Veepstakes and polls - from Kaine to Bloomberg

Ideally, Obama would prefer a running mate who doesn’t show him up. He doesn’t want the Lloyd Bentsen effect. (Lloyd Bentsen was such a highly regarded VP pick that it begged the question why Dukakis was at the top of the ticket. Bentsen was picked to make Dan Quayle look small, which he did, but his age and experience also made Dukakis look small--figuratively and literally)

So, in terms of making Obama look good Tim Kaine is ideal. That presumes that the election is so lop-sided that one can seek to perfect a certain image of freshness.

In a closer election there’s no room for another unknown, and reassurance becomes key. (“I’m not sure about Obama, but at least he’ll have X around, who I know better.”)

And in a losing cause the VP selection is a chance to make a Hail Mary pass. (No woman had been on a ticket before 1984, and Mondale was so doomed that it was worth finding out whether women would turn out to vote for a woman. Nobody knew, so it was worth a shot.)

National polling
week of August 18 _________ Best VP pick

Obama +6 or more __________ Tim Kaine
Obama +5 to -3 ____________ Joe Biden
Obama –4 to -9 ____________ Hillary Clinton
Obama –10 or more _________ Something weird, like Chuck Hagel or Mike Bloomberg


When people say, “The VP never decides an election,” they’re not entirely correct. Kennedy almost surely wouldn’t have won without Johnson (the popular vote difference was less than 0.1%) "Despite the reservations Robert Kennedy had about Johnson's nomination, the move proved to be a masterstroke for his older brother. Johnson vigorously campaigned for JFK and was instrumental in helping the Democrats to carry several Southern states skeptical of Kennedy, especially Johnson's home state of Texas." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#The_fall_campaign

And the biggest VP success story, which people forget or deny, was 2000.

The reason Gore won Florida was Joe Lieberman. Period. When the state with the second largest Jewish population is a tie, and your running mate is the first Jew on a major party ticket… the question answers itself.

By the way, McCain would really like a Jewish running mate. If not Joementum, then maybe that Jewish republican congressman from Virginia whose name I forget. Obama will win the Jewish vote, but margins are important. McCain could do worse for himself than a Jewish running mate from a swing state.

?



Oh, and how could a complete unknown (outside of his home state) out poll everyone else?

I dont buy that poll, it sounds suspicious to me.

There's not a lot of time.

I picked the last full week before the convention, and used the date of Monday to identify the week. I could have said week of the 22nd, I guess. (It's the same week)

getting owned by Tweety or someone about some absurb policy position he made. If you call him on his bs, he seems to fold.

Since this OP was written the McCain camp seems to have floated him as a trial balloon, so it seems I was having a psychic/lucky day.

H O R R I B L E ...

Only a campaign in retarded demansia like McCain's would even consider this guy ...

He is so clearly immature it is stunning ... A complete cut and paste talking points machine who is highly partisan, and comes across as TRULY arrogant and snippy ... HOW people like him get elected is a mystery, outside of the fact that he is from a stone cold "oonservative" district ...

He is, of course, based on the above, well regarded in the "conservative movement" ... His advocacy for corporations has earned him the nickname "underdog" in DC ... And, while there are people on this board who want to think that Evan Bayh is a "neocon" this kid is clearly online with the most "hawkish" Israel elements ...

Bottom line, a TRUE "corporate conservative" neocon, and even less suited on a personality level to be president, should something happen to the man who will be the oldest president to take office in our history if elected, that the current Disaster in Chief ...

The only other R I can put on his level as a ideological partisan is that pukebag Adam Putnum down in Florida ...

This guy has no business in congress, much less the second in line to the most powerful office in the country ...

OH/IN/PA/MI/VA are the most important and it would appear to be areas that Kaine or Clinton would have a real impact

It apears that the Hispanics are now overwhelmingly pro Obama (Recent AZ poll shows Hispanics voting for McCain at AA numbers -9%)

I wonder what a fluent Spanish speaking candidate might do in those crazy Cuban neighborhoods in FL and the barrios of southern Texas.

Finally with McCain down to 9% in Texas and minorities likely to be seriously under polled there any body who could get Obama 5-6 points in Texas would be very useful.

There is no electoral scenario where the Republicans could win without Texas.

I can see a big name making a difference in a small state. And particularly if everyone has a long habit of voting for him.

So I can see Bayh helping in Indiana or Ridge helping McCain in Pennsylvania... a little. (Actually, Ridge might not be quite as big a help in PA as assumed. Most statewide elections in PA are decided by a certain segment of pro-life catholic moderates, so though pro-choice Ridge is popular he might not be the thing for the narrow band of voters most in play.)

Kaine probably wouldn't matter much in Virginia. He's not a traditional state name like Romney in Michigan, Bayh in Indiana, Kennedy in Mass., etc. (He's small potatoes compared to Mark Warner, who really is a star here.)

But in the modern world a VP who's dynamite on TV is an asset in EVERY state. (I like Biden. He's interesting, which counts for a lot when there are 300 TV channels.)

I think picking Kaine (or Sibelius) would be an act of hubris... a taunt to the god of losing. But if Obama really wants him and has a big enough lead, what the heck. Lacking a really big lead, though, we would need someone who can really do something.

My personal view is that it is deeply irresponsible to put anything behind winning. I don't care whether Obama feels simpatico with someone, or whatever. The VP has no executive responsibilities whatsoever. The president doesn't even need to allow the VP to visit the White House! So if one pick or another has clear electoral benefits then it's a forced move, as far as I'm concerned.

Clinton/Gore was cute but Bush/Cheney is a nightmare. So the modern "involved partner VP" doesn't have a great track record, and should probably be jettisoned before it becomes a fixed tradition.

(And all Bush did for Reagan was fail to keep him out of trouble on Iran-Contra, which as a former CIA head he should have been able to do, and then go on to perjure himself up and down during the investigation.)

I too don't believe in regional influence, I do believe in 'ethnic' influence which happens to have a big impact in a few states that happen to be put together.

I think there are alot of Catholics who are pissed at always being over looked and the assumption that this is a "Protestant Country".

If you look at Obama's words on MTP very carefully he seems to be indicating that he wants somebody that can give him expertise in the functions of government that he is missing.

This is a big reach so I wouldn't be surprised if it is not only not the case but that no one else sees it, but I think that Obama intends to issue an initiative that would continue to rely on the Federal Government as the primary force for the 'social contract' but that he would try to find ways to implement it in a way that is more flexible for cities and states.

I imagine that as a community organizer he saw that a great deal of money is wasted in needless federal compliance and other requirements that bloat up a bureacracy. How much of the federal resources are wasted in the bureacracy and how much actually ends up in the hands of the people that need it. You can also see it in his points on education.

If that premise is true then he would find it very useful to have as his VP somebody who was not only a Governor but also a city councilman and mayor.

Senator Obama is a very frugal person, personally. I think it goes back to his mother and his upbringing where money was sparse. His campaign has a lot of money but remarkably is extremely frugal, as anyone who has volunteered for it can atest. This reinforces my point that Obama intends a new kind of bureacracy that slims down on the Washington DC end and powers up at the community end.

Among other things it takes away an old Republican talking point that communities know their problems better than DC does but it also puts McCain in a complete twilight zone - he has never worked at the city or state level. It would be the equivalent of McCain showing up to race Obama in a car race and Obama getting it changed to a basketball game.

But of course all of the above is highly speculative and could be entirely wrong.

It is not an advisory position. There's nothing in the constitution to suggest it ought to be.

So picking a VP who is a good adviser is no different than just hiring an adviser. The VP has no powers not granted by the president, and those same powers can be granted to anyone.

I hope I'm not phrasing this wrong. The president is not required to listen to anyone, let alone the VP. The office was originally held by the second place candidate (from another party) which shows how little advisory capacity was expected. (Bush II would not have been welcome in Al Gore's cabinet meetings, for instance.)

JFK was going to have Bobby as his closest adviser, as AG, Chief of Staff or white house chef. If JFK had picked Bobby as VP it wouldn't have changed anything in terms of how the Kennedy WH worked, but he would have lost the election. Johnson was very, very helpful in the election. Meanwhile, Johnson probably had less influence as VP than he would have had if he stayed in the Senate.

The VP must be a potentially good president in an emergency, be trusted to vote correctly when necessary as president of the Senate, and help in the election (since his name will be on the ballot.)

Tom Kaine has no compelling background to be president in an emergency, has no experience with the US Senate and probably wouldn't be a major help in the election, so I can see no argument for him.

If Obama likes him, trusts him, wants to listen to him, or whatever else, then make him Chief of Staff or Special Assistant to the President or Secretary of HHS, or any other job. Those are valuable qualities, but not for a VP particularly.

And it doesn't have to be a foreign policy or defense guy either.


The fact is that the list of people that have become Presidents from being 'merely Governors' since Roosevelt as opposed to those who were Senators or 'other' is just as impressive (Leaving out Bush II as not being elected):


Governors

Roosevelt
Carter
Reagan
Clinton

Senators

Truman
Kennedy
Johnson
(Gore)

Neither

Eisenhower
Bush I

The odd thing is that if you look at the list the people who would have been thought to have the greatest executive background and should have been most suited for the job (from a merely technocratic point of view) were very mediocre - Eisenhower and Bush I.

Others who were thought to have been poor choices - like Truman - later became viewed as having been very effective leaders.


Its an interesting parlour game. Tim Kaine's background is as compelling as Roosevelt's or Clinton's. I am have no idea if he is presidential timber or not, but to dismiss him or any of the others because their background "is not compelling" is very odd since from a "compelling background" point of view you would be hard pressed to find more "compelling backgrounds" than Cheney or Rumsfield.

Clinton's background is more or less identical to Kaine's. Clinton had more years as Governor, Kaine had more offices and governs in a larger and much more sophisticated state. They both have excellent academic backgrounds and they both have wives that also have excellent academic backgrounds - although Kaine's wife coming later and in a more open minded time had the opportunity to continue her profession which she has.

"compelling backgrounds" has not been a particularly good indicator of who was going to be an effective President as can be seen with Eisenhower, Bush I, or BushII/Cheney/Rumsfield Cabal or Truman as a counter example.

I am glad that Obama is making the decision and I know that he will make the right one.

Period. Several points. It doesn't matter if you're a so-called established name. Pride kicks in, particularly if the state hasn't been represented on a national ticket in decades.

A VP is a waste elsewhere. Lieberman gets too much credit for making Florida close. It was always going to be close. The GOP had failed to prioritize the state during the demographic changes and the rural areas weren't turning out.

Graham would have allowed Gore to carry Florida handily.

Somewhere in this thread Texas was mentioned. We have less chance of carrying Texas than Lieberman has of winning our nomination in 2012.

Someone like Dodd might seem more stately but Obama has more charisma then anyone since F.D.R. He is not going to be overshadowed by anyone. Dukakis would have been overshadowed by Dan Quail. He simply sucked as a candidate period.

idea that Mondale's internal polling likely gave him the Reagan victory scenario which freed him to make a bolder choice for his veep nom.

And that Joe Lieberman was a distinct positive factor for the ticket in Florida before the U.S. SCOTUS stole the election for Gore. There was some mighty odd balloting devilment going on in Palm Beach County.

Also with fewer than 50 presidents we really don't know the full impact of vice presidential choices. People repeat the notion that the veep doesn't matter, but to many voters it matters a lot. There's no test sample that's reliable, since fewer than 50 times isn't much of a test number and the nation's political mood is determined by many outside variables.

We haven't had that many elections in our history with 24/7 cable news coverage either. Hard to tell exactly what effect that would have in a long-term study.