For months now, there has been a constant discussion of a combined ticket of Senators Clinton and Obama. Whenever it isn't explicitly stated as a commentator's opinion of what the Democrats should do with their crisis of the primaries, or proposed as a direct question to the candidates either in or out of debates, it's always a looming possibility to the Democratic mind. Each candidate has their strengths and weaknesses, to the point where neither one of them can close the deal without the support of Democratic superdelegates - so why not ameliorate the problem by combining them on a joint ticket? That, in essence, is the basis for the entire idea; if the Democratic Party can figure out a way to combine the Senators on one ticket and thereby harness each of their assets, aptitudes, and abilities, why not do it?

Perhaps because it is not an entirely feasible idea. The Democratic primary season has been long, intense, and expensive. The extenuated primary isn't necessarily a bad thing for the Party as a whole, as each of the two candidates fights tooth and nail in each remaining contest, establishing political infrastructure and public momentum along the way, all while denying Senator McCain precious exposure on news networks - such things can only be good for the Democratic Party. Indeed, the residual effects of such an intense primary season might even bring new states into play in November, redefining just which states are liable to "swing"; Virginia and Colorado are examples.

The candidates themselves, though, are facing an odd, rather counterintuitive effect from the situation, though - the longer the nomination process takes to resolve itself, the more the the voters' decision moves into a state of, "it's my choice or no one," from a more moderate perspective of, "I'd prefer mine, but I'll be alright with him/her." In other words, when the contest was still young, Hillary's and Obama's respective supporters could be expected to support whichever candidate became the nominee. The Democratic Party had no major reason to worry, as the majority of the base would stay true to the Party by reckoning with the loss of their particular choice and supporting the presidential nominee.

Such is no longer the case, however, as the efforts of each campaign's to draw contrasts between one another's candidates has resulted in a hardened sense of polarization amongst the Democratic electorate. Now it is not so much a choice between the Democrat, whoever that might have turned out to be, and Senator McCain, but a choice between Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and Senator McCain. They are, in essence, all running as if this were a general election, as if all three of them were no longer candidates, but proud owners of the more elevated title of 'nominee.' The polarization amongst Democratic voters is only due to the length of the primary season by proxy, however. The tactics of each campaign in reaction to the elongated season, the particular language, arguments, and gestures utilized - now those are what make a combined ticket impossible.

Let us consider the two candidates' arguments against one another, starting with Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton has, throughout the campaign, dismissed Senator Obama as lacking experience and a proven record, and as susceptible to certain concerns regarding his electability (mostly with regards to not being able to secure the white, middle- and working-class vote). Senator Obama, on the other hand, knows that he cannot truly assail Senator Clinton's record (particularly her vote to authorize force in Iraq) without attacking her directly; as such, Senator Obama has in turn dismissed Senator Clinton as not of the right character to bring the necessary change to Washington, as, according to Senator Obama, she is not likely to fundamentally change how Washington operates, but only who is doing the operating.

Both candidates use enormous charges that occasionally stretch into generalization and hyperbole. For example, a lack of a record as extensive as one's opponent can be overcome - think JFK vs. Nixon in 1960 - just as a mischaracterization as being unable to change an intransigent system can also be overcome - this time think Bill Clinton's reform of welfare with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The point here is that the charges raised against opponents in a primary election will not necessarily sustain themselves during a general election, and may indeed not even be true to begin with.

With such a structure regarding their campaigns in the primary season, the principle reason that the Senators cannot join forces on a combined ticket rests with the bases of their campaigns, the fundamental tenets and claims upon which all of their campaign promises are built. Senator Clinton is running primarily on experience and a long record of public service - so she cannot possibly choose a running mate who she has been characterizing as inexperienced and occasionally out of touch. Senator Obama has been running primarily on a call for change - so he, in turn, cannot possibly choose a running mate who he has been labeling as a servant of the status quo and who is inherently, because of her experience, unable and/or unwilling to change the system of Washington.

Thus I believe that a combined ticket is impossible if either Democratic candidate wishes to win in November. It is not a matter of building a "dream ticket" or of appeasing the voters that delivered the other candidate's respectable number of delegates, from either Senator Clinton's or Senator Obama's perspective, or even of making the superdelegates' task of choosing a viable nominee easier. No; it is about credibility. With how each of the Democrats has run their campaigns - intensely, yet cleanly, in comparison to most other races - they inherently ruled out the other as being their running mate. Should either of the candidates choose the runner up as their running mate, they will discredit the basis of their entire campaign, and thereby put the White House at risk.

The "dream ticket" is indeed a wonderfully optimistic idea, but, unfortunately for Democrats, it must remain just that - a dream.
 

- Bill Maddock
Author, Election 2008
bill@lieconomy.com