Against Huckabee for Veep
Following on Noah, I still think Pawlenty or Giuliani (ego notwithstanding) or perhaps Mark Sanford would be a better choice, particularly since Huckabee has become a highly polarizing figure, deservedly or not. More (much more) below.
I see Noah’s point about Huckabee, but I think Huckabee’s moment may have passed. He failed to seize it because, as Matt Yglesias and others have reminded us, he didn’t have the deep bench he needed to offer a real alternative to the increasingly impoverished politics of the three-legged stool. As some activists who’ve hitched their wagons to Huckabee have already suggested, Huckabee, only five years older than Obama, would benefit from an Edwards-style spell in the wilderness, during which he could build a policy profile. But of course Bobby Jindal will be waiting in the wings. If “Jindalmania” sweeps the nation at some point, I will do the equivalent of a touchdown dance for, like, three months, after which I will die of exhaustion.
Noah’s analysis is most convincing when he argues that white working class and lower-middle-class voters will be the key constituency.
Downscale values voters could plausibly stay home in 2008 if they don’t think they have a nominee who they have reason to support. Particularly if Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, it will be hard to bring them to the polls with a purely negative message. Huckabee, for a while there, really spoke to these voters – and may still; we’ll see soon enough.
A fortiori, it seems that downscale Republicans are actually less hostile to the Clintons than the median Republican, particularly women who fall in the crucial pro-government conservative camp.
Yet Huckabee is the former governor of a border state that Republicans would hopefully have locked down, particularly with a candidate like McCain at the top of the ticket. I’d submit that Tim Pawlenty would be superior. Pawlenty has a broadly similar appeal, thanks to his modest background and his occasional (opportunistic, poll-tested, shrewd, and mostly unthreatening) departures from three-legged orthodoxy. Better still, he hasn’t become a lightning rod for the economic right and, of course, he is the reasonably popular governor of a state in the Upper Midwest. It also helps that he is a longtime McCain loyalist.
Of course, there are those who say that traditional geographical ticket balancing is dead. Maybe they’re right.
I still think that Giuliani would be an attractive vice presidential choice per Richelieu, but I’ll throw out another attractive possibility: McCain and Mark Sanford, a hero to the fiscal and social right who endorsed McCain in 2000 and complements McCain’s image as a budget hawk and reformer.
Of course, Sanford brings nothing to the table when it comes to region. If the Republicans lose South Carolina, the party is in dire shape. But Sanford could certainly energize the Republican base and he’s proved a competent, energetic executive. Interestingly, he’s also loved by a certain kind of libertarian, who puts budget-cutting and school choice first.
That said, it’s not obvious to me that Sanford helps in Ohio, whereas Huckabee or Pawlenty or Giuliani might.
As for Obama-Webb, I think Noah’s analysis is very astute, particularly when it comes to Webb’s real limitations. This would be an “atmospheric” pick, a populist who fits uneasily on the right or left and who in many respects represents the angrier future of US politics. Mark Warner would be a safer and less interesting choice. I just hope Obama makes it to that stage, as I fear his chances are slipping away.
This is all very perceptive. I’m with you on Pawlenty and DEFINITELY with you on Jindal.
I think Huckabee is unqualified for Veep for very dumb, idealistic reasons: because he’s unqualified for president. I can never understand people who say “He can’t be president, but he’d make a fine Veep.” The Veep is a proverbial hartbeat away from the presidency! The president could slip and fall on his head when walking down the stairs after being sworn in!
— PEG · Jan 2, 09:02 AM · #
See I get Huckabee the VP— I don’t like him for the job, but I understand it for the Republicans and in the current climate. What I don’t get is McCain. Yes, he’s had a predictable surge, and he remains a media darling. But despite what people seem to think, I don’t think he gets the “oldest guy/waited his turn” GOP thing. Doesn’t it feel like the Republican apparatus is pushing for Romney or, if not, Giuliani? McCain has never been an apparatchik. And while Giuliani certainly isn’t either, McCain has seemingly defined himself through that opposition. When your political persona is thumbing your nose at the party establishment, you’re thumbing your nose at the party establishment, no matter how loyal you’ve been on Iraq. And I think McCain needs the old guard, party machine to win, to overcome all the negatives I’ve mentioned before.
— Freddie · Jan 2, 02:27 PM · #
Reihan: I don’t disagree that Pawlenty and Sanford would be more plausible Presidents-in-waiting than Huckabee. But I don’t think they pack any punch in terms of strengthening the ticket – certainly not compared with someone like Huckabee. I also think you’re being too idealistic in your mental model of how voters think about their votes. Voting is, fundamentally, not about rational choice but about identity and affiliation. Picking Pawlenty doesn’t change anyone’s perception of either McCain or the GOP. He’d be a perfectly fine pick, an excellent pick, and one that would advance the Sam’s Club narrative of how the GOP should evolve. But it’s not a politically significant pick for the campaign.
As for Rudy: I find it very hard to imagine him being offered or accepting the job, so I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about whether it would make political sense.
Smaller point: I do think traditional geographic ticket-balancing is dead; Clinton-Gore and Bush-Cheney pretty much put paid to it. But anyhow, McCain, though he hails from Arizona, is functionally a Northern Republican. So Pawlenty doesn’t really balance in a meaningful way.
Whether Huckabee’s moment has passed is something we’ll see soon enough – if he wins Iowa, or loses narrowly, I’d say he’s proven his political potency. And his most recent pull-the-negative-ads stunt, while I agree is an amateurish move, is also a virtual replay of McCain’s stunt of pulling his negative ads in South Carolina in 2000. So I somehow don’t see McCain holding that against him.
I really think PEG’s criticism of my argument is the salient one. Whether or not Huckabee would be a good political move, or a good personality fit with McCain, if he’s not a plausible President then can one really consider him for VP? That’s a good question.
— Noah Millman · Jan 2, 02:34 PM · #
I’m surprised not to see anyone mention Sam Brownback. When he dropped out, he endorsed McCain, presumably angling for the VP-spot. His campaigning could help McCain among social conservatives in SC, Florida, and elsewhere, depending on who is still running (he’s doing Catholic outreach for McCain in Iowa right now). He doesn’t have the populist appeal of Huckabee, but he seems to have thought more about policy issues. I think in the general election, McCain will target independents, and he will need someone to hold onto (and turn out) the base in potential swing states. Brownback could do that pretty well (unless immigration becomes an issue for the general election).
— Zak · Jan 2, 04:33 PM · #
Noah — I think you’re right. And I think an explicit “screw you” to the Club for Growth might be exactly the kind of thing McCain wants.
— Reihan · Jan 2, 05:52 PM · #