Could Obama go Independent?
 

This is not based on any evidence or things I have seen written (though I would be shocked if thousands had NOT already brought it up, because I'm not exactly that original :p). It is just a question I think is interesting after some of the threads here and news reports I have seen, and especially the controversy about the super-delegates.

If the delegate count is too close to call going into the Democratic convention, with Obama generally having won more individual votes then Clinton, but she ends up taking the nomination due to the super-delegates, what are the chances he goes independent?

He seems to have some loyal support from the voters, and at least the appearance of support from the general media.

It would be a hard thing to do, and he most likely would become a villain among the Democrats for splitting the party, but could it happen?

I don't think he could win, and mostly he would end up guaranteeing John McCain as the next president, but if he were to find the right running mate (particularly a moderate Republican) and managed to keep the message of change at the front of his campaign (instead of fighting over individual issues) he could actually bring change. Whether it is within the Democratic party, within the party system as a whole, or even maybe actually winning.

Zero....zip.....nada.

Politically, it would be suicide.

Practically, it would be too late to get on the ballot in nearly every state.

Could happen but I put the odds up there with an alien invasion or Paris Hilton winning an Oscar.

Okay, probably more likely then a Hilton Oscar but less likely then an alien onslaught.

Heh. Exactly. Any progressive/liberal minded person who is paying attention should be focused on getting anyone in the White House but McCain, whether that's Obama, Hillary, a yellow dog, or the new dark-horse candidate Ant I. Christ. Anyone would be better than Bush Lite.

I could see Hilary going independent but not Obama.

In fact, if Hilary went independent she might draft someone like a Ron Paul as her running mate and divide both parties enough to win.

Clinton and Paul on the same ticket? I think you need to go read their platforms then come back and let us know if you still that might happen.

:lol:

Neither will go independent.

And if Clinton, for some bizarre reason, decided to, there's no way whatsoever that she would even consider considering Ron Paul as someone to even be put on the long list of potential running mates, let alone the short list.

Why do I just know I'm going to wake up tomorrow and Fox will be breaking the news of the Clinton/Paul ticket?

If any prominent Democrat or Republican goes independent it would throw the election to the other side. It would be interesting though if more than one of them would do it at the same time, say Obama as Democrat, McCain as Republican, Hillary and Romney or Huckabee as Independents.

The better question is why you'd wake up and watch Fox.

It was an example name thrown out.

I believe I stated "someone like Ron Paul".... meaning a Republican that has a following that would follow him over to her. Ron Paul was the only name I could think of at the time..... Huckabee's following I don't know. Romney may have been a better example.

Sheesh.....

Platforms in the primaries don't mean shit when the person is offered the VP ticket. Ask Bush 1, who in 1980 called Reaganomics (trickle down), "Voodoo-nomics". Bush at times showed Reagan nothing less than contempt but he obviously jumped at the chance to be VP. I think it was a nice move by the GOP at the time, put the bitterest primary rival on the ticket, it showed unity.

Now you take Obama's biggest message "change in how things are done... (even though he shows no true plans).... what better way to one up him and prove while he may talk YOU are acting on things, by ticketing up with a GOP.

You also take away McCain's strongest argument that he can cross aisles to get things done.

I think while I have the name wrong...... again it was solely an example.... this is a very strong scenario.

Of course what do I know, some great Dem pundits here mocked me and told me I had no idea what I was talking about when I said Fla. and Mich. were going to bite them on the ass or cost taxpayers millions and either way have the voters in those states pissed off.

You said:


In fact, if Hilary went independent she might draft someone like a Ron Paul as her running mate and divide both parties enough to win.

Pardon me for thinking you were specifically thinking about Paul.

The point of contention wasn't and isn't that Florida and Michigan will be pains in the ass. Of course they will, and Clinton will make sure of it because they're a critical to her chances (though that could backfire since Michigan could easily go Obama with a proper election). The disagreement was and is over whether Florida and Michigan should be pains in the ass. Of course it will wost someone millions to clean up the mess (though, it's unlikely to be taxpayers footing the bill in this case), but what many people have said here is that it shouldn't be considered such a mess in the first place. It's a rather cut and dry situation. The state parties and the campaigns agreed to certain rules well in advance of the primary season. The states then decided that they didn't have to play by the rules they already agreed to and instead scheduled their primaries for earlier than they should have been. As a consequence, they were stripped of their delegates: something they knew was likely to happen. The states are playing chicken with their citizen's votes, plain and simple. Honestly, if I were a resident of either of those states, I would vote against the incumbent in every upcoming election. Playing chicken with my vote is inexcusable. It's not the national Democratic party's fault, and it's not the fault of the campaigns, so they should not have to foot the bill. For someone whose primary rationale for getting so vehemently upset over illegal immigration is the mere fact that it's illegal, I'd think you'd have more respect for the fact there were set rules and that the states knowingly violated those rules. The consequences are not the fault of the national Democratic party or the campaigns, they are the fault of the states and the states alone.

Please, go here and get reading. It's one thing to disagree and think that his plans are not good ones - that's a perfectly valid debate to have - but this talking point that Obama doesn't have any idea how he wants to do the things he says is just ludicrous.

pan...when you make such a definitive statement "this (Hillary going Independent and selecting a Republican running mate) is a VERY STRONG SCENARIO"...it is not mocking you to suggest that there is absolutely nothing in her words and actions that would reasonably suggest such a "strong scenario"...or even a plausible scenario.

Perhaps I missed something. If you have any information that the Dem pundits here overlooked, put it out there!

But I see a trend among the recent threads....any strong reaction to your strong statements is an attack.