The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in South Carolina shows that Barack Obama has opened a double digit-lead over Hillary Clinton in the January 26th Primary Election. It’s Obama 42% Clinton 30%. John Edwards attracts 14% of the vote and nobody else tops 3%.
In December, Obama and Clinton were tied at 33%. In November, Clinton had a ten-point advantage.
This is the latest in a string of election polls showing a surge for Obama since his victory last week in Iowa. Nationally, Clinton’s lead in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll has nearly disappeared. In New Hampshire, Obama has opened a significant lead over the former First Lady on the eve of the first in the nation Primary.
I have been wondering if we will wind up with an Obama-Clinton ticket as the primaries and convention play out. Such a ticket might be a “dream team” for some — and a nightmare for those of another political persuasion.
#1–I think Obama would need to balance the ticket with someone with substantial executive experience, perhaps in the military, like General Anthony Zinni, or Wesley Clark. Another logical choice would be the current governor of Tennessee, Phil Bredesen, who has popularity ratings through the roof in his state.
Obama/Clinton would make no sense — as Steven points out, neither has executive experience and they are both essentially from the same state (Illinois). I wouldn’t be surprised to see Obama select a respected Democratic governor from the South or West — Bredesen, for example, or Richardson (although I wonder if they would hesitate to have both candidates on the ticket be racial minorities).
I would look at Obama connecting with some either from the South – Jim Webb, Bredesen or even Sam Nunn – or someone from West of the MS. I also think there is some chance of an independent (Bloomberg ?) or even a Repub (Hagel ?).
i hadn’t thought of that bob, but jim webb would be perfect in my book. i like clinton but have real doubts about her electability in a general. i would prefer edwards if he hadn’t run before. i also like mccain-i guess it will depend on who has the better attitude/record toward the environment…
Jim Webb has been in the Senate for an even shorter time than Obama, and while he was once Secretary of the Navy, that was a long time ago. Hillary would never stoop to taking second place, even if it was offered, which it won’t be. Sam Nunn’s been out of Washington for more than a decade. Wesley Clark embarrassed himself during the 2004 campaign, and demonstrated that he doesn’t have what it takes for a national campaign. I think Steven is on to something with Phil Bredesen–if the Dems can pry Tennessee and maybe one or two Southern states loose, they might be unbeatable. Whether that makes you happy or not is another story…
The Bredesen angle is smart, but he has no nat’l or foreign heft. That is where a Nunn, Webb or even Lugar.
Nunn would provide foreign policy gravitas but he is almost as old as McCain, which would deflate the McCain-is-too-old-for-office arguments. Plus, Nunn was recently involved in a political event with Mike Bloomberg, whatever that was about (see here). Richardson provides both foreign policy and executive experience but unfortunately for him he keeps coming across as a doofus in this race.
How about Obama-Specter?
Obama/Lieberman
Mrs. Clinton is by no means finished, by the way, even if she loses by a wide margin today. If she can hang on, the primary schedule will wind toward states that are more favorable to her because they are closed primaries allowing only registered Democrats to vote. In Iowa she and Obama split the Dem vote pretty evenly; Obama has been able to build margins (which will be especially apparent in NH) on independents and GOP cross-overs. Plus, about 20% of all Dem delegates are “superdelegates” that are not pledged to specific candidates in state primaries. I am certain that the Hillary camp is repeat-calling reporters to gripe about the vague positions Obama has been allowed to take, which effectively gives him a free ride. Expect Obama to be peppered with harder questions from the media after NH–give us more than just empty bromides about “change” and a rehashing of your personal narrative. Clinton is hoping for just one or two missteps by Obama, preferably on national security, that she will hammer on to try to build momentum in the later primaries. If she gets the nomination I predict a Clinton/Bredesen ticket.
I think there’d be too much of a pride issue for either Obama or Clinton to run as the VP of the other…
I could be wrong, but we’ll see.
Kennedy/Johnson were two senators
Kerry/Edwards were two senators
That said, Obama will likely pick someone like Richardson.
Obama and Clinton will not share a ticket. One thing for sure has emerged: they hate each other too much at this point regardless of who wins. If Obama wins, he should pick a Dem governor from a redder state, someone like Sebelius or Napolitano which would add a gender mix to attract Hillary supporters.
If t here were any way such polling should be outlawed, I wish it could be done. Polls like this actually create attitudes and to that extent they create votes. Americans don’t believe in much except money, but they do believe in statistics because they think that statistics is “science” and science cannot be wrong. Such polling cretes a sense of momentum, even where no such thing exists, and this sense of momentum is in effect a hidden pursuader for it encourages the undecided to believe that backing X is backing a winner. This becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. And, I might add, this is precisely how the media uses all polling – as if it is voting, the determinant of who SHOULD be taking our attention. Polling is form of advertising and its effect is to create biases. LM
Clinton is not out of it yet, even in South Carolina. She’ll recover and beat Obama. Then it’ll be Clinton vs Huckabee.