Bad Incentives

Ross Douthat, while acknowledging that there's little chance John McCain will pick Mike Huckabee, and even that picking Huckabee stands a decent chance of being a fiasco, says McCain should pick Huckabee. I think that's all probably correct, but it points to a larger issue that McCain is facing.

The issue, basically, is that the odds are that McCain will lose. But thanks to realignment and so forth, the odds are very strongly against a true blowout. Consequently, McCain needs to choose between playing it safe and piloting himself to landing at 47 percent of the vote, or doing some outside-the-box that risks blowing up his coalition and leaving him with only 40 percent but also provides an outside chance that the gamble will pay off. The rational choice is for McCain to play to win. But his problem is that his campaign is going to be run by professional political operatives. If these guys run a respectable campaign and lose at 47, nobody's going to blame them -- McCain was facing an ultra-charismatic opponent in an adverse political climate. But if they run an outside-the-box campaign and wind up losing in a landslide, then their reputations might be badly hurt.

For McCain's staff, it makes sense to kick field goals even though it's the fourth quarter and they're down by 20. They just need to keep the score close and live to fight another day. But to win, McCain probably needs to play to win and go for longshot conversions and risk getting blown out.

Comments

On the other hand, who wants to go down in history as the Republican George McGovern? If he plays it conservative and keeps it to 47%, he'll be remembered (if at all) as a guy who got the nomination at the wrong time, not the crazy guy who doomed the Republicans for a generation.

Posted by Tom Scudder | June 13, 2008 9:20 AM

So you're saying McCain is looking at a situation where his interests and those of his advisers/consultants diverge, and he'll probably be pressured to serve theirs instead of his? Nice to see THAT shoe on the other foot for once.

Posted by stuck in 200 | June 13, 2008 9:22 AM

I think its in the Republican party's interest to avoid giving Obama a "mandate".

Posted by Chad | June 13, 2008 9:24 AM

McCain only getting to 47% (assuming a small number of third party voters) would probably mean losing a lot of close downticket races. Moreover, I don't think playing it "safe" is guaranteed to get McCain to 47% anyway, where "safe" is defined as taking the same basic approach that led to the GOP's 2006 wipeout. In fact, in 2006 the cumulative GOP vote in the House elections was 44.1% (and 42.4% in the Senate elections, although obviously that is a partial sample). And if anything, people are even more pissed about the war than they were in 2006, AND the economy is tanking.

In light of all this, I don't believe it is the professional interests of his staff that are constraining McCain. Rather, I think it is his own Party which is hell bent on making it impossible for their nominee to win.

Posted by DTM | June 13, 2008 9:29 AM

I like the football analogy.

Posted by freddiemac | June 13, 2008 9:31 AM

DTM,

You are right, but (a) There's a lot of racists who will not vote for Obama in critical states;

(b) PResidential elections are winner-takes-all, unlike Congressional Elections;

(c) Hillary staying in for so long could complicate things for Obama in a couple of States.

Posted by JRVJ | June 13, 2008 9:34 AM

How is choosing Huckabee playing to win? Huckabee would reduce McCain's appeal among the current fence-sitters. All the choice would accomplish is bringing some disgruntled far-right voters back into the fold, getting them to vote for McCain rather than sit out the election, but that would be far more than offset by the moderates who'd decided that Obama was the safer choice. Remember, given McCain's age, poor heredity, and history of cancer, his choice of running mate has far more than its usual importance.

Posted by Peter | June 13, 2008 9:35 AM

By the way, here are the cumulative House results for the last several elections (the numbers don't add up to 100% because of third parties and independents), with Presidential margins as well where relevant:

2000 GOP 47.3, Dems 47.0 (Pres: Dems +0.5%)
2002 GOP 49.6, Dems 46.9
2004 GOP 49.2, Dems 46.6 (Pres: GOP +2.4%)
2006 GOP 44.1, Dems 52.0

Note first that the House margins weren't far from the Presidential margins, but in each case the House margin slightly overpredicted the GOP's Presidential margin.

Note second that 2006 was a very dramatic reversal in fortunes.

As I noted before, I think playing it "safe" likely means McCain does as bad as the GOP did in the 2006 House elections, and maybe worse. I also think the reason the voters of the GOP are demanding this self-destructive behavior is that they have somehow convinced themselves that 2006 was a fluke, and they still think they can pull off something in the 2002-2004 range if they just stick with the same policies and tactics they were using in 2002 and 2004.

Which is delusional, but if you build a Party on delusional thinking, it can be tough to get them to stop.

Posted by DTM | June 13, 2008 9:47 AM

Huckabee would reduce McCain's appeal among the current fence-sitters.

Disagree. Mike Huckabee is the only Republican who can blunt the economic attacks that the Democrats will devastate McCain with - even if his own policies are questionable, he has a better handle on the rhetoric of Christianized soft populism than any politician I've ever seen.

I think the combination of "different kind of Republican" with the real shift in economic self-presentation that he'd bring to the ticket would at least have a good shot of winning in quite a few swing voters.

It could also kill the ticket, particularly if he continues to rub Catholics the wrong way, as Douthat noted. But I think Huckabee is a great choice, and it's a sign of the radical corporate ownership of the GOP that he's not in the running.

Posted by DivGuy | June 13, 2008 9:48 AM

As far as these things go, I'm not sure if the post-election reputations of Stevenson, Goldwater, McGovern, and Mondale, are much lower than that of Dewey, Kerry, Ford, and Dukakis. The former group got under 42% of the vote and lost by over 15%, the latter got over 45% and within 7% of winning the popular vote. History has just not been kinder to the losers of relatively close races than to the losers of blowouts.

Stevenson did parley his respectable showing in 1952 into another shot four years later, but I don't think this is a consideration with McCain.

Posted by Ed | June 13, 2008 9:50 AM

But as demonstrated in the primaries, Huckabee's appeal is limited to Southern States where nobody named "Barack Obama" is going to win anything.

If you're going to play to win, pick a pro-choice politician. Jodi Rell (R-CT) or Olympia Snowe (R-ME) seem like the best two chances to shake up the etch-a-sketch.

Well, or Mike Bloomberg.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 13, 2008 9:52 AM

First off, no way am I going to say McCain's going to lose. I thought Kerry might win and look how that turned out. I think McCain's decision isn't quite so simple as the choice Matt offers. His VP presents a dilemma. First, he must choose someone who will make a splash, and maybe narrow the charisma/excitement gap enough to put a win within striking distance. Such folks include a Jindal, maybe a Meg Whitman etc. But second, whoever that person is, he/she must be "ready on day one" due to his advanced age (and since the GOP is an old white man's party, eliminating Jindal, Whitman and any other "excitement" picks, who would all have very little necessary experience). At the moment, I don't see anyone in the GOP ranks who fits both requirements. Therefore, I expect the choice will be safe, and the campaign will be epically nasty, as destroying Obama would become his last worst hope to reach 50.1%.

Posted by NHCt | June 13, 2008 9:52 AM

What could be more outside the box than picking The Exorcist?

Posted by Jim W | June 13, 2008 9:54 AM

JRVJ,

(a) I think it is possible Obama's race is actually a net positive among marginal voters;

(b) There is no practical chance of McCain winning an electoral college victory if the popular vote margin is several points in Obama's favor;

(c) I suspect there is still ample time for the Clintons to largely undue any damage they have done, and indeed the recent polls suggest most of that damage was undone almost immediately following Clinton's concession and endorsement.

Posted by DTM | June 13, 2008 10:10 AM

or doing some outside-the-box that risks blowing up his coalition and leaving him with only 40 percent but also provides an outside chance that the gamble will pay off.

This, it seems to me, is the argument for choosing Jindal. Bold, unorthodox, a narrative-shifter, it would be exactly what you expect the Republican professional political class NOT to do. And McCain, being something of a quirky contrarian who likes sticking his finger in the eye of the establishment, might like it for just that reason.

In a year where the fundamentals are in your favor and you have an even shot of winning, picking Jindal is too risky. But if your only chance is to catch lightning in a bottle...

Posted by Bart Acocella | June 13, 2008 10:18 AM

What could be more outside the box than picking The Exorcist?

Indeed. It's also daring to pick a dark-skinned VP while having your surrogates throwing around slurs about brown people. That might be stretching the cognitive dissonance a little far, even though "cognitive dissonance" has become the catchphrase of the GOP.

Anyway, I'm not sure McCain will want to pick a big fat friend of John Hagee at this point. And Huckabee might be cagey enough to prefer running as an insurgent in 2012, especially against a godless incumbent. Huck's political history shows that he always looks out for Huck first, regardless of pesky ethics regulations and laws. So if he thinks McCain is likely to lose, why tie himself to the losing ticket, and lose his outsider cred to boot?

Posted by mds | June 13, 2008 10:18 AM

Are you really talking about the vice presidency, Matt? Short of picking a Muslim, there is nobody McCain can pick who will make 7% worth of difference in the general election.

Posted by Ron | June 13, 2008 10:19 AM

Jim W asks: "What could be more outside the box than picking The Exorcist?"

They could make "Tubular Bells" the campaign theme song.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 13, 2008 10:19 AM

If you're going to play to win, pick a pro-choice politician. Jodi Rell (R-CT) or Olympia Snowe (R-ME) seem like the best two chances to shake up the etch-a-sketch.

The last thing in the world McCain needs to do is to piss off the Bill Donahues(and his funkies) of the world.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 13, 2008 10:22 AM

"What could be more outside the box than picking The Exorcist?"

Picking the devil? No, wait, Bush did that, or rather the devil picked himself.

Posted by Njorl | June 13, 2008 10:22 AM

"If you're going to play to win, pick a pro-choice politician. Jodi Rell (R-CT) or Olympia Snowe (R-ME) seem like the best two chances to shake up the etch-a-sketch.

Well, or Mike Bloomberg."

Ding ding ding! Well, I disagree with Bloomberg (he'd narrow the margins in the NE, but I don't see him flipping any state). But I totally agree on Rell or Whitman.

At this point, I think McCain's only (winning) play is to really hit Obama on coded racial issues to turn out the otherwise ambivalent redneck vote (i.e., working class white men in the south and border states who aren't thrilled with Republicans or McCain, but who will come out to vote against the black man if you encourage them enough), and then hope to pick up the one swing group who won't immediately recognize and be driven away by that tactic -- suburban women.

It's an unlikely-to-win strategy. 2006 showed that outside of the South, voters really don't like be associated with the stereotypical Republican voter these days. And if swing groups catch on that McCain is playing the race card they'll vote for Obama in massive numbers.

But I just can't think of how else McCain can win. He's either got to win two of Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, or win one of them and ALL of Virginia, New Mexico and Nevada (I'm assuming IA and CO flip).

Posted by Joe | June 13, 2008 10:33 AM

This race is going to be won or lost on Obama's ability to campaign. If Obama screws up, a nice, safe strategy by McCain will put him in a position to pick up the pieces.

Which is an opinion neither for nor against Huckabee as VP, because I'm not sure I buy the premise that he's a Hail Mary type pick.

Posted by politicalfootball | June 13, 2008 10:41 AM

McMaverick is in a world of hurt with his choices for VP.
Jindal's crackpot religious conservatism won't bring in Independents or Dems. Racist GOPers don't like brown people.
Pro-choice Rell or Snowe will piss of GOP wingnuts.
Huckabee's history as a TV evangelist won't bring in Dems/Independents, but might help with the GOP religious right. Corporate GOP don't like him, though.
Bloomberg will alienate the religious right, maybe help with corporate crowd. Not much help with bringing Dems/Independents (he's a corporatist, supports Iraq War).
I say McCain go all out and choose Cheney - rested, tested and ready!

Posted by CParis | June 13, 2008 10:42 AM

Jindal: Bold, unorthodox, a narrative-shifter

What, just because he's brown? Beyond that, Jindal is a down-the-line conservative, radical on social issues and on good terms with the Club for Growth on economics. Jindal doesn't shift any narrative - he's a very boring choice, other than his possible anti-Protestant bigotry.

Posted by DivGuy | June 13, 2008 10:44 AM

DTM:

Times change. Republican nominees for president used to dramatically outperform the party's House popular vote until the 1990's.

Since then, however, both parties' popular vote shares have been remarkably stable nationally and in most states from 1992 onwards(when you allocate Perot's vote in a reasonable way -anywhere between 50/50 and a 70/30 split). When you consider everything that happened between 1992 and 2006, I think that's pretty remarkable. That's why I wouldn't expect any large shifts in nation-wide popular vote, like a swing on the order of 10 percentage points. I couldn't see either party winning less than 46% of the popular vote barring something totally unforseen.

On a related matter, I am a bit underwhelmed by Obama's post-primary bounce at this point. He's gotten 3-5 points, but I would expect better. I expect there will be more movement in his direction over the coming two weeks.

Posted by Tim K | June 13, 2008 10:48 AM

Very astute analysis Matthew. This is a crucial point to understand about consultants and campaigns. They have every incentive to play it extra safe and avoid accountability.

Posted by The Fool | June 13, 2008 10:49 AM

But as demonstrated in the primaries, Huckabee's appeal is limited to Southern States where nobody named "Barack Obama" is going to win anything.

That's a bit overstated, I think. Huckabee won Iowa, finished close behind McCain in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, and pulled a second in Alaska (where McCain finished fourth).

Washington is safe Democratic territory, Alaska is probably safe for the GOP (if it's not, whee!), and it's beginning to look like the GOP should forget about Wisconsin and Minnesota, recent rhetoric to the contrary aside. But I can see the Huckster being a big help for McCain in Virginia, Iowa, and Missouri, and of some worth in Colorado.

Posted by cminus | June 13, 2008 11:05 AM

Here's a semi-counterintuitive thought to chew on: No ambitious pol would want to be VP under either McCain or Obama, because whoever's elected will preside over such a traumatic reordering of the economy, foreign and security policy, energy, entitlements, health care and a dozen or so other issues that have been put off or botched for so long they're liable to go critical, that he's likely to be a one-term president, and his VP will be tainted by association. Who wants to be the Mondale of 2016?

Posted by allbetsareoff | June 13, 2008 11:08 AM

Isn't Fred Smith obviously the best VP choice for McCain? He reinforces the strengths of McCain's candidacy (experience, military service) while shoring him up on executive experience and business/economic expertise. Long-time Republican party guy. What's the drawback?

Posted by right | June 13, 2008 11:09 AM

So people who won't vote for Barack because of Race, will vote for McCain if he picks Jindal? I'm not sure if that works.

Posted by lh | June 13, 2008 11:24 AM

On a related matter, I am a bit underwhelmed by Obama's post-primary bounce at this point. He's gotten 3-5 points, but I would expect better. I expect there will be more movement in his direction over the coming two weeks.

Well, I'm hoping this is not a temporary bump like the stupid convention bumps. I'm hoping this reflects Hillary voters saying, okay, we'll vote for Obama. If so, 3-5 points is all he needs to seal the deal.

Posted by mpowell | June 13, 2008 11:27 AM

Say what you know. Do what you must. Come what may.

Posted by Curtis | June 13, 2008 11:39 AM

I want to see a Jindal-Richardson VP debate. Jindal takes his first good look at Richardson--ruddy face, sinister goatee--and whips out his crucifix.

Posted by jlw | June 13, 2008 11:43 AM

I'm just going to throw it out there that the real double-down play-to-win running mate is David Petraeus.

Posted by Sam L | June 13, 2008 11:56 AM

Jindal: Bold, unorthodox, a narrative-shifter

What, just because he's brown?

Well, yes that's part of it. Brown and under-40, reputation as a brainy and wonky reformer.

It doesn't matter what Jindal is...it just matters how he's perceived. Picking him would allow GOP to share the mantle of freshness and post-racialism, which is the Obama calling card. And dare I say that because he's brown, he will be portrayed as less of a wingnut than he actually is.

It would have the pundits yapping for weeks about how maybe this isn't the stodgy, Republican party we thought it was.

I'm not saying it's a winning ticket; I'm saying it's an interesting ticket that changes the conversation. And the Repubs need a new conversation.

Posted by Bart Acocella | June 13, 2008 11:58 AM

mpowell:

The current historical lens through which I'm judging this election is the 1976 example. Awful post-Watergate political environment for the GOP and a relatively inexperienced Democratic outsider/insurgent promising a new politics. Remember that Carter ultimatly won that election by about 2%, but Ford had closed a 33-point gap from the summer.

This could be 1992 all over again, but Obama isn't a Clinton, and McCain isn't the incumbent.

Posted by Tim K | June 13, 2008 12:15 PM

An earlier commenter (politicalfootball) made a fine point, i.e., that if Obama proves not ready for prime time, then McCain does best playing it safe with his VP pick (Pawlenty or Portman). But if Obama doesn't implode on his past associations and relatively sparse experience -- and he surely knows how to run a campaign, although he's never run against genuine Republican opposition -- then McCain will be fighting a 5-7 point deficit, at best. He'll need a real "game-changer." It won't be Huckabee, or even Jindal.

And forget about business executives who've never run for public office: this is no time to break in a political rookie. (The same goes for retired generals and admirals, which is why Obama is unlikely to choose Anthony Zinni, James Jones or any of the other military men whose names are floating about.)

If McCain wants to take a real chance on someone who will get plenty of attention as a VP pick, he'll go with Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska. Young, photogenic, conservative, and a reformer taking on the entrenched GOP in Alaska. The picture of her bagging a caribou will be in every newspaper from now until Election Day. She's only been in office for a year and a half, but was a mayor/city manager of an Anchorage suburb before becoming governor. In other words, she has a lot more executive experience than Obama (or even McCain).

Obama is the one who needs to play it safe, since he's leading at this point. So don't expect a game-changing pick (a high-risk, high-return choice like James Webb; the last thing Obama needs is to have to answer for Webb's voluminous paper trail, both in fiction and non-fiction), but rather a relatively safe, predictable candidate like Evan Bayh (two-term Indiana governor, two-term U.S. Senator).

Posted by Gary | June 13, 2008 12:27 PM

The Repubs seem to have lots more weight resting on the VP selection than Dems.

First, in the unlikely event of a McCain victory, the VP would be more likely to step into the Presidency than a Pres Obama's Veep would. Age and all that.

Second, if the election goes as expected and Obama wins big (I predict he'll exceed 300 Electors), the McCain running mate becomes the face of the National Repub Party. And since that party is devolving into it's constituent parts the VP and his 'homies' segment of the Reagan coalition has the advantage in claiming the organs of the dying body and starting to rebuild.

And their options are limited. McCain in unlikely to pick from the religious right; he doesn't understand them and doesn't like them.
Nor is he likely to pick one of the primary rivals; specifically, he seemed dismissive of Gov Romney and the whole 'business/corporate' wing of the GOP.

My prediction: Someone he feels is a lot like him, a legislator, a loyal Repub, military in his background. Lindsey Graham. (As a wild outlier--Leiberman, but Joe would have to switch parties.)

If I'm correct the congressional/professional-pol wing of the Repub party would be left to be the rebuilders.

Posted by JohnMcC | June 13, 2008 1:54 PM

2-1 he'll pick Charlie Crist. It may help in Florida, but Crist juxtaposed against McCain's cadaverous pigmentation looks like the E. Indian schlep Peter Sellers played in "The Party" only darker. In that case, Obama could win the white vote without breaking a sweat.

Posted by Trevor | June 13, 2008 3:17 PM

I'll restrict my comment to our 7 electoral votes and say that McCain is going to get trounced in Iowa-unless Huckabee is on the ticket. That could tighten the race here. But obviously there are problems in other states...

Posted by jeremy | June 16, 2008 10:32 AM

Another example of how Bush (other than through his miserable policies and incompetence)has crippled the party. No heir.

Crist is gay, so I'm sure that won't go over well with many.

Hucakbee is a loon and won't get the free ride he got for a month during the primaries- here's a guy who is ranked in the Top 10 of most corrupt politicians and whose terminally obese son passes the day by hanging dogs.

Ideally he would pick someone like Mark Sanford- southerner, small government, Conservative. If he picks any of the RINO's he can write off 4-5% to Bob Barr.

Posted by RustyJohn | June 16, 2008 10:38 AM