Politics: The Wrath of Veep

by **dajafi** » Fri May 23, 2008 11:53:21

SurveyUSA: Obama +8 in Ohio

They do something interesting--poll a lot of different ticket matchups. It seems like Edwards is the running-mate with whom Obama runs strongest... and Huckabee is the running-mate with whom McCain runs strongest. That in turn suggests to me that the results mostly reflect name recognition at this point. Oddly, they don't poll Clinton with Obama. But Huckabee does poll better than The Mittster.

Also, McCain released a truckload of medical records last night or this morning. Apparently he's got a completely clean bill of health, which makes me wonder why he waited so long to release them. Maybe it's that he just doesn't want people thinking about his age/health even when the news is good.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri May 23, 2008 11:58:34

That sample is 52-28 Dem/GOP

I know things are bad for us party ID wise, but we aren't -24 in Ohio. If McCain wins independents by 10% and does 10% better among GOPers in Ohio than Obama does among Dems, we win the state easily, not lose it by 9.

by **dajafi** » Fri May 23, 2008 12:06:00

jerseyhoya wrote:That sample is 52-28 Dem/GOP

I know things are bad for us party ID wise, but we aren't -24 in Ohio. If McCain wins independents by 10% and does 10% better among GOPers in Ohio than Obama does among Dems, we win the state easily, not lose it by 9.

I didn't look at the sample. But I think your two "ifs" are huge longshots.

Bush narrowly won Ohio in 2004 because Rove scared people about The Gays, and this was before the whole of the Republican leadership in the state went to jail or lost their bids. (Admittedly, that Democratic AG there now reminds us that corruption and general stupidity aren't one-party issues, but at least his colleagues are trying to push him out.) The gay thing isn't as salient, and the economy is even worse. Basically, the hopes rest on all those "hardworking white" Clinton voters refusing to pull the lever for The Scary Black Man. Maybe it happens, but I doubt it.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri May 23, 2008 12:11:29

McCain leading Republicans 84-12, Independents 46-36, Obama leading 73-14 among Dems.

Straight from the crosstabs of your link.

by **dajafi** » Fri May 23, 2008 12:30:58

jerseyhoya wrote:McCain leading Republicans 84-12, Independents 46-36, Obama leading 73-14 among Dems.

Straight from the crosstabs of your link.

Oh, I don't dispute their findings, just whether those trends will hold in November.

by **Macho Row** » Fri May 23, 2008 13:12:26

Decent article regarding the Veepstakes on both sides.

Mentions that people are pushing for Chris Dodd on the Dem side. Also Ted Strickland and Sebelius. Sam Nunn and says how he might put Georgia in play for the Dems if he's on the ticket. Mark Warner, though a little far fetched considering he's a shoo-in for Senator this year.

Has a piece from a Chicago Sun-Times columnists who's an influential Obama reporter. Breaks down Obama's options into four tiers. First Tier: HRC, Tim Kaine, Jim Webb, Tom Vilsack and Evan Bayh, Strickland, Hagel, and Bloomberg. Second Tier: Richardson, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden. Third Tier: Tom Daschle but says he's more likely to be CoS or in the cabinet. Fourth Tier: Tim Roemer, Sam Nunn, Sebelius, and Napolitano.

On the GOP side mentions Huckabee, John Thune, Mitt, and Jindal. Says McCain is considering a list that numbers double digits. Bloomberg and Rob Portman. Also read elsewhere today that Tom Ridge says he was invited to McCain's this weekend too but couldn't make it because of previously scheduled business.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri May 23, 2008 14:30:57

I really like an Obama-Nunn ticket.

by **dajafi** » Fri May 23, 2008 14:34:19

Here's Obama's responseto McCain's GI Bill statement, to which I linked yesterday. Well crafted, I think.

My only problem with the piece Macho Row linked to is the author's conclusion that Govs. Sebelius and Napolitano are "less qualified" women as running mates than Nixon-in-a-Pantsuit. I couldn't disagree more. They've actually, y'know, run stuff, and to my knowledge without an eight-digit debt.

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri May 23, 2008 14:41:54

So I'm not Catholic, I don't know anyone killed in 9/11, and I'm not from New Orleans, but if I was any of those things, I would pretty ticked that McCain waited until Hagee's comments about the holocaust became public before he finally threw away Hagee's endorsement.

So McCain isn't concerned about losing votes from Catholics (got them in the bag because of pro-life), or the poor and black (not getting them anyway), or New Yorkers (also voting dem), but tweek him where he might be hurt with Jewish swing voters and he springs into action.

He said he wasn't aware of Hagee's comments. Uh, yeh, I believe that. Then I guess he wasn't paying any attention to reporters' questions.

by **dajafi** » Fri May 23, 2008 14:55:20

McCain evidently announced another change of heart on immigration yesterday, re-enraging the Know-Nothing wing of his party.

The link I provide here just focuses on the political ramifications and mocks McCain (more or less fairly, I think) for again showing that he's a politician rather than a bastion of consistency. For me, though, his original-and-now position is the correct one, and I wouldn't discount him for changing his emphasis when he had to appeal to the nativists in the primary.

(Of course, mine is not the vote he needs.)

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri May 23, 2008 15:13:46

Change of emphasis vs. change of heart.

He talked about securing the border first during the primary, but never backed off support for comprehensive reform. I don't get how this is a change of heart of a change of position or anything. But then I don't get too exercised about this issue.

by **dajafi** » Fri May 23, 2008 15:18:24

jerseyhoya wrote:Change of emphasis vs. change of heart.

He talked about securing the border first during the primary, but never backed off support for comprehensive reform. I don't get how this is a change of heart of a change of position or anything. But then I don't get too exercised about this issue.

I think it's more that the Malkinites in your party are angry again. They see it as a flip-flop or act of dishonesty. And presumably Lou Dobbs will get exorcised about it.

He also evidently "repudiated" Rod Parsley last night for Parsley's anti-Muslim comments.

These are all things that remind me why I personally admire McCain (as well as why he supposedly came close to leaving the Republicans not so long ago). But they probably aren't going to help him win.

by **Macho Row** » Fri May 23, 2008 15:25:13

TenuredVulture wrote:I really like an Obama-Nunn ticket.

On the surface, it has a lot of potential. There's the whole Georgia thing. Combine Nunn with Obama's appeal among African-Americans and at the least, McCain may have to use resources there instead of place where it may be more useful (PA, OH, etc.). Nunn satisfies the "elder statesman" role on the ticket, plus he's been out of Washington long enough to avoid the "beltway insider" tag. And Nunn was also one of the driving forces behind the Unity '08 group that was planning to run a third party candidate. Hagel and Bloomberg were thought to be potential candidates, maybe even the Unity '08 ticket before Nunn and Boren endorsed Obama. Nunn's presence of the ticket could appeal to disenfranchised independents and even Republicans who were considering the whole Unity '08 idea.

by **drsmooth** » Fri May 23, 2008 15:33:40

jerseyhoya wrote:Someone who can go to the small towns in the south and whatnot and fire up the base and speak publicly about faith in a way McCain can't. McCain is going to be the ticket's chance to appeal to independents. Something on the ticket has to appeal to the base.

Geez, confusing

I thought the GOP base is what pushed Huck out because he wasn't 'base' enough (That pun is probably wasted on you, who finds my material too 'difficult', which I interpret as "whaaa - I have to use the dictionary AGAIN!").

agree with you though that there's no way Bloomberg even considers VP. Makes a nice story for McCain HQ; they can pretend like there was some sort of serious discussion with MB about him considering an offer.

by **drsmooth** » Fri May 23, 2008 15:39:10

Macho Row wrote:.....Also read elsewhere today that Tom Ridge says he was invited to McCain's this weekend too but couldn't make it because of previously scheduled business.

I sent McCain a sorry-can't-make-it note just so I could say so too, but the media haven't mentioned it yet :?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri May 23, 2008 15:42:19

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Someone who can go to the small towns in the south and whatnot and fire up the base and speak publicly about faith in a way McCain can't. McCain is going to be the ticket's chance to appeal to independents. Something on the ticket has to appeal to the base.

Geez, confusing

I thought the GOP base is what pushed Huck out because he wasn't 'base' enough (That pun is probably wasted on you, who finds my material too 'difficult', which I interpret as "whaaa - I have to use the dictionary AGAIN!").

jerseyhoya wrote:I guess I'm mostly thinking socially conservative when I say conservative, so no, it wouldn't eliminate Huckabee.

by **dajafi** » Fri May 23, 2008 15:45:05

drsmooth wrote:I thought the GOP base is what pushed Huck out because he wasn't 'base' enough (That pun is probably wasted on you, who finds my material too 'difficult', which I interpret as "whaaa - I have to use the dictionary AGAIN!").

I do get the pun. Different bases. Huck pissed off one base because he'd committed the thoughtcrime of believing governance more important than ideology, and then the truly unforgivable sin of raising taxes to act upon this conclusion. He helps with the other base, of course (the one to which jhoya refers), because he's much more ostentatiously religious than McCain, might compare The Gays marrying to bestiality, etc.

If Norquist and Dobson simply moved to California or Vermont and got married, all these problems would disappear. But alas, 'tis not to be.

by **philliesphhan** » Fri May 23, 2008 16:06:23

Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama."My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

So, she's officially off the deep end, I think.
link

by **momadance** » Fri May 23, 2008 16:09:36

I was just about to post that. All I can say is wow. May the conspiracy theories begin.

Oh wait..

Reading too much into this, she simply made a statement.

...while she quietly stuffed her gun back into her underwear...

by **drsmooth** » Fri May 23, 2008 16:16:21

jerseyhoya wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Someone who can go to the small towns in the south and whatnot and fire up the base and speak publicly about faith in a way McCain can't. McCain is going to be the ticket's chance to appeal to independents. Something on the ticket has to appeal to the base.

Geez, confusing

I thought the GOP base is what pushed Huck out because he wasn't 'base' enough (That pun is probably wasted on you, who finds my material too 'difficult', which I interpret as "whaaa - I have to use the dictionary AGAIN!").

jerseyhoya wrote:I guess I'm mostly thinking socially conservative when I say conservative, so no, it wouldn't eliminate Huckabee.

still confusing: your base <> the GOP base

Archived

Politics: The Wrath of Veep