I’m no good at them, but it’s practically a blogospheric requirement. So here goes:
The Republicans:
Now that party elders have taken Mitt Romney out back behind the tool shed, bitch-slapped him around a bit, promised him an appointment as McCain’s Commerce Secretary, and thereby convinced him to drop out quickly and endorse McCain…
…McCain will immediately strike a back-room deal with Huckabee, announcing him as running mate. One big happy party going into the convention with months to fund-raise, kiss-and-make-up, and prepare for November.
I honestly don’t see how McCain can’t pick Huckabee at this point. The Red State Rednecks who gave Friar Huck so many Southern victories didn’t just vote for “anti-McCain” or for “the most conservative candidate.” They voted for Huckabee; they want Huckabee. For McCain to pick anyone else, even the most radical social conservative around, would be a direct insult to those voters, whom he simply cannot afford to insult.
And speaking of “the most radical social conservative around,” who might that be if not Huckabee? Anyone with better conservative bona fides than Huckabee would have run — and won. What other Hero of Jesusland could McCain pick? Sam Brownback? Fred Thompson? Larry Craig?
The Democrats:
I believe neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough regular delegates going into the convention; it’s feasible (but unlikely) for Obama, but impossible for Clinton.
The superdelegates will give the nomination to Obama. The very reason people earn superdelegate status is because they are more loyal to the party than to any nominee. “Clinton v. McCain” is close; “Obama v. McCain” is a wipe-out, even with Huckabee on the ticket. It’s that simple — and the superdelegates know it.
Meanwhile, if Clinton does somehow secure the nomination, then she will offer the VP position to Obama — who will turn it down. Better for him long-term to stay in the Senate and grow into a power broker, or to run for governor of Illinois (this is essentially George Will’s thesis, and it makes sense). I have long thought her preferred choice is Wesley Clark.
If Obama secures the nomination, then he will tell Clinton to take a flying leap. I have no thoughts on his choice except that it will not be Jim Webb. Two neophyte senators in the Executive Branch would be one too many for too many voters.
Maybe Kathleen Sibelius? Woman + Executive Experience + Kansas = Ka-Ching? (My understanding, however, is that her SOTU response did not go over well — thoughts?)
So the possible outcomes on election day, with respective probabilities:
1. Obama beats McCain: 50%
2. Clinton beats McCain: 40%
3. McCain beats Clinton: 10%
4. McCain beats Obama (and all other possible combinations): 0%
One more side prediction: Whether it’s Clinton or Obama, the entire month of October will consist almost exclusively of one Democratic campaign ad consisting of two words: “Maybe 100.” And it will work.
Now tell me why I’m wrong.
9 responses so far ↓
Link dolphin // Feb 7, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I think you're mostly right, but I'm not so sure that the superdelegates will be so quick to vote Obama. I hope you right, but my fear is that alot of these people "owe" Clinton for various things and she's going to be calling in those favors. I'm hoping that Obama can kick ass in the remaining primaries and make the superdelegates less of an issue. I think ALOT of superdelegates will vote Obama, but I think the majority will vote Clinton. It's likely to come down to how big that majority is.
Link ChrisS // Feb 8, 2008 at 12:26 am
I don't think there is a Republican (with the possible exception of Huckabee) that Clinton could beat.
The right will come out in droves to vote against her and I don't think that the swing voters relish another round of Clintons.
I'm also not sure about your confidence that the super-delegates will go to Obama. That process is backroom deals and favor swapping – I get the feeling that Clinton is much better at that game than Obama.
Link Windypundit // Feb 8, 2008 at 3:34 am
I say give the Democratic nomination to Clinton, so that we can keep Obama here in Illinois. We'll run him for governor. It will give him some executive experience, and it just might put an end to the horrors we've seen in the governor's office.
Link dolphin // Feb 8, 2008 at 10:35 am
I don't think there is a Republican (with the possible exception of Huckabee) that Clinton could beat.
I think you're wrong here. Clinton has every bit as strong of support on the liberal side she does opposition on the conservative side. Bush is hugely unpopular (which is gonna be a boost to the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is). With the stink half the party is making over McCain, I can see some of them staying home even with Clinton in the election (though those, like Ann Coulter, who promise to support Clinton in the face of a McCain nomination are full of shit). It won't take that many Republicans staying home to give the election to Clinton/
It wasn't that long ago I heard people saying there wasn't even the tiniest chance she could possibly win the Senate election in NY. What percentage of the vote has she been getting there?
I'm not even a Clinton supporter, but am fairly certain that right-wing hatred alone will not cost her and election.
Link Tony // Feb 8, 2008 at 11:11 am
I'm sure the superdelegate process is very backroom, but I think Obama puts up a more naive front predicated on an innocence that isn't there. He'll be fine. And even if the superdelegates owe favors to the Clintons, they're not stupid enough to dismiss the greater likelihood of power if Obama is nominated. And there's no need to repay favors if Caesar is (politically) dead.
I think you're right about the likelihood of Obama and that McCain can't beat Obama. I put the Clinton-McCain race closer, though. Clinton has a lot of negatives, but McCain also gets a free pass from many voters based on his media-spun image. Even if/when he chooses Huckabee as his VP, I think people will rationalize it away. They won't mind that it's the most anti-"maverick" choice he could make.
How well Clinton swings the "maybe 100″ message and how well McCain swings back with the "she voted for the war, now she was to surrender" message will determine the victor between them, if that's the race.
Link KipEsquire // Feb 8, 2008 at 11:30 am
That was against Giuliani. NYS is over 65% Democratic and the GOP is crippled by a robust Conservative Party and also a non-negligible Right to Life Party, both of which ususally nominate someone other than the GOP's RINO offering.
She wound up running against two sacrificial virgins, Ric "Baby Face" Lazio in 2000 and Jeanine "I Lost a Page of My Speech" Pirro in 2006.
Overall, I'd say her 57-40 win over Obama on Tuesday was pretty embarrassing for her.
Link KipEsquire // Feb 8, 2008 at 11:37 am
Incidentally, another reason the superdelegates are likely to choose Obama is the the lower races (Congress &state offices). The "no way never no how" factor with HRC (i.e. low turnout) might not keep her out of the White House, but it might cost the Democrats in other races.
Link Skip Oliva // Feb 8, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I disagree that McCain will or has to pick Huckabee. The fact that no other religious conservative made a dent in the primaries demonstrates how weak that constituency group is right now. They don't need to be appeased. Furthermore, Huckabee would be a wash — just as many conservatives dislike him for his high-tax, high-regulation policies as like him for his theocractic tendencies.
If McCain were in the same position as the elder Bush in 1988, Huckabee might make sense. But he's closer to Dole in 1996 — a likely one term president who needs a credible "mainstream" running mate who can serve as the nominee in 2012. Huckabee's a poor choice by this standard.
As for the Democrats, the majority of superdelegates will break for the candidate that best appeases the party's main constituency group — public sector unions. I'm not sure whether this benefits Clinton or Obama more, but my instinct is to go with Clinton. Obama needs to take a decisive lead in the primary delegates to trigger an avalanche of superdelegates away from Clinton. (Which I think he can and expect he will.)
As for Obama's running mate, I think Bill Richardson is the most logical selection.
Link Andrew // Feb 9, 2008 at 9:59 am
The futures market shows Obama with a 60% chance of winning the Democrat nomination and McCain/Obama having equal odds of winning the actual election. McCain is given almost twice the odds of winning the election if Clinton gets the nomination. The futures markets haven't been around for that long and are somewhat volitile, but they predicted McCain for the GOP nomination and both GWB wins, so that haven been fairly accurate in their limited existence.