THE PLANK MAY 24, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I am not going to get into the game of saying whom Barack Obama should choose to be his vice-presidential nominee. I am chastened from having argued for John Kerry to pick John Edwards in 2004. And I am not going to say whom he shouldn't choose either. But I want to suggest that there are pitfalls to his endorsing the "dream ticket" of himself and Hillary Clinton, which prominent Clinton supporters like Diane Feinstein are promoting.
There are two arguments for Obama choosing Clinton: one is plausible; the other is bogus. The plausible argument is that by choosing Clinton, Obama would create internal unity within the Democratic Party and lay the basis for an amicable convention and an enthusiastic campaign in the fall. Clinton might also bring money, although she also brings debts. The importance of internal unity cannot easily be dismissed: it helped the Democratic ticket in 1932 and 1960 and the Republican ticket in 1980. But unless the party is facing a bitter split--such as it did in 1972--it is not necessarily a decisive consideration.
The second argument is that Clinton would bring voters and states to Obama that he would otherwise have difficulty winning. Obama was strong among college-educated whites and African-Americans; she was strong among Latinos, Asians, seniors, and, of course, white women. He was strong in "greater New England" from Maine to Minnesota to Oregon and in the Deep South; she was strong in the border South, the industrial Midwest, and in Florida. Blogger Chris Bowers puts this halcyon vision of complementary strengths together in a "combined Clinton and Obama map" showing Obama/Clinton winning 300 electoral votes, John McCain 152, with 86 electoral votes still up for grabs.
I don't find these kind of demographic and geographic arguments persuasive. First, you have to take Hillary Clinton's showing in the recent primaries in states like West Virginia and Kentucky or in the opinion polls with a grain of salt. She is benefitting from inattention to her flaws--the spotlight turned to Obama after the Ohio primary--and by an anti-Obama vote among white working class voters. If she were the nominee, she would have as much, or almost as much, difficulty winning over white male working class voters as he has had. It's very hard to imagine, for instance, that she would win a state like West Virginia on her own--no less bringing it into Obama's column when she is only his vice presidential nominee. The fact is that I can think of only one state that Clinton might bring that Obama couldn't win on his own. And that's Arkansas with six electoral votes.
I have similar doubts about Clinton's demographic clout. Obama should be able to win white women voters on his own. These voters are least likely to have racial qualms about Obama and most likely to take Democratic arguments about the economy seriously. Obama desperately needs help among white working class males, Latinos, Asians, and senior citizens, but I am not sure he will get that much from having Clinton on the ticket as vice-president. The only recent example of a vice-president who may have helped bring demographic groups to a ticket is George H.W. Bush winning over some Eastern and Midwestern upscale moderates and suburbanites for Ronald Reagan. Perhaps, Clinton could attract Jewish and senior voters in Florida, but I am not convinced that as a vice presidential candidate she could do this.
There is one added point about vice presidential candidate: they should not overshadow or turn negative attention on the presidential candidate. Obama wants the race to be about his virtues and McCain's vices. In the past, presidential candidates have been seriously damaged by vice-presidential choices that became the focus of scandal or doubt--George McGovern's choice of Tom Eagelton in 1972, which ended any lingering hope that he could even compete; Gerald Ford's choice of Bob Dole in 1976; Walter Mondale's choice of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984; and of course George H.W. Bush's choice of Dan Quayle in 1988, from which only Michael Dukakis's political ineptitude and Lee Atwater's genius rescued him.
I don't mean to equate Hillary Clinton with Dan Quayle. Clinton would bring statute and credibility to a presidential ticket. Like Al Gore in 1992, she would be seen as a capable replacement for the president. But she would also bring the baggage of the Clinton years and Bill Clinton as well. She would provoke questions about how she, Obama, and Bill Clinton could co-exist on Pennsylvania Avenue. Would we have a co-co-presidency? Potential post-presidential scandals involving Bill Clinton, which the Obama campaign was loathe to broach, would certainly be aired by the Republican opposition. These could prove to be a very damaging distraction to Obama.
These, then, are pitfalls. They are not conclusive arguments against Hillary Clinton being nominated as vice-president. One must consider the alternatives, and it may turn out that the net advantages of nominating her outweigh the advantages of nominating anyone else. The internal unity that the ticket might bring; Clinton's credibility as a future president; and the sheer public excitement of seeing these two antagonists joined together might win the day for Clinton. But I hope that Obama is fully awake when he assesses the desirability of this "dream ticket."
42 comments
as usual, one day too late. Hillary Clinton effectively nixed her chances for being VP with yesterday's comment, don't you think?
- scire
May 24, 2008 at 6:13pm
Jeez John, I guess you have been on vacation the past few days. I happen to have a little more compassion for the secret service than you do, they will have their hand full enough with Obama whenever he leaves the White House, isn't it a bit much to have to extend the protection to within the White House as well? Hillary is poison, the past two days is proof of that. Huckabee made a joke about Obama ducking from a gun pointed at him, and most people yawned, and Huckabee is still mentioned as a potential VP. Hillary made a point about RFK being killed and the blogosphere erupted. No way should Hillary be given the slot.
- blackton
May 24, 2008 at 6:16pm
scire, beat me to it. I was writing as you were.
- blackton
May 24, 2008 at 6:21pm
John, toward the end when you wrote, "These, then, are pitfalls."?
As in, "a hidden or unsuspected danger", right. See, I think she and Bill may be more of a ticking time-bomb that is bound to explode.
I tend to agree with the boss at your place and anyone who warns Barack can at least claim they did their best.
No, I don't know what kind of scale you're using but you seem to be getting a false reading on "advantages of nominating her". I think she even lost some of the dumb whites and older ladies with the "A-word" logic. But if you can convince Michelle the Bills won't have a firm grip on the rug...well, do that first.
- michael
May 24, 2008 at 7:52pm
No internal unity with the hard-core Hillaristas, let them do as they like. I only want Democrats who can read write and think.
- tomeg
May 24, 2008 at 9:57pm
I simply don't understand how people can keep claiming that Hillary Clinton is so qualified to be President.
I'm going to assume that she has accomplished something as a Senator, but I have to say that I haven't heard of any legislation that she headed up and passed. Now, I get that she's only been there for little more than one term, but still, Obama has led on some important legislation already. But I'll give this a pass because she could claim it's a boy's club problem.
The two major opportunities she has had to show her leadership qualities have been health care in the 90s and the Iraq invasion. I see both of those as failure.
In her campaign she has blatantly lied. It's pretty clear that she thought she could bolster her military bona fides by claiming to be under sniper fire and simply didn't expect film footage to show up. And it makes you wonder how many other fabrications there are.
Also during this campaign, she has made it clear that she is more hawkish than the neo-cons and that she would stick to the same old style of diplomatic leadership that we've had under the Bush regime.
So, what makes her qualified? She can't even run a good campaign. After all her experience, she didn't understand the nominating process well enough to plan how to get past Super Tuesday? She couldn't hire a savvy enough team? And we're to see her as qualified to put together an effective administration? I don't get it.
- asnevitt
May 24, 2008 at 10:22pm
"The two major opportunities she has had to show her leadership qualities have been health care in the 90s and the Iraq invasion. I see both of those as failure."
Amen and hallelujah. Those are exactly the two absolute reasons I never backed HRC. The third reason was that I didn't want the anti-Clinton bullshit of the '90s revived, but I was willing to overlook that because the vast majority of her '90s "baggage" was stuff made up wholesale by a vicious GOP. She got a raw deal on Travelgate, the Whitewater "scandal," Vince Foster, etc. and while I wasn't ready to relive all those hits, I wasn't going to let it bother me if she was the nominee because it was all trumped-up nonsense.
But she *did* screw up health care so badly that the Dems lost Congress, which of course led to Bill's impeachment. That was bad, bad, bad. And the Iraq thing - and her refusal to revisit it in a satisfactory manner - is inexcusable.
Of course, the fourth reason now is the campaign she's run. It completely disqualifies her, if the other factors weren't enough.
- WoodyBombay
May 25, 2008 at 1:05am
Obama needs someone as bland, non-threatening and competent as possible. No newbies, no wild cards, no loose cannons.
Which means Jim Webb and Huggybear Bill Rchardson are out of the question, and Mark Warner's a long shot. Biden would seem to be an obvious choice, except it increasingly looks as though his sure handling of f-p, and correcting of Young Obama's goofs on same, threaten to overshadow the rookie and highlight his inexperience.
So time to look a bit further out, and consider someone who will shore up Obama with that demographic that will make or break him in this election: southwestern hispanics, esp in the two stats that we have to win to get past 270: Colorado and Nevada.
Again, if Richardson weren't such a goofball, he'd seem to be the perfect choice, but in his stead I'd lean toward KEN SALAZAR of Colorado.
Judis, what do you think?
Pros: moderate, mature, reassuring, smart, and most important of all, focused on "Security First" (google it + "Ken Salazar" for a great precis on "How to WIn An Election in a Red State", from 2004). Hispanic but not culturally in-your-face about it; no La Raza or Aztlan bullsh*t; family's been around Colorado for s.t. like 300 years, going back to the Spanish land grants in the San Luis Valley.
Cons: not known nationally. Oh wait a second, that's a distinct advantage. There are no cons with Salazar.
I'm sticking with my prediction from many months back that McCain would do well to pick Jindal-- more and more voices are coming around to my idea.
I'll bet that others will come to see the wisdom of an Obama-Ken Salazar ticket in due course, too.
- teplukhin2you
May 25, 2008 at 1:08am
"Biden would seem to be an obvious choice, except it increasingly looks as though his sure handling of f-p, and correcting of Young Obama's goofs on same, threaten to overshadow the rookie and highlight his inexperience."
How can anyone be expected to write a tep parody post when you're pumping out self-parody beauties like this? Wow! I guess it's Saturday night and you've had a couple of pops, eh?
Here's what I know about Salazar: Gang of 14 (con); big in the DLC (con); big unquestioning funder of the Iraq debacle (con); booster of the farm bill (con); big fan of domestic spying (con); very recently (late last fall) took a harder line on Iraq spending (too little too late? Half a pro). So that's half a pro and five cons. Which is weird, because you distinctly said, "There are no cons with Salazar."
Jeez, I hope Obama vets this guy closer than you did.
- WoodyBombay
May 25, 2008 at 1:56am
tep,
How does Salazar pass your "no newbies" criterion? He was elected in 2004, the same year as Obama. Ditto for Jindal, who was elected to the House that year.
It's actually probably a bigger issue for Jindal, since picking him would undercut McCain's experience angle; he'd look pretty silly saying that Obama doesn't have enough foreign policy experience, but that Jindal would be ready to step in and handle it.
- AlanSP
May 25, 2008 at 1:58am
Teplukhin2you: You know that I think highly of your posts. Your political acumen is substantial. But I disagree on Bobby Jindal. John McCain almost certainly won't name him as his number 2. The nod will go to someone more seasoned. Joe Biden on the Democratic side ain't happen' because Biden is a loose cannon. Certainly not all the time but just often enough. I don't think Ken Salazar is going to be selected, either. I believe that Obama will go with a Southern white male.
- liberal reformer
May 25, 2008 at 2:13am
NIGHTMARE.
- fseidle
May 25, 2008 at 6:28am
Point taken re Salazar as newbie. Then it has to be Biden.
Re Jindal, he doesn't need to be a gray hair, in fact should be the opposite. McCain's tired, his party's tired. He needs youth and a fresh face on the ticket.
Actually Jindal has more executive experience than Obama and HRC combined. Plus his experience, and expertise, have both been in HEALTHCARE. I'm assuming that McCain in picking Jindal would also want to be seen as signalling that health insurance is one of his top priorities and that he will finally put some kind of intelligent, albeit market-ish, GOP plan on the table in hopes of ending this national disgrace.
A big assumption, sure, but that's how I'd advise McC if I were in Rick Davis' (Mike Murphy's?) shoes. McCain has to swing for the fences. O has all the Mo'.
If not Jindal then Bloomberg would be a brilliant choice. FL's in the bag, NJ and PA strongly in play, and CA would be a threat too, forcing Obama to waste lots of cycles defending against Bloomie and Ahnuld on the left coast when he'd rather be fighting it out in Ohio.
- teplukhin2you
May 25, 2008 at 7:18am
From a "policy" point of view, Biden makes sense (and hence would make me happy), but it makes no sense politically as Obama likely gains no votes this way. It reassures the wonkish among us, but we are going to vote for Obama, or not, regardless of his VP pick.
Who can help Obama win OH and lock-up MI? That is the question.
Bloomberg for McCain? He wins FL anyway and but ends up losing a lot of Republicans who know that Bloomberg isn't one. He joined the party to run for mayor and recently resigned to become an independent. He's a liberal Democrat. Not happening on a Republican ticket. Too clever by half. It will be Crist or Romney, with an outside shot for an evangelical.
- roidubouloi
May 25, 2008 at 9:05am
Where did all of HRC's money go? She raised over $250 million. And now she's in debt?
And what an interesting contrast on the Sunday Pundit Shows. Russert and his guests were all appalled by the assassination tease, and the discussion was terrific.
On the show with Clinton's Rove, George S. (who actually interviewed Rove, that was creepy, which one is the doppelganger?) grilled Axelrod on the murder mention, suggesting it was a tempest in a teapot fueled by the Obama campaign. Yep, I'm sure they love fanning those assassination flames over at Obama headquarters.
I'd like to see Obama pick a Republican for VP, someone like Hagel or Powell or Bloomberg.
My first realistic choice: Zinni. Second: Salazar.
The only choice that will guarantee Obama's defeat: Clinton.
- fougasseu
May 25, 2008 at 12:33pm
I would have no qualms with Biden as VP (well, one maybe: I'd miss having him in the Senate, where he has more influence than he would as VP). With regard to Roid's point about him not really bringing anyone new, that wouldn't really be the point of picking him. He's more of a Cheney type of pick. He brings experience, competence, as much foreign policy cred as anyone in Washington, and the ability to step in as President if needed. I actually think the "loose cannon" thing is a positive. That's simply the flip side of being authentic and saying what he believes. It fits in well with that aspect of Obama's message.
- AlanSP
May 25, 2008 at 12:51pm
tep,
I don't think executive experience is going to be a big issue in this election, simply because neither candidate has any whatsoever. The aspect of experience that McCain wants to push is on foreign policy, and it's there that having Jindal would hurt him. Picking someone as your VP is a statement that you think they would be capable of taking over as President if needed; that goes double for McCain given his age. The problem is that it would be incoherent to make that statement about Jindal while simultaneously saying that Obama doesn't have enough foreign policy experience to be President. I would keep an eye on Jindal in the future, but I don't think he's a good fit for the message that McCain wants to send in this race.
As for Bloomberg, I don't think there's any way he'd run on a McCain ticket. Too much ideological difference.
- AlanSP
May 25, 2008 at 1:03pm
Bloomberg is likelier to run on Obama's ticket than McCain's, I suspect.
Judis- I think you are wrong about her grip on the Latin vote - Obama's doing better and better on that. Did you see the video of his speech to the Cuban group in Florida? The audience was on fire. It was like a football game minus the face paint.
- psantillana
May 25, 2008 at 2:52pm
Tep, I admire your pushing Jindal, but he has been Governor for only a few months and is only 36, plus he nullifies (somewhat) the crowd who is put off by Obama's exoticness. I would love it if McCain did take Jindal though, it would show that McCain is telling everyone that in this election they would have to vote for a person of color or not vote at all. I don't think McCain wants to win this election because of racism against Obama, he wants the vote for him to be an affirmative one and he wants to be able to face congress that way. That said, I think Colin Powell would be a better choice, and for a long shot Condi Rice.
For a long shot with Obama Chuck Hagel (if he would take it). Although I do like Tep's idea of Salazar too.
- blackton
May 25, 2008 at 3:34pm
Bobby Jindal has just not been road-tested. Therefore, ixnay on him. Chuck Hagel will never been given the chance to mull over such an offer. Barack will go with a Democrat. Forget any African-American squishes riding behind McCain. He cannot afford to tick off the right in this fashion.
- liberal reformer
May 25, 2008 at 4:43pm
A HORROR story of EPIC proportions I just dont see these two being able to work together. Maybe she can be part of his cabinet but VP ? NO NO NO a thousand times NO.
Carol
- harriscrl3
May 25, 2008 at 4:48pm
Woody, I read your post and wonder why the Hilaristas spit such vitriol at Obama supporters. You freely admitted that the 90s "scandals " were trumped up There "was" a vast right-wing conspiracy and the MSM hates the Clintons. (Why, I cannot profess to know.) You even said you'd vote for her (albeit reluctantly) if she won the Democratic nomination. Yet, we have to put up with the circular firing squad mentality of stupid Dems who rather cut off their noses to spite their faces and either sit out the election, or vote for McCain.
The whole matter reminds me of the Naderites who insisted that a vote for Gore was a vote for Bush. Yeah, right. I hope they are happy with who the country ended up with.
What troubles me even more, is that Hillary encourages the selfish, defeatist mentality by insisting that Obama can't win working-class white votes. But she fails to mention Obama's Wisconsin, Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, Utah and Oregon victories. None of the aforementioned states are known as limousine liberal, latte-drinking centers. (Okay, Portland, Oregon, but what about the rest of the state?) So what gives?
- tec619
May 25, 2008 at 5:12pm
I only see two that can shore him up in the center all the way to the right, cause McCain to work w/a new Electoral Map, calm dumber whites and not mess with a guessing-game of what can please Hillaryland. (She won't work out, another female may piss them off more)
Chuck Hagel ---- Will steal McCain votes, he'd cover Baracks ass & handle the cheap shots.
But there is a giant gulf w/domestic policy so how will he champion many Dem legislation? Also, can he keep his party affiliation and/or what happens in four or eight years. What does Hagel when it's over?
Jim Webb --- Similar to Hagel and VA may be the best possible 'maybe' that he can tip over. No, not as strong in peeling off McCain votes but will be strong w/white Dems that dissed Barack. He isn't squeaky clean but if he passes the vetting he can be groomed as a successor.
Sorry, I'm not sure the governors like Arizona's Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Tim Kaine of Virginia have enough time to make any impact outside their state.
Nunn, Biden, Dodd and Bloomberg would be great...if he wins.
So I think Hagel and Webb have the potential to change the dynamics overall and do it fast. Yes they aren't close to being as risk-free as others.
- michael
May 25, 2008 at 5:36pm
Bloomberg isn't that far apart from McCain. Bloomberg supported the war.
The key q re McCain is how far is he willing to go into Nixon territory, ie, running on a basically LIBERAL domestic agenda with a hawkish, realpolitik f-p agenda. This policy combination, along with 1968's riots nationwide and anarchy in Chicago at teh Dem convention, ushed Nixon over the top and began the Repubs' comeback.
I think it would be foolish to underestimate the ability of the smarter Repub thinkers and organizers (Brooks, Frum, Mehlman) to spot the Nixon parallel, figure this out and go toward the center on the bread-and-butter issues, esp healthcare, that affect working families in states red and blue alike. If the McCain campaign brings back Mike Murphy, a shrewd moderate strategist, that will be a sure sign that he's moving Nixon-way. If Murphy comes back, watch out.
- teplukhin2you
May 25, 2008 at 6:10pm
Tpe: you are depressing me. "[S]marter. . .thinkers. . .((Brooks, Frum, Mehlman). Sigh.
Anyway, how are you and the family doing? Well, I hope.
- tec619
May 25, 2008 at 6:22pm
AlanSP,
Early on in the VP Sweeps, i.e., some weeks ago, I was pushing the idea that Obama would pick Biden for exactly the reasons you articulate. But I think the opportunity, if it exists, to use the VP pick to move a state into his own column would be more compelling.
- roidubouloi
May 25, 2008 at 8:40pm
Everyone but Strickland is a shot in the dark. Strickland gives us 20, precious rock-solid electoral votes. Don't think so? Check the record. In the post-war era, VP nominees that are at least a senator or governor have carried their homes states in 24 of 27 cases. The only ones that failed were Henry Cabot Lodge in 1960, Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, and, you guessed it, John Edwards in 2004. And Lodge and Bentsen at least had the excuse that the top of the ticket on the other side was also from their home state (Kennedy in Lodge's case, and Bush Senior in Bentsen's case).
So, if you exclude Lodge and Bentsen, it's VP nominees 24-1 in bringing along the home folks. Those 20 Ohio EVs would just about clinch it for Obama.
BTW, I can't believe some of you are seriously considering Joey-the-Loon Biden or Sourpuss Webb. Either of those two would really be rolling the dice. As for Chuck Hagel, the pro-choice wing of the party would go berserk. It would blow up the convention. Bloomberg seems like a too-clever-by-half kind of pick. He adds nothing we don't already have. Mark Warner would be a great choice, but he's apparently not interested. And Sebelius seems to be the trendy choice at the moment, but what's she going to deliver? Kansas? Ohio? Doubtful. If you want someone with Ohio roots, go for the guy who actually still lives there.
- naomi88
May 25, 2008 at 9:52pm
Naomi88: Superb post. Particularly like the Joey-the-Loon Biden take. I can't believe that anyone seriously thinks that Obama will tap Biden. Bloomberg can be a loose cannon, as well. Warner isn't interested. It is fun to speculate though many are called but few are chosen.
- liberal reformer
May 25, 2008 at 11:11pm
Biden would only exacerbate the whiny, resentful "he's too damn intelligent for my taste and uses elegant syntax" complaint that has already been dug out of the loam of mid-America and pegged at Obama by HRC. To that extent, Webb is a slightly better choice, as he has an ability to talk to normal people as if here were a normal person. Also, because the exotic element has already been claimed by Obama in this election, he needs a running mate who is white, male, and with a military record - we don't want to push our luck.
But it's not as simple as just who's gonna guarantee a state, which would nonetheless be useful. We don't know what will work -- all bets are off this year.
- ironyroad
May 26, 2008 at 12:29am
I don't get the Biden bashing at all. Biden adds serious foreign policy/defense cred (he was, after all, the only candidate who has floated a serious plan for dealing with Iraq), he's a realist, is smart, has a long history in the Senate, is well-liked by his colleagues on the Hill and always manages to get off some very effective one-liners, which will serve him well in debates. I see very little downside with Biden. He's Hagel without the GOP albatross, he's Webb without the women problems, he's Nunn with an active career in the Senate.
What's not to love?
- BHLnyc
May 26, 2008 at 12:41am
tec - thanks for asking. So-so. Hope for better days this summer. Are you still stateside? Ever in the Bay Area?
- teplukhin2you
May 26, 2008 at 12:56am
Obama's "change" argument is seriously weakened by putting a Clinton on his ticket. If anyone is a "washington insider" it is Hillary Clinton.
Secondly, if he were to choose Clinton as his running mate, Republicans would spin that choice as Obama giving in to pressures from the clinton campaign. Weakness is the last characteristic Obama wants to show while running against McCain
- mcrand814
May 26, 2008 at 9:51am
You can create screens which, when taken together, eliminate all possible contenders: foreign policy/ national security experience; executive experience; military experience; no newbies; no exotics; no possible womanizers; no likely gaffe producers; will carry his/ her swing state for the ticket. Who can survive such a gauntlet? Nobody.
So, since nobody's perfect, and all the contenders are human, we're into trade-offs. Which reservations are more serious than others is in the eye of the beholder. e.g. Webb: poor retail campaigner, possible womanizer, likes being in the Senate just fine. Richardson: gaffe machine, possible womanizer, exotic. Salazar: newbie, exotic. Rendell: exotic (i.e. Jewish). Zinni: no help in swing state, political newbie. Brad Henry (governor of Oklahoma): no military experience, no help in swing state. Biden: gaffe machine, no help in swing state, no executive experience Strickand: no military experience, no FP experience. Nunn: no executive experience, poor campaigner, no help in swing state. Hagel: position on domestic issue, especiall pro-life. Hillary: forget about it.
Also, the reservations are just one part of the calculation. The other part is the value added, about which, the same eye-of-the-beholder comment applies. Given all the above, I don't envy Obama and his strategy group. I haven't waded through all this complexity enough yet to pick a horse. I haven't gotten much past ABH: Anyone But Hillary.
- JackR
May 26, 2008 at 10:02am
I agree with BHLnyc on Biden, disliked by few and viewed as solid on f-p. Hardly a "gaffe machine" at this stage of his career. Biden would be, to the general public, a confidence builder that the presidency would be in good hands if necessity demands it.
Sebelius also brings much to the table now that Clinton has done some damage to the perception that she is the only woman her fans will accept. She has executive experience, is a pro-choice Catholic, and has solid roots in Ohio. She was raised there, and is the daughter of John Gilligan, former Congressman, Governor, and a legend in Cincinnati politics.
- Mickey Weinber
May 26, 2008 at 2:37pm
Decency is against both.......................
Obama is the son of unfortunate Soviet sympathizers........................
Hillary is not presidential material................................
Let us bring out the best from the McCain option..................................end
- s4200
May 26, 2008 at 2:48pm
naomi writes,
"Check the record. In the post-war era, VP nominees that are at least a senator or governor have carried their homes states in 24 of 27 cases. The only ones that failed were Henry Cabot Lodge in 1960, Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, and, you guessed it, John Edwards in 2004. And Lodge and Bentsen at least had the excuse that the top of the ticket on the other side was also from their home state (Kennedy in Lodge's case, and Bush Senior in Bentsen's case).
So, if you exclude Lodge and Bentsen, it's VP nominees 24-1 in bringing along the home folks. Those 20 Ohio EVs would just about clinch it for Obama."
A few problems with this analysis. First, it's factually incorrect. VPs that were a senator or governor in their home state are 16-6 in their home states, 16-4 if you exclude Lodge and Betsen. In addition to the three home-state losers you mentioned, Earl Warren lost California in '48, Estes Kefauver lost Tennessee in '56, and Spiro Agnew lost Maryland in '68. I'm not sure where you're getting the 27 total. If you're including Bush 1 and Cheney, neither was ever senator or governor (although Representative from Wyoming is a statewide race, so it's not all that different from being senator in terms of having a high profile in that state).
The second problem is that you're implying that correlation implies causation. It doesn't. Many VP candidates have come from states that are already safely in their party's column. LBJ would have won Minnesota with or without Humphrey, just like Gore would have won Connecticut with or without Lieberman. If you look at races where the home state VP candidate's party won by single digits (i.e. those where the VP candidate might plausibly have made the difference), there are 6 of them: LBJ in '60 (TX by 2), Dole in '76 (KS by 8), Mondale in '80 (MN by 4), Quayle in '92 (IN by 6), and Gore in '92 and '96 (TN by 5 and 2, respectively). The only one of those that might have altered the final outcome is LBJ.
All that said, I don't really see any major objections to Strickland, other than his lack of foreign policy experience. I think he'd be a reasonable choice, but he wouldn't magically turn Ohio into a Democratic lock.
- AlanSP
May 26, 2008 at 3:19pm
Webb would be a good VP for Obama. The man is articulate and has a military record.
Clinton would be bad. It would add little to Obama and she woulod be pissed on by the fanatic Obamistas.
- sleepyavl
May 26, 2008 at 6:17pm
I like Joe Biden, despite his faults - and he has a few - but I just don't see him on the ticket. I'd much prefer to see him in the Cabinet.
In fact, I think it would make a lot of sense for Obama to, starting around convention time, float some names of potential cabinet members, at least on foreign policy. Biden, Wes Clark, Webb - get some of these names out there. Maybe the nervous nellies who wring their hands about the brash, naive rookie and quake at the thought of John McCain's and his alleged gravitas will get a good night's sleep.
- WoodyBombay
May 26, 2008 at 6:42pm
Well, sorry to all. I posted in haste and got some of the data wrong. Good catch, Alan. I will say that including Bush Senior and Cheney in the numbers for governors and senators might not be such a bad thing, because both were national figures at the time they were selected as the VP candidate, and had greater stature than just a congressperson (Miller, Ferraro, etc.). . If you include Bush 41 and Cheney it is 20-4 for veeps carrying their home state, which is a pretty decent .833 percentage.
Alan, I see your point about the likelihood of the VP nominee's state going for the ticket regardless of the native-son’s presence on the ticket. I think that would require a whole second level of analysis that we don't have the data for, or at least I don’t. On the other thread, Josh Patashnik alluded to a study that had looked at that. I'll have to check it out, if I can find it. As great as the Internet is for doing research, living close to a top research library was even better. I miss not being in school any more.
Spiro Agnew, heh. He couldn't even carry his home state. Why the heck did Nixon pick him?
- naomi88
May 27, 2008 at 12:58am
As a card-carrying GOper, I am struck by the vitriol on these threads. You folks really go at each other hard. I really don't get it.
To me, Biden makes the most sense for Obama, adding f-p heft with no real downside. As SecState, Richard Holbrooke, not Richardson, please.
For McCain, a middle aged guv, maybe Pawlenty or Romney. somebody with executive experience and enough of a rep to show that if something happens to McCain, he could step in.
Naomi, guess RMN found a kindred spirit, a collector of resentments.
- butchie b
May 27, 2008 at 5:17pm
The crucial question is... what will the key election issue be? I know what the Republicans want it to be. Based on that I know who there "dream come true" VP pick would be and in which case I know who our VP pick should be... but that might not be the issue. But that might not be the issue, the issue might be the issue that the Democrats want. Well, if that's the issue I know who the Dem's will pick and I know who the Republicans will pick to counter.
So what do you think? Will the Republicans play offense (and pick a VP they can attack with) or defense (and pick a VP who can defend them from attack)? Will the Dems play offense or defense?
I think the answer to the first question is obvious. Republicans will play offense. They don't have a choice. My advice to the Dems, play offense too and pick Edwards (who will attack, attack, attack) or blow the whole thing sky high and pick Gore who is a hybrid offense and defense.... oh yeah, and he hails from a Southern State too.
But don't play defense to their game (pick this person so that when they say X we can say well look at our VP), play on your terms, on your turf, which means playing offense.
- Gavriel Meir-Levi
May 27, 2008 at 6:32pm
Even TNR's offices are not immune to veepstakes fever. It all started when John Judis put the "unity
- Anonymous
May 30, 2008 at 7:23pm