The High Stakes of Veepstakes

[Matt]

I think this point has probably been made elsewhere, but from a rainy day at my beachy retreat it occurs to me to point out that one really ought to look at the selection of a Vice Presidential nominee as something where the substantive merits are important. Of our eleven postwar vice presidents (Nixon, Johnson, Humphrey, Agnew, Ford, Rockefeller, Mondale, Bush, Quayle, Gore, and Cheney), four have gone on to become president and three more have gone on to become a major party presidential nominee. That's by no means a perfect batting record, but generically speaking becoming vice president is the best means of going on to become president. Under the circumstances, it seems foolish to advocate for someone or other purely on the grounds of political expediency.

Indeed, I suspect this is part of the reason that "veepstakes" conversations tend to get so annoying. Much like "electability" controversies during presidential primary season, people are playing without putting all their cards on the table, and tend to coincidentally get the result that the person who they think would be the most politically savvy pick is also a substantively good choice.

Comments

Fair enough.

Feingold would be the substantiative best choice. We can't get him. Given the way the primary has shaken out, I would lean towards Sebelius. It's important that she's a woman-- this election is the Dems' to lose, and breaking the party over race/gender seems to be the likeliest way to screw it up. Plus, she can win in red states.

I like the idea of Wes Clark, but he can't campaign.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | May 28, 2008 4:23 PM

Didn't you forget Alban Barkley?

Posted by L Weisz | May 28, 2008 4:56 PM

Given the context that Matt gives us, Feingold would be a bad choice. We’re thinking about a standard-bearer for the future. Excuse me, but I’m not sure if a twice, (or is it thrice), divorced non-religious Jewish hard-core liberal could win a general election. I’m all for getting a liberal in the WH but perhaps one of the poster-children for liberalism might not be the best choice assuming Obama lives to serve a full 4-8 years. The country would have to take a hard turn to the left I’d think.

Posted by Raindog | May 28, 2008 5:02 PM

I think this point has probably been made elsewhere

Indeed. Ross endorsed this line of thinking yesterday, as well.

Posted by right | May 28, 2008 5:07 PM

You forgot Alben Barkley - Truman's Vice President - the original "Veep". He was Sentate Majority Leader (and Minority Leader after 1947) before being named to the ticket - and at 71 was the oldest elected VP to be innaugurated. Interestingly, he was elected back to the Senate after his Veep tenure.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | May 28, 2008 5:08 PM

Absolutely. Merit and bureaucratic ability should be given much more consideration than electibility or likeablitly.

Posted by Guy in a Suit | May 28, 2008 5:09 PM

I largely agree, but I would note there is not a hard distinction between the future substantive and current political requirements, insofar as getting one's agenda through Congress is aided by being popular and persuasive, and popular and persuasive people are likely to be good running mates as well.

Posted by DTM | May 28, 2008 5:11 PM

I have a hard time choosing between Webb and Sebelius, personally.

Posted by jbryan | May 28, 2008 5:30 PM

I think Webb is doing an excellent job where he is the senate needs more people who can get things done. I think Obama needs a westerner or midwesterner. I wish my old goverenor John Kitzhaber had it in him to go to Washington.

Posted by ligedog | May 28, 2008 5:36 PM

Even with Matt's qualifier, I still like Webb. (Though I don't like put that Senate seat in play. Virginia is not a blue state yet.)

Posted by Cap and Gown | May 28, 2008 6:24 PM

The Veepstakes has a greater import this time for one primary reason and one secondary reason.
The primary reason: McCain is old and is older than either his father or grandfather ever got. He needs someone people will feel comfortable with as a successor earlier than eight years from now and possibly earlier than four years from now.
Secondarily: Obama is young and black. He needs someone to balance his intellect and charisma with institutional knowledge. Someone who keeps Independents feeling comfortable and not voting for the "moderate" McCain.

Posted by carsick | May 28, 2008 6:31 PM

It's only in recent history that being Vice President has been an advantage in seeking the Presidency. In fact, only four sitting Vice Presidents have been elected President (Bush Sr., Van Buren, Jefferson and Adams Sr.), and two of those predated the Twelfth Amendment, prior to which the Vice President was the Presidential runner-up, rather than being elected separately. Other than the last 50 years, Vice Presidents have basically disappeared after leaving office; prior to that, only John C. Breckinridge (1860) and Henry A. Wallace (1948) ever ran for President after serving as Vice President.

Posted by The Golux | May 28, 2008 6:57 PM

This is exactly why Clinton wants the VP slot, despite Matt's previous cluelessness about why she would want it.

It obviously would be easier for her to both undermine Obama as President and gain stature for a 2012 Presidential run from the Vice President slot. It would be much better for her than merely being a Senator, no matter how influential a Senator.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 28, 2008 7:01 PM

I think from day one the Veepstakes has been Richardson's to lose. He's qualified for the job and can deliver votes in a region Obama is targeting- the Rocky Mountain West. Plus he speaks Spanish. To me, the electoral strategy and documented vulnerabilities of Obama clearly point to Richardson joining the ticket.

Virginia has been trending blue the last few cycles and with Webb/Warner (Mark) advocating strongly for Obama in a change environment, my gut says VA is already in the bank. Plus I don't see VP-Candidate Webb doing any more to deliver the state than Sitting Senator Webb.

With Sebelius I get worried about it being perceived as a super-snub of Hillary and doing more to cleave the party than heal it. I think Hillary has basically made it impossible to put a woman on the ticket this year without having everyone read too much into it.

Posted by mkd | May 28, 2008 7:20 PM

Make the stakes lower

Instead of worrying about the impossbile task getting a VP, or a president, even more importantly, who can adequately fill the godlike role that we have let the presidency grow out of control and into, why not cut the job back to its human, Constitutional, dimensions? It's the only sane solution, the only one that is not very dangerous in the long-term.

We've let the office acquire the tools a Hitler would need. Sooner or later someone willing to use those tools will find his or her way to a job designed for such a mentality. So let's just take those tools away and come down off our suicide's ledge, instead of looking to get lucky again on not electing a Hitler wannabe who will push us off the ledge.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | May 28, 2008 7:29 PM

mkd makes good points.

I've been reluctant to lean towards Richardson in the past, for the following reasons:

1) He's prone to gaffes ("it's a choice").
2) He's not a great debater (see 2007).
3) It seems like he had some harassment accusations in the past (maybe I'm wrong about this).
4) I'm not sure he gets any more votes ON the ticket than he can get by simply campaigning hard for Obama in the west.
5) Having two "firsts" on the ticket.

But the more I think about it, the better Richardson looks, for the following reasons:

1) It seems like there's no "perfect choice", because they all have flaws. And looking at Richardson's, they could be a lot worse.
2) mkd's point about Richardson meeting the qualification AND political tests.
3) mkd's Virginia point.

Posted by JBS | May 28, 2008 8:22 PM

In fact, only four sitting Vice Presidents have been elected President (Bush Sr., Van Buren, Jefferson and Adams Sr.)

This is true, but any potential candidate is going to be primarily concerned with getting the nomination and will worry about the general election later. The list of VPs who later got the nomination is very long: Gore, Bush, Mondale, Humphrey, Nixon (twice). Dole and FDR were failed VP nominees. And of course, this is to discount entirely the not insignificant possibility that the President will not serve out his term.

Much worse than VPs is the record of Senators trying to achieve the White House.

Posted by right | May 28, 2008 8:28 PM

Other than the last 50 years, Vice Presidents have basically disappeared after leaving office; prior to that, only John C. Breckinridge (1860) and Henry A. Wallace (1948) ever ran for President after serving as Vice President.

You, also, are forgetting Alben Barkley, who ran for the Democratic nomination in 1952 (although not particularly successfully). There are others. John Nance Garner, FDR's first vice president, challenged him for the presidential nomination in 1940. Not to mention John C. Calhoun, who never came very close to the presidency, but was always ambitious to achieve it, and was, at any rate, one of the leading politicians of the era. The only other ex-vice president I can think of who did much of anything after his vice presidency is Benjamin Harrison's veep, Levi P. Morton, who served a term as Governor of New York (not too shabby). But, yeah, most ex-Vice Presidents have been total non-entities in their ex-vice presidencies - Daniel D. Tompkins, Richard M. Johnson, George M. Dallas, Schuyler Colfax, William A. Wheeler, Adlai Stevenson the Elder, Charles Fairbanks, Thomas Marshall, Charles Dawes, and Charles Curtis all pretty much disappeared after their vice presidencies. Most of the rest either died in office or succeeded to the presidency, and were thus ex-presidents rather than ex-vice presidents. Stevenson and Fairbanks, though, secured the honor of being unsuccessful vice presidential nominees during the ex-vice presidencies (Stevenson as Bryan's running mate in 1900; Fairbanks as Hughes's in 1916).

And, of course, it's always been quite likely for Vice Presidents to become president through other means - 9 have succeeded to the office.

It obviously would be easier for her to both undermine Obama as President and gain stature for a 2012 Presidential run from the Vice President slot.

This would not be unprecedented, but it certainly is fairly difficult. A Vice President is in a particularly bad position to oppose the administration. John C. Calhoun did it fairly successfully in the 1820s and 30s (managing to oppose both John Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson), and Garner's second term involved a lot of opposition to FDR, but mostly this just results in getting you kicked off the ticket and destroying your political career forever. Clinton might take the VP position and then use it to undermine Obama, but it would be incredibly unlikely that this would end up getting her the Democratic nomination in 2012. It would be even less likely to get her the presidency. All it would do is get her restricted to casting tie-breaking votes in the Senate. I think, for instance, that there's no particular statutory requirement that the VP have an office in the White House/Old Executive Office Building, or even have much of a staff. President Obama could just kick her back to the Senate, where she'd actually have considerably less power and influence than she does now as a normal Senator.

Posted by John | May 29, 2008 12:08 AM

I agree with Matt that substance should triumph over geography. We definitely want a VP who we can imagine as one day assuming the office of president. I've been trying to compile the definitive VP series at my blog. We take a look at geography, issue positions and demographic strengths when numbers are available. We're also running a poll, so if you have a favorite, please visit.

Our profiles (there are eleven so far, with Hillary Clinton to come tomorrow) can be viewed here:

http://www.theleftanchor.com/vice_president_profile/index.html

We'd love to hear your thoughts.

Posted by Big Blue | May 29, 2008 12:37 AM