The Race for the Democratic Vice Presidency
This conversation begins with Hillary Clinton, and rightfully so. She won about the same number of votes as Obama, regardless of how creative your accounting. She has strong support and is very similar on the policy issues to Obama.
That being said, some of her statements over the last year make it nearly impossible for Obama to choose her. She has said he doesn’t cross the commander in chief threshold (but that McCain does) and that America doesn’t want him answering the phone at 3AM. In other words, McCain could simply string together things Clinton has said about Obama into an ad. And he might anyway.
Even more than that, as George Will pointed out, voters think about the vice president in terms of “what if the president dies?” but the president has to think “what if I live?” Imagine a White House in which three different people all think they are the most qualified to run the country. This is Obama-Clinton.
The most logical solution to this is for Obama to meet with Clinton, point out that there will be at least two openings on the Supreme Court in the next four years, convince Clinton to say formally that she would under no circumstances accept the VP role on the ticket and then move on.
So assuming that Clinton is off the list…actually, that doesn’t help much. The field is a mess, with no clear front runners. There are a few schools of thought. One is you need to balance your ticket (old/young, geographical etc.) The other is that you should reinforce your strengths. Bill Clinton picked Gore and they ended up being fresh, centrist and southern, and won many southern states). There are also two distinct theories on picking a woman. The first is that picking a woman would help the Obama appeal to Clinton supporters. Alternatively, that could really piss them off, and it might reek of tokenism. Obama better be damn sure it wouldn’t piss Hillary off before he picks another woman.
Young, but not too young seems the most logical way to run a “turn the page” candidacy. So first are the poor fits, in tiers, and then the five most logical.
I Love ‘em/Bad Fit
Mike Bloomberg: Smart, rich, competent. Rich, Jewish and from New York.
Joe Biden: He’s smart. Unfortunately he isn’t afraid to tell you.
Chuck Hagel: The Republican senator from Nebraska who hates the war would be perfect bipartisan pick. Except he’s anti-abortion. That would be the excuse Hillary supporters would need to jump ship. Olympia Snowe would be a better pick if you wanted to cross the aisle.
John Tester/Brian Schweitzer: Obama wouldn’t have to convince anyone his ticket understands the common man. These are real tough Montanans. How tough? Tester is missing two and a half fingers from a tractor accident. When he says he understands the little guy, he means it. But neither has much experience, and being governor of Montana isn’t exactly Virgina or Colorado. Schweitzer is a better bet, but neither has much of a chance.
Why Are These Guys Being Considered?
Sam Nunn: You’re not winning Georgia, this guy is too conservative, and he’s not exactly a fresh face.
John Edwards: Ummm…ask Kerry if Gephardt would have been a better pick.
Ed Rendell: This guy is great for entertainment. He’s like a straight, Democratic Ed Koch. In other words, party hack isn’t the best recipe for success in a change election.
Chris Dodd: Old, white and from the northeast. Might as well pick Frank Lautenberg.
Evan Bayh: I am black. You are white. Really, really white. He probably takes Obama over the top in Indiana, but otherwise is supposed to be a deadly boring campaigner.
I Get It, But Would It Work?
Wesley Clark: He’s a military guy! And his 2004 campaign was the model Fred Thompson imitated. Ughh.
The Players
6. Kathleen Sebelius, governor Kansas. Combined with Obama’s mother being from Kansas, they might be able to swing this blood-red state. On the other hand, probably not. Also, Obama-Sebelius isn’t a great bumper sticker.
Odds Obama picks her: <5%. Odds they would win: 55%.
5. Bill Richardson, former everything, New Mexico. He’s the logical pick in a lot of ways. New Mexico is a swing state, and he might be able to help with Colorado too. He’s Hispanic, where Obama supposedly has problems. On the other hand, I’m convinced this guy has some skeletons in his closet. He got absolutely massacred on Meet the Press last year, and the scary thing was it seemed like the issues were legit. If you’re going to pick him, vet him carefully.
Odds Obama picks him: 15%. Odds they win: 60%.
4. Ted Strickland, governor Ohio. He brings home Ohio, but if Obama can’t win that this year, he’s got big problems. He’s 66, but looks younger, so that might be the best of both worlds. He’s a Hillary supporter, which theoretically helps Obama, but is there really a voter not in Ohio who thinks “hmmm…I really wanted Hillary, but Ted is pretty much the same”? Doubt it.
Odds Obama picks him: 10%. Odds they would win: 60%.
3. Janet Napolitano, governor Arizona. A young woman (50) from a good area of the country for the Dems. She won 63% in the last election. Imagine if McCain had to spend his resources in his home state! On the other hand, they probably still lose it (but maybe swings New Mexico, and forces GOP to spend heavily in AZ). She’s very popular among Hispanics in the area, but Obama-Napolitano would be an eight-syllable ticket. Plus, her name probably isn’t WASPy enough to swing those on the fence who prefer Scots-Irish types.
Odds Obama picks her: 10%. Odds they would win: 65%.
2. Jim Webb, senator Virginia. Former GOPer, tough guy essentially told Bush to eff himself, in the White House no less. Not a bad combo. Brings Virginia, which is almost in Obama’s hands even without him. That’s a big, traditionally red state. He does get unhinged at times and isn’t exactly “people friendly.” This ticket probably works really well, but Webb has the potential to be a bigger disaster than anyone else on this list. Odds Obama picks him: 20%. Odds they would win: 65%. Odds McCain would win by double digits: 15%. [update: this article, which came out hours after this post emphasizes this point.]
1. Mark Warner, former governor Virgina. Warner preceded current Tim Kaine, who has been mentioned as a possible veep. The two are similarly popular; Warner left office with nearly 80% approval ratings. That’s good news in a red state. Plus Warner is pro-choice, whereas Kaine isn’t, most likely a death blow to his chances with Hillary supporters lurking in the wings (probably even without that). This is the pick.
The only downside is limited foreign policy experience (whereas Webb was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan). Still, the economy looks like it’ll be the issue, and I’m not sure how McCain wins the election on the issue of the Iraq War. The concept that it was a brilliant idea, the only problem was the execution is a disaster for the GOP if Obama is half the politician he appears to be.
Odds Obama picks him: 20%. Odds they would win: 70%.
Odds Obama picks the field: >20%
Share This
Glen responds:
Posted: June 10th, 2008 at 9:38 pm →
OK, I really like Mark Warner but he’s running for Senate in Virginia. He’s not going to be plucked from a competitive race that he’s going to win. I think for the same reasons you have to knock Webb off the list. The chancs that the Dems could retain his seat in the Senate are not looking good.
Chuck responds:
Posted: June 10th, 2008 at 9:52 pm →
Great post! I don’t want to hear McCain blathering about how his foolish stance on the Iraq war was informed by his service in Vietnam. All other vietnam vets in the senate are for getting out, republican or democrat. Keep in mind, the others were fighting the whole time, and painfully aware of the futility of staying. McCain was a POW most of the time, who knows what sort of fantasies about the war he cooked up during his time in solitary confinement. (Here is where i write the obligatory, “can’t deny he’s a hero”). Anyway, I think Jim Webb would be a good counter to the illusion McCain is putting forward that people who have experienced war are necessarily in favor of extending the current one indefinitely.
stuart responds:
Posted: June 10th, 2008 at 11:48 pm →
Forget the Olympics - this is the only race that matters in 2008. It’s beginning to dawn on me how much we all need Obama in the White House. McCain would be unthinkable. How is this not a no-brainer for America? Not that simple, I know.
I wish I shared your confidence in the chances of a Democratic victory in November, Josh.
DG responds:
Posted: June 11th, 2008 at 12:31 am →
It’s interesting to analyze this post in light of your assessment of the Republican VP choices. Ignoring the field, your weighted average probability of a win for the Democratic Party is 64% and for the Republican Party is 26%. The math doesn’t add up. [1]
You’re underestimating the likelihood of a win by one or the other party by 10%, or you’re assuming a third party has a 10% chance of winning, or there is a massively popular candidate in the field that could make up the difference.
And before anyone says it, I don’t mean Hillary — even if the 20% chance of a “field pick” for the Democratic side gave an 80% chance of winning, that only brings the weighted likelihood of a Democratic win to 67% — not enough to close the gap.
– DG
[1] Assumes “<5%” treated as 5%. And “slim” treated as 1%.
Josh responds:
Posted: June 11th, 2008 at 7:37 am →
DG:
Fair enough that I didn’t weight everything precisely, but I do have to say in my mind the odds McCain-Hutchinson wins was actually better than some of the other combos, which would put it somewhere in the 20s. The thing is that Obama picking someone like Hagel or Kaine (i.e.,- anti-abortion) could leave a giant opening for McCain to pick a woman, even though she would almost certainly be anti-abortion as well (I have this caveat at the end).
It also appears that you have given “the field” zero percent chance on the GOP side. Given the disastrous flaws of many of the candidates (Romney and Jindal specifically), the field would probably have a much better chance than anyone but Crist or Pawlenty.
So, in sum, the Kay Bailey+”the GOP field” adds roughly ten percent to McCain, making him about a 2-1 underdog, although I’ll grant you that my scientific model for guessing isn’t air-tight (of course these choices are not independent variables since McCain most likely gets to pick second).
DG responds:
Posted: June 11th, 2008 at 7:21 pm →
I ignored the field in both analyses. (weighted average probability of win only for VP candidates you listed).
It’s just interesting that you appeared more optimistic about Democratic chances for a win when reviewing the Republican field and more pessimistic about Democratic chances for a win when reviewing the Democratic field. I wonder if that’s a general tendency of political commentary.
Josh responds:
Posted: June 11th, 2008 at 7:33 pm →
I think I just don’t see the angle for the GOP to win, but can’t bring myself to make the odds better than 60-65% for the Dems.