Centerfield

To state the obvious, the models are only as good as the inputs and assumptions, which are entirely subjective. Sticking numbers on subjective guesses is just an attempt to make it look "scientific." It's not. It's guesses.

I wonder what Clinton's and Obama's feelings are respectively, about being Veep for the other guy.

It hurts to not come up with #1, but these days, as Drez points out, Veep isn't such a bad job.

The question, I would think, would be: what will he/she bring to the ticket? First:
-Is there a state that Obama would not win unless Clinton was on the ticket? Is there a constituency that Clinton would bring, that otherwise would go to the Republican candidate?
- Similarly, is there a state that Clinton would lose without Obama?
Either might be popular with part of the party base, of course. But how would they help win the general election? The answer, in both cases, is: they wouldn't.

Second: Is there an obvious area of expertise that one has that the other doesn't? Again, not really. Certainly nothing that someone else wouldn't be better for.

In short, it's like suggesting that McCain ought to put Huckabee or Romney on the ticket, as far as helping win the General Election is concerned.

The only other reason to put someone on the ticket is to have a replacement who would maintain the same policies. And someone the Presidential candidate works smoothly with. Again, no use. Being VP isn't as nothing as it once was, but I sure can't see Obama seeing it as a good move. If he wants to be President some day, and doesn't get it this time, far better to stay independent.

I can see the rationale for Hillary putting Obama on the ticket. He's clearly got the energy and enthusiasm behind him this year. It's her clearest path to energizing the base and unifying the party.

I also think Obama will accept, if asked. If the ticket wins, he gets the executive experience he lacks and becomes a far more complete candidate when his opportunity comes again down the road.

It's the opposite scenario I can't see. No chance Obama picks Hillary.

Actually, it just occurred to me we're WAY underselling Edwards here.

Remember, if it's still undecided by convention-time, Edwards will have the most valuable stock in the land.

I agreee with Bill... it would be smart for Hillary to pick Obama, because it would bring a whole wing to his side. But there's no way Hillary becomes theVP nom, because of her high negatives.

Obama's vp choice should probably be geared to either bolstering Latino support or providing foreign policy cred.

Gee, that sounds like a veep endorsement for Richardson either way I take it....

I thought Richardson might be a good choice, but I wasn't sure if he was really popular with latinos. Why does Richardson bring FP cred?