Dream Ticket? Again?

Let me begin by saying, "Bravo," to Sen. Obama. I just watched his speech in Kokomo, IN yesterday, replayed on CNN. Not only was it a good speech, but it was very excellent sportsmanship, something I find a critical component to fairness. He stated his support for party unity in the General Election, praised Sen. Clinton, then moved on to highlight their similarities, saying any differences between the two Democrats "paled in comparison" to their shared differences with Sen. McCain. I also watched Sen. Clinton's speech in Bloomington, and while she was clearly contrasting herself with Obama rather than McCain, she stuck to the issues. I believe both Democratic candidates have shown responsiveness to the negative effects of negative campaigning -- they've "listened to the boos," so to speak. Both of them should also be allowed a little forgiveness if they do spat here and there. Regardless of how either campaign tries to spin it, their primary opponents are still each other.

I want to talk about this "Dream Ticket" some more. I don't agree with Nancy Pelosi that it is necessarily a bad idea. The reason I point out Pelosi to disagree with is because I think her perspective is very interesting if you think about it. She must be torn in one way. Her constituency, California, supports Clinton by the broad strokes. However, I'd say in the fuzzy area of demeanor, she has indicated a leaning toward Obama. Pelosi has flexed her political muscles in subtle ways, stressing always the importance of a Democratic win in November. I find it curious that she is continually the one who is publicly commenting on the "Dream Ticket," and continually condemning it. Her role as Permanent Chair of the 2008 Democratic Convention puts her in a precarious position, but I think something she said that has been largely overlooked sheds light on her attitude: Pelosi did concede that if Obama and Clinton think the Dream Ticket is a good idea, "maybe it is." She indicated in no uncertain terms that the nominee should be allowed to pick their own running mate, and that "thrusting" the decision on them now was unfair. Both candidates have also indicated this same attitude, both have refused to answer questions about vice presidential choices at all.

The word "stalemate" is already hitting the media. Clinton's popular vote argument is very convincing for one reason alone: regardless of the rules which currently exclude Florida and Michigan from pledging delegates to a candidate, those votes were cast and represent the will of millions of voters. Two state Democratic parties broke the rules. Conscientious voters who went and voted when they had the chance to do so did not. This does not change Obama's delegate lead. What we are seeing already is a growing argument about what is the most accurate reflection of the will of the people: the delegate count or the raw votes. This argument was central to the General Election controversies of 2000, and the Supreme Court ultimately broke in favor of the electoral vote. It can only be salt on the wound that Florida is, once again, central to the conflict. Although it has quickly become a footnote to the overall situation, it cannot be ignored that a Republican controlled state is causing political problems for the Democratic party, again. The Supreme Court will not get to rule on this problem, however. Democrats have to work it out for themselves. Smartly, Clinton is allowing the delegate battles in Florida and Michigan to play out now largely in the background. Both states are lobbying the DNC for a reversal of the penalties on their states or a compromise, and will be petitioning the Rules & Bylaws committee soon. The underlying tension is increased by Clinton's strong performance in Florida against McCain, and the implication that disenfranchising Florida democrats early in the process would undermine potential successes in November.

Clinton's potent showing in head-to-heads vs. McCain (she loses by only 0.3%) in Florida shows the potential for a big upset; Florida is a solid Red state, and taking it from the GOP in November would be a huge advantage. Obama shows no such competitiveness in Florida, and also loses to McCain in Pennsylvania and Ohio, two more states Clinton wins convincingly. This, combined with the visceral reality of the popular vote are serious and compelling arguments. Democrats really cannot risk being seen as willfully excluding people from the process. On the other hand, Obama has an equally strong argument that the rules are the rules, everyone knew them, and following those rules, he is winning. It is ironic for both candidates. Obama, the unifier, says a million and a half votes don't count. Clinton, the underdog, is claiming to be the winner based on results she publicly said were "beauty contests." If Florida and Michigan prevail before the Rules & Bylaws committee, the popular vote count becomes even more valid. I see more indications that they will be included than not, and Democratic leadership showing attitudes of cooperation and open mindedness.

So, what happens if we get to June 3rd and it's a draw? I've seen the possibility of a statistical tie growing greater and greater with each contest. No one wants to talk about it because in one way it would be the worst possible outcome. Exit poll results indicate extreme loyalties to both candidates, and there can be no ignoring the all out war that is being waged in the blogsphere. The exit polls also indicate a hypocrisy in voting trends. The majority of exit polls indicate that race and gender had little to do with their choice, while voting trends clearly indicate women breaking for Clinton and African Americans breaking for Obama. More irony as well in their big bloc bases; Clinton is a member of the rich elite with lengthly involvement at the highest levels of government, but the working class and the lower educated prefer her. Obama comes from a very modest background and got most of his political training in the poor neighborhoods of Chicago, one of the ultimate working class cities, but the rich and affluent prefer him.

Even on the issues, I believe we see what amounts to a tie. Clinton is winning in general on the Economy and Health Care. This alone would be an argument greatly in favor of Clinton except for one thing: Iraq. Obama is clearly winning the Iraq debate on both fronts. The issues Republicans and Democrats vote on are different, but foreign relations are a shared issue almost all the time. Iraq is the #2 issue between both parties, and Obama has both a higher moral stance than Clinton and a more popular stance than McCain. Because she voted to authorize the war, Clinton faces a serious issue of voter confidence on Iraq, and this would be a serious liability against McCain. This is where the Independents come in, and where their bloc matters. If McCain can make Clinton look wishy washy or untrustworthy on foreign relations, her other arguments fall apart. One of Clinton's strengths is that she sees opportunities to dovetail many broad projects and policies together to increase the effectiveness of all of them. But, that also means you have to be willing to buy the whole package. So, although Clinton takes two out of three major issues for Democrats, the main debatable issue in the General Election will be Iraq, where Obama is the clear winner. Clinton's main counter to that will be the other shared issue, Experience, which has played itself out this election cycle in the "3am War." McCain has even co-opted the 3am catch phrase. Even though McCain does in fact have the most experience, Clinton will be much more able to neutralize that argument.

I see an image irony as well, that creates a sort of tie of its own. Clinton has called Obama's character into question based on his associations with less than desirable individuals, yet the Clinton's combined have a laundry list of shady associates. Conversely, Obama has sold himself as a bipartisan unifier and challenged Clinton on her voting record, when their voting records show that Clinton has sponsored much more bipartisan legislature than him; Obama in fact holds the current voting record for most liberal Senator. Again, ironically, Obama's uber-liberalism is what makes people believe he would straddle the aisle as President. Clinton has been caught in more than one "misstatement," on the campaign trail (which is code for "she lied") and this has underscored her low scores on trustworthiness, and is pointed to as one of the reasons she cannot seem to connect with people like Obama can. Clinton has addressed these indiscretions by saying, in essence, "Look, we're all tired. This is a very stressful time. We make mistakes." She has asked to be forgiven based on being human, offering a connection in the most ironic way. Lastly, there is arrogance vs. entitlement. I have long been criticizing Obama's arrogance. I believe he displays the sense of entitlement that Clinton is vetted for having. Moreover, Clinton's sense of entitlement to the Presidency is very much in line with the sentiment of the party in general, yet she looks like a crony for it. On the other hand, Obama's youthful and exuberant promises of hope and prosperity are precisely what makes him so attractive to voters, and a liability to the party. We love Obama because he is a true liberal, but that makes him a risky bet.

The backdrop of all of this is somewhere in the area of 30 million voters, double the voter turnout of any presidential primary. This is roughly equivalent to the jump in voter turnout between 2000 and 2004 in the general election, and can be taken as a very good sign. The Democratic party is also reporting record numbers of new registrants, also good. While voters are showing signs of fatigue in terms of paying attention, no one seems to want the contest to end prematurely. Everyone from the candidates to the party leaders to the exit pollers have indicated an interest in seeing the entire contest play out.

Let's talk about this Dream Ticket some more. Even after all this time, I think the main objection to the Dream Ticket is that the only way anyone can imagine a combined ticket is with Clinton on the top of it. Of course, as the race stands now, this would mean Obama would be conceding the race when he was ahead. This is the same argument Clinton has used for staying in the race this long, in spite of serious questions about her viability before March 4th. Now that she has won 4 out of the last 6 contests, is showing a very good chance of closing the popular vote gap, and has demonstrated a very valid big state strategy, the game is changed.

I see three scenarios where the Dream Ticket could happen. First, Clinton wins the delegate race, obviously with superdelegate backing, and offers the VP slot to Obama. I am sure he would take it if he knew he was out otherwise. Second, Clinton exercises her right to stay in the race, which is indisputably hers, and fully within the rules. She can force a brokered convention, regardless of what we think about if she should or not. She can do it. If she does, I could see a Clinton-Obama ticket emerging as the compromise to prevent a nasty floor battle in Denver. It would be very hard to spin this as a genuine pairing, and I believe it is what the party really fears. The question is also, if Clinton wins the superdelegate majority, how does she get it? She could surprise us. One thing that should not be forgotten is her tenacity. Clinton has jumped every hurdle, in spite of serious doubts every time. If Clinton wins the nomination, the onus will be heavy on her to prove she did it fairly. If Obama wins the nomination, I think there could be a third scenario: Obama offers the VP slot to Clinton. Conventional thinking says she would not take it. I don't know. I think, the same as I think about Obama, she would take it if she knew she was out otherwise. I name this one third however, because I think it is the least likely. I don't think the vice presidency holds much interest for Sen. Clinton, and her path will take her elsewhere if she is not the nominee. I also think that on a combined ticket, people would prefer Clinton-Obama. Compared to each other, people can't seem to decide, but together, Clinton's experience becomes a positive.

A combined ticket does seem like the best of both worlds. The issue, which has been spelled out plainly by both candidates is: I am running for president, not vice president. Pelosi is right to say it is unfair to pose these questions yet. But, a final irony is that the Dream Ticket would be a win-win compromise, but would require the front runner to concede. Again, let me reiterate, I believe the only realistic Dream Ticket, for all stated reasons, is Clinton-Obama, which means Clinton has to pull off a win. This means that Clinton's primary opponent is still Obama, which means she still has to campaign against him. With the GOP focusing on Obama, too, Clinton can reap the benefits, but has to do so 100% passively. A very delicate balancing act is beginning to play out. Both campaigns are sensitive to negative tactics now, but they cannot entirely abandon them. The answer to this is to start praising each other, and to focus on similarities, and the more they do that, the more this Dream Ticket is going to get talked about. I wouldn't be surprised to see it at least discussed, but the Democratic nomination has to be settled first.