A couple of the new national polls out today point to a lot of Dems who seem to think Hillary Clinton would be a fine running mate. The latest numbers from Gallup point to a majority of rank-and-file Dems who like the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket.
A new Gallup poll shows 55 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents surveyed think Obama should offer the New York senator a spot on his ticket. That number is significantly influenced by Clinton’s supporters — close the 75 percent of her backers want the No. 2 spot to be offered, while only 43 percent of Obama supporters feel the same.
The poll comes as some of Clinton’s highest profile backers increasingly suggest Obama and Clinton should team up for the general election. Speaking in New York Friday, Sen. Chuck Schumer said he at first didn’t think such a team was possible but now believes “it could be.”
In the new WaPo/ABC poll, Dems were given an open-ended question about a possible Obama running mate, and about four in 10 named Clinton as their choice, followed by John Edwards, who drew 10%. (The Post added, “[M]ost Americans, including a slim majority of Democrats, said putting Clinton on the ticket would not have much effect on their vote in November.”)
I don’t doubt that Clinton enjoys an enormous base of support within the party. That should be pretty obvious — she’s won more 15 million Democratic votes at this point. For her most enthusiastic supporters, having Clinton on the ticket, even in the #2 slot, might very well be better than nothing.
But I thought I’d take a minute to note that polls about running mates don’t mean a whole lot.
I went back and started poking through polls from the 2000 race, shortly after Bush and Gore had effectively secured their respective party’s nomination. Asked who the candidates should pick for their tickets, a Zogby poll from March 2000 showed Bill Bradley as the top choice for Dems, followed by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. Republicans in the poll were nearly tied between Elizabeth Dole and John McCain. A few weeks later, a Fox News poll showed similar results, with Bradley and McCain getting pluralities. In May 2000, an NBC/WSJ poll found the same thing.
Four years later, Dems were asked in the spring of 2004 who John Kerry should pick for the Democratic ticket. Most polls showed John Edwards as the clear favorite, with Hillary Clinton coming in second in several polls. (Wesley Clark and Howard Dean also fared pretty well in these polls.)
I think you see where I’m going with this. These VP polls tend to measure name recognition — and most VP candidates aren’t well known to a national audience. Before 2000, I suspect most Republicans were not at all familiar with Dick Cheney, but then they got to know him pretty quickly. The same was true of Joe Lieberman.
I did a radio show the other day, and mentioned some names of people I thought Obama might consider, including Sebelius, Webb, Strickland, Sherrod Brown, and Napolitano. I was talking to some pretty well-informed people, but of the group, only Webb’s name was familiar. If they were polled with an open-ended question, these names wouldn’t have come up at all.
The point isn’t whether Clinton would be a good choice for Obama or not; that’s a separate matter. The point is these VP polls don’t tell us a whole lot. Obama may very well pick a running mate who isn’t nationally known, but I suspect we’d all get to know him or her pretty quickly.
No Trackbacks To “The dubious reliability of running-mate polls“
He should be careful. With Hil in the #2 spot Obama would always be in danger of a toaster exploding in his shower while he’s ‘cleaning’ his gun. He should find new friends to play with.
Oh Yeah! Far Freaking Frist!
Hillary would be an excellent running mate …
… if the goal was to win the Democratic Primaries, again.
the media will NOT STOP trying to manipulate the election. the exit polling has been focusing on whether Hil supporters will vote for Obama or if Obama supporters will vote for Hil. they want to inflict maximum damage on the dems during the process. the fact the hil and barack overcame the media and fought such a close race and brought out tens of millions of new voters is scaring the shit out of them.
nanderson @ 1:
ROTFLMBBAO!!
:<[)
Clinton finally has said that voting for McCain over Obama would be a mistake. Really, that is not what she, and Bill, said before, repeatedly.
Obama/Edwards
To ignore Clinton’s supporters will be to reduce Obama’s chances. Neither side has the kind of preponderance that bodes well for the Nov election. The Republicans are very good at holding their noses. Democrats are fastidious. I would want to keep lines of communication open to Clinton’s supporters and encourage the more rabid Obamists to cool it.
You don’t want the DLC to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, sorry. John Edwards would make great assassination insurance.
Clinton would be best on the Supreme Court, she would never need to pander again. You might find out she is actually a Liberal.
the vp is picked to bring in electoral votes, no ill baggage, and nothing else.
nanderson @ 1:
Yeah, I always enjoy cleaning my gun in the shower.
Hillary could actually be a good addition to the ticket. She won most of the reliably Democratic states, and Obama the red states and the swing states. Together they could put a lock on the election.
However, I suspect she’d have to go to a lot of foreign leader’s funerals.
nanderson @ 1:
Great one right out of the gate!!
Newsflash: As of Edward’s Obama endorsement last night, I wouldn’t expect to see The Shriek on the ticket. She may get a cabinet post or better still a Supreme Court nomination, but she wont be the veep.
Clinton would be great on the Supreme Court. She has probably actually read the Constitution.
Obama should pick Jim Webb for Veep. Strong on defense, incredibly smart, ex-member of Reagan Administration, but a strong Dem who can speak and speak well. And, best of all, Webb has a proven track record of winning pissing contests against Bush. http://www.usatoday.com/news/w.....bush_x.htm
Hillary is a leader and perfect for the job of Senate majority leader.
i think i was one of the first on C and L to propose a ticket of Obama and Hillary joining forces with one at the top and the other as the running mate. i took a lot of flak from the contributors here over than one, and in retrospect, rightly so.
In truth, hillary has shown herself to be ruthless in attempting to attain the nomination. there is a caveat there though, we pretty much only know what we read in the media. AND WE ALL KNOW THE INTEGRITY OF REPORTING OF THAT BODY OF WORK. They would sell their proverbial mother for a story. That said, however, I don’t personally believe that hillary has acquitted herself well in waging her campaign. For that matter, i don’t believe Obama is much better, but hell, what you going to do? Those are the front runners. so the choice is between either one of them or a senile bush follower. And if anyone truly cares about what happens to this country, there must be a drastic change in direction. I’ve given up on incarceration of the thieves, so the most we can hope for is change. We can begin with a woman and Black man in the White House. Geez, i hope they govern my strong ethics.
sorry not govern my strong ethics but govern with strong ethics. speaking of getting old and senile.
Alice (once a Naderite always…) @ 9:
You’ve been listening to Randi Rhodes too much.
I’d like to see Obama come out at the convention with a dream slate of cabinet members and appointments.
Imagine having a whole group come forward and say they’re ready to serve their country and turn this mess around: Gore heading up a Manhatten Project for Climate Change, Edwards on Poverty, Hillary on national health care until a space on the Supreme Court opens up, Waxman and Conyers on investigating and fixing what the Bush Junta has done, Madeline Albright or Bill Richardson for Sec of State, Webb for Veep, Wesley Clark for Sec Def.
And, once the convention is settled and Obama’s the nominee, ask Bill Clinton to represent us to the UN and the world - hatred of the US would start dropping immediately, the world still loves Bill and it would give him a stage, and he does love a stage.
Considering what passes for scholarship among the majority of Americans (Creationism is the single largest bunch of kooks to snooker people into believing batshit stuff) I wouldn’t be surprised they’ve got bad methodology here. And Edwards is a tool for jumping in to support Obama when the primaries are as near to over as they can get.
clinton would be a lousy choice, so too edwards…
webb or mckaskill…..those are the only qualified candidates; obama will pick one of them….
clinton is entitled to nothing, not even forcing some half-wit like bayh onto the ticket…
uh, that is a terrible idea. barack needs to pick someone that the right would be afraid of ever assuming office. i’m sorry, but we live in reality and the reality is the first black president is going to need alot of security. and part of that security is getting someone for vp that the republicans can’t stand. i’m talking a dennis kucinich type. someone who would assure there’s no attempt to remove barack from office.
Jim Webb. Please pick Jim Webb.
If she’s anywhere on the ticket the re-PIG-lics will still run against her.
Second place in the primaries doesn’t entitle her to a spot on the ticket.
I’ve had to re-evaluate her as a candidate the past few months and I don’t like what she showed us.
*
Haulin’ Oates @ 23:
kucinich would be the worst choice possible….in fact, i had never imagined a scenario where obama could lose the general….but picking kucinich for veep could do it, and likely would….
it would surely protect obama though….he’d never see the whitehouse, and wouldn’t have to worry about the scenario you allude to.
Is Obama going to be “blackmailed” into giving Hillary the 2nd spot on the ticket? Is he going to be forced to take her along because if he doesn’t she will tell her supporters to vote for McCain? Wouldn’t put it past her. Hillary alone wouldn’t be so bad but you can be guaranteed that Bill comes with her. He is much more dangerous than Hillary. Obama would be #3 in the White House; Bill #1 and Hillary #2. Bill Clinton will not give up his legacy without a fight.
Ah so if she can’t be the new Bush she would want to be the new Cheney? I am telling you, she is not a Democrat. She is power hungry and would fight to keep things as they are and march toward a dictatorship. Fortunately if she does end up on the ticket, Obama is not an idiot like Bush and hopefully he would keep her in line if she didn’t have him assassinated first. I honestly believe she would do ANYTHING to get her slimy hands on the presidency and having her as VP would put her one step away in the event anything “unfortunate” happened to Obama.
What those polls really reflect is that Dems want the candidates to UNIFY. They would be equally as happy if Clinton stopped that attacks, conceded, and then campaigned for Obama and his running mate. Clinton is going to poll high in the democratic party because her name is old and familiar. However she negatives poll extremely high outside the democratic party. If its Obama’s goal to reach out the weary republicans and independents he needs a better nominee.
Also, can you imagine the attack ads if Clinton was his running mate? They would only need to use her words to attack him on everything from Wright, to experience, to race-baiting - even her endorsement of McCain over Obama’s experience. It would be a nightmare - not to mention the Hillary and Bill scandals. Obama would spend all his time defending her, and Hillary would spend all her time refuting comments she’s been makin for almost 6 months straight. It would be a huge disaster that would mobilize the GOP base (and also improve their chances at gaining senate/house seats).
Lets face it. The mainstream media is cozy with the current political (republican) leadership. They are going to push hard to box Obama in, because that is exactly what their republican-leaning corporate sponsors and board members want. Hillary on the ticket is the only way to salvage the republican party. They need a huge, constant diversion that can keep Obama off-message. Hillary as running mate would do exactly that.
An Average Joe @ 19:
I never listen to Randi Rhodes, is that what she says?
My opinion is that for a VP pick, you want two things:
1) Money
2) Votes
Clinton has shown herself to be the second-best fundraiser in the party, and one of the two best vote-getters in the party (very likely 2nd, but technically the primaries aren’t over). Obama’s and Clinton’s politics are very similar on many issues. I think it would be a good match.
ysbaddaden @ 12:
Funerals would be safe, no sniper fire!
Haulin’ Oates @ 23:
The people who have currently won primaries for Hillary that account for 295 electoral votes and counting. Well beyond the 270 needed to capture the Presidency. Obama/Clinton would demolish McCain.
http://www.diversityj.com/ElectoralVoteStates.html
Hillary certainly got the Republicans out to vote for her. Rush’s Operation Chaos has been good to her.
As to putting her on the Supreme Court, her old clients at Monsanto would probably like that.
The problem with Hillary as VP is twofold. A) She cannot be trusted. B) It would renege on the foundation of his campaign, that is change. She is the epitome of old school politics, cynical triangulation. Let her become a powerhouse compromiser in the senate.
Alice (once a Naderite always…) @ 31:
I was thinking they wouldn’t want to be in the same room together.
You think Hillary would ever say of Obama, “My husband and I…?”
Maybe in 2012 or 2016, we can have Nancy Pelosi running for President with Harry Reid as her running mate? Or even better, Joe Lieberman as her running mate?
Maybe Hillary can choose old Joe now?
Weaseldog @ 36:
Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine which is an arm of the Kennedy national political machine.
Connect the dots.
ohio progressive @ 26:
i agree. i didn’t mean it should be kucinich, just someone who the right wouldn’t want to see as president. there are so many problems w/ hillary being vp it should be out of the question. what about bill? how do you control his crazy ass?
Hillary won’t be anyone’s VP. Her ego won’t allow her to be second in command.
Her self centered refusal to accept the fact that the race has been over since February, The lowdown tactics she has resorted to and the attempts to manipulate the voting process to favor her are all proof that she represents herself above all else. This is not the type of person we need in the white house!
IMHO Dennis Kucinich would make a better choice for President and Obama would be great as his VP. If I can’t have that then i could settle for DK as VP. He actually gives a damn about the people he represents and has an intense respect for the constitution and the rule of law. With DK in office Bush and Cheney would be in real peril of being prosecuted for their war/constutional crimes.
lilorphant @ 24:
Yeah!! the man who has stood up to Bush repeatedly AND who beat racist Macaca Allen in Virginia - excellent choice for veep. Imagine Webb digging into what Cheney has been doing all these years…..
I won’t vote for any ticket that includes a Republican on it.
Picking Edwards would be like a curse. He’s already lost twice (2004, 2008) and he couldln’t even deliver his home state in 2004!
He brings nothing to the ticket. Voters are independent people who will decide for themselves. They don’t need edwards to tell them who to vote for.
F P @ 30:
And the first 11 million off the top goes to pay off her debt which would mean it would go into her bank account since she is adept at convincing herself to contribute to her campaign as long as she gets her money back.
Kucinich would be better on the Supreme Court than anywhere else. Can you imagine a Supreme Court with Hillary and Kucinich balancing out Alito and Roberts? Oh, the fun - and we might see the Constitution start being restored. Wouldn’t that be nice?
rooth hussein @ 44:
I would prefer Russ Feingold.
Haulin’ Oates @ 38: