Who will be the Republican VP nominee?

The Obama group may not want Clinton's involvement but if it gives a boost if they're losing this summer, it is a card to play. It need not even look desperate. Biden says the stress is too much on his heart and he walks away.

I do think the past six weeks turned the election back towards Obama. Republicans eating their own combined with the "perception" that the economy is turning around, makes it Obama's to lose.

Obama, to lock it down, will shift a little towards the middle, offer a break to important middle class constituencies and put his hand on the Bible again in January.

Another case of the Republicans overplaying their hand. They seem to have this assumption (like Democrats did in 2004 during their primaries) that they will win in November. It won't be easy. Right now, it is not even likely.

 

I am not a female but I think there is merit to it.

It is cheap and shameless. But it also happens. Granted if you are bat guano like Bachmann or Christine O'Donnell, it may repel female voters.

Both sides do it with VP demographics. Gore did it with Lieberman. McCain did it with Palin. Romney may very well do it with Rubio.

Yet there is also an "us against the world" that women can take. It is an odd paradox. My wife loved Hillary just because of her gender. Of course, my wife and the other women in her office tear each other apart. I find it amusing. They want female advancement while they tear down all the females in their daily lives.

Hillary would have won in 2008 except that she ran into someone in the primaries with even more desirable demographics than her.

 

It's the precise thinking that put the Tundra Twit on the ticket in 2008.


That and the kleenex-fisted Faux Noise viewing audience.

 

Hillary lost because (a) she ran a terrible campaign, (b) her only real appeal was the sense that she could win after a loser candidate in 2004, and (c) a much more exciting candidate appeared for the Democrats. She did not lose because of demographics. Women do not automatically vote for women. They may well believe a woman will be more concerned about "women's issues" than a man, but that's not an issue with Obama (or, for that matter, Biden).

The Democrats did not lose out on women voters last time, no matter how much people wanted to pretend it was a danger when she lost.

The "put a woman on the ticket to win the female vote" move has been done twice, and in both cases it was a Hail Mary from a campaign that knew it was about to get its ass kicked.

And worth noting in all of this: Joe Biden is hardly a drag on the ticket. Nobody is voting for Romney because of Biden.

 

Once Palin's act was exposed, it was an hysterical notion to believe that women would vote GOP in '08 strictly because of Palin, as laughably-opposed to women's rights as she is.

 

For the record, McCain was essentially tied with Obama in the polls in mid-September, which was when Lehman Brothers and AIG crapped the bed and the economy went down with it. Ronald Reagan himself wouldn't have won under those circumstances.

Sarah Palin didn't help McCain very much. But she didn't cost him the election either.

 

FWIW, putting a 4-year Secretary of State on the ticket, in replacing a stricken VP, is hardly a cheap political stunt.

Anyone who thinks Hillary's only value is that she has a vagina is sorely mistaken. (hehehe used "vagina" and "sorely" in the same sentence!)

 

Baked Alaska helped the GOP in the polls for about a week, until she exposed her remarkable lack of qualifications for the position by opening her mouth.

 

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

 

When was Biden "stricken" ? Is he any dumber today than he's been for the past several years?