Home › Blogs › idahoconservative's blog ›

The Power Veeps

Submitted by idahoconservative on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 17:43
in

 

With the Republican nomination settled on John McCain and the Democratic nomination about settled for Barack Obama, political coverage is slowly pivoting to the picks of the Vice-Presidential candidates.
 
Vice-Presidential nominees are overblown as their impact is limited. Some of the biggest mistakes in Veep-picking have come when candidates have over-reached. Few Veeps can take a state you’ll get shellacked in and turn it into a win. Expectations of Michael Dukakis carrying Texas with Senator Lloyd Bentsen on the ticket in 1988 were absurd, ditto John Kerry’s hopes of carrying North Carolina, Senator John Edwards’ home state, in 2008.
Veep picks help you at the margins, with people who are ambiguous towards your ticket, or they turn some people who would merely vote for you into activists by energizing the base, or a Veep can make up for some deficiency in your ticket. Some Vice-Presidents don’t really do much for the ticket (Dan Quayle ’88, Geraldine Ferraro ’84, Sargent Shriver ’72.) but neither Obama or McCain can afford one of those.
 
McCain
 
Most of the McCain’s potential veeps really bring nothing to the ticket. Governors Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford don’t add a whole lot to the ticket. They’ll assure a small cadre of fiscal conservatives cast a vote for McCain. That’ll be about it. It’s doubtful they’ll even be able to negate the limited effects of Bob Barr. Rob Portman brings nada to the ticket other than perhaps an enhanced standing in Portman’s already Republican Congressional district in Ohio.
 
Mitt Romney as VP could make Michigan competitive and without Michigan, Obama probably doesn’t win the presidency. On the other hand, he’s not trusted by many conservatives. His oily image on board the “straight talk express” wouldn’t be great for McCain’s image.
 
Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) presents an intriguing choice. Palin could help McCain with women disenchanted with Hillary Clinton not being the Democratic nominee. Palin is also pro-life and not just when its convenient, she recently gave birth to a baby with downs syndrome, and chose life over abortion. Palin’s real life living out of her convictions is something that would be respected.
Palin is also an Evangelical Christian who is more comfortable talking about her faith. She’s a solid record on government reform, heading up efforts to clean up Alaska’s GOP. On the negative side, Palin’s experience is limited and, like Jindal, she’s not well-known. Her rise in a little more than 2 years from former Mayor of Wasila, Alaska to a heartbeat from the Presidency may be a tad much for some people.
 
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee faces well-known negatives: many establishment conservatives don’t like him and have issues with his policies in Arkansas. However, what Huckabee brings to the ticket is organization.
 
Huckabee would bring several thousand volunteers to a campaign that lacks organization, as well as potentially activate a base of voters that can take or leave that whole voting thing. McCain is going to be running behind in money and professional organization. Who can help him counter that? How about a guy who won eight primary states on $16 million?
 
Huckabee has been caricaturized as a Southern candidate, but is more of a heartland candidate. McCain/Huckabee could challenge Obama in Iowa, hold the bellwether state of Missouri, and also increase turnout in key areas of Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. However, McCain’s recent attack on two reverends who endorsed him may have limited his ability to turn out religious conservatives regardless of his running mate.
 
Moderate choices, such as Tom Ridge, don’t really add to the nomination and are going to deepen dissatisfaction from the base without really adding anything.
 
 
Obama
 
Barack Obama has two deficiencies: a lack of foreign policy experience and a lack of executive experience. General historic trends would suggest a Democratic win in 2008, with an unpopular war and a down economy. What Obama must do is convince voters in Red States that it’s “okay” to support a Democrat.
 
Obama has four options that do this. None of them are Hillary Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton would strengthen Obama with some Democrats, I remain dubious that she’ll attract people who wouldn’t vote for Obama to the ticket. Many of these diehards voted for her as an anti-Obama vote, not a pro-Clinton vote. Her personal negatives in polls are somewhat lower than Osama bin Laden’s and the that’s nicest thing I can think of to say about her rating.
From New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson (D) could be a winner for the Obama camp, as he brings foreign policy experience (former UN Ambassador), and executive experience (Governor and Secretary of Energy), along with a 14-year congressional career. Richardson would, at the very least, guarantee Obama the swing states of New Mexico and Colorado. He’d also help Obama with Hispanics, who McCain is trying to make a play for and who Clinton tried to turn into a wedge constituency.
 
Beyond Richardson, Obama could pick one of three Virginians.
 
The strongest of the three would be Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), a former Republican and Navy Secretary under Ronald Reagan. Webb’s national security bonafides would help the inexperienced Obama in the same way Dick Cheney helped George W. Bush.
 
After that, former Governor Mark Warner (D-VA), who many thought of as a presidential candidate, would re-assure moderates and provide executive experience to the ticket. The negative is Warner would have to leave the Virginia Senate race he’s a shoo in for and that would allow Former Governor Jim Gilmore (R) to hold the seat for Republicans, but if it’s necessary for a Democratic win, I think Virginian Democrats would trade a Senate seat for the presidency.
 
Finally, Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) is the least of the three Virginians, without the stature of Warner, but he could deliver Virginia.
 
An Obama victory in Virginia would be huge. No Democrat has won it since LBJ in 1964. Virginia has 13 electoral votes and any of these three could help with the nearby state of Ohio as well as bolster Obama’s hopes in North Carolina.
 
Another possibility for VP would be Senator Robert Casey (R-PA). Casey would help with white working class Democrats in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. But as one of the few Senators with less experience than Obama, it’s really an open question as to whether Casey would help across America.
 
Additionally, if Obama decides luring disenchanted Republicans is key, he could also ask Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) who would have similar benefits to Webb, but might tick off more members of his party base.
 
Casey, Hagel, and Kaine would represent a problem for many feminists who backed Clinton as all three are pro-life, but Obama would comfort moderate pro-lifers with a gesture meant to illustrate that he’s serious about his respect for those who disagree with him. A Casey nomination would be particularly poignant as Bill Clinton’s decision to bar Casey from the 1992 Democratic Convention began a steady exodus of pro-life Democrats from the party. However, the risk may not make it worth it.
 
The strongest overall candidates are Richardson, Webb, and Warner in that order. If Obama chooses any of those three, I’ll be 100% sure he’ll be the next president. 

 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Huck probably puts PA and MI out of reach

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 18:00.

We don't make a strong number in the Philly and Detroit 'burbs, (and running a Baptist preacher as VP is rather suboptimal to do this) then we've bet the entire ranch on Ohio. Given the up-and-down shellacking the locals took in '06, maybe we don;t really want all our eggs in this basket  

Survey USA poll says McCain/Huck wins in PA

Submitted by nrobyar on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 21:37.

SurveyUSA election poll sample calls made just last week compared McCain/Huckabee Romney Pawlenty and Lieberman against Obama with Edwards and 3 other vp possibilities.  McCain/Huckabee fared better than ANYONE else.  This is the 7th state they have taken sample surveys in the past week and McCain/Huckabee fared better than any of the others in every instance.  Other states CA,KS,MI,NM,WI,NE  (McCain Huckabee even fared better in California----we like Mike!!!!!)

The main problem with the

Submitted by Lisa on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 21:44.

The main problem with the SurveyUSA report last week was that they didn't use Obama's most likely potential VPs, so it doesn't really give us much insight.

Check the facts.  Survey usa

Submitted by nrobyar on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 21:41.

Check the facts.  Survey usa election poll samples taken last week show McCain/Huckabee beat McCain/Romney,Pawlenty or Lieberman when pitted against Obama and Edwards or 3 other vps in PA,WI,CA,KS,VA,NM,NE.  Every state that has done has shown McCain/Huckabee the strongest team!!!!!  Huckabee wins 10 of the eleven vp internet polls.  People like and trust Mike Huckabee and he is very compatible with Senator McCain. 

check the facts?

Submitted by Lisa on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 21:48.

That's an exaggeration. Not every state had Huckabee ahead. Romney, of course, fared better in Michigan, and Lieberman fared better in Virginia.

You are right Lisa...

Submitted by CIDaily on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 05:28.

It isn't EVERY state...

We don't know about Michigan as it ONLY included Romney.

Yes, VA Lieberman was best, otherwise Huckabee has been best especially in the battleground states.

Huckabee has been doing well with Hispanics in the polls (over 50% in CA for example) so there could be some support he has that has not really been discussed. Who knows.

Hello, Idaho.

Submitted by Lisa on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 00:16.

Hello, Idaho.

Hope things are going well for conservatives in the land of complex carbohydrates.

We discussed the GOP Veepstakes at length in a couple of other threads. We came to no consensus that I can recall other than that Sarah Palin is hot.

As far as the Democrats...

"The strongest overall candidates are Richardson, Webb, and Warner in that order. If Obama chooses any of those three, I’ll be 100% sure he’ll be the next president."

With the strife within the party this may be overstating Obama's odds in the general election.

I agree that Richardson is a strong choice for him. I've heard Webb and Wes Clark are also up there on his list.

 

 

 

With McCain/Huckabee we get it all!!!!!!

Submitted by nrobyar on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 21:32.

Talking abut exciting the base of the party???  There is definitely NOBODY who can do that better than Mike Huckabee!!!  McCain & Huckabee together give us the complete package and make the entire party happy!  McCain's foreign policy expertise makes him the only person to take us to victory in Iraq.  Huckabee' s over a decade of service as Governor of Arkansas makes him well vetted on the domestic front.  McCain/Huckabee have the same basic ideology, yet each brings to the ticket a different demographic and together they bring it all home!  They are on the same page on many issues, including health care, where they have already proven they work well together( they did a health care presentation in Iowa that was a huge hit!! ) They honestly like and respect each other!  Huckabee has courted the blue collar/middle class from day one and they know he relates to them because he's been there.  We will need those evangelicals and social conservatives to come running to the polls if we are to win.  Huckabee has shown in his home state that he draws RECORD crowds to vote when he is running!  He is possibly the ONLY person who can rally the evangelicals and social conservatives back to their republican home!!!  McCain/Huckabee-----the only choice!!  Where do I get my yard sign???  

wow.

Submitted by Lisa on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 21:38.

I take it you like Mike?

How did Santorum fare last time out?

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 21:59.

The empirical evidence doesn;t suggest that doubling down on social conservatism is a winning hand in PA.

Basically Huckabee pulls in votes in the south and the rural Midwest (MO,  KS and IA).  He probably failed to win a plurality in any significant metropolitan county in the nation (I recall Romney won the Atlanta suburbs, while losing GA). If "getting it all" is limited to non-metropolitan America , well maybe the Huckaboomers have a point.  That is certainly not where the line of scrimmage is going to be in November......it is going to be in the Philly, Cleveland and Detroit suburbs.

 

Hilary Voters...

Submitted by CIDaily on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 05:31.

This fall the fight is going to be for Hillary voters and much of her support was rural from my memory of the recent voting data.

Huckabee's Advantage

Submitted by idahoconservative on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 00:12.

McCain doesn't have the ability to communicate to working class Americans, Huckabee can. That's his broad appeal is his overall background. In later states, I think Huckabee was defined by the media as the "Evangelical" candidate, but his ability to communicate to the people who were the Hillary (socially conservative Working class folks in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.) is his asset.

The big issue here is assuming is that what Huckabee got in the primary is the limit of his appeal and I simply don't think that's the case.

With Santorum, there were other issues, mainly stylistic as well as the strength of the Casey name. Had the Democrats run someone pro-choice against him, Santorum would have won.

Well, the evidence is he was an evangelical candidate

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 05:57.

The archtype "Reagan Democrat" blue collar county is Macomb County, MI. Huckabee finished third there, and Romney won handily

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/county/#val=MIREPPRIMARY5

By the time OH and PA voted this thing was over, so my data points are limited. I'll grant that MI is a special case, owing to Romney being born there.

Huckabee won huge in many blue collar cities in Iowa. That, however, can be attributed to an electorate weighed to his base supporters , as 60% of the participants were born-again or evangelical christians

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IAREP

Huckabee did well in MO, but it was not due to any support in the urban industral areas of the state, as he failed to carry any of the counties surrounding St. Louis or Kansas City . http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=MO 

If we do not run strongly in the Detroit, Cleveland and  Philadelphia suburbs Barack Obama will be the next President. Frankly, I  can;t find a huge amount of data suggesting any V.P. choice is all that useful in getting this done. I could suggest Tom Ridge based again on emprical data, but I suspect I will be accused of being a closet Democrat to even consider him as V.P.

RE; Santorum. The man lost by close to 20 points. Casey ran a good campaign, but not that good a campaign. Given that the pro-choice Rendell won handily for re-election I think yes, a pro-choice candidate could have beaten Santorum. And yes, it was stylistic. Santorum allowed himself to be defined as driven by his ideology and not acting as a pothole politician. All those ads Huck ran in Iowa will be recycled by the media and paint him into the same corner in states like this one.

 ,   

 

Evangelical Candidate

Submitted by idahoconservative on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 06:49.

I think looking at the primaries is flawed, because of the dynamics of the primaries. There was a conclusion by the time we got to Missouri that it was a McCain-Romney race.

What you've got to look at is Huckabee' s style and the general make-up of Blue Collar Workers who are more socially conservative while definitely not lining up with the conservative ideal on economics.

In addition, Huckabee brings volunteers, which is going to be what really kills McCain in the Fall because a lot of activists will hold their nose and vote for McCain, but they sure as heck aren't calling strangers up to tell them to vote for him or giving him a ton of Cash.

As for Ridge, that would depress Republican turnout and really isn't something McCain can afford.

The primaries are all we have to look at

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 06:53.

and if someone voted for Romney and not Huckabee, well it does mean something.

I hear you on the volunteer angle. My concern is we simply can;t get clocked the way we've been getting clocked in more secular suburban areas and win major states. Add Virginia and Colorado to that equation. Fairfax County outvotes Lynchburg.  

Who should be VP?

Submitted by Mrs. P on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 19:54.

Mike Huckabee is definitely the best possible VP pick.  Survey USA has recently had a series of polls comparing possible republican VPs with possible democrat VPs.  Huckabee was proved to be the best pick.

"proved" is a bit of a

Submitted by Lisa on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 20:14.

"proved" is a bit of a stretch. The polls used the most likely Republican VPs, but rather unlikely Dem VPs.

Actually, I looked at the PA poll

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 20:04.

and the only VP choice that moved the number was Edwards for Obama.  Everyone else was about the same, which given Huckabee's name recognition edge on a lot of other picks doesn;t make him stand out.

 

 

Assumption of Hostility to Religion

Submitted by idahoconservative on Tue, 06/03/2008 - 07:10.

I think the assumption of hostility towards religion is kind of off. In addition to this, without a marriage amendment on the ballot in Ohio, Bush probably would have lost re-election in 2004. There's going to be a lot of religious conservatives staying home. There's a class of voters (the so-called values voters) who can stay home or go out and vote. You bring these people out or you lose and you can't just scare them out. It will not happen.