Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Are the Clinton blow-outs in Appalachia changing the VP race?

Dee Davis looks at the rural and Appalachian Obama vote problem in an interesting piece in Salon.
How Obama fares in rural America may, in the end, have to do with whether he shows up. In politics not showing up and losing are kissing cousins. Obama made three visits to West Virginia. In Kentucky, he limited himself to appearances in the state's two biggest cities, Louisville and Lexington. He didn't come to my part of the state, or try to make any friends in rural areas.
How will this poor rural performance affect Obama's decision on a VP candidate? More specifically, will this improve Clinton's chances or John Edwards? Both Clinton and Edwards connected with rural voters. Or does it add another reason to choose Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who just helped Democrats by vetoing a voter ID bill?

SurveyUSA did an interesting VP ticket poll in Pennsylvania which has Edwards improving Obama's chance by 2 to 9 percent depending on the McCain VP. Sebelius hurts Obama's chances. That probably was because this early many voters likely went "who the Hell is Sebelius, are you fooling me, that sounds like a disease?" Unfortunately, SurveyUSA don't have an Obama-Clinton ticket as a choice. Edwards also helped in New Mexico. Huckabee looks like McCain's best choice in these two states.

I had looked at VP choices for both sides in early February and lately have been coming around to Hillary, who carries baggage for progressive Obama supporters. With Hillary Clinton will Obama make the same choice that John F. Kennedy made about LBJ? Is it better to have a strong competitor on the inside pissing out instead of leaving the person on the outside pissing in?

No comments: