Return of the Veepstakes
Nate Silver has a very comprehensive post looking at the benefits and risks of a Romney VP choice. The bottom line is pretty easy to state: he potentially helps with business-oriented centrists in the Northeast and Midwest, and clearly helps with Mormons in the West, but he could be anathema to Evangelical Protestants, particularly in the South. A Romney choice, in other words, would be a mirror-image of a Huckabee choice in terms of costs and benefits: Huckabee would excite the Evangelical Protestant base, and potentially lure other blue-collar voters with socially conservative views, but would cause Northern business-oriented centrists to take a hard look at Obama as the safer choice, and would absolutely repel Mormons in the West (who remember the anti-Mormon messaging of the Huckabee campaign all too well).
The bad news for McCain is that he doesn’t have any really great choices for VP. The two most obvious choices, as noted above, are each very problematic. Pawlenty is safe, but isn’t going to excite anyone; ditto Thune; ditto Daniels; Ridge would actually produce negative excitement; ditto Engler; Palin is too young and untried (though she’s the most plausible “exciting” choice – certainly more so than Jindal); Fiorina is not a serious choice; neither is Lieberman; Rice isn’t interested and is too closely identified with the Bush Administration; I don’t see what Cantor or Portman bring to the table; and so it goes. The good news, though, is that his choice doesn’t matter so much. McCain is already well (and positively) defined for this election. He’s the old soldier who isn’t too great with policy details but who loves the American people and always puts them first. If he can keep the Obama campaign from tarnishing that veneer, and picks someone as his VP who is modestly helpful as attack dog and potential successor, he’ll be in as good shape as he can be given how badly the fundamentals cut against him and his party.
The good news for Obama is that he has lots of good choices for VP. Now that Webb is out, the three choices that seem most interesting to me are Schweitzer, Rendell and Bill Bradley. Schweitzer is another new-generation Democrat; he puts Montana into play; he’s got a mix of policy expertise that nicely complements Obama’s and that reinforces his campaign themes – he’s a good “change” choice. Rendell would be a great attack dog for going after McCain (he’s another guy with a “straight talk” reputation), and he’d bolster Obama among downscale white Catholics who he’ll need to do better with than he has to win Ohio; if Obama can consolidate Democratic support, he probably wins, and Rendell would be a good choice for that purpose. And Bradley would basically lend gravitas and depth to Obama’s existing positioning as a pragmatic liberal, without overshadowing the nominee (Bradley is famous, popular and well-regarded, but nobody considers him a political powerhouse or especially inspirational); he’d be a reassuring presence to both independent and Democratic voters mainly concerned about the fact that Obama is an unknown quantity. I’m least enthusiastic about Kaine, just because I think he’s almost a pure geographic play without much else to offer (I don’t think Obama has an obviously strong Southern choice now that Webb is out), and I have concerns about whether Sebelius is ready for prime time; and Bayh, while he makes so much sense on paper, is so profoundly boring a choice that I really hope he’s not the one; but Biden is reasonable, Reed is reasonable – Clinton would be an interesting choice if it weren’t for her husband – point is: he’s got a lot of reasonable choices. But the bad news is: compared to McCain’s choice, the stakes for his are a whole lot higher. The public has much less of a defined impression of Obama than of McCain, and so Obama’s VP choice will do more to shape the narrative going forward than McCain’s will.
There is absolutely no potential running mate for either McCain or Obama who is popular or charismatic enough to flip any state to his side. And in general, I think the importance of a running mate is grossly overestimated.
But this year, McCain’s choice will be of some importance, solely because of his age. Nobody who liked George H.W. Bush in 1988 was too worried about Dan Quayle, because Bush seemed energetic, healthy, and fit to serve eight years. John McCain is different. A lot of people look at him and wonder if he’s going to complete one term, let alone two.
So, my suggestions is, he should pick somebody who looks presidential, someone who looks ready to step in and take over the Oval Office at a moment’s notice. That, sadly, would leave out somebody like Bobby Jindal, who may have great abilities and potential, but will not strike most voters as ready to be President in the (not unlikely) event of McCain’s death or incapacitation.
— astorian · Jul 28, 02:56 PM · #
You are so so so wrong about Bayh.
— Justin · Jul 28, 03:56 PM · #
Justin: because he’s actually awful on paper, or because he’s actually incredibly exciting?
— Noah Millman · Jul 28, 04:28 PM · #
dur, not a mirror image.
Romney alienates a large portion of the theocon vote that won the election for Bush in 2004.
without the theocons, the GOP is D.O.A.
— matoko_chan · Jul 29, 01:03 AM · #
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/29/evangelicals-warn-against-mccain-romney-ticket/
— matoko_chan · Jul 29, 01:04 PM · #