Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Speculation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7401899.stm

Hmm... the possibility of an Obama/Edwards ticket for November?

First of all, how likely is an Obama/Clinton ticket? Some people call it the dream ticket, but I'm not sure I buy it. I read awhile back that it's a risky venture amidst an uncertainty that a democratic gambit is necessary to defeat McCain. Yes, there's the dual impact of electing our first black and female White House, however there's also the inherited stigma from people who don't believe an African American should hold office and that a female doesn't have the "chutzpah" to do so either. Another consideration is how long we've drawn out Clinton vs. Obama. In my personal and non-biased opinion there have been a lot fewer blatant digs against Hillary by Obama, where in retrospect Hillary's campaign has been quite hateful and bitter, adorned now and then with silly pledges to enforce party solidarity and to support whoever wins. I think that yes, there is the prospect of some people who say "I like this about Obama, I like that about Clinton, together they're unstoppable!" There is also the prospect of "I DIDN'T like this about Obama and I DIDN'T like this about Hillary, what does this McCain feller have to offer?" That and it's a radical idea. Two political minorities in one presidential bid? Yes, it's the 21st century, but there are a lot of undereducated hick wackos out there that just won't buy it.

Now, it is still feasible, although not very likely, that Hillary can secure the nomination. The one thing that the media outlets have been very proper in doing is demonstrating the pure MATHEMATICS of the equation. Meaning that numbers dictate an incredible unlikelihood that Hillary has a chance of winning. These are the same statistical prognosticators who call the race after 15% of the votes have been tallied, and usually they're not wrong. A Hillary nomination would likely mean and most certainly suggest foul play (unless for some odd reason Barack starts walking around with a sandwich board reading "Kill Whitey"). That scenario all but assures John McCain the White House.

So, what it comes down to is that if or when Obama secures the nomination how will he choose a running mate? I saw a CNN analysis last night suggesting the impact a running mate will have on swing states. John Edwards will likely bring with him a large demographic of the state of North Carolina. This, however, is a state that Obama did very well in just a few weeks ago. What other assets would he bring to the table? It was suggested on this same broadcast that an Obama/Richardson ticket will greatly influence voters in southwestern states close to John McCain's home turf. I'm sure there are a lot of statistical analysts who are crunching numbers and figuring scenarios right now in an attempt to find the most likely person to be the vice presidential nominee. Me personally? I think Edwards is a fine idea. Like other Mirth and Matter writers have said, Edwards was their choice due to his willingness to engage in crucial issues during the debates, issues that were not otherwise contest points until he stepped up to debate them. Edwards also has the benefit of having been on a lot of ballots due to his quasi-successful campaigning during the first few months (success judged in context of the other democratic drop-outs and not in context of the Hillary/Obama touring act). That indicates that his name is in the minds of a lot of voters yet is not soaked in the bad blood that Hillary's been bathing in her entire campaign. Then again, Edwards has already been a running mate on an unsuccessful ticket. Can that really be blamed on him though? Conspiracy theorists love to point out the ties between the Kerry and Bush families, but that aside, Kerry just flat out handed it over. He did a poor job of campaigning and still managed to come up with nearly half of the votes. As was proven in 2006, America wasn't voting for John Kerry, they were voting against the Republicans. In that regard it's still entirely possible, given the complete failure of our economy and military campaigns that anti-Republican voting will continue, in which case you could put Michael J. Fox and Elmo on the ticket and still have an assured November victory.

A few postscripts:
1. It may sound like political catchphrase, but Obama's right, a McCain presidency really is as bad as a 3rd Bush term.
2. CNN, you greatly overestimate John McCain's chances in Oregon. Oregon has voted blue every year for the last 24. If we vote red I'm leaving. I will not breathe air amongst people who vote for McCain.

1 comment:

chris bailly said...

How about Edwards as AG? That would scare the s*** out of a lot of folks who have had a free ride during the Bush years.

I've seen Richardson's name floated as VP, and I think that he would be a good choice. I'm don't know much about racial politics, but it could theoretically bridge the supposed "black/brown" divide as well as help in the Southwest (McCain country, according to the pollsters).

I've also seen Jim Webb mentioned as VP. He's a veteran, Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, so he has the national security cred. Also, he won a very tight race in Virginia against George Allen. Virginia is one of those states that I think could possibly turn blue this election, and Webb would help that to happen.