama and HRC. The historicness of have the first black or woman nom is touching, but ulitmately empty if neither has a chance to win. And who knows what the Repubs have to nail Obama with a month before the election, even if he rebounds- a picture of him hamming it up with Farrkhan perhaps?
Aren’t the Repos even more fragmented than the Deps? There is a huge bloc of fundies who find the thought of voting for McCain abhorrent, isn’t there? [Despite the latter’s recent shameless pandering to the former]