Trippi: Race won't be resolved before convention, Clinton-Obama ticket likely

[Herman Munster]

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/john_heilemann_and_joe_trippi.html

JH: What is the likelihood that the Dems will have a nominee before the convention starts?

JT: As of right now the odds are nil, but there are two or three states that would obviously change that. If Obama won Pennsylvania it would be pretty much over. If Clinton, on the other hand, can win Pennsylvania and then carry North Carolina (a state that I think is becoming increasingly important), then her case would get much stronger.

JH: Wow. "Nil" is a pretty low number — and a pretty grim view of the future. So what's your position in the debate over whether a drawn-out Democratic race (i.e., one that, by your reckoning, is without resolution until late August) is good, neutral, bad, or disastrous for the party's prospects in the general?

JT: Well, I don't see the Clintons walking off the field if Hillary has the popular-vote lead, which is a realistic possibility. And I don't see Obama walking away from a lead among pledged delegates. That is why I think it is likely that, however this is resolved, the two of them run on a ticket together, and here is why: In 1976 and 1980 we had fights that went to the convention. In 1976 it was Ford and Reagan fighting it out and Jimmy Carter became president. In 1980 it was Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter and Reagan became president. History says you don't want to campaign into the convention, even if McCain will be carrying George Bush's baggage. So I think there will be tremendous pressure on the eventual nominee to pull the party together by picking the other.

JH: If you were advising Clinton, what would you be telling her now?

JT: Clinton has to win Pennsylvania, but then she has a small chance of defeating Obama in North Carolina — and that might shock the superdelegates into rethinking Obama further. The red-phone ad worked, so they need to keep doing that to raise doubts in people's heads. But the problem she has is very real. They won't be defeating just Obama anymore; they are going to have to crush all those young people, African-Americans, and progressives in the party that have embraced Obama's candidacy. That is one of the reasons that she keeps mentioning what a great vice-president Obama would be, even as she makes the case that he isn't ready to be president. In the end, Clinton may need a self-inflicted mistake by Obama to get the nomination

JH: Which of them do you think would be a stronger candidate in the general? Do you buy the notion that he would put a bunch of states in play that she cannot?

JT: No, I don't really buy that argument. Most of Obama's wins in states like Idaho and Colorado and Kansas were caucus victories among the most energized party faithful. They say nothing about his ability to win those states in a general election. And if there was one state we needed to win in 2004, it was Ohio, and Clinton just won that state. I think Obama has a strong chance of winning the general with any number of possible vice-presidential nominees — Mark Warner, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton and a host of others. I think Clinton, if she somehow gets by Obama, has almost no chance of winning the general now unless she picks Obama. She seems to get this already. If Obama has more pledged delegates going into the convention, it will be very hard for his supporters to accept Hillary Clinton somehow winning the nomination.

[AtomicKitten]

1. Keep dreaming.

[Herman Munster]

2. right

like obama supporters will keep dreaming of winning new hampshire, california, and ohio and texas.

Frankly, Obama supporter predictions have been pretty abysmal this primary season.

[wileedog]

14. Ridiculous

California is going to elect John McCain? Are fucking kidding me?

Texas is going to elect Hillary Clinton?

I'll give you Ohio, but Obama has a chance in VA and some southern states that Hillary will never touch.

[onetinsoldier]

22. obama and the south

i am an older white male born and bred southerner,obama definitely has a better chance of winning one or more of the eleven states of the old confederacy than hillary does

[hueyshort]

36. I was born and raised in Dixie and say you are dead WRONG

Southerners are not idiots. The debates consistently show Clinton to be sharper and
in command. Obama looks duller and duller with each debate.
Working people want RESULTS, not chic.
I don't think either of them would bring home the red states.
That's why Clinton has to be the candidate. The working people in blue states aren't
going to vote for Obama. Clinton is right. It will either be Clinton or McCain in
middle America.

[DiggerDan]

45. Don't foget Colorado and Iowa as well. They are winnable for Obama

Ohio is overrated. Full of simpletons who apparently love economic pain. It will bleed Red in Nov. no doubt about it. They want to suffer, otherwise it would have gone Kerry in 2004.

[alteredstate]

3. Excuse me

but where did Joe Trippi say that a Clinton-Obama ticket is likely?

[Herman Munster]

6. read the full article

Read on to find out why this won't be resolved before the convention, a Clinton-Obama ticket is likely, and the end of the writers' strike was a key moment in the race.

[loveangelc]

11. Like I said, stop twisting what he meant.

he was saying that IF she can somehow persuade the superdelegates to give her the nomination, (and she would have to win NC to do that) she would have to put obama on her ticket to even have a chance of being elected, while obama has many other options besides hillary.

[housewolf]

21. I read it a little differently -

What I read was that if Hillary wins the nomination, she needs Obama to win the GE, but if he wins the nomination, there are several people who would be good running mates for him that he could win the GE with.

The issue being that if Hillary wins the nomination & dooesn't pick Obama, the party stands to lose the support of the new young & independent voters & Aftican-Americans.

[Exilednight]

37. I read it like that, plus I will add.....

he didn't says likely, he said that nominations that were unresolved going into the convention always ended in failure for that party.

He's basing it on what needs to be done if a certain scenario plays out and Hillary finds a way to override the pledged delegates.

[loveangelc]

4. I don't think she will win NC but things could change I suppose.

he does not say a clinton-obama ticket is likely. stop twisting things.

he said that IF clinton somehow gets by obama, she will have to pick obama to be elected. no duh.

[TheZug]

5. How is the VP slot adequate consolation for having the most delegates?

[jackson_dem]

12. If he becomes vp he won't have the most delegates

His pledged delegate lead will be off the table if Hillary can offset it by winning the popular vote. That will give the sd's a free hand to choose who they think is the better candidate.

[ccpup]

25. it's what happens when you lag in Electoral Votes

her 260 to his 190. As I wrote in another Post, the Dems won't win North Dakota, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Alaska or Idaho in November. We DO need, though, California, New York, New Jersey, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio and Nevada. (not including the still up-in-the-air Florida and Michigan)

It gets more difficult -- if he drops yet another Big Swing State (Pennsylvania) in April -- to go to the Super-delegates and convince them that you CAN win them in November even if you didn't (with more money, more support and more favorable Press than your opponent) before.

It'll be a Clinton-Obama ticket by mid-May.

[Exilednight]

38. That statement doesn't hold up to polling......

Hillary v McCain

Solid Clinton--77 (eleven or more points): AR, DC, IL, MA, NY, RI
Lean Clinton--126 (six to ten points): CA, CT, FL, ME, MD, OH, VT
Toss Up--135 (five points or less): DE, HI, IA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TN, WA, WV, WI
Lean McCain--136 (six to ten points): AL, CO, KS, KY, LA, MS, NV, NH, NC, OK, SC, TX, VA
Solid McCain--65 (eleven or more points): AK, AZ, GA, ID, IN, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY

Obama v McCain

Solid Obama--163 (eleven or more points): CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, NY, RI, VT, WA, WI
Lean Obama--66 (six to ten points): CO, DE, MA, MN, NM, OH, OR
Toss-up--186: (five points or less): AK, FL, MI, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, PA, TX, VA
Lean McCain--25 (six to ten points): IN, MO, MT
Solid McCain--98 (eleven or more points): AL, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, UT, WV, WY

Now I will freely admit that polling can change, but as of right now Obama could swing many states back to Democrats, including Texas, Nevada, and Nebraska. We as a party need a stronger foothold west of the Mississippi river. Right now we only hold down the west coast.

The need to close this out now and shift Obama into campaign mode to the swing states. He has solid leads in over 12 states. Make McCain chase him in states that are to close to call and keep him on the ropes. Obama can outspend McCain in Texas and keep him tied up there for a good chunk of the campaign season.

We might as well give up Florida this election. Odds are that McCain will pick Crist as his running mate, if he doesn't then he's stupid.

I would also hit McCain in Nevada and spend a lot of time Nevada. Make McCain tie up money and resources. Do everything you can to keep him out of East and off the West coast. Let surrogates campaign for you in PA and NJ with the hope that McCain stays so focused on the repug strong hold of Texas and worry about losing it. McCain has to be sweating Texas with only one point separating them. He would be a fool of the repugs if he lost it.

[ccpup]

39. very quickly

With all due respect -- and I mean that with all sincerity as I have no interest in arguing with someone who is, after all, on the same side as I am -- there is no proof whatsoever that Obama can swing many States back to the Democrats. With more money than anyone, more Union Support than his Opponent and, for the most part, more favorable Press, he couldn't even swing the Big States he needed into HIS column when he needed them. And we're supposed to trust that somehow he can close them out in the General when it counts?

I'd rather go with the one who had her back against the wall, no money in the kitty, everyone circling what they believed was her political corpse, absolutely HAD to win to stay alive and STILL managed to get the votes in the Big Ones when she needed them. THAT'S who the Dems need fighting McCain in November!

It will be difficult for Barack to make the argument to Dean and the Super-delegates that even though he couldn't close the deal and get the votes he needed against a financially hamstrung opponent whose blood was in the water, he should be able to do it against McCain.

I still think we'll end up with a Clinton-Obama ticket before too long and, when the dust settles and we have a Dem Team back in the White House, the acrimonious arguments and barbed words hurled back and forth will be forgotten and we'll all be happy.

[Exilednight]

40. I just highly disagree...

If Hillary is so strong, then my question always becomes, why is she behind.

She had no money in the kitty because she wasted it with arrogance. In fact, Obama has only outspent her by about a half million dollars so far. That's a drop in the bucet compared to what both, or each individually for that matter, have spent this entire campaign season.

Hillary was far from financially hamstrung, she did a lousy job at managing her money.

The longer this drags out, the more that poll will change for both candidates. Right now they have Hillary winning Florida, but like I said, if McCain picks Crist as his running mate, you might as well write off Florida this election, and then (and again I use the polling I provided above) Hillary loses the GE.

Facts are facts, Obama will not take the VP slot. Hillary supporters want it, but it will not happen. Michelle has already stated she would not go through this again if he loses this time. Most of it has to do with their children, which is a subject she has been unbending on. She doesn't want her children to go through this mess again, and she knows the odds of a second place finisher in a primary has no shot in the Democratic party of winning the nomination the second time around. You have to go all the way back to 1892 and Grover Cleveland to find a Democrat who accomplished such a feat.

In the face of modern politics, that isn't going to change. Even our VP's get shut out, in fact, only Democrat has ever had one VP elected to President, and that was FDR and Harry S Truman, and Truman wasn't even his original VP, Henry Wallace was.

[Exilednight]

41. Here's the links to current polling data.

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

[DesEtoiles]

7. Joe Trippi - what a record of success he has...NOT

[Skip Intro]

8. A short-sighted Dean gave us this mess.

FL plays a big part in this, either now or in Nov.

We have a clusterf**k.

[XemaSab]

9. Trippi can shut his damn piehole

Dean made a BIG mistake on that one.

[UTUSN]

10. & TRIPPI has always been correct!1 n/t

[ProgressiveEconomist]

13. "Clinton-Obama ticket LIKELY?" Where in the link you've posted does it say THAT?

Your OP appears to be false advertising--a "bait and switch".

I challenge you to convince me otherwise.

[scheming daemons]

18. It doesn't.... Herman made it up.... like most of his OPs

Nowhere does Trippi say it is likely.

[Upton]

15. Your thread title is misleading

correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere in the piece does Trippi suggest a Clinton/Obama ticket is likely.

[scheming daemons]

16. From your post: "Clinton, if she somehow gets by Obama, has almost no chance of winning the general"

ROFL

[Joe the Revelator]

17. Trippi has proven that he's right about very little

[Pachamama]

43. My sentiments exactly....

:eyes:

[ccpup]

19. 260 electoral votes compared to 190 electoral votes

North Dakota, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Idaho, Alaska and probably Colorado will more than likely not be voting Dem in the General. California, New York, New Jersey, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Nevada are States we need in our column in order to get the necessary 270 in November (not counting the still up-in-the-air Florida and Michigan).

In short, one candidate has dropped the ball big-time in need-to-win situations and, with everything (oodles of money, overwhelming support, favorable Press) going for them, was unable to Close the Deal while the other one worked hard, picked up the slack and scored shocking knock-out punches when finances were running low, the Press was itching to write the Political Obituary and no one -- NO ONE -- thought it could be done.

In order to win in November, the Super-delegates will choose the one who HAS proved time and again they could win despite the odds when it really counted to head the ticket. Simple as that.

[bhikkhu]

20. "Likely Clinton's only remaining shot at the White House"

would be a better headline - more realistic and in keeping with the content.

[apocalypsehow]

23. One good thing about your OP's, I no longer have to go to the Lounge for comic relief.

n/t.

[Bad Thoughts]

24. Ohio

That's just a silly meme. First, Obama still outperformed McCain, and second, neither candidate did better than Bush in 2004. You can't read the tea leaves with these results.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. He's lowballing right out of the gate:

JH: Let's start at 30,000 feet. As of right now, what's the probability (out of 100) that Obama will be the Democratic nominee?

JT: I would give Obama a probability of 70 out of 100 that he will be the nominee, but Clinton could still pull this out.

[AlinPA]

27. Trippi says she has to "crush all those young people, African-Americans, and progressives

in the party that have embraced Obama's candidacy". He says that's a problem, but will she do it? She has to go negative in a big way and get into some serious swift-boating. She should give up trying to beat McCain if she succeeds in crushing all those voters. Sounds ugly.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. The Meat Ax!

JH: Do you think there's any chance, however remote, of Gore or someone else becoming the nominee in a brokered convention scenario?

JT: No, not really. I think there is a much bigger chance that the two of them will be running together, like it or not. But there is a remote chance of a third candidate if this gets really ugly and Clinton takes a meat ax to Obama.

[AlinPA]

29. Ouch. Problems ahead and the r's love it. The "Meat Axe" is the swiftboating

that she will have to employ.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. It's rolling towards you next month. Which way are you going to jump?

[AlinPA]

33. I will vote for Obama and keep my head down and keep on moving!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. One down.

:thumbsup:

[David Zephyr]

31. Joe Trippi is Pat Caddell. Democratic Party hacks that hang on too long with their failed glories.

[msongs]

32. has a joe trippi candidate EVER won? he sure makes $ millions off of them nt

[anonymous171]

35. It would be OBAMA/clinton, if at all.

[annie1]

42. That was a suprising article.

[DrFunkenstein]

44. Notice The Bit About Pennsylvania AND North Carolina

If it ain't over by PA, it'll surely be over by NC.