A Post About 2012
Had John McCain been chosen as Bob Dole’s running mate in 1996, he would have been substantially better positioned to compete for the nomination in 2000. He might well have won, and had he done so he would have won the subsequent general election more decisively than Bush did.
Similarly, had John McCain lost with Tim Pawlenty as his running mate in 2008 (and he would have), Pawlenty would have had at least as good a shot as Mitt Romney of taking the nomination this time around, his uninspiring persona notwithstanding.
As things stand, Tim Pawlenty seems like he would make a perfectly adequate running mate for Mitt Romney to lose with to Barack Obama. Which would give Pawlenty at least an outside chance of being competitive in 2016 against Rick Perry and Jeb Bush.
The overall goal is to prominently feature yourself on a national level. That can be done a bunch of ways. I’m not sure the proper thing to do is to bargain for a VP spot though. A impress the press enough for them to deem you a serious candidate and even if you get stomped, you’ll still be a frontrunner (a la mccain in 2000 or Romney in 2008).
— Console · May 26, 08:20 PM · #
Rick Perry is not that popular in home state and won on the “I am not as bad as the other guy” platform. I know plenty of conservatives here who didn’t or almost didn’t vote for him. He’s not a persuasive speaker.
He’s a fake tea partier who like his crony capitalism just like the One does.
— JC38 · May 27, 12:08 AM · #
I don’t buy it. Had Sarah Palin not been a VP candidate in 2008 she might be a formidable Presidential candidate now. Can anyone see Biden or Cheney running? VP was how those guys were put out to pasture (same for Lloyd Bentsen). Gore’s position as VP made him the anointed candidate but made his run awkward. Lieberman’s selection as VP was a moment of fascination and glory and then in 2004 nobody seemed even slightly interested in him. John Edwards in 2008 almost ran against the record of John Edwards in 2004, and was quickly overshadowed by Clinton and Obama.
It’s fun speculation but it has no real support.
— Kieselguhr Kid · May 27, 01:11 AM · #
Interesting post. I must take issue, however, with the implication that Perry and/or Jeb Bush would be 2016 front runners in a race that could include Gov. Haley; Gov. Martinez; Sen. Rubio; Gov. Jindal; Sen. Paul, etc. We’ve had an enough obnoxious Texans, and Jeb Bush will be a memory with a bad last name.
— Scott Anderson · May 27, 05:49 PM · #
But Noah, Palin is going to get the nom and tap Perry for her VP. Or she is going to VP again, because that is less work. She is coming.
Its going to be hilarious to watch all the “serious” conservatives run around like an anthill on fire. Care for a walk down memory lane , Noah?
Reihan! ow ow ow make it stop.
Ross and Reihan were the biggest Palin pimps around. Now She is going to destroy the GOP just like I predicted.
And its going to be delicious to watch.
— matoko_chan · May 30, 11:38 AM · #
There are so many faulty assumptions in this post I don’t know where to start. Building off Kieselguhr Kid, recent history belies this argument, as Lieberman and Edwards had no obvious benefit from serving as losing VP nominees. Did Geraldine Ferrero, Lloyd Bentsen, Jack Kemp, or even Dan Quayle ever come anywhere near a nomination? More generally, no losing VP nominee has later won the presidency since FDR.
And given the fecklessness with which McCain ran the 2008 general election, I’m not sure I’d so blithely assume he could have won in 2000.
— right · May 30, 02:59 PM · #
While I agree with all the objections raised above and think this post could be thought out a lot more, in fairness to Millman, his caveat was that a VP nod increases chance to compete. He never said anything about the VP spot being some guarantee of a primary win.
I think that point is true. A VP nod automatically makes you a credible primary candidate in the press’s eyes, which will put you on top of any initial polling. I don’t think Edwards is a 3rd choice in the dem primary in 2008 without the VP nod anymore than Hillary is a 2nd choice without having a president for a husband, or Barack was first choice without his DNC speech. It’s all about shining at the national level.
— Console · May 31, 03:14 AM · #
I don’t think Edwards is a 3rd choice in the dem primary in 2008 without the VP nod
But he was 2nd choice in 2004 before he got the VP nod, so why not?
— right · May 31, 01:59 PM · #
In any case, the much stronger argument for Republicans is “if Tim Pawlenty had run for the nomination in 2008 and put in a strong showing, people would take him seriously in 2012,” as the only rookie candidates to win the Republican nomination since Goldwater in 1964 were Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, each of whom had other notable elements in their favor, which every potential candidate in this field (save Jeb Bush) lacks.
— right · May 31, 02:04 PM · #
“And given the fecklessness with which McCain ran the 2008 general election, I’m not sure I’d so blithely assume he could have won in 2000.”
It’s always fun to see how people misremember the past to fit the present. John McCain 2000 was quite a different animal than McCain 2008 and Bush 2000 was a thoroughly underwhelming candidate who essentially needed the entire U.S. political/media establishment to drag him to victory.
Mike
— MBunge · May 31, 03:40 PM · #
Speaking of revisionist history am I the only one who remembers that Bush actually lost the election in 2000?
— Ch3t · Jun 1, 03:57 PM · #
In fact McCain 2000 was such a formidable campaigner he ``sucked all the oxygen’‘ away from Bradley, sadly.
Ch3t *mis*remembers — when the big Washington Post collaborative investigation was finished, Bush won the election under most scenarios.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Jun 2, 09:13 PM · #
No, I recall that. Bush won Florida under every recount scenario proposed by the Gore campaign during the Supreme Court case. But that’s because Gore didn’t propose a full recount of the entire state, and under that scenario, Gore won Florida and therefore the election.
Of course, regardless of Florida, Gore won the popular vote by almost 500,000 votes. That’s “winning the election” by at least one definition of the term – “most votes cast.”
— Ch3t · Jun 2, 09:35 PM · #