Democratic Race: Let's Make A Deal!

[R.Mackey]

I tend to stay out of the Politics forum because politics can make enemies of the best friends -- so let me begin by saying, to all you fine people, I love you all.

---

Without reopening the question of who's ahead, Clinton or Obama, let me preface my question with a few assumptions:

• Both candidates are eminently electable and worthy of the nomination
• Neither candidate appears able to secure a clear majority
• The decision of which one gets nominated will appear arbitrary and contestible, no matter how carefully or transparently decided
• Backlash from the nomination may put the election, and possibly even the party, at risk

From a mission-centric perspective, this risk seems intolerable. As far as I'm concerned, either candidate is acceptable (and I am likely to vote Democrat, though I'm registered as a Green). It's merely the act of choosing that appears risky.

So, my instinct, if I was somehow in charge, would be to make a deal. The party bosses and advisors should begin setting up one or the other to gracefully bow out, not necessarily at once -- but someone has to go home disappointed.

What I can't figure out is how; hence my question: What would the loser accept in trade?

Upthread it was mentioned that Clinton may suggest Obama become her VP, but frankly I don't see that working. Nor can this offer be made until after the decision is meted out.

So what? A spot on the Supreme Court? Ambassador to Someplace Nice? A hundred million dollars??

Any ideas? Thanks in advance.

 

[Puppycow]

President of Canada!

Seriously, other than VP, there's not too much. Yes, I suppose that the Supreme Court is technically possible, and I guess that's a promotion over Senator. Or Senate Majority Leader? Harry Reid isn't exactly setting the world on fire.

VP seems like the most obvious choice. A year ago, ending up with VP would have seemed like a pretty good deal for Obama. And the democrats are going to need another candidate in 8 years. At that point he would be 54, and no longer vulnerable to the 'inexperienced' line of attack. One could argue that this means he would be an even stronger general election candidate in 8 years. This of course assumes that he doesn't have any scandal in the interim or that he is VP for an unpopular administration.

I personally would be happy with a Clinton/Obama ticket. If Obama tops the ticket, Supreme Court Justice sounds like a better deal for Hillary.

 

[Nitpick]

What about some kind of "Super VP"?
Or is there any law/rule that would explicitly keep the VP from also holding the position of - let's say - secretary of state?

 

[Nitpick]

VP seems like the most obvious choice. A year ago, ending up with VP would have seemed like a pretty good deal for Obama. And the democrats are going to need another candidate in 8 years. At that point he would be 54, and no longer vulnerable to the 'inexperienced' line of attack. One could argue that this means he would be an even stronger general election candidate in 8 years. This of course assumes that he doesn't have any scandal in the interim or that he is VP for an unpopular administration.

By the way, these are very reasonable thoughts, in my opinion.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, I do not think Hillary's Ego could settle for VP.

TAM

 

[Rob Lister]

What I can't figure out is how; hence my question: What would the loser accept in trade?

Neither is going to back down. It's going to go down to the wire with super-delegates making the decision that they think is in the best interest of the party (which may or may not be in the best interest of the country).

1) which has a better chance at beating McCain?
2) which is more likely to endear the populous to the party if elected?
3) which [decision] will cause less outrage among party members?
4) which will be more agreeable to signing-off on fringe agendas
5) ...

I personally don't care who wins. I hate them all.

p.s. if either candidate even hints that the VP position would be an acceptable compromise, the other candidate will automatically get the nod, so rest assured that each will proclaim no willingness whatsoever.

 

[Brainster]

From a mission-centric perspective, this risk seems intolerable. As far as I'm concerned, either candidate is acceptable (and I am likely to vote Democrat, though I'm registered as a Green). It's merely the act of choosing that appears risky.

Let's sketch the four possible outcomes of the general:
1. Democrats win big.
2. Democrats win a squeaker.
3. Republicans win a squeaker.
4. Republicans win big.

It seems to me that with Hillary as the nominee, the odds are it will be either #2 or #3. With Obama as the nominee it seems far more likely that #1 or #4 will be the outcome. Sounds like they're still even, right? But is #1 really as good for the Democrats as #4 is bad? The value of winning big is that Obama could sweep a bunch more Democrats into office with him. But with the Democrats in power in the Senate and the House, the marginal utility to the party is small. The downside risk of #4 is great, because if McCain wins big, the Republicans could take back the House (they are unlikely to take back the Senate for structural reasons). If Hillary is the nominee, win or lose, there does not seem a great probability for the Republicans to accomplish that.

So, my instinct, if I was somehow in charge, would be to make a deal. The party bosses and advisors should begin setting up one or the other to gracefully bow out, not necessarily at once -- but someone has to go home disappointed.

What I can't figure out is how; hence my question: What would the loser accept in trade?

Upthread it was mentioned that Clinton may suggest Obama become her VP, but frankly I don't see that working. Nor can this offer be made until after the decision is meted out.

So what? A spot on the Supreme Court? Ambassador to Someplace Nice? A hundred million dollars??

Gaming this in my mind again points to Hillary. If Obama wins the nomination and the presidency, she's out of the running until 2016, when she'll be 68. It's possible she could run, but it wouldn't be easy. On the other hand, if Hillary wins the nomination and the presidency, Obama will be 54 in 2016 and would presumably start on the rail.

What could be offered? The Veep slot would virtually guarantee Obama the nomination the next available opportunity, particularly if Hillary wins in the general. Recent elected VPs who've gone on to accept their party's nomination include Nixon, Johnson, Humphrey, Mondale, Bush Sr, and Gore.

The key, as you point out, is whether he'd accept it, and here I'm not so sanguine. Maybe if they could give him the hundred million and the VP position. Of course, figuring out how to funnel the money to him might be tricky, although I hear Hillary's got some experience trading cattle futures.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Let's sketch the four possible outcomes of the general:
1. Democrats win big.
2. Democrats win a squeaker.
3. Republicans win a squeaker.
4. Republicans win big.

It seems to me that with Hillary as the nominee, the odds are it will be either #2 or #3. With Obama as the nominee it seems far more likely that #1 or #4 will be the outcome. Sounds like they're still even, right? But is #1 really as good for the Democrats as #4 is bad? The value of winning big is that Obama could sweep a bunch more Democrats into office with him. But with the Democrats in power in the Senate and the House, the marginal utility to the party is small. The downside risk of #4 is great, because if McCain wins big, the Republicans could take back the House (they are unlikely to take back the Senate for structural reasons). If Hillary is the nominee, win or lose, there does not seem a great probability for the Republicans to accomplish that.

I think the risk of #4 is very much higher with Clinton than with Obama. The only way Clinton can possibly end up as the nominee is for her to lose the pledged delegate vote but be appointed by the supers (lets assume that she can get ahead in the popular vote as if she fails to do that she has no chance). If that happens, then there must be a significant risk that a large percentage of the people who voted for Obama are not going to turn out on election day or if they do they are not going to vote for Hillary. If that happens then you are in scenario #4.

 

[T.A.M.]

Let's sketch the four possible outcomes of the general:
1. Democrats win big.
2. Democrats win a squeaker.
3. Republicans win a squeaker.
4. Republicans win big.

It seems to me that with Hillary as the nominee, the odds are it will be either #2 or #3. With Obama as the nominee it seems far more likely that #1 or #4 will be the outcome. Sounds like they're still even, right? But is #1 really as good for the Democrats as #4 is bad? The value of winning big is that Obama could sweep a bunch more Democrats into office with him. But with the Democrats in power in the Senate and the House, the marginal utility to the party is small. The downside risk of #4 is great, because if McCain wins big, the Republicans could take back the House (they are unlikely to take back the Senate for structural reasons). If Hillary is the nominee, win or lose, there does not seem a great probability for the Republicans to accomplish that.



Gaming this in my mind again points to Hillary. If Obama wins the nomination and the presidency, she's out of the running until 2016, when she'll be 68. It's possible she could run, but it wouldn't be easy. On the other hand, if Hillary wins the nomination and the presidency, Obama will be 54 in 2016 and would presumably start on the rail.

What could be offered? The Veep slot would virtually guarantee Obama the nomination the next available opportunity, particularly if Hillary wins in the general. Recent elected VPs who've gone on to accept their party's nomination include Nixon, Johnson, Humphrey, Mondale, Bush Sr, and Gore.

The key, as you point out, is whether he'd accept it, and here I'm not so sanguine. Maybe if they could give him the hundred million and the VP position. Of course, figuring out how to funnel the money to him might be tricky, although I hear Hillary's got some experience trading cattle futures.

My view is that Obama definitely gets #1, but also #2 and #3. I think Hillary gets #2, #3, and #4. I give Hillary #4 because if The Republican Base rallies behind McCain (Which they will in droves if Billary wins the nod) and he also gets huge groups of independents and White male Dems who just can't stand Hillary, he will win huge. He doesn't get any of the above if it is Obama.

TAM

 

[SezMe]

I tend to stay out of the Politics forum because politics can make enemies of the best friends -- so let me begin by saying, to all you fine people, I love you all.

Mackey is a no-good, lyin.... oops. Nice guy.

I've started to be less and less concerned about this. I think Obama will have both the popular and pledged delegate lead and it will be impossible to deny him the nomination.

What does concern me is the damage that will be done in the interim. Even if Hillary accepts her loss and makes the speech of her life at the convention in support of Obama, will it be enough to heal the wounds? I don't know.

BTW, the most powerful position that HRC could get would be leader of the Senate - especially with a Democratic House and White House. But that is not BHO's to offer. She could then go on to the Supremes later.