« On failing to display a lifelong lean and hungry ambition to become the President | Main | With a 30 month sentence for Libby, the urgent question now is: Bail pending appeal? »

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Spin some Democratic scenarios with Beldar

When I made my predictions a few weeks ago about who the Democratic presidential nominee will be (Obama), I based that on my belief that the primary system, for all its flaws, is still sufficiently powerful to effectively preclude any kind of brokered convention, or major deal among candidates in advance thereof.

My Democratic friends, by contrast, were convinced that Obama, being young and ambitious, would ultimately consent to be Hillary's Veep nominee. But if she has the nomination wrapped up before the convention, I can't believe she'd actually offer the second slot to someone as potentially competitive with her as Obama. (That is, I believe a fundamental characteristic of the Clintons' ruthlessness is their unwillingness to permit any other Dem in the room who will use more than a fraction of the available oxygen; they want, need, insist upon having essentially all of it.) Thus, I think if Hillary has it locked up, she'll pick someone southern or western, or someone who's black or hispanic but of less national competitive threat to her than Obama has been. (Richardson seems to be busy working himself out of this picture in the debates, by the way, and if he is, as reported, even marginally vulnerable on "womanizer" charges, he's probably not in the picture.)

But overall, I continue to believe that although she's far more electable, Obama remains more likely to outpoll her in the primaries, and the enthusiastic cascade that will start with the Hard Left (who won't forgive Hillary for being less radical than her peers on Iraq) will end up giving Obama the lock before the convention.

But let's say I'm wrong, and that nobody has a lock on the nomination going into the convention.

Why isn't it more likely that โ€” even if Hillary enters the convention with a slight lead in committed delegates โ€” Obama does a Veep deal with Edwards instead of her? I think my friends are right that Obama might well take the number two slot, but that he'd be happier to take it from Edwards than her. And Edwards will need to cut a deal with Obama to overcome Hillary's lead.

I know it's still early, and this is wild hypothesizing. But why is, or why isn't, Edwards-Obama more likely than Clinton-Obama?

Posted by Beldar at 10:49 AM in 2008 Election | Permalink

TrackBacks

Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Spin some Democratic scenarios with Beldar and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


Comments

(1) Tom Maguire made the following comment | Jun 5, 2007 2:35:44 PM | Permalink

I had a similar flash on the prospects of a Clinton-Obama ticket - would she really want to be the first woman President no one could remember, overshadowed as she would be by Bill and Barack?

*MAYBE* Michael Jordan has enough charisma to get on stage with those two. Hilary, no, and she knows it.

(2) Carol Herman made the following comment | Jun 5, 2007 2:49:59 PM | Permalink

You want to bet on the donk's candidate? After they ended up with Jimmy Carter? They have no "inside track." Just a bunch of TV clowns, who've been working a dying system.

There's NO TALENT over there! And, if it's OBAMA? YOu tell me the name of the Mexican-American clown that the donks ran in California, against Schwartzenegger?

Seem "party politics" for the donks is a major affair on Martha's Vineyard. But where else?

And, Obama? He's probably a bit more "popular" than Condi Rice; but in the winnah's circle?

According to Tom DeLay, the GOP has suffered very badly with this Bush II. (And, yes, by the very nature of the shifting political winds; you get BOTH parties going through the revolving door of "office holders.")

Talent didn't matter back in the 1960's, either. When the GOP cast up the IDIOT, Warren Harding; followed by Herbert Hoover. And, the only one who capitalized on real presidential strength was FDR!

You have to go back a long, long time to find anyone who held that kind of popularity. And, who truly enjoyed politics. Including fencing with the press.

The GOP is at least in better shape, in terms of talented people. And, the Internet is the "new guy in town." Hasn't quite been played, yet. (Though Joe Trippi found a lot of money for Howie Dean. Where POOR PEOPLE, using plastic, sent in lots of money! Do you know why? Because Dean found an audience who applauded when he said "he'd kill Bush." Fearing disaster on election day 2004, the donks pushed Howie off the stage; and maneuvered Wesley Clark on to it. For ten days. Then? John Kerry's wife paid for her husband's nomination. And, then she seemed to hate the ride.)

Up ahead? Guiliani's got to find some new material.

But we're still only in the preliminaries. Wooing the PRIMARY voters. Not the big kahuna. Which comes when the stages get set.

Are there possibilities? I used to think McCain would be drafted by the donks. Nope. No longer true. His luster has been lost. But what about Guiliani?

(3) James B. Shearer made the following comment | Jun 5, 2007 10:44:24 PM | Permalink

Edwards-Obama is less likely than Clinton-Obama simply because Edwards is much less likely than Clinton. On Intrade Clinton is currently at .517 bid vrs Edwards at .071.

(4) P. K. Scott made the following comment | Jun 6, 2007 12:17:15 AM | Permalink

Your comment about the Hard Left not liking that Hillary is moderating her stands to increase future electability rings true. Some of my liberal friends keep mumbling about being against any more oligarchies (referring to Bush 1 and 2 as well as a future Bill followed by Hillary presidency).

(5) JS made the following comment | Jun 6, 2007 5:29:31 AM | Permalink

I am beginning to think, for a couple of reasons, that Obama will get the Democratic nominantion. Not sure who he will pick for Veep but Clinton ain't in it.

The republican ticket will be more hotly contested and interesting. Right now I think Guliani is guy to beat. In the current field I think Romney will provide the most competition. I like Thompson but have to see him debate and speak on his policies. I am going with Guliani, with Romney as Veep.

In the final analysis, the country being in one of, if not the most, perilous moments in its history, I don't see them handing Obama the football. He really is a greenhorn. Race may be a factor, on the other hand I think Colin Powell would win in a heartbeat, attracting the lion share of Independents. I think a Republican ticket will win the general election by a strong margin.

Put Guiliani as next Pres in the vault, Beldar.

(6) halteclere made the following comment | Jun 7, 2007 12:39:06 PM | Permalink

I'm curious to see who would want to be VP for Hillary (if she gets the nomination) - probably some politician who is only regionally or faintly nationally recognizable and looking for something higher-profile.

I doubt Bill would play the typical insignificant spousal role, leaving the VP who, despite the recent increase in power by Cheney, with reduced power and administration responsibilities.

Of would Bill be offered a high-level position to give him a specific role in the administration (unsure of the legality of this since the JFK / RFJ tandem) so to lure a more recognizable and ambitions person into the VP role?

There are multiple precedents that would be created with a Hillary presidency, with what role Bill plays being one of the largest unknown.

The comments to this entry are closed.