A Democratic "Dream Ticket": Unavoidable?

Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left at 3:10 PM on March 5, 2008.

We might be getting to the point where political considerations of party unity might force both Clinton and Obama onto the ticket for the fall. In fact, as was often suggested by her campaign before Obama's string of February victories, Clinton suggests that by voting for her, Democrats can get Obama, too:

Asked on CBS's The Early Show whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said: "That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket."

To a certain extent, this feels like an attempt at placating Obama supporters. However, it also seems more apparent that neither Clinton nor Obama currently have a clear majority of the Democratic coalition behind them, and both might need the other to unite the party. Then again, after both candidates have decried the other's judgment and / or ability to handle national emergencies and major foreign policy decisions, does an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket make sense anymore? It is a little hard to swallow for a candidate to imply that someone would not be a good President, and then turn around and put that person in a position to become President.

This is a bit of a mess. One thing I will say is if Clinton wants to imply that she will pick Obama to be Vice-President, she should stop implying that Obama couldn't handle a national emergency. That is just disingenuous, since usually vice-Presidents become presidents in the case of a national emergency. If Clinton really wants Obama to be her VP, then she stop offering reasons why he would not be a good VP.

****

MOVING FORWARD: Obama Needs to Win Pennsylvania

I had a difficult time falling asleep last night, as I couldn't shake the feeling that something terrible had happened. On the one hand, there is still pretty much no way for Clinton to win without a protracted fight involving superdelegates, the credentials committee, and a Michigan delegation that can only be described as an abomination of democracy. On the other hand, there is also no way to justify her leaving the campaign at this point, since she did just win a popular vote victory of about 250,000 last night. In short, right now an extended campaign that eventually produces a clear outcome is the only way to avoid a large number of people viewing the Democratic nominee as illegitimate / weak. Inexorably, the campaign must now move on at least until Pennsylvania and, unless Obama wins in Pennsylvania, probably until at least June.

So, this could be bad. However, in the clear light of day, I realize that there is no reason for me to moan and wail. What is done is done, and we have to play the hand that has been dealt. Here is what needs to happen moving forward:

1. The eventual nominee needs to be on a winning streak. Whichever Democrat is winning primaries and caucuses at any given moment will be the Democrat with momentum for the general election. Stumbling home to the nomination on the back of a string of defeats will make the nominee weak in the general election. This is what happened to Walter Mondale in 1984, who lost something like eight or nine of the final ten primaries and caucuses, and it killed him in the general election. Whoever wins the nomination needs to do so while winning primaries and caucuses, not losing them.

2. Obama needs to improve. A close look at the delegate math shows that Obama is still the favorite for the nomination, since Clinton needs a string of contingencies to all fall into place just in order to draw even.  However, while Obama is the favorite, last night's contests should have made it clear that Obama has not positioned a clear majority of the Democratic coalition behind him yet. Further, despite the calls I have seen in some parts of the blogosphere, Clinton is under no obligation to drop out. If a candidate is still winning states, making delegate and popular vote gains, and still has a chance to win the nomination, it would actually be really bad for the party if that candidate dropped out. Just like a candidate who stumbles home to the nomination, it would create a perception of weakness and illegitimacy in the nominee among many voters for a candidate to drop out after a series of victories. So, in order to end the campaign and unite the party behind him, the pressure is on Obama to improve and deal the knockout blow that he was unable to deal last night, not on Clinton to drop out.
   

3. This can't go on forever. To date, the lengthy nomination campaign has generally been a positive. It has generated massive press for Democrats, significantly enhanced our fifty-state and activist infrastructure, and forced both Clinton and Obama to improve as candidates on multiple occasions. However, there is also a point of diminishing returns, where the campaign can become too divisive, too nasty, and start drying up our general election advantages. While it is difficult to tell exactly when we turn the corner and the length of the campaign starts to become a negative, but allow me to humbly suggest that point is May 7th, the day after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries. Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina are actually all key electoral states at the presidential and / or congressional level, and as such I see mostly benefits from spending a lot of time campaigning in those three large states. Combined, they represent about 10% of the national population, and an even larger percentage of swing electoral votes and key congressional seats. Also, there are still six full months between May 6th and the general election, which is more than enough time to press our advantages nationwide.
   

   However, after the May 6th primaries, there are very few nomination events remaining. Further, if the campaign has not been decided by that point, there is probably no way to keep the decision from dragging out before eventually ending in a smoky backroom and angering a sizable number of Democratic voters. So, ending the campaign on or before May 7th seems fine, but if it keeps going after that point, we could be in some trouble.

Add these three propositions together, and it boils down to a single scenario: Obama needs to win Pennsylvania. If Obama wins Pennsylvania, he will go on to win Indiana and North Carolina, giving him the winning streak he needs for general election momentum. Further, given that Pennsylvania is probably even more demographically favorable to Clinton than Ohio (an older population and a closed primary), it will demonstrate great improvement on his party, and serve as a knockout blow (especially if he has drawn even on superdelegates by that point). Yet further, it will have allowed him to build a truly national infrastructure, and leave him plenty of time for him and other Democrats to press our general election advantages against McCain and Republicans. However, if Obama loses Pennsylvania, we could be in a world of hurt where the nominee stumbles home to the nomination and where our general election advantages do not have enough time to assert themselves.

That's how I see it. If Obama wins Pennsylvania, then everything is fine, and possibly even better than if Obama had wrapped things up last night. If Clinton wins Pennsylvania, then there might be no end in sight, no way for the nominee to unite the party, and our general election advantages disappear. However, it is up to Obama to pull this off, not on Clinton to back down and / or drop out. There are 48 days until the Pennsylvania primary.  

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Tagged as: clinton, obama, democratic party

Chris Bowers was a full-time editor at MyDD from May 2004 until June 2007. Some of his projects have included the creation of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, the first scientifically random poll of progressive netroots activists, the Use It Or Lose It campaign, the nation's most accurate forecast of Democratic house pickups in 2006, and the 2006 Googlebomb the Elections campaign.