Talking My Book
That’s a Wall Street expression for making an argument that, if accepted by the market, would also make you money given the positions you hold. I’m already on record as predicting a McCain-Huckabee versus Obama-Webb race in November. I’m feeling pretty good about that prediction right now.
On the Republican side, there is no plausible nominee at this point other than McCain. Romney has not won any primary where he is not a native son (Michigan is where he grew up and his father was Governor, Massachusetts is where he was Governor, and Utah is his ancestral homeland, as it were). Huckabee has not won any substantial number of votes outside of his Evangelical Christian base.
Of course, there’s no reason for either Romney or Huckabee to quit the race. Romney has a good chance of winning Kansas and Washington this Saturday, as both are caucus states and he’s shown an ability to organize caucuses (he has won every caucus state except Iowa and West Virginia – both of which he lost to Huckabee, and the latter only because WV has a second ballot, and the anti-Romney forces united behind the second-place finisher). Huckabee has a reasonable shot at winning Louisiana on Saturday and Virginia on Tuesday (if Romney wins Virginia, it would be the first piece of evidence that movement conservatives can actually deliver an election – which is why I don’t expect it). It is very plausible that, between them, Romney and Huckabee could deny McCain a majority of delegates, even if McCain wins Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania (in all of which he should be considered favored). But if that happens, McCain can easily clinch the nomination by agreeing to select Huckabee as his running-mate. Which is pretty much what I expect him to do, however much the conservative movement leaders may rage and gnash their teeth. Moreover, there’s no clear way for Romney to win over the Huckabee voters. Huckabee is winning the votes of some people who profess to be more conservative than the typical McCain voter. But they also appear to be more inclined towards McCain as a second choice than Romney – perhaps because they are more downscale and concerned about the economy; perhaps because they are less happy with the direction of the country and with the Bush Administration; perhaps, indeed, because they just don’t like Romney for whatever reason (a quite common problem, it seems). It’s not obvious that running hard against Huckabee will win Romney votes; it might just push them to McCain. And running hard against both might just solidify the perception that McCain and Huckabee are a ticket – which might well satisfy both McCain and Huckabee voters more than not. While I could still see McCain making another pick if he runs away with the rest of the contests, the continued presence of Huckabee makes it that much more likely that McCain is on the top of the ticket with Huckabee by his side.
On the Democratic side, Super Tuesday was basically a draw in terms of delegates. Which means I score it as a win for Obama. Obama won more states, and in more regions. Obama won about the same number of primaries (7 to Clinton’s 8), plus he won all of the caucuses. Obama has shown superior organizational skills (hence the win in every caucus to date except for Nevada, where he won the majority of delegates anyhow), and superior fundraising skills (he has substantially more cash on hand, and he appears to be able to raise huge sums without turning to criminals for assistance). And the calendar looking forward is very favorable to Obama: caucuses in Nebraska (Obama won Kansas, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota), Washington (Obama won whites in California and won Idaho), Maine (no particular advantage except it’s a caucus) and Hawaii (one of Obama’s home states), and primaries in Louisiana (Obama won South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama), Maryland (Obama won South Carolina and Delaware), Virginia (ditto), the District of Columbia (overwhelmingly African-American) and Wisconsin (Obama is from neighboring Illinois, and won the caucuses in neighboring Minnesota and Iowa). Obama could very plausibly win every single contest between now and March 4th. Right now, a fair anaysis would say that there’s no front-runner; while Obama is well-positioned for the next phase, Clinton still has more establishment support than Obama, and she won California by a bigger margin than expected (if Obama had won California on top of everything else, this race would be over, and if he had fought to a tie he’d be the clear front-runner). But a tie game represents substantial movement in Obama’s direction, so I feel happy sticking with an Obama prediction for the top of the ticket.
But what about the Veepstakes? Doesn’t the winner need to unify the party? I don’t think it’s out of the question that Clinton would offer, and Obama accept, second place on the ticket if Clinton wins a clean victory (i.e., not on the basis of super-delegates nor on the basis of muscling the Michigan and Florida delegates into the mix). But I have a much harder time seeing Obama picking Clinton if he wins a clean victory, or of Clinton accepting if the spot was offered, because Clinton weakens the ticket in a general election, and nobody not surnamed Clinton will have trouble supporting Obama in the general election if he wins the nomination (whereas Clinton might have trouble drumming up African-American enthusiasm if Obama loses, particularly if there’s a perception that he lost because the former President played the race card).
So: assuming Obama wins, and doesn’t pick Clinton as his VP, who will (or should) he pick? Obama’s weakest states to date are all in the border south: Tennessee, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Arkansas is a special case because it’s one of Clinton’s home states, so perhaps Obama would have run stronger there under other circumstances. Missouri, where Obama did win despite similar characteristics, was quite close. In any event, there is a collection of border states – Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, maybe even Virginia – that have shown movement in the Democrats’ direction, and that are potentially in play in November if the Democrat can win enough white voters. A McCain-Huckabee ticket is very well-placed to hang on to this region, and perhaps it wouldn’t be worth Obama’s while to try to make any headway here. But picking the right running mate might at least force the Republicans to spend time and money defending a region that they should have locked-down – and with an expected funding advantage, an Obama campaign should give that possibility serious consideration. My pick for Obama is James Webb, who would certainly have appeal in this region. Moreover, I don’t think he would hurt, and probably would help in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, likely to be the primary battlegrounds of 2008 as in 2004 and 2000. I think Webb would prove an excellent debater against Huckabee, as well as an excellent contrast (the way the Democrats will play up the age issue against McCain if he does pick Huckabee as VP is going to be by highlighting how unready to be President Huckabee is). The biggest problems with Webb have to do with personality and temperament, but these are the areas where Obama is especially strong, so he can afford to pick someone for reasons other than natural charm.
The alternative direction for Obama to take would be to pick somebody who would have special appeal in states like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. Here again, Obama would be trying to win in a region where a McCain-Huckabee ticket should have natural strength, but where the tides of demographic change are working in the Democratic Party’s favor. Two obvious candidates would be Janet Napolitano or Bill Richardson. The main problem with either is that neither balances Obama in any way except geographically, and I think Obama is going to need a bit of balancing. In any event, I think Webb is a more plausible pick than many of the other names being bandied about (Obama’s not going to pick a bland Midwesterner like Bayh or Vilsack, though Strickland has obvious appeal; Edwards isn’t going to have another shot at Vice President; Biden makes a lot more sense as Secretary of State; Clark seems to me implausible in every way; that pretty much leaves Napolitano, Richardson, Warner, Webb, or someone really outside the box, unless I’ve forgotten somebody).
I’d say we’ll see soon enough, except it looks like this thing could go all the way. Anyhow, we’ll see.
Obama-Webb
I would be very happy to see an obama-webb ticket this fall. That being said, Webb is on the record saying unequivocally that he doesn’t want the job(see his MTP interview on Iraq within the last couple months). Although I wanted to see it, I was fairly sceptical of the plausibility of the prospect. Your post made me re-think it. You made well-placed points about regional appeal and the favorable contrast if he were to debate Huckabee. The most compelling reasons for picking Webb, however, I don’t think you mentioned.
If McCain is the nominee, the two biggest tacks on which they will go after Obama is by portraying him as unready to be Commander-in-Chief compared to McCain and by playing up his ranking as a liberal. Mccain’s military service and the argument(whatever it’s merits) that his positions better serve America in confronting a dangerous world, could help him make the C-in-C argument. The National Journal’s ranking Obama as the most liberal senator of last year (again whatever the merits of the rankings) will help him make the second argument.
Webb seriously blunts both of these line of attack. As well as being a veteran, a former Navy secretary and the father of someone currently serving in Iraq, Jim Webb has consistently been one of the most articulate and reasonable critics of the Iraq War. Anyone who saw his response last year to the state of the union, could see how the gravitas he brings to the ticket would hurt portraying Obama as bambiesq.
On the attack that Obama is too liberal, Webb again seriously takes a great of force out of that blow. Imagine trying to marginalize a candidate as a “too far out of the mainstream” when his running mate served in Ronald Raegan’s cabinet. Furthermore, Webb’s break from being a Raegan-democrat was neither personal nor seriously acrimonious. If it were then the advantage he brought in this respect would be void; in other words he’s no Dick Morris.
The worry that these advantages might bring up,is how would they play among the democratic party’s base? On the face of it, it would seem that a gun-supporting red-state democrat might be alienating for party die-hards. With Webb, though this is unlikely to be the case. The most important issue for this part of the party is the Iraq War. Webb has been a consistent and articulate critic.
Finally, although his temperment might be conceived as a drawback, his hotly contested Senate race against an otherwise favorite for the GOP nomination in 2008, saw Webb face, and overcome, the kind of attacks most statewide Senators and Governors have not. His appeal as a red-state democrat, combined with Obama’s potential to engender historic black turnout in states like Mississippi and South Carolina, could conceivably change the electoral map in fundamental ways.
Obama-Webb has long sounded great to me, but for the first time, it also sounds both plausible and wise.
— Andrew Bell · Feb 6, 11:53 PM · #
“Huckabee has a reasonable shot at winning Louisiana on Saturday “
Just a note, that’s an almost meaningless beauty contest. The state delegates, who will elect the national convention delegates, were elected in caucuses at the end of January. Long story short, McCain won, though the Paul campaign is contesting the results.
The only way the upcoming primary of Saturday matters is if a candidate wins 50+1% of the vote, in which case 20 of Louisiana’s (I think) 42 delegates will be bound to vote for that person on the first ballot only. Otherwise all are technically uncommited.
— DaveA · Feb 7, 12:18 AM · #
McCain and Webb both on the ticket? Time for another printing of The Nightingale’s Song.
— Matt Frost · Feb 7, 01:23 AM · #