I'm not sure I agree with the specific claims Jonathan Cohn is making here about Sebelius and Webb, but he does make the correct meta-level point which is that it's a huge mistake for activists and so forth to think about the veepstakes primarily as a question of short-term political tactics. Becoming Vice President of the United States dramatically increases the odds that you'll become President down the road, so it's actually really important -- more important than is generally recognized -- that the person who's picked be someone who's substantively good.
« A Woman Scorned | Main | Post-Russert Speculation »
The High Stakes of Veepstakes
15 Jun 2008 10:01 am
Comments (18)
Wow, and I thought I had an inner-English-teacher!
Anyhow, the on-topic observation I was gonna make:
This VP choice is more important for Repubs than for Dems. Obviously, actuarial tables would indicate that JohnMcCain has less life expectancy than BO obviously. But with the likelihood of a Dem sweep--a 'change election'--the Repub VP candidate is the likely person to try to restructure and/or revise the Reagan Coalition.
"Dramatically increases the odds?"
Come on, Matt. Give us some numbers! When's the last time you made us a graph? Maybe even break it down by party and succession by assassination vs. election. I bought the book. I subscribe to you employer's increasingly trashy rag. I demand more from my blogger!
If we are going to be pedantic (or merely correct), it should be pointed out that the subjunctive is a MOOD, not a TENSE. Just to add to the edification of all who came to share deep thoughts about the VP pick and ended up in remedial English. Blessings and happiness, my children, blessings and happiness!
Yes, it is important to get a good, solid person for the VP spot. A state governor with a record of executive competence and clean government stewardship would be a good idea.
But since a VP doesn't become a president by winning an election, you don't need to pick anyone who is particularly charismatic, is telegenic, is a good debater or has any of those other skills we associate with campaigning.
And as far as the upcoming campaign goes, I wonder if there is any real evidence that a VP candidate has ever significantly helped anyone win, or lose, the presidency. All these theories related to "balancing" and whatnot seem exaggerated.
What I really object to lately is the way a lot of the media and popular discussion of the vice presidential decision reinforces widespread public ignorance about the constitutionally established role of the Vice President. People talk about the Vice Presidency as though the Vice President were some sort of "assistant president". They think of the vice president as high up in the administrative "chain of command" like a vice president at a company, or maybe the vice principal of a school. But, of course, none of that is true. Apart from the job of banging the gavel in the Senate, the vice president has no official role whatsoever other than to take over in case something happens to the president. The vice president is not "second in command". Given the way we have come to use "vice president" in other places in our society, it would be a good idea, I think, to change the title associated with the position - maybe something like "President's Understudy", "Presidential Alternate" or "Wait-listed President".
Nitpicker Extraordinaire, not only did you make a blithering ass of yourself by calling the subjunctive a tense, but Matt's use of it in this post is entirely correct. Famously rough-and-ready though MY may be when it comes to proofreading generally, this entry is unexceptionable (short of a missing comma or two). And there isn't a whom in sight.
(Did Matt throw down a ninja-edit?)
I think the primary consideration of the VP should be estimated electability in 2016. I think according to this metric Mark Warner is the best choice. Of course Obama could pick someone like Clark and Warner could still run for president perfectly well. Brian Schweitzer is another good choice because he is a good talent and would have a hard time getting the visibility that national office requires in his home state of Montana. For the using the vp as a democratic farm league he would probably be the best choice. The cons are that he wears a bola tie and that he doesn't have a long public service record.
"But since a VP doesn't become a president by winning an election, you don't need to pick anyone who is particularly charismatic, is telegenic, is a good debater or has any of those other skills we associate with campaigning."
The VP isn't likely to become president because the president dies. The reason he's the likely successor isn't because he'll take over in a crisis, it's because he's usually an easy nominee pick. This is due to the instant visibility acquired by being the number-two face of the party, the automatic and powerful ability to run as the incumbent if the term(s) went well (and if they didn't, it's not likely that anyone else in the party will win either), and the enhanced party clout obtained by being the running mate. In other words, the VP is actually very, very likely to become president by winning an election.
And even setting aside '16, don't forget '08. You dismiss the VP pick as unimportant for getting elected in the first place, but it doesn't have to be that way. Why not pick a charismatic, gifted campaigner and use him or her to stump and beat back attacks? You're probably right that ticket-balancing and weakness-compensating are pretty overrated, but it certainly can't hurt to pick someone who can do a good job on the campaign trail as well as in office, and it damn well can hurt to pick a bullheaded grump who might shine as VP but make gaffes or be otherwise unpalatable during the race. And if he or she is so unappealing as to not be a contender for the top spot down the road, you're just throwing away a great opportunity for no reason.
It's actually an argument for abolishing the Veep position that this selection-by-one process contributes too much to the subsequent determination of elected presidents.
Webb and Sebelius both strike me as possibly good Presidential candidates.
"The cons are that he wears a bola tie"
If by con you mean pro.
"Increases," sure. But by how much? The last Vice President to have been elected president was GHW Bush. Before him you have to go back to the 19th Century, since LBJ, Coolidge and TR assumed the presidency after the deaths of their bosses and were elected as incumbents. (Gore, obviously, is an exceptional case.) So if you mean that the dude/lady is going to take over in a crisis, sure, and that's important, but being VP is like being Jay-Z: a gift and a curse.
Nixon was elected president, no? And lots of them have been the nominee.
What stops a nominee from having a 'campaigner' on the ticket, then having the campaigner resign the day after inauguration, with an 'administrator' Veep nominated in place? If you have the votes in Congress, it's doable. It would, of course, be greeted with a degree of surprise...
On the Democratic side, there's obviously a certain bind here, because one thing Obama ought to emphasise with his choice is that Fourthbranch Cheney-style Veeping end on January 20.
Well, only four presidents have ever been elected while serving as vice president: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George Bush, Sr. Nixon was elected after having previously served as vice president. I believe there are nine vice presidents who became president because of the death or resignation of the president. So, considering that in the last 100 years, only two vice presidents have been elected president, I am unsure how important the VP pick is in that regard, though it is obviously more important for McCain than Obama, given the age factor and a potential one-term pledge.
Am I missing something here?
What does it matter if you're elected President while serving as Vice President? Granted, it's easier to step up when the incumbent steps down, but there's nothing to say that a previous Vice President couldn't be nominated as President at the end of the following term or later?
Gore was considered as a possible Presidential candidate early in this election, right? And he's been out for eight years. Had there been no Obama and no Clinton, what are the odds Gore would have been the nominee?
On the other hand, the veepstakes doesn't get everyone (in the blogs) worked up because the vice presidential nominee could become president but because they believe it could help the presidential candidate win.
And that's silly (of course).
Except in certain circumstances.
The interesting veeptstakes this year in my view is on the Republican side (which is another way of saying that I don't really believe anyone Obama could pick will help him win).
If John McCain picks Giuliani (as Frum suggested in TNR) I think it could bolster his centrist credentials (which is a far cry from what I thought the effect on a McCain nominee picking Giuliani would be during the GOP primaries [which was a squaring or cubing of the war-monger effect {but that was the GOP primary effect; now is now}]).
On the other hand I think a lot of lib Dems who supported Clinton in the primaries and had thought of not voting for Obama would be repelled by Giuliani. Of course these voters probably don't matter much as they (I think) live in solidly Democratic states.
Reagan Democrats may be reassured or at least vaguely satisfied if McCain picks Giuliani; they're the people who matter.
McCain picking Rudy would make sense only on the equivalent of the theory that hanging around with ugly people can make you look better. "You say I'm a warmonger with poor personal ethics and a shocking lack of understanding of many basic policy issues . . . but have you seen my runningmate? Now THAT is the guy you are talking about!"
Comments closed June 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Bloggers who are notoriously loose with spelling and grammar are advised to avoid the subjunctive tense and the word "whom". Nobody will notice, the simpler form is considered correct, and there will be less to grate the retina.
Posted by nitpicker extraordinaire | June 15, 2008 10:10 AM