Only a Dream Ticket Prevents Democratic Nightmare

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama might be stuck with each other -- not just for the long haul to the Democratic nominating convention, but well beyond. They might have to run together, whatever the order and whether they like it or not.

The most likely scenario going forward is that unelected delegates, the so-called super delegates, will decide this thing -- and they might not make a choice in sufficient numbers to give either hopeful the nomination before the convention.

If Clinton or Obama cannot find some miraculous way to lock down a nominating majority in the remaining primaries and caucuses, look for undecided super delegates to opt for the easiest way out and urge them to run together for the November election. More on Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

Follow Craig Crawford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craig_crawford

Comments

[WindRiver1]

330 million people and this is the best we can do on either side of the aisle? I think this points to the fact that both parties are fractured. The candidates have to compromise their core messaing/c­onvictions­s too much to get the nomination, and it gets worse for the general election. They just look like they have sold out by the end.

I think we are at the point where we have no choice but to turn to Simon Cowell from American Idol. I would seriously bet they could come up with better candidates and we can just vote by text messaging as we reduce the group each week.

[craziescrazies]

After all the personal attacks and extremely negative statements made by Hillary, how would it EVER be possible for a combination ticket to work? All McCain has to do is quote Hillary (and a few times Obama) and show the hypocritical nature of muckraking politics. This primary has certainly gone past the point of return and reconciliation. I don't think a joint ticket will ever happen now.

Explain how it would ever work, please.

[ProudLiberalDan]

The way this is working out is that either Obama or Clinton will be obligated to offer the VP slot to the other one, less their legion of devoted supporters rallying over the most superficial of causes be offended and stay home.

The superdelegates will ratify Obama as having gotten the most pledged delegates pre-Convention (though the reason they should ratify him is that he will likely have gotten the most actual votes nationwide).

Clinton would never agree to be VP, but Obama is almost then pressured to put a woman and a caucasian on the ticket.

Governor Kathleen Sebelius - in her second term as Kansas Governor. She's white, she's woman, she's Jewish (and the neoconservatives will attempt to scare people with the fear that Obama is a closet Muslim), she is a Governor with executive experience, and she endorsed Obama in the primary.

What? Obama shouldn't pick his VP based on tokenism? Why not? Isn't that what this media-desired DLC-friendly beauty pageant has essentially devolved into? Which token history do we want made? Forget policies, platforms or progressive action.

That Sebelius is qualified is probably also secondary to this nightmare of a political season.

[samanthasmom]

What a snooze Sebelius is, and I am totally offended that you think that putting a woman on the ticket would bring the HRC supporters to Obama. We aren't voting for Hillary because she's a woman. We're voting for Hillary. Leave Governor Sebelius in Kansas. Let her keep looking out the window to see what else she can sell at the next yard sale. Having her give that insipid Democratic response to the State of the Union Address and then have her declare her support for Obama the next day was done just so that he would have a pander to women in his pocket just in case in couldn't seal the deal without us. Talk about insult.

[ProudLiberalDan]

I heard Gov. Sebelius speak recently, and I thought she was fine.

To state that there aren't people who are supporting Hillary because she's a woman is as ridiculous as stating there aren't people supporting Obama because he's African-American.

My friend Paul is a man and voted for Hillary in no small part because she is a woman and he thinks there has been too much masculine energy and testosterone determining American foreign policy. Whatever. Note everyone votes identity politics, but there obviously some who do and to pretend that people don't it to utterly deny reality.
That's what this whole contest has devolved into in the media.

But, go on, be offended if it makes you feel better.

I'm offended that whichever of these two DLC-to-the-bone candidates gets the nomination I am going to have to hold my nose and vote for them for the alternative is so much worse.

I voted for a white, male candidate because I support single-payer health care and getting out of Iraq period, and neither of these two DLC candidates remaining will do both. I'm offended that the media didn't give him a fair shake in coverage or the debates because they wanted "woman vs. black" for the nomination, so I don't give a rats ass if either Clinton's or Obama's supporters are offended by my opinion.

[vahawk]

First of all, Obama will have more pledged delegates and more of the popular vote. So Hillary should take the VP if anyone does. Hillary supporters, are you okay with that?

Obama as VP? Don't think so. It would be stupid for him. Look at history. Only twice in the history of the US that a person who was VP for 8 years won the Presidency. And how many times did that person finish out the "sixteen year plan"? Never. This would be political suicide for Obama.

[coonce]

If Hillary says, the following when asked about a Dream Ticket (her and Obama),

"That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me"

perhaps Obama should USE those words EVERYTIME she attacks him as not being WORTHY or READY for the PRESIDENCY.

If she thinks he's GOOD enough to be 2nd in command if anything happens to HER -- then how can she claim he's not good enough to be PRESIDENT now?

[ProudLiberalDan]

I don't give a rats ass who has more "delegates" going into the convention. I do care about who has gotten more votes nationwide. The superdelegates should ratify the decision of actual voters nationwide. Screw this intraparty version of the electoral college.

While I don't want either one of these two DLC candidates to be the nominee, chances are that Obama will have the most votes in a nationwide tally. In that case, he should be given the votes of the superdelegates. But God help us all that we never go through this nightmare one.

ONE national primary day and a direct popular vote elections, both using ranked-choice voting so we can vote our first choice, but emerge with a consensus candidate.

This whole process is beyond horrifying for democracy.

[Redhead]

ProudLiberalDan calls this "process beyond horrifying for democracy". How can Dan be so Proud and Liberal and not see that there are more voters coming to polls and caucuses in this country in more that fifty years. Now this is Democracy in Action, at it's ultimate. And the whole world is watching and mentally voting with us. And the promise of a real National Convention for the first time in forty years. This is how Democracy is supposed to work. Every vote counts, or should count. Even Michigan and Florida. Until one or the other closes the deal with the most votes cast and the most number of delegates with all votes counting, there is no clear winner. We don't want any doubts about the will of the people.

[Lemeritus]

Here's the conundrum in bas relief:

Popular vote for Clinton w/o MI & FL: 12,363,897
Popular vote for Obama w/o MI & FL: 12,946,615

Popular Clinton vote w/ MI & FL: 13,563,192
Popular Obama vote w/ MI & FL: 13,522,829

Advocating that one or the other of the candidates step aside essentially means roughly half the votes cast in this primary process should be disregarded. Even if superdelegates behaved as ProudLiberalDan believes they should, we might end up with a deadlock. Colorful as a contentious convention may be (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=1924%20Democratic%20Convention&), I absolutely concur that we need a national primary day and a means of choosing a consensus candidate.

[ProudLiberalDan]

This process was horrifying to me as an urban voter in America where lavish attention was focused undeservingly on Iowa and New Hampshire to the detriment of everywhere else in Country, not the least of which the metropolitan areas where the American people, not the least of which the majority of Democrats, actually live.

This process was horrifying to me that because of the uproar and media circus over first woman versus first black, none of the more progressive candidates who happened to be white men were treated fairly by the media or in the debates, because the media wanted a first woman v. first black contest -- even if both candidates are DLC to the bone.

This process is still horrifying to me because under these absurd Convention rules, it is still possible for the candidate who wins the most votes not to have the most delegates.

The process is still horrifying to me because the Electoral College will once again disenfranchise the majority of the country and the majority of metropolitan voters as McCain and Obama launch a campaign to become the President of the Swing States of America.

The process is still horrifying to me because neither McCain nor Obama will abide by public financing, so that the contest will become one of money.

The process is still horrifying because none of the minor candidates will be included in any of the debates, meaning the field of discussion will be frighteningly narrow and the media who loves John McCain will give him the softball treatment.

The process is still horrifying because as we use electors instead of votes to determine a President, it is very easy to see how we could easily have Obama win a big popular vote majority, but lose the election in the immoral, undemocratic, designed-t­o-be-slave­-state-emp­owering, Electoral College.

This process is still horrifying because since we do not use a popular vote with a runoff of some manner if no candidate gets 50% of the vote, people will not be able to vote their first choice without being berated for "spoiling" the election.

This process is still horrifying, because no matter which of these two DLC-to-the-bone candidates is elected, the war in Iraq will continue and we will not get anywhere near universal, single-payer health care.

This election is horrifying because it will be ultimately about nothing with the media pretending it will be about something because the first _________ will be elected president.

So yes, I am proud and liberal, but I am beyond horrified.

[racom]

OK, OK, everyone, take a deep breath and collect your thoughts. Read through these comments and you will see why we are in serious trouble. We sound like a pack of attack dogs. Hillary this, Obama that, then back the other way. We are sick of partisan wars in our congress and that is what we are deeply involved in here. I repeat an earlier post:
There is far more at stake here than the personal aspirations of either candidate. Another 4 or 8 years of the continued bush disaster will bury this country!!! McCain is more worrisome than bush was when he ran in 00. The man knows nothing beyond the military answer to all issues. We have potentially the worst finincial crisis since the great depression and he is on record acknowledging he knows squat about economics. He does not believe in diplomacy, the DOD would replace state dept. Don't forget his sordid past, the man is dirtier than bush was in 00. He has hinted that there will be no investigations of the bush administration, everyone goes home fat and rich. The military budget would soar, the tax cuts of bush would be made permanent, he will continue to try to privatize social security, all the social safety nets would be crippled or canceled. etc etc etc. People, either we settle this candidate issue diplomatically with out destroying ourselves or we are toast in Nov.

[ProudLiberalDan]

"There is far more at stake here than the personal aspirations of either candidate. "

Thank you!!! Please, everyone, read Racom's post and take a deep breath.

There is far more at stake than the personal political ambitions of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

I want Howard Dean to sit down with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama personally and hammer some deal out with both of them for the good of the Democratic Party and the country, whether it involved one of them, both of them, or quite frankly, neither of them being on the ticket in November.

Our country cannot afford four more years of neoconservatism. Our planet cannot afford it. Our treasury cannot afford it.

I didn't want and don't want either of these DLC-to-the-bone candidates as the nominee. But here we are. For the good of the country, I'm sucking it up. I expect BOTH Clinton and Obama supporters, if they really care about America having a future, to rethink they way they are treating each other, and to do the same.

[tbone99]

I can't see either the "Rock Star" or the" Been Waiting All My Life to be President " candidate capitulating to a second tier position for the other one.Face it, both are in it for themselves, despite talk of unity or 'for the people" platitudes.

An A.A. / female ticket?----- the Repugs Dream Team.

[Ides]

Hillary Clinton is dead weight. Sorry, Craig, but your endorsements of Hillary Clinton have officially sent you off the reservation.

Hillary will go down swinging. She won't get a damn thing. Her legacy will be bloodied and tarnished. A more capable woman will run next year and make her a foot note in the bookmark of history.

[WindRiver1]

If Hillary were to win then Obama should absolutely go back the Senate. He is still fresh on the scene and the media will give him a lot of airtime as he cuts his teeth some more. He could even continue criticizing Hillary for old times sake. Hillary would castrate him and keep him under wraps as the VP. Maybe something like the movie Misery.

[PinkoAttic]

Misery for sure ! Nice analogy.

The Republicans seem so gung ho about getting Hillary as an opponent, there's little doubt they've got a blitzkreig of material raring to go against her that they simply refuse to waste. She'll be toast but McCain might not even run a second term, so Obama, assuming he is set up to lose by the party establishment this time around (which is starting to look all too obvious Mr. Dean), could further season himself in the senate for another 4 years and capture the big prize in 2012.

[argeec]

They should both pledge their delegates to Edwards!

[JimR]

I just don't see that working, in either combination.

It would also make sense for Obama or Clinton to select a running mate with military experience, for balance and to counter McCain.

[ProudLiberalDan]

This is just torture. I call it electoral waterboarding.

All the genuinely progressive candidates are gone from the race, but by all means lets continue this beauty contest between these two DLC-to-the-bone candidates fiercely competing history as the first token whatever President.

By all means, let's continue this DLC swimsuit competition between the ultimate triangulating calculator and the slick opportunist who gives good speech.

Wake me up in November in time to hold my nose and cast my absentee ballot.

"The most likely scenario going forward is that unelected delegates, the so-called super delegates, will decide this thing -- and they might not make a choice in sufficient numbers to give either hopeful the nomination before the convention­."

The only salvation for this whole ugliness is that they both agree to run on a ticket together or that they both refuse to allow the other one to be the nominee and we get Gore drafted for November. Gore/Edwards. That's the ticket we SHOULD have had this year. Sigh...

[olderdem]

If the superdelegates take this nominaton away from Obama, McCain will be the next President.

[Macready]

well said olderdem . . .totally agree with you . . .

[JimR]

Agree.

[AtlantaBill]

i agree and i'm sure they realize that. they would lose AAs for decades to come. i say to the SDs like in the movie: "go ahead and make my (our) day."

[Deidroni]

Craig,

Yes, a Clinton/Obama ticket would be great for America. Clinton could focus on Foreign Policy and Obama could focus on Domestic Policy.

Its a win win situation.

[serialcoma]

I'd like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket or vice-versa­.... it is a win-win for our nation. the Obamaphiles who consistently vent their hatred for Clinton with pledges to not vote or vote for McCain should Clinton be the nominee are behaving like children who have had a toy taken from them... childishness and ego dominate their arguments.

The fact is that ANY democrat is better than another four or more years of republican tyranny in teh White House.

republicans are the enemy of a free and prosperous United States.

[AtlantaBill]

The Clintons have had my vote twice in the past but not this time under any circumstance. Hilliary's only path to victory is to change the rules in the middle of the game and that is not how a contest should be conducted. A redo of FL & MI along with some sort of override by the SDs is her only chance. No sane SD is going to allow this process to be unfairly decided. The AA SDs now supporting HIlliary will quickly realize (as did John Lewis) that it would be political suicide (on a personal basis) should they blindly follow HIlliary. Unless of course, she has offered them all high-level bureautic positons. Trust me, most AA office holders come from predominantly AA districts and would be comitting political suicide should they blindly follow Hilliary. The Clintons have a ton of elected AA SDs supporting them now but that will not hold. Just imagine someone like Jim Clymer or John Lewis following Hilliary (to the end) when their constituents support Senator Obama at 90% ratio.

That's why I'm not sweating this because I understand how the politics will play out should Barack maintain his lead in PDs and PVs.