Veepstakes stage one
Never too early to start matching potential Presidential nominees with ideal running mates.
John Edwards and Hillary Clinton: BARACK OBAMA, Senator-IL
This strikes me as the most obvious of all potential calls. What few drawbacks Obama has as a potential Presidential candidate (inexperience and a general unwillingness of some voters to support an African-American at the top of the ticket) don’t apply to the VP slot. He brings enormous dynamic appeal on the stump, an excellent chance at expanding African-American turnout, and the appearence of being a “forward-thinking” choice for a candidate who will be badly in need of it after beating Obama in the primaries. He doesn’t bring a new state into play for the Democrats as they’re going to win Illinois regardless, and he doesn’t balance the ticket in terms of age or ideology, but that’s small potatoes compared to the upside.
***
Barack Obama: KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Governor-KS
I suppose my bias is showing, but the more I think about this pick, the more I like it. The most likely scenario for an Obama victory involves a primary triumph over a Hillary who will be increasingly strident about “the woman factor”. Her enthusiastic embrace of the Imus/Rutgers business is just the latest bit of evidence that she intends to embrace the gender war mindset. Hence, a victorious Obama will need to be looking to placate a number of angry woman voters. Sebelius not only offers that, she’s also a proven winner in one of the reddest states in the union, a relatively conservative democrat who can pull the ticket dramatically towards the center while simultaneously maintaining its “new Democrat” branding.
The second choice might well be Stephanie Herseth.
***
John McCain: TIM PAWLENTY, Governor-MN
Pawlenty has of course been doing everything but sit up and bark in order to secure this position for himself; that doesn’t change the fact that he’s the right choice. We have to start from the assumption that a McCain nomination means he’ll be in better shape with conservatives than he is right at the moment. Still, the correct move at the convention would probably be to consolidate conservative support before going “maverick” again in the early stages of the general election, and Pawlenty can offer that. Critically, he is also young enough to offer comfort to those upset by McCain’s age, and he provides an inroad into the midwest, which would be more critical than ever should McCain be the nominee. It would also be a reward for a man who’s been doggedly loyal to McCain; McCain hasn’t experienced much of that.
The downside for Pawlenty is that he does have a slightly Quayle-ish vibe in some ways. However, he has won close elections in a traditionally liberal state. Pretty much every potential attribute Tommy Thompson would bring to the table, Pawlenty provides more of.
No, Brad, it won’t be Lieberman.
***
Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani: MIKE HUCKABEE, former Gov. (ARK.)
So…why would candidates looking to consolidate their appeal on the Republican right (even post-nomination in these two cases) choose Huckabee over Fred Thompson? Because everything about Fred Thompson, right down to the health issues, is eerily reminiscent of Dick Cheney. Huckabee has a rare ability to make genuine social and economic conservatism sound non-scary; he provides geographic balance and a reason for conservative voters to go to the polls.
***
It occurs to me, now that I type this, that the Republicans have a problem they’re going to have to deal with down the road. The unique nature of the frontrunners on the Republican side suggests that they may have to play to their base even AFTER getting nominated, while the Democrats can safely slide towards the center. The fact that the Republican candidates are themselves more politically centrist than their Democratic counterparts would normally be a relative strength–but with the way the post-convention positioning plays out, one could see it becoming a weakness.
The other problem is the Republican base is more off-center than the Democratic one. That’s traditionally true, of course, but perhaps more salient this cycle (particularly on foreign policy and Iraq) than in quite awhile. As an example, I mentioned before that 70% of Republicans support Iraq, 65% of Americans at large don’t. That’s a tough jackknife. You’ll see similar numbers for stem cell research, gay marriage, health care, even immigration (where the “base” Republican position is also, by and large, the base American one, but where the major candidates on the GOP side SIDE with the Democratic candidates in being off-center) etc etc. Republicans are going to START out farther from center than the Democrats. Depending on how the primary goes, of course (Republicans may well just decide that Rudy looks like a winner and leave him alone on his “centrism”, or they may eviscerate him for the better part of a year). It’s always true that having to tak right or left pulls you away from the center, but I think that problem is decidedly more pronounced for the Republican candidates this year, and as you say, that could extend into the general (especially since base turnout is crucial for the GOP with a saliency not quite shared among Dems, who have the registration advantage (which itself is more pronounced these days)).
All that said, I like your VP picks a lot. I agree that Obama could do really well with a conservative white woman.
That came out wrong.
Comment by Brad — 4/16/2007 @ 3:14 pm
A few thoughts,
On Edwards- A fair guess, about as good as any.
On Clinton- I disagree. If there’s one thing that you can say about the Clintons, it’s that they value loyalty. I don’t think that Hillary Clinton will appoint someone unless she feels close to them and trusts them. I don’t think she’s got that history with Obama. I’d suggest either Wesley Clark or Bill Richardson, both are from the previous Clinton Administration and have strong national security credentials that will help Clinton.
On Obama- I agree with the pressure to select a woman, but I would also argue that there’s going to be pressure to pick someone who, like Cheney for Bush, will help Obama work Washington. That really points to either Nancy Pelosi or one of the female Senators, I don’t see a female Governor or relatively new Congresswoman cutting it. Senator Lincoln may be the best bet.
On McCain- Pawlenty’s damaged goods, having barely won reelection. IMHO, McCain’s got to include a Southerner on the ticket. Senator Graham of South Carolina, a close McCain ally, seems plausible. He may appreciate the golden parachute, conservatives may try to primary him in 2008.
On Romney or Giuliani- You’re right to look for a Southern conservative. But I think you’ve ignored another possible pick, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. Solid Southern and conservative credentials. And also a Washington insider who would balance out the inexperience of both New England candidates.
Comment by LoganFerree — 4/16/2007 @ 4:34 pm
Some good stuff. I do, however, think that Sebelius would be a good candidate for Obama. Obama’s a Senator and I think that a VO from outside Washington will help the balance of the ticket. Sebelius has also shown that she can deal with Republicans (admittely, largely by poaching the disaffected ones, but you get my point). Also, having Cheney has worked, after a fashion, for Bush but Cheney had no Presidential ambitions of his own. A Washington insider with their own ambitions and a pre-existing powerbase that would be bigger than Obama’s could be a headache, I think.
Comment by Adam — 4/16/2007 @ 8:01 pm
I think Bill Richardson is strong for any of them.
Comment by Brad — 4/17/2007 @ 1:59 pm
He also looks like he can raise enough money to stay in for long enough to raise his profile nationwide, assuming that he doesn’t get too involved in savaging his opponents.
I mused a while back that if a GOP candidate decided to get a VP from across the aisle that Richardson might do well on, say, a Guiliani-Richardson ticket.
Comment by Adam — 4/17/2007 @ 2:12 pm
I would assume Richardson to be a shoe-in for the VP slot of Hillary wins the nomination (which interestingly Rojas didn’t discuss).
Comment by Brad — 4/17/2007 @ 3:21 pm
I don’t discuss it because I think Obama would be a better choice in every way. This is not to say that I don’t LIKE Richardson; he is my personal favorite among the Dem contenders. It’s just hard for me to see what Richardson brings, electorally speaking, that Obama doesn’t; particularly in a scenario in which Hillary will have to assuage Obama’s core support after going very negative on him.
Also, don’t neglect the fact that Hillary would be attempting to position herself for a “run to the center” while simultaneously placing America’s foremost advocate of drug legalization on the ticket. As much as I myself like the idea of legalizing drugs, it seems to me that in the broader electoral sense, she would be handing the Republican nominee a huge stick to hit her with.
I do like Logan’s critiques, though I don’t see Blanche Lincoln as having sufficient experience in Washington to take up the “insider” role that Logan would assign her.
Comment by Rojas — 4/17/2007 @ 6:29 pm
I meant “Didn’t mention what if Hillary is the nominee”, but was, of course, being an idiot. Don’t mind me.
Comment by Brad — 4/17/2007 @ 6:57 pm