TNR BLOGS

May 15, 2008 | 11:39 PM
May 15, 2008 | 8:03 PM
May 15, 2008 | 6:26 PM

May 15, 2008 | 8:41 PM
May 15, 2008 | 7:06 PM
May 15, 2008 | 6:35 PM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
11.05.2008
McCain Doesn't Need A Black Veep

There's been much convinced talk that John McCain needs to add diversity to his ticket by choosing someone who's black, or at least brown (and Brown!) for the v.p. slot.

But wouldn't that cost McCain his advantage among racists? In the current issue of TNR, John Judis estimates that Obama's race could cost him as much as "15 to 20 percent of Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents," and Politico's Roger Simon thinks the race vote is worth upwards of 15 percent among the general electorate.

By adding diversity to his ticket, McCain would just jeopardize his hold on these voters, while reaping few rewards. It's not like McCain can out-diverse Barack Obama: Those committed to voting for a black candidate will probably stick with the one at the top of the ticket. Meanwhile, racism knows no hierarchy--a black v.p. might dampen the enthusiasm of erstwhile racist McCain voters, while doing nothing to cut into Obama's support.

Thus, McCain would risk alienating the voters most constitutionally opposed to Obama; dilute the glue that's held together the Nixon coalition for forty years; and forego a perennial Republican advantage at precisely the time when it could prove most potent--all in service of a chimeric, squishy concept that that many Republicans hate, diversity.

McCain is currently in the doghouse with many race-conscious wingers for pushing immigration reform. It would be politically safe--though clearly not moral or progressive--for McCain to keep mending fences on that front, rather than bow to elite pressure for a colorized ticket.

--Barron YoungSmith

Posted: Sunday, May 11, 2008 12:39 AM with 56 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

liberal reformer said:

Your reasoning here is solid, Barron. This talk about Bobby Jindal being named v.p. is just crazy. Teleplukhin2you, usually of sound mind, is off on this one. I think that Jindal will no more by McCain's running mate than Hillary will be Obama's.  In fact, the latter prospect is more likely than the former.

May 11, 2008 1:03 AM

ironyroad said:

Not necessarily a black VP but he's got to decide does he want to win Independents, or the Rep fundamentalist base.  If the former, then he needs something to give people the feeling that it's not Bush III; if he goes for the latter, then he has a tough choice to make (if that's the way he's going to go, then McCain-Romney might be the best thing that the Republicans can put together).

May 11, 2008 1:09 AM

johnalthousecohen said:

I'm not quite getting the logic here. Racists care more than non-racists about a running mate?

Couldn't you just as well argue: (1) A racist will hate the idea of the black man in charge of the whole country, but could tolerate a black VP who wouldn't have much power and was just there to balance the ticket. And (2) a non-racist will be attracted by diversity anywhere on the ticket. If there's an independent voter who really cares about racial diversity, and slightly prefers McCain on substance, but also loves the idea of a black president, I can easily see that person tilting to McCain-with-a-black-running-mate based on the combination of preferring McCain's policies (or whatever) and liking the symbolic value of the first black VP.

May 11, 2008 1:21 AM

virginiacentrist said:

John Judis is an idiot. I'm sorry. He's using year-2000 assumptions. He CONTINUALLY frak's up his analysis.

Obama could run the worst campaign EVER and he's still have a +10 brand ID over McCain. If Judis is too stupid to see this, then he needs to go back to school. I recommend NOVA Community College.

May 11, 2008 1:33 AM

liberal reformer said:

Johnalthousecohen: The problem with your analysis is that a v.p.  can potentially become president. And with McCain pushing 72, this is a real consideration.

May 11, 2008 1:50 AM

ralphnelle said:

Shortly after Obama is sworn in as our next president, TNR should (a) fire Judis, (b) kick his ass, or (c) devote an entire issue to his miserable non-sequitur analysis all winter and spring in 2008. If you go with (b), please let me know. I'd be happy to help you out.

May 11, 2008 3:12 AM

psantillana said:

This is why there's no point in putting Clinton on Obama's ticket in hopes of getting the blue collar support. She's not going to make him any less black.

May 11, 2008 3:20 AM

psantillana said:

ralphnelle, no, because Wilenz is first in line.

May 11, 2008 3:21 AM

teplukhin2you said:

lib - "I think that Jindal will no more by McCain's running mate than Hillary will be Obama's.  In fact, the latter prospect is more likely than the former"

I'd gladly take that bet.

McCain cannot win by playing it safe. Obama can only win by playing it safe. McCain has to select an unconventional, out-of-the-box VP. Obama would be stupid to select anything but the most familiar, non-controversial, older white male Dem he can find.

May 11, 2008 3:21 AM

psantillana said:

And actually there's no point in waiting for Obama to be president. Fierce urgency of now, and all.

May 11, 2008 3:22 AM

liberal reformer said:

Teplukhin2you: I have blogged on this site about Obama picking a white male; in, fact I said the same of McCain. It will be Sanford or Crist before Jindal.

May 11, 2008 3:59 AM

fougasseu said:

Obama/Zinni

McCain/Lieberman

May 11, 2008 7:34 AM

sullydog said:

Oh, PLEASE let it be McCain/Lieberman.

Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, PLEASE let it be Mcain/Lieberman.

I'll do anything, God. Just please make McCain pick Lieberbman.

May 11, 2008 7:59 AM

johnalthousecohen said:

liberal reformer: Point taken. I wish YoungSmith had had some help from you on this point -- your argument is more convincing than the "racism knows no heirarchy" idea.

May 11, 2008 8:00 AM

roidubouloi said:

Obama/Zinni makes sense in some kind of meta-analysis, but I still think the game is to secure one or more key states.   The battle is not nationwide or for the hearts and minds of the electorate.  It is in the swing states.  The three on the cusp, from bluish to reddish, that matter are PA-OH-FL.  So, the play for Obama is to boost his chances there.  The best choice I can see to do that is Rendell.  Also, you cannot overestimate what a liability it is to have someone without campaign experience on the ticket.  Campaigning is unlike anything else you ever do in life.  Look at what a stiff Wesley Clark turned out to be.  Obama needs a pol on the ticket,  Male, white, and practiced.

I can only pray for McCain/Lieberman.  I can think of nothing so absolutely guaranteed to ignite the zeal of Democratic voters than Lieberman defecting to the Republicans.  It would be more of a turn-out-the-other-side's vote than Hillary on the Dem ticket.  I cannot imagine McCain being that dumb.  It's not as if he needs the war cred.  I think McCain's choice is to shore up his kleptocrat or evangelical base.  He would be wiser to sure up the evangelicals who are more dominated by emotion, but the kleptocrats have the power and may not let him.

May 11, 2008 8:06 AM

roidubouloi said:

I have wobbled around on McCain's pick, thinking aloud of Romney for the Kleptocrats or Crist for the gain in FL.  In the end, I'm guessing Crist to take FL off the table, because if FL goes Dem. McCain is done right there.

May 11, 2008 8:07 AM

Rhubarbs said:

The problem with wondering about a black Republican VP is that it's an abstract discussion. But there really are only four black Republicans who could be VP, so the discussion needs to turn on individuals. Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Michael Steele, and JC Watts.

Rice would be a disaster as a VP candidate; a failure at the center of the worst decisions of the Bush era with no experience running for or winning office. Seriously, Bush's decisions not to pursue al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 is all about Condi's incompetence. Obama could throw the 9/11 Commission Report at McCain-Rice.

Powell is a better (though still untested) politician, but he would also reinforce the McCain-as-Bush-III vibe. Bad move.

Michael Steele couldn't even win a statewide election on his own, and he's kind of a dim bulb to boot. Plus there's the festering scandal of how his campaign engaged in racist tactics, including portraying himself as a Democrat on flyers in black neighborhoods.

All three of these individuals would hurt McCain worse due to personal characteristics than they would  due to skin color.

JC Watts is the only serious possibility out of the four, no matter how little Democrats might think of him. He has some obvious bitterness issues, though, so he would risk running up against white fears of the "angry black man."

All of this is why I think a smart McCain will pick a woman or a Latino. But I also think smart McCain left the building around 2002.

May 11, 2008 8:20 AM

JackR said:

roid - glad to hear you mention Ed Rendell as a veep choice, which would also be seen as a reach-out to Hillary supporters.  As I mentioned on another thread, I would be happy with Webb or Biden as well.  Webb would nail down VA (but possibly cost a Senate seat), while Biden would cover Obama's foreign policy flank nationally (but not bring an important swing state with him).  Any thoughts?  

May 11, 2008 8:25 AM

jacksondyer said:

"But wouldn't that cost McCain his advantage among racists? In the current issue of TNR, John Judis estimates that Obama's race could cost him as much as "15 to 20 percent of Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents," and Politico's Roger Simon thinks the race vote is worth upwards of 15 percent among the general electorate."

This is too cold and calculating for my taste.

McCain should choose the best available candidate in terms of compatibility of views and yes general electoral appeal, be he or she black or white. If a Black candidate will cost him some votes in one quarter his unwillingness to pander to racists would gain him respect, and yes votes in another quarter.

The downside is the no matter which candidate he chooses the cynics and the pundits, too often the same class of people, will accuse him of being "political" (in the bad sense of the term about his choice).

May 11, 2008 8:30 AM

gregstolhand said:

The point is moot, if McCain were to choose a diverse candidate who would the racists vote for?  Nader?  The Clinton "broad base" are white people who have a lifetime of prejudice both slight and intense, that will struggle to pull the lever for the Black guy or they just really really like her,  This veiled racism is also referred to as the "experience" issue, HRC has less legislative experience than BHO in total.  Experience would make sense if it is McCain vs. BHO, however it is a safe way for subconscious or conscious racists to defend their position without seeming like an a**hole about it.  

I still have yet to see what experience is necessary to hold the office of POTUS in the job description.

If experience in federal govt. is the litmus test we should run Byrd in 08.

Peace

Greg

May 11, 2008 8:34 AM

roidubouloi said:

JackR,

I have also ruminated aloud about both Biden and Webb.  Way back, before this got serious, it seemed as though Biden would be a great choice to balance both Obama's youth and relative inexperience (relative to many but not to Hillary, that is) and to provide f/p cred.  But this runs afoul of several considerations:  Biden is not himself a very good campaigner; in the end, presidential elections are not decided on f/p; senators are not the strongest presidential candidates in general; while reassuring to people like me that someone with sound f/p judgment will be right there in the Oval Office, not at all clear that there is a single state that might go Obama rather than McCain due to Biden on the ticket..  So, as much as I and others like me (by definition unrepresentative of the electorate) would like to see Biden BE the VP, it doesn't make political sense.  There are lots of cabinet posts and executive advisers.  The value of the VP slot is first and foremost to help win the GE.

Webb is more appealing to the general electorate than Biden because of his political history and military service.  That he could help in VA is a consideration, but it is fairly far in the red and doesn't carry that many EC votes.  It just is not the sort of game-buster that OH, FL or PA (in the other direction) would be.

I'm not saying Rendell is the only choice, just that electoral impact on PA-OH-FL is the only basis for the choice. There may be different ways to get that vote, but that's where the discussion ought to center -- lots of EC votes and close enough to the cusp that the right VP choice might make a difference.  (Mollifying the Hillaristas would be a bonus but should hardly be the first consideration.)  In the end, I think FL is too much of a reach to dominate the decision.  If there is a better choice than Rendell to secure OH, I would pick that and promise Rendell something huge if he brings in PA.  If there is no better choice for OH, then I would go for Rendell.  But I won't fall off my chair of Obama picks Webb.  I would at this point be quite surprised if he picks Biden.

The big caveat is that polling may tell Obama that his VP choice is not going to make a difference in any state.  In that case, he is more likely to pick someone who just shores up his national image.

May 11, 2008 8:54 AM

arsonplus said:

Smart McCain picks Sarah Palin

Smart Obama picks Mark Warner ... McCain's unique brand aside, old/Washington is this election cycle's kiss of death.

May 11, 2008 9:57 AM

roidubouloi said:

arson,

Why Mark Warner?  What does that accomplish for Obama?  And what does McCain win with Palin that he doesn't otherwise win?

May 11, 2008 10:54 AM

WoodyBombay said:

roid,

Welcome to the Vice President Rendell bandwagon. I've been thinking he makes sense ever since he said he thought either Dem could and would beat McCain in November. Maybe I was just so stunned by such bracing honesty and good will from an HRC supporter.

arsonplus,

Sarah Palin just gave birth to a child with Down syndrome. I don't think she's in a position to be part of a national campaign.

May 11, 2008 12:35 PM

roidubouloi said:

Woody,

Whether or not Rendell meant it, it shows he is a very astute politician.  It was the smart thing to say, unlike Hillary who only said it when they twisted her tail a few times, and then with a grimace no doubt.

May 11, 2008 1:39 PM

JEFF FREY said:

Cold and calculating is right, but I think it is correct in this case. McCain doesn't need to (and shouldn't) pander to racial prejudice, but as long as the prejudice voters go to the polls, he is likely to be their first choice as long as he doesn't do something that really turns them off. The question is how many of these voters there are, and I really don't know. But for Democrats who are reluctant to vote for a black man, they will have several months to get used to the idea and mild prejudice can be overcome, so I think it is very hard to predict how many votes will turn on race alone.

Palin would be a good choice in theory, but not in practice. WoodyBombay points out one of the reasons why. Another is that she is also quite young, and somewhat negates the "Obama is inexperienced" angle. Other than serving on some commissions and so on, her main experience is as mayor of a small town (20,000 people?), and a couple of years as governor of a state of 650,000 people. On the other hand, she is a maverick with a reputation for plain-spoken honesty, an honest fiscal conservative, and a genuinely appealing politician. He could do a lot worse, but I think it is a longshot that he would pick her.

Rhubarbs is correct (as usual) in pointing out that the potential black VP candidates for McCain all have serious downsides, so I agree that the discussion is purely an academic one. Jindal also dilutes the experience argument against Obama. I think he is out.

I heard strong arguments back in January from an acquaintance that the only chance for the Republicans this time around would be to nominate McCain and a female VP. That person argued for Christie Todd Whitman. Hard-core Republicans wouldn't like that, but where are they going to go? They might stay home, but enough would turn out and such a pairing might win independents.

In the end, I think his decision will come down to whether or not he thinks he needs to shore up the Republican base, or appeal to independent voters. I suspect he will wait a few months to decide -- there seems to be no compelling reason for him to make a decision now.

May 11, 2008 2:03 PM

timteeter said:

First, amend the constitution.

Then, McCain/Schwarzenegger vs. Obama/Granholm

Ridiculous, I know, but the concept is just too entertaining.  I mean, can you imagine the psychic confusion of a Schwarzenegger/Granholm debate? Republican-Kennedy connected-Austrian accented-action hero governor (with wife an Obama endorser) vs. beauty queen-Hillary supporter-nonangry feminist governor?

May 11, 2008 2:23 PM

Rhubarbs said:

I still think Palin would be a good choice. An inexperienced VP doesn't negate the nominee's own experience, and the mother-of-a-disabled-child thing could be a huge advantage, actually. Difficult for her as a mother, but Gov. Palin is not exactly new to the challenges of balancing home and professional lives.

Were I in a position to do so, I would whisper Cathy McMorris Rodgers' name in McCain's ear. She's young (39), she's a successful Republican in a generally Democratic state, she's a Westerner, she has young children and a new Navy veteran husband, 14 years of experience as a legislator at all levels, she's on the Armed Services Committee and is in the forefront of the GOP on environmental issues (not that she's green, just that she's well positioned to try to sell the GOP message on the environment to the public). She offers lots of upside, and as far as I can see no downside.

May 11, 2008 2:25 PM

sullydog said:

I was once a Granholm-booster (not anymore--her handling of a certain local issue has royally pissed me  off), but in any case she won't do. Michigan is an economic disaster area.

May 11, 2008 3:20 PM

colablease said:

"Thus, McCain would risk alienating the voters most constitutionally opposed to Obama; dilute the glue that's held together the Nixon coalition for forty years; and forego a perennial Republican advantage at precisely the time when it could prove most potent--all in service of a chimeric, squishy concept that that many Republicans hate, diversity."

Sorry, but this isn't a description of the actual glue holding the Republican coalition together, just a liberal caricature of it.  Yes, race is definitely in there, but in a much more subtle fashion; as historians like Matt Lassiter have recently argued for the urban South, Republicans are actually wedded to the notion of a "color-blind" society--only their version simply states that continuing racial inequality should be no one's concern because it's "de facto," not "de jure."  Such Republicans could be perfectly happy with a Rice or Powell on the ticket [in the subordinate position], because it would be a cheap way of proving their color-blindness--much better, than, say, living in an integrated neighborhood or accepting inner-city kids in "their" schools.  In any case, I fail to see where what remains of the actual white racist vote would go if McCain did this.  I think Judis is right [and the fact that the Obamaites on this board have no better response to him than ridicule reinforces that]; it's going to be a more serious problem for the Dems.

May 11, 2008 3:53 PM

teplukhin2you said:

If the Veep can carry his home state, and IF Obama wants to step a bit outside the box (ethnically) while moving to the center (ideologically), he could do a lot worse than nominate Colorado ex-Senator Ken "Security First" Salazar.

May 11, 2008 4:09 PM

Rhubarbs said:

sully, Granholm really can't be blamed for Michigan's economic mess, at least not most of it. She would be a fine vice president. But, as a naturalized citizen, Granholm is ineligible for both the presidency and vice presidency.

I would be surprised, however, if Granholm did not end up in a cabinet post in an Obama administration. If elected, I think he is going to lean heavily on Democratic governors, rather than senators, to fill top posts.

May 11, 2008 4:45 PM

psantillana said:

Who is Zinni?

May 11, 2008 4:46 PM

roidubouloi said:

tep, you have to be able to count.  Colorado only has 9 EC votes and is already leaning to Obama.  That's not the point of the VP pick.  IFFF you think it can help carry a state, you want the state on the cusp with the highest number of EC votes.  You don't use up your pick to win something you will probably win anyway, and certainly not if the EC vote is not large.

OH, PA and FL are the three states that could swing that have the most EC votes, 20 or more each, PA being bluish, FL reddish, and OH close to a toss-up (because polls show Hillary leading McCain but McCain leading Obama).  This isn't a beauty contest.

psantillana,

Zinni is retired Marine Corps Gen. Antony Zinni.  Google him an you will see why he is mentioned in the Dem VP context.

May 11, 2008 5:19 PM

arsonplus said:

roid

I'd start with two words on both counts: News cycles. Both Palin and Warner are worth a solid month of magazine covers, to say the least  ... especially since neither has played a part in this campaign  season, they're charismatic and they're fresh meat.

Then there's the simple fact that both Palin and Warner fit nicely into McCain and Obama's respective narratives.

Beyond that, I'd have to say that as she'd arrive unencumbered by Washington in general and the war and anti-emigrant foolishness  in particular Palin is one of the few Republicans who would actually help McCain re-brand his party [and if he's going to win, he'll have to]. And as she lacks the Kay Baily creep out factor she might help McCain court women upset by Hillary's loss. [in say MO, OH, FL and MI]

Warner? Well Warner is the obvious choice on nearly every level. He reinforces the Obama narrative while adding executive and biz world experience. He'll help Obama in every state with an emerging tech sector ... VA, NC, CO, NV, etc and Obama will need to pull a couple of those states out of the 2004 republican column to offset his weak position in PA. In the course of which, he'll move our national economic conversation in the right direction. [which I'm sure Tep would really appreciate]

O and Warner's the only name on any prospective Obama vp list who'd win in 2016. I mean, someone like Webb might help this time out but he'll never be president. And frankly, the absence of such an individual on Hillary's obvious list of VP prospects [Bayh et al] was one of the first strikes against her.

May 11, 2008 5:49 PM

arsonplus said:

One more thing Roid ... Obama's going to lose PA and FL, [I don't think the race thing is a killer, I think the age thing is] once you accept that, Rendell stops making sense.  What I'm getting at is the whole past vs. the future thing applied electorally. In other words ... PA was a blue state, VA and NC are going to be blue states.

Where do you think the party should focus?

May 11, 2008 6:02 PM

psantillana said:

I googled, I wikpediaed, I like!

en.wikipedia.org/.../Anthony_Zinni

He can out-war-hero McCain, born in Pennsylvania and lives in the south, He was completely right on the war, etc. Now about anything other than war, what's he like?

Ok:

Zinni has said he will never run for office. He says his decision to endorse President George W. Bush in 2000 was a mistake. In 2003, he indicated that he plans to avoid politics in the future.[4] However, on March 3, 2006, Zinni joined fellow former U.S. Marines General Joseph P. Hoar, Lt. General Greg Newbold, Lt. General Frank Petersen, and Congressman Jack Murtha in endorsing fellow former U.S. Marine and Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb for U.S. Senate in Virginia.[5] Zinni has been floated as a possible Vice Presidential running mate for Barack Obama, should Obama win the Democratic nomination.[6]

I can't see anything non fp-related in his bio, but - do we care? Also, he appears to be a very good speaker. Mmmmm, words!

May 11, 2008 6:20 PM

sullydog said:

@Rhubarbs

"sully, Granholm really can't be blamed for Michigan's economic mess, at least not most of it."

She couldn't? By Republicans? The same Repugs who are going to make an issue of Barack's middle name? The same Repugs who took Max Cleland's seat on the grounds he was soft on terror? The same Repugs who are, even now, busily spreading rumors that Obama is a Muslim? Come on! I don't blame her for the economy here. (The WSU-DMC feud is another story). But if you think it's an issue that would be off limits in an election, you underestimate th Pugs. Facts and reality don't concern them.

" She would be a fine vice president."

Agreed. But of course it's all academic.

May 11, 2008 6:34 PM

roidubouloi said:

Arson,

I don't know why you state so definitively that Obama is going to lose PA.  It is close, but blue.  Florida is much redder for Obama, and blue for Clinton which is what makes at last a possibility.  Ohio is more within reach than Florida.  There are a lot more EC votes there than in any of the states you mention.

Also, I don't really get the tech sector notion.  "Tech sector" voters will be in Obama's core anyway.  The point of a VP candidate is to get some votes you wouldn't otherwise get sufficient to push some EC votes your way.  

May 11, 2008 7:45 PM

JackR said:

roid - I'm mostly enrolled in your idea of using a veep candidate's likely impact on the  Electoral College result as the most important criterion for selection.  With that view in mind, what's your thinking about Governor Strickand of Ohio?  I haven't heard too much about him.

May 11, 2008 8:02 PM

dannyc said:

Alan Keyes!

May 11, 2008 9:07 PM

eudoxie said:

Only valid Black Republican VP candidate is JC Watts. Their bench isn't that deep.

I have to ask...IS THERE a high-profile Latino THAT WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES?

All the ones I can think of immigrated here.

John McCain's going to go speak to LaRaza- that should please the GOP Base...NOT...but, it'll be hilarious to watch Pat Buchanan's head explode as he comments on it.

May 11, 2008 9:58 PM

roidubouloi said:

Looked up Strickland a bit more.  Seems like a good guy, although a very short-term governor.  Hillary supporter which is good.  Won his gobernatorial race handily.  

But Rendell is typically described as "hugely popular" in PA.  What about Strickland in OH?  Is it TOO obvious a play for Ohio votes?  I dunno.

May 11, 2008 10:55 PM

Rhubarbs said:

roid, I don't know much about Strickland personally, but with Ohio in general you have to remember that for a decade, Ohio state politics were essentially a one-party system under GOP dominance. A few years ago, a dam of scandals broke and washed the Ohio GOP from power. Strickland is one of a new generation of Ohio Democrats who were elected primarily on the basis of not being Republicans. So I would tend to assume against his personal ability to lead his state's voters to vote for a Democrat for president.

The question should not be, Who can lead the voters of X state to vote for Obama, but What will decisive classes of voters follow to vote for Obama? That might be a person from a given state, or it might be the embrace of a cultural style, or it might be a specific issue. Whatever the answer is (or, rather, "answers are"), that should be the determining factor for Obama.

I am of the opinion that executive experience, white-guyness, cultural Westernism, and a more libertarian Webb/Talent ideological bent are the things that Obama could use to lead decisive voters to his candidacy. Which is why I keep shouting "Brad Henry!" from the rooftops; except for military service, he's the whole package.

May 12, 2008 8:17 AM

arsonplus said:

Here's my basic problem with the whole PA, OH MI [which I think Obama will win anyway] strategy, they're all states that will need to dragged kicking and screaming into the future -- and understandably so.

More importantly, as long as they remain the democratic party's focus electorally, they'll essentially retard the nation's forward progress. What I mean is that at the moment, the manufacturing sector represents roughly 23% of the nation's economy. [Rendell people] The "creative" sector represents around 49% [Warner people] and we're having an economic debate that's predicated on the fantasy that the reverse is true.

I don't cede McCain PA for red blue reasons, I'm convinced Obama will lose there because the place is future phobic and the guy's whole argument/rationale is the future.

As for thinking that Mark Warner would be the best VP pick to help Obama poach red state's with emerging tech clusters, that's as simple as noting that Warner's the only democrat who's actually done it. Obama may be able to, Warner has and picking him will, I think, seal the deal. Putting someone like Rendell on the ticket could wind up scaring a few of those folks away and costing Obama VA, NC, NV and CO. Taking the old industrial state strategy out for one more ride just doesn't make sense to me. Isn't it a proven loser?

Don't forget a tech sector strategy will also force republicans to defend the likes of GA, AL, and even TX in a year when they'll barely be able to afford a fight over the usual suspects. [not that the dems will pick up any of them but Obama/Warner gets uncomfortably close in GA ... Obama/Rendell not so much]

May 12, 2008 9:06 AM

JackR said:

arsonplus - I think you make the case for Warner over Webb--better campaigner, no loss of incumbent Senate seat, and possible future President.

Rhubarbs - I checked out Brad Henry (Governor of Oklahoma).  As you say, he's the whole package.  Too bad he's from frickin' Oklahoma, which Obama will never carry.  I don't think he would add much value to the ticket.

roid - I also looked up Strickland.  He's interesting--a guy who lost three races for Congress and persevered and someone who attracts lots of Republican support.  But he's around 67, not a future contender, and does nothing to complement Obama's short suits in FP and national security.   Regarding our enthusiasm for Rendell , do you think the fact that he is Jewish would raise the problem of an African-American/ Jewish ticket being too steep a gradient for voters?

May 12, 2008 9:34 AM

Rhubarbs said:

JackR, it's no longer about carrying the VP's state. It hasn't been about that for a generation or more, and the sooner Democrats figure that out the better. I mean, for crying out loud, Mondale didn't even carry Ferraro's congressional district!

Webb would not cost Democrats a Senate seat. If he became VP, Gov. Kaine would appoint a Democrat to fill his seat until the next election. Warner _would_ cost Democrats a Senate seat. Warner is odds-on favorite to win the seat of "retiring Republican Senator John Warner (no relation)," as our departing senior senator is officially known in the media hereabouts. Take Warner out of the race, and Jim freakin' Gilmore probably wins that seat for the GOP.

Mark Warner is on my non-Biden shortlist of people I'd like to be president (as is Brad Henry, and any Democratic woman other than Hillary). But between now and 2011, he serves the Democratic Party, the country, and his own presidential chances best by running for and winning Virginia's open Senate seat.

May 12, 2008 9:55 AM

liberal reformer said:

Are you people who are talking Biden for v.p. crazy? Here is a loose cannon of the first magnitude. This idea is DOA. Obama doesn't want to get up every morning of the campaign and wonder what kind of damage control he will have to practice because of his number two man. Sen. Joe Biden has the experience, no question but not the temperment or the requisite censor between brain and mouth.

Other people: Mark Warner opted out of running for president before opting in. He will not be the veep candidate.

Anthony Zinni is a very bad idea because he is not a politician and has not been vetted or have the necessary experience. Look how well Wesley Clark played in 2004. Like Jonathan Chait, I was for the idea of Clark but he self - destructed very quickly. These days, in this hyperwired world, the risk is just too great to take a greenhorn on the ticket.

Teplukhin2you: Ken Salazar is a nice idea, or would have been, if, say, Mark Warner was sitting where Obama is. I still think that Obama will choose a Southern white male. Phil Bredesen anyone?a

May 12, 2008 9:58 AM

roidubouloi said:

Rhubarbs,

I agree, up to a point, but that point is that, unless you think the VP choice is going to solidify some state you need that is shaky but on the cusp or drawn in a state that is a toss-up, who cares from an electoral standpoint.  Leaving aside your specific preference, if you posit that a given VP pick can draw in voters of certain demographic characteristics (conceived of broadly to include anything at all, such as, "high tech sector") then you still have to consider several things 1) are these voters Obama would win anyway so no net gain, 2) do you lose some voters (this is JackR's very legitimate question whether a black and a Jew on the same ticket is a bridge too far), and 3) do the net votes from these demographics bring you any electoral votes.

Accordingly, you cannot reconcile your suggestion that the right pick gets votes with the sweeping claim that winning a state is irrelevant.  Winning a state is the only thing that matters.  Perhaps you are simply arguing that "favorite sons" don't win states any more, but I think that is far too general.  First, the state has to be within reach.  A favorite son VP is not going to turn a blue state red or vice versa.  Second, the individual has to be able to attract votes, to be popular.  It seems to me as or more likely that a VP will attract votes because he or she is already known and liked than because of general demographics.  

It seems to me that your suggestion about how and why to pick includes many votes that Obama wins anyway -- maybe not for exactly the same reasons as having a Webb, say, on the ticket, but still redundant.  Even if you are right, the correct play, if doable, is to find someone who can change the dynamics in OH or secure them in PA.  That's where the EC votes are for states that are wobbly.

May 12, 2008 10:52 AM

roidubouloi said:

I agree with liberal about both Biden and Zinni, plus I don't really think f/p and f/p cred reallly changes the outcome of elections.  Remember, it is the independents, the least politically engaged, who decide elections.  Even military cred isn't critical.  Clinton I beat Bush I.  "It's the economy stupid."

May 12, 2008 10:54 AM

arsonplus said:

lib ref

Yep Warner dropped out, right after he met Obama at Harkin's steak fry.

May 12, 2008 11:05 AM

Daily Intelligencer - New York Magazine said:

Clinton will run with Obama if he'll have her, which he probably won't, while McCain has morbid people pointing out the importance of his selection.

May 12, 2008 11:35 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Hay, Daily Intelligencer, it's not morbid! John McCain is, in fact, statistically quite likely to die in office if elected president. According to insurance industry tables, a man McCain's age has a 1-in-33 chance of dying this year, and the chance goes up to 1-in-16 by the time his second term would be over. More than 31 percent of men McCain's age today will be dead by the end of the next two presidential terms.

And it's actually worse than that. Making conservative assumptions in favor of McCain's health, activity level, and family history, and using what known facts of his lifestyle and health we have, McCain has a "virtual age" of 78.3 and a life expectancy of 74.4 -- which is to say, dead before the end of his first term. You can have some morbid fun yourself here:

www.peterrussell.com/.../VirtualAge.php

But no matter how you calculate it, McCain's VP choice is unusually important because, if elected, that VP would be unusually likely to succeed to the presidency.

May 12, 2008 11:55 AM

phargle said:

I'm offended by Barron YoungSmith's assessment of national politics.  A Democrat has not won the Presidency with a majority since 1976 when Jimmy "I won the entire deep south plus Ohio and Pennsylvania, two states where racism is upsetting the Democratic primary process" Carter became president with just 50.1% of the vote. The GOP, on the other hand, is the party that stood to lose the most votes if Colin Powell ran as an independent in 1996.  Which party is held together by racism, now?

TNR can do better than "have you stopped beating your wife"-type writers who toss out canards as though they were truths.  

May 12, 2008 1:27 PM

cspencef said:

I still have this nagging suspicion that McCain will fall back to Huckabee almost by default.  Token gesture to the evangelical part of the base.

As for Obama, I suspect he's going to ditch all the calculations and choose someone he's most comfortable and compatible with, hence Tim Kaine.

May 12, 2008 5:11 PM

liberal reformer said:

Cspencef: Huckabee's playing fast and loose with public money in Arkansas when he was governor will prevent him from getting the v.p. nod. That is just the first reason of many that you will not see him on the ticket.

May 13, 2008 8:34 AM