That’s how John Nance Garner once described the Vice Presidency. Yet, somehow one of the most beloved games the media plays every four years is a mixture between 1) guess the nominees’ respective choices for VP and 2) think up pie-in-the-sky dream teams that are “unbeatable.” And to be honest, I don’t blame them: this is their version of the NCAA Tournament bracket. That being said, I’ll throw in my two cents anyway.
The truly amazing part of this whole process is that despite election after election to the contrary, people continue to believe that the magic to winning is in finding the perfect running mate. Ginia posted an interesting pro/con look at four pols being mentioned as potential running mates. I’d like to take a slightly different look at the same issue. Specifically, the ways in which a VP can and cannot boost the ticket.
Myth: A strategically chosen veep can deliver a home state or a region of the country.
People love to cite the 1960 election in which LBJ allegedly “delivered Texas.” Even if we grant this example—and it certainly is a disputed claim—it’s just about the only example. First, the only close elections have been in 1960, 1976, 2000, and 2004. Mondale in ’76 may have swung Minnesota, but Carter’s victory was decisive there. Gore may have helped in Tennessee in 1992, but Clinton beat Bush comfortably. Did Cabot Lodge help Nixon in ‘60? What about Bentsen’s boost to Dukakis in Texas in ’88? How did Edwards do in NC in 2004? A veep will very rarely swing an election by helping in a home state, let alone in an entire region.
Fact: A vice presidential candidate’s policy agenda is virtually unknown to the country and thus inconsequential in the election.
Quick, name a policy proposal advocated by Spiro Agnew? Edmund Muskie? Lloyd Bentsen? Dan Quayle? Exactly. People want to know what the President will do if elected, and they want to be confident that in the case of tragedy, the veep won’t screw it up.
A running mate CAN help compensate for perceived weaknesses in the Presidential candidate. Most people focus on the top of the ticket and the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. A well known veep candidate with some generally acknowledged strengths can compensate well for a candidate’s weaknesses.
So what are Obama’s weaknesses? Well he’s the first candidate since 1960 to be unseasoned both in governmental management (i.e. no gubernatorial experience) AND in foreign policy chops (i.e. first term senator). But Obama’s main strength is that people perceive him as less partisan than most politicians and also as a uniter. With that in mind, here are a few names Ginia did not mention who should be considered:
Mark Warner – Sure, he’s running for (and likely to win) a Virginia Senate seat currently held by retiring Republican John Warner (no relation). But he also was an exceptionally popular governor who passed a necessary tax increase through a heavily Republican state legislature. Warner reasoned and compromised with lawmakers to create a bipartisan bill. If that doesn’t fit Obama’s alleged message of “change” than I don’t know what does. Problems: aforementioned Senate seat; a wife who hates the limelight.
Ted Strickland – Extremely popular Governor of Ohio. From Appalachia, and very comfortable talking about, and backing up talk of, family values and religion. A progressive who appeals to heartland moderates and liberal Republicans. Problems: Short on experience, and only two years into the governorship. Would it be prudent to jump to the national stage so soon especially with another green candidate?
Kathleen Sebelius – Popular Governor of Kansas, in the middle of her second term, and long on managerial experience; she appeals to constituents despite being decidedly and openly pro-choice. She must be doing something right. Problems: I hate identity politics, BUT, a black man running with a woman might just be too much for some Americans to handle at this point.
“Warner reasoned and compromising with lawmakers to create a bipartisan bill”
Spell/Grammar check much?
Also, Edwards is from North Carolina, not SC, try checking facts once in a while.
Awful.
Said Ryan,
On June 6, 2008 at 3:19 pm:
Thanks for the comments. Duly noted, and you’ll see the changes incorporated above. However, Ryan, you say nothing of the substance of the post.
Said Dov Friedman,
On June 6, 2008 at 1:06 pm:
Both you and Ginia are concerned that having two “minority” or “under-represented” groups on the ticket may hurt Obama, that having a black man and a woman on the same ticket “might just be too much” or that an “African-American/Hispanic ticket would probably not help the cause.”
While this may be reasonable speculation, I’m just not sure that’s the case. Who are these Americans who would balk at this? Presumably, I infer, you’re talking about relatively less educated, relatively less wealthy white men. But aren’t the people who are turned off by minority or women candidates already going to vote for John McCain in a McCain-Obama matchup? I find it hard to believe that there is a sizable group of people out there for whom Obama’s race is a negative factor, but will vote for him anyway, but not if he chooses another minority.
Furthermore, I think you guys are ignoring another strategy of vice presidential politics: instead of trying to “correct for” your weaknesses, why not reinforce your strengths? Choosing someone that highlights your weaknesses might not make you look like a better candidate. For instance, think of McCain choosing 30-something Louisiana Governor Jindal. Is that going to make McCain look younger? Or would that just make him look even older in contrast? Consider Bill Clinton choosing a fellow young, Southern Democrat from a neighboring state. It only sharpened the difference between him an the old patrician status quo Bush.
For all your concern, the fact is that Obama’s race has helped him far more than it has hurt him. Nothing is quite so powerful a visual of change and hope than the image of a young black man becoming the next President of the United States. The majority of voters for whom race was a factor in their decision have voted for him (with the notable exception of a majority of voters in West Virginia). I think for him to choose another ground-breaking (identity wise) candidate would likely be a net plus. Imagine - the first woman vice president, the first black president - the very embodiment of “change you can believe in!”
The coming election year is looking to be a Democratic tide because voters want change. There is no reason for Obama to shy away from it.
Said Chris,
On June 6, 2008 at 2:49 pm: