Ann Althouse went to bed last night thinking there was no way that Obama should pick Clinton as his running mate, but saw a replay of her speech this morning, and changed her mind. She lists several reasons why, the first of which being the fairest and most logical
1. If she wants it, she’s earned it. 18 million votes. Tireless campaigning over endless months. Supporters who really love her. You can’t snub her and get away with it.
Fair enough, insofar as Clinton clearly has more support than any second place finisher in the modern era (i.e., since 1972). However, I am not sure that that means she has a right to the slot.
The second point doesn’t make full sense to me:
2. McCain is ready to embrace and absorb her supporters. All those women. All those flyover state white men that you disrespected.
I agree that it is possible that McCain may be able to woo some of Clinton’s supporters away from Obama, but I reject the notion that the hardcore women’s vote (i.e., those who are so angry at the moment about a man taking the nomination from Hillary) are going to flock to McCain. While I have heard it stated on numerous occasions that there is resentment over the symbolism of a young, dashing man coming in and pushing the more experienced woman out of the way, I have a hard time thinking that women upset by that symbolism will then turn to a man in his 70s as their savior. That strikes me as symbolically even more problematic. And, as I noted the other day, there’s the whole abortion issue and SCOTUS. I have a very hard time seeing feminists in their fifties and sixties saying that they are so mad at Obama that they are willing to vote against the pro-choice candidate. In sum: the female votes most upset at the moment about the loss of the female will ultimately be the voting bloc most motivated by the abortion question, and Obama is the pro-choice option.
Further, the notion the McCain can simply swoop in and take Clinton supporters under his wing doesn’t make any sense. Once the anger fades, the choice of those voters are far more likely to be Obama than McCain.
Althouse’s next point doesn’t make sense to me:
3. Hillary looks positively radiant when she’s down. She’s at her best. If she has to take the second slot, she will look beautifully happy about it, and that will transform the mood of her disappointed supporters.
Somehow, being denied the position she covets, i.e., the presidency, doesn’t strike me as a circumstances under which she will run around being “beautifully happy.”
And while Clinton’s best moment in the campaign was New Hampshire, where she came from behind, I don’t buy into the notion that she is at her best when she is down.
Next point:
4. The 2 of you, united at last, will make the media ecstatic. They won’t be able to say the words “dream ticket” and “historic” (and “woman” and “African American”) enough times. You will produce fabulous pictures and press this week that will create a brilliant glow that will last all summer and make us forget about all the messiness of the last few months.
The press will, on balance, love it, as it gives them more stories than a less boring coupling would produce. Still, I am not sure that presidencies are won with “brilliant glows” or that, ultimately, the combination lead to a burning out, rather than a glowing.
Further, there are risks to be associated with an “all firsts” ticket–not to mention the Clinton problem I noted this morning.
Her last point has some saliency, but I think the problem inherent in the notion exists whether she is the nominee or not:
5. If you don’t pick her — if she wants it, and you don’t pick her — what will she do? What will she say? Even if she lies low and says nothing, every time anything goes wrong in your campaign, she’ll be over there, representing what could have been — and you know how people are when they start projecting their dreams onto someone.
But, won’t all of that be true even if she is on the ticket, and won’t her ability to make mischief be even greater if she is part of the team and on the campaign trail daily with her own coterie of reporters? Surely she has less potential to cause problems if she is marginalized rather than given the spotlight, yes?
Sphere: Related Content
I find myself wondering why Prof. Taylor devoted such a long post to proving that Ann Althouse does not make sense.
Comment by Matthew — Wednesday, June 4, 2024 @ 5:48 pm
Once again, I admit my ignorance, but isn’t Althouse a conservative Republican? I’m not sure how much stock I would put in her advice to the Dems.
Comment by Ratoe — Wednesday, June 4, 2024 @ 6:09 pm
Matthew,
It just seemed like the thing to do at the time
Ratoe,
I actually don’t know what her predilection is these days. At one point she was a Bush supporter, but may’ve voted for Gore–I don’t know who she prefers this go ’round, as I haven’t read her site in some time.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, June 4, 2024 @ 7:50 pm
I’m mostly in agreement with Dr. Taylor, in that I think Althouse’s arguments in favor of Clinton on the ticket as veep break down when you look at the larger political context. For anyone to take Hillary as VP is asking for Bill to come along for the ride. How can you really carve out your own identity as an administration with a former president living in the White House? Dr. Taylor’s other points are also well taken.
BUT. . .
I don’t think it will take a lot of Clinton supporters jumping ship to swing the election in favor of McCain.
Take a state like Ohio, which will be a battleground state in November, where the race was close, and Hillary won a majority, getting 1.2 million votes. Suppose 10% of those 1.2 million voters who supported Clinton abstain from the process. Suppose another 1% actually do vote for McCain. Just 10% of Clinton’s supporters abstaining and 1% going to McCain accounts for the 120,000 vote difference in 2024 and the 150,000 vote difference in 2024 that ended up winning the state.
What I’m trying to say is that I don’t think a lot of Clinton supporters will jump ship, but in the states that will settle the election, it won’t take a lot of them jumping ship to scuttle Obama’s chances.
I think it’s reasonable, at the moment, to think that 10% might abstain and 1% might vote McCain.
I also think it’s unclear “which voting bloc is the most upset at the moment”. It’s too early for there to be good polls on this, and from what I’ve seen, there are great number of irritated male Clinton supporters, and lo, there are even some irritated female Clinton supporters born as late as 1990, to whom abortion is barely an issue, who supported Clinton for entirely different reasons.
So let’s just assume for a few seconds that 100% of Clinton’s female Baby-Boomer supporters (those ladies in their 50’s and 60’s that we talked about)hop onto the Obama bandwagon out of fear of a Roe v. Wade overturn that everyone knows won’t happen anyway. Assuming they do that (100%), my math tells me that it would only take about 21% of Clinton’s remaining supporters (those who are male, or born in a different generation) staying home to arrive at the 10% total democratic voter defection described in the earlier scenario; this could easily be enough to carry a close state, as it would have been enough in either of the last two elections not just in Ohio but also in other states.
I admit that my math could be wrong because the demographic data on Clinton voters that I used could have a substantial margin of error; but even so, my point is that I don’t think it’s going to take a mass defection to make the election close. Even a small number of Clinton’s supporters jumping ship - either by not participating, or by going to McCain - could easily upset the delicate balance of power in the battleground states.
I think it’s not reasonable to think that some undetermined number will not jump ship. Some will. How many is a good question.
As far as abortion goes - it’s really only a hot topic in the Baby-Boom generation, the women in their 50’s and 60’s who lived through women’s lib and all that jazz. The thing is, there will be women voting in this election born as late as 1990. The numbers on what younger women think about abortion are not so clear cut; you get a different number with every survey, it’s always close, and when asked to rank it in order of importance relative other issues like the war in Iraq, they almost always put it dead last. And women who are older than the Baby Boom tend to be more conservative about abortion. Really what you’re talking about is one generation of women; and every year, with more female voters born after, they become that much less relevant. I don’t think it will be the deciding factor in this election cycle.
If Bush was electable for a third term, I might think differently; but the fact of the matter is he’s not, and McCain is not Bush. He is McCain. And I just don’t think people hate McCain the way they hate Bush, with the fire of ten thousand suns. Yeah, they’re in the same party, and there is some hate carryover - but how much? And is it as strong as the general disillusionment and disappointment in the system that many Hillary supporters seem to be feeling?
Not sure. Don’t think it will take many of them boycotting to make this a close fight.
Comment by Captain D — Wednesday, June 4, 2024 @ 9:18 pm
As far as abortion goes - it’s really only a hot topic in the Baby-Boom generation, the women in their 50’s and 60’s who lived through women’s lib and all that jazz.
But part of my point is that that those are the very women most likely to be upset at the moment over The Woman being pushed aside by A Man. They are the most angry now, yet are the most likely to get over their anger because of the abortion issue.
Also: I still think you underestimate what the turnout in the Dem primaries/caucuses means: Democratic voters are chomping at the bit to oust the GOP from the White House, and they will be voting in November.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, June 4, 2024 @ 9:26 pm