Veep Denial

[Isaac]

Over at The Plank, my co-blogger Josh Patashnik has an excellent post on how politicians and pundits badly miss the mark when evaluating the importance of the vice presidential selection. Rather than obsessing over the short term political gain--which according to the available evidence may not even exist--candidates selecting running mates should focus on the fact that their choice will be closely identified with their party for decades to come.

In my mind, the most ridiculous aspect of the veepstakes frenzy is the focus on vice presidential "qualities" that will supposedly help the presidential nominee. This can be seen most humorously in John Heilemann's New York magazine article on the "possibility" of a McCain-Bloomberg ticket. The idea is crazy enough on its own, but this quote in the essay is priceless, and perfectly captures the degree to which the issue is blown completely out of proportion: “The GOP is losing on the economy by 10 to 15 points,” says Doug Schoen, who served as Bloomberg’s pollster in his mayoral runs. “With Mike on the ticket, that gap would quickly, dramatically close.” Instead of disputing this absurd statement, Heilemann even more ridiculously adds that the "McCain–Bloomberg–Arnold Schwarzenegger troika" would put California in play for the GOP!

Anyway, let this stand as a plea for no more Veep talk until at least late July. Okay, fine, how about June 1st?

Comments

no more Veep talk until at least late July

No, what I think we need is more Veep talk like this.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 26, 2008 10:40 PM

I think VP can have a negative impact. Lieberman was a terrible choice that wound up hurting Gore. Clinton carried Tenn twice with Gore as VP but Gore lost his home state with Lieberman as VP. What does that say?

Anyway, I'd like to know who the rising stars of the Democratic Party that Josh mentioned are. Who do we have in the minor leagues that's ready for the Show? Is there a 2004 version of Obama out there?

Posted by Just Karl | May 26, 2008 11:06 PM

The VP is closely identified with the party for decades? Like Leiberman? Edwards? Quayle?

Unsuccessful attempts to make the VP an issue include 1956, 1988, and 2000. (It is possible the losing candidates would have done even worse.)

I've come to think that a disastrous pick can hurt (1972, but would not have mattered), but otherwise it makes litle difference. The ticket balancing idea is also out-of-date. Maybe it applied before TV.

Clinton picked a guy about as similar as could be in terms of age, region, and politics. Pick a guy who will amplify your themes, not mix them up and dilute them. I'm just not sure who this is for Obama.

Posted by maddarter | May 26, 2008 11:45 PM

I agree with Neil, totally disagree with maddarter.

MY is correct pertaining to the VP of the winning ticket. Quayle was indeed identified with the GOP brand for a while, and 2 term VP's like Bush Sr. and Cheney even more so. Looking back at the other VP's this century: Agnew, Nixon, Ford, Hoover, Coolidge, Roosevelt, and the GOP VP pick is of enormous importance.

And I think right now is a great time for liberals to be having more discussion on WHERE THEY WANT THE PARTY TO GO, and what relatively unheard of political can best represent that, and thus deserves to be raised to such a high profile spot.

If anything, we need to do it to counteract the superficial sheer-name-recognition-based speculation on several already very well known politicians.

Posted by Shock Mouse | May 27, 2008 12:00 AM

Not MY, but the poster Isiah.

Posted by Shock Mouse | May 27, 2008 12:16 AM

Here's an important piece of advice: If it looks like it's going to be McCain/Palin anyway (and that should be a "no brainer" for Team McCain), McCain should announce NOW or VERY SOON, rather than later towards the convention. There's currently a growing chorus for Obama/Hillary (as VP) ticket (in fact the Dems are likely aware of the Palin phenomenon). If the GOP waits while movement for Hillary as VP grows -- even worse until after it is solidified that Hillary will/could be VP pick -- selecting Palin will be portrayed by Dems/liberal media more as a reaction by GOP selecting its own female (overshawdoing Palin's own remarkable assets), rather than McCain taking the lead on this. Selecting Palin now or early (contrary to the punditocracy) will mean McCain will be seen as driving the course of this campaign overwhelmingly, and the DEMS will be seen as merely reacting. And, there's absoultely no down-side to this because even if Hillary is a no-go as VP for Obama, the GOP gains by acting early. McCain the maverick. Palin the maverick. Do it now!

There's no reason, and actually substantial negative, in McCain waiting to see what the Dems do first insofar as his picking Palin as VP, because, no matter who Obama picks, Palin is by far (and I mean far) the best pick for McCain and the GOP, especially in this time of GOP woes. The GOP can be seen as the party of real 'change' (albeit I hate that mantra, change, change, bla bla), while not really having to change from GOP core conservative values, which Palin more than represents.

In light of the current oil/energy situation, as well as the disaffected female Hillary voters situation, and growing focus on McCain's age and health, Palin is more than perfect -- now.

(Perhaps Team McCain is already on to this.)

Posted by Ted | May 27, 2008 1:36 AM

Just Karl - Clinton carried Tenn twice with Gore as VP but Gore lost his home state with Lieberman as VP. What does that say?

Lieberman ALMOST helped win Florida with the swing Jewish vote, and aiding Gore elsewhere in the country in establishing Gore would make a "moral transition" from Clinton sleaze and be his own man.
Where Gore blew it, and nearly every Democrat campaign expert now admits it - was in alienating huge voting blocks in key close states to drive up the popular vote in solid Blue States that had very different views on Christian faith being a good thing, patriotic American values, and especially - the right to keep and bear firearms than the close states Gore lost.

Just the gun issue cost him Arkansas, Tennessee, and Florida. And some say New Hampshire as well, as Gores insistance that firearms were a "privilege, not a Constitutional individual right" that can be taken away at government whim - didn't fly well in the "Live Free or Die" State.

If any Jew cost Gore the election, it wasn't Lieberman. It was Gore deciding to jump onboard with the two Jewish ladies from California that were the strongest anti-gun rights people in the Senate outside Teddy Kennedy. But it did gain Gore some votes away from Nader with Nanny State lefties.
Just not in the right states.

Posted by chris ford | May 27, 2008 1:48 AM

A few comments to Sara Palin booster Ted, and some on the general picks McCain and Obama have to choose from.

1. Sarah Palin has a degree in journalism, served as mayor of a town of 4,000 people, and was just elected governor as a reform candidate in 2006.

2. She has little economic or foreign policy experience. She doesn't help McCain in his weak areas. But she is popular in Alaska after the Murkowski debacle.

Not who I would select. Same deal with Jindal, who has 1 year experience.

3. I doubt Obama will select Hillary. Bad chemistry and she sabotages his "new politics" message. Slick Johnny is also unlikely. He is a one term Senator who would have been voted out if he ran for reelection. As inexperienced as Obama is, arguably at this point, he has more lifetime political and policy experience than Edwards did in his dilettant foray into one Senate term. Richardson, "mr. Hispanic", was a disaster as a Presidential candidate - confused, horrible in debates...plus he is the great betrayer of his Clinton patrons, who may excuse the Black Messiah from not taking on Hillary and her baggage as VP, but not if she is dumped for the Judas...

Leaving more likely VP choices like Evan Bayh, Ed Rendell, or an experienced military/diplomatic man like Biden, Nunn, Webb, General Zinni (Wes Clarke appears to be unacceptable to most the military and foreign policy establishment)

(While a small part of the American population believes Diversity is all that matters and crave a female, part black/hispanic lesbian reared by Muslims with some physical disabilities - failing that, anything but a qualified white guy - most the country does not believe that. And would vote against Obama if he opts for gratuitous extra "diversity" to please Lefty activists.)

4. Republicans have some fine VP choices strong in McCain's weak points notably economic matters, and able to have good odds of delivering critical states. Young enough to replace him, without being as inexperienced as Palin and Jindal..

Romney, Pawlenty, Crist. Especially Romney if the economy and energy crisis replace Iraq as the thing the media obsesses about (Al Qaeda is now down to their last Iraq stronghold). Experienced Kay Bailey Hutchinson if polls show McCain has a significant gender gap with women voters. Republicans might even bite on a reasonably conservative Democrat like McCain's good friend Senator Salazar.

Posted by chris ford | May 27, 2008 2:32 AM

Ted, if Obama picks Sebelius or Napoltino, do you think McCain still gains if he picks Palin? Palin should definitely be on McCain's short list no matter who Obama picks, but I'm not sure if he gets any real electoral benefit from Palin if Obama chooses a female VP. After all, McCain is going to win Alaska anyway and losing it wouldn't be the biggest deal because it's worth so few electoral votes.

Posted by Reality Man | May 27, 2008 2:39 AM

Ford: "It was Gore deciding to jump onboard with the two Jewish ladies from California that were the strongest anti-gun rights people in the Senate outside Teddy Kennedy."

Feinstein is a real trip. Everybody in San Francisco knows she turned in one gun to show how "anti-gun" she was - but had licenses for TWO guns. She's as corrupt as Hillary Clinton, owned and operated by PG&E.

Just like Ted Kennedy has Secret Services bodyguards with Uzis in their briefcases.

Fucking hypocrites.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 27, 2008 2:50 AM

Clinton made a good choice with Gore, and it overturned the conventional wisdom about the VP needing to add "balance" to the ticket. It made less likely selections such as Dukakis' ridiculous attempt to recreate the Kennedy-LBJ ticket.

That said, GHW Bush used his VP selection exactly as the new conventional wisdom would reflect, he picked a rising star who would amplify his message and not help him regionally, Dan Quayle (both VP selections in 1988 were really bad, the awfulness of the Republican selection obscuring the bad strategy of the Democratic one).

The bottom line is that this is an area where campaigns can outthink themselves, and the VP should be someone who the presidential candidate wants to succeed him in office. Historically, there is about a 20% chance of a president dying in office. For different reasons, the odds of this are greater than usual for McCain and Obama. Cheney was one of the worst picks in history, not because he hurt electorally but because he wasn't someone you wanted near the White House.

I also think that the electoral benefits of a VP selection tipping one marginal medium sized state into your column, or making one medium sized state competitive, are now understated. If a selection can do this, at least you can be pretty sure of of increasing your chances of one state's electoral votes. I don't think this should be a major consideration, but if a presidential candidate can't decide between two compatible possible VP picks, something like this could be a tiebreaker.

So McCain should not necessarily select Pawlenty, but if he is indifferent on policy and personal chemistry grounds between Pawlenty and Palin, he is better off improving his chances in Minnesota than some gambit to appeal to women voters. The same is true for Obama and Napolitano and either Richardson or Kaine. Also putting both a Senator and a Governor on the ticket makes sense, but more for post-election policy reasons than any campaign benefit.

Posted by Ed | May 27, 2008 3:56 AM

Obama is so young that he can't choose a "rising star" type of VP who will be a contender in 2016 - two under-50s vs. McCain does not bode well. You can argue that the VP is not usually important, but Obama is not a 'usual' candidate.

Posted by Ben C | May 27, 2008 5:02 AM

Obama should choose Hagel. that solves all his problems as well as fulfils his vision for a different kind of politics.

Posted by hunter | May 27, 2008 5:50 AM

Obama's choosing Hagel, Bloomberg, or someone like that would be a HUGE mistake.

Do you really want someone as backup QB who'd turn around and run the ball in the other direction if he got into the game?

That would be insanity.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | May 27, 2008 6:15 AM

Also, as much as I like Hagel, putting a GOP member on the ticket is a sign of weakness. Hagel would reinforce Obama's Midwestern appeal so it wouldn't be a total nightmare in terms of narrative, but it is problematic. The nearest thing to a Republican he should consider is Lincoln Chafee, who can honestly say "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me." Being the only GOP member to vote against the war could also be useful. With that said, Sebelius is still my top choice.

Posted by Reality Man | May 27, 2008 8:02 AM

Re Chris Ford

Charley Crist? A closeted gay man? Surely hard nosed Chris Ford is kidding.

Posted by SLC | May 27, 2008 8:36 AM

I agree with maddarter, who said: "Pick a guy who will amplify your themes, not mix them up and dilute them. I'm just not sure who this is for Obama."

Edwards would really be quite good from this POV. If he hadn't already been the veep nominee last time, I think he'd be getting talked up pretty heavily this time.

While he and Obama disagree on how to get to universal health care, their themes in most other areas reinforce one another. Both want to get us out of Iraq fairly quickly. Both want to deal meaningfully with global warming. Both want to change the game in D.C. and not just the players. It would work.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | May 27, 2008 8:59 AM

Sigh, despite pleas to the contrary, this has become another "psychoanalyze the short term electoral implications of a VP pick" thread.

A VP means so much more than "it will balance the ticket" or "it will amplify our message"! And it's one of the first decisions Team Obama gets to make that the rest of the world has very little input on, and thus is the first showcase of how they really will make decisions once in office.

It's really important, just not for the trivial reasons y'all obsess about.

Posted by Shock Mouse | May 27, 2008 10:34 AM

On Lieberman: I know that his presence on the ticket in 2000 gave serious fodder to Naderite criticisms, and honestly I have to say that there's some point to them. Nader was wrong about Gore being just like Bush, to put it mildly, but Lieberman provided about the best possible example that the Democratic Party wasn't actually serious about distinguishing itself from the Republians in any fundamental way. He alienated a lot of my Jewish friends, who are sick of people more reactionary than the Likud Party being given platforms from which to talk about what all Jews allegedly want. He created a lot of opportunity for potential voters to wonder "Just how serious is Gore about any of this liberalism business, and what would happen to the country if something took Gore out of office?"

The Democratic Party really needs not to do that again.

But that's a standard of judgment, not an endorsement. I'm quite happy to set aside worrying about VP candidates for weeks yet.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | May 27, 2008 1:05 PM

hi, super site thanks

Posted by erca | May 28, 2008 8:52 AM