A-Veeping We Will Go
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Reihan takes another strong line on the VP selection by the Democratic nominee:
The question is no longer whether Barack Obama should select Jim Webb as his nominee. It is whether he can justify not doing so.
I don’t think that’s the question. As sociologically fun as an Obama-Webb ticket would be, let’s stop and consider this for a moment. Leave aside for the moment that Webb has all but said that he will flee the country if someone tries to make him the running mate (this is only a small exaggeration of how much he doesn’t want the job, further confirming in everyone’s mind that he is probably the only one who deserves it). Webb’s success in shepherding the “new GI Bill” through the Senate is an impressive achievement, and it does the junior Senator from Virginia credit that he has carried the genuine concern he showed during his career and during his ‘06 campaign for veterans into the Senate to good effect. Those of us on the right who cheered his election can take some satisfaction that he is proving to be a very capable legislator, and he is showing the President the way as he said he would. Still, I am amazed that the first thought when confronted with “a masterful legislative tactician” in one party or the other is, “How can we get this man into the Naval Observatory and waste his talents?” There are plenty of objections to putting two first-term Senators on the same ticket as it is, and if it is true that virtually no one votes for the Vice President it’s not clear that Webb brings concrete benefits to the campaign, even if he would clearly be an asset in a Democratic administration. Meanwhile, like the even more ludicrous idea of putting Bobby Jindal on the Republican ticket, selecting Webb all but ensures that any hopes of executive office that Webb might have hinge on the outcome of the election. Losing VP nominees may go back to their old jobs or are never heard from again. In this case, what’s best for Obama may not be good for Webb, Virginia or the Senate Democrats.
Likewise, it shocks me when I read about people seriously contemplating Mark Warner as Obama’s running mate. In the case of Webb, assuming the Democrats win the presidential race, you would be depriving the Senate Democrats of one of their most promising new members and opening up a narrowly won Senate seat to a fresh contest after Gov. Kaine appoints a placeholder for the bulk of Webb’s term. In the case of Warner, this abandons a sure-thing Democratic victory in the election to replace John Warner and throws some poor last-minute replacement into the middle of a campaign he will have a much harder time winning. Unless Obama’s election hinges on Virginia alone, and it’s not clear that this is the state he needs to worry about the most, Mark Warner would do a new Obama administration a lot more good in the Senate as an additional Democratic vote in support of his agenda than he would as a VP nominee who might not even be needed in order to carry Virginia.
Strangely enough, Ohio and Pennsylvania appear to be less likely wins than Virginia right now, and as Reihan and I have been saying for some time in different ways it is the party that can appeal to those voters of the ”lower-middle” in the Midwest that will probably prevail. Webb may help some with these voters with his populist message, but then why not the Ohio populist Strickland who was just elected with 60% of the vote? On the other hand, if the selection should have many years of executive experience, Rendell remains a decent choice. A Sebelius choice just seems bizarre, and were he to choose her it would be almost a request to be defeated. Rasmussen Reports has the numbers:
Twenty-eight percent (28%) of Kansas voters are more likely to vote for Obama is Sebelius is on the ticket while 34% say they are less likely to vote for Obama with Sebelius as the Vice-Presidential candidate.
Not only does Sebelius not help Obama in Kansas, where he gets trounced anyway, but she actually seems to hurt him (!) where one might think she would be a valuable asset. Also, SUSA’s running mate match-ups, while hardly ideal measurements given how little-known many of the named candidates are, show that Obama either loses many swing states or runs much more weakly when Sebelius is on the ticket. In fact, the one running mate with whom Obama consistently runs better is John Edwards. Presumably some significant part of this is name recognition and familiarity, but it does seem worth remembering that Sebelius’ snoozeworthy response to the State of the Union has been the public’s only experience with Sebelius and it may have done some lasting damage to her national reputation.
Meanwhile, I think Reihan is still in fulminating mode:
Even if Webb murdered someone in an alleyway in a fit of pique or been paid vast sums by the Chinese Politburo for detailed intelligence about American naval vessels, he would still be a far stronger and more appealing vice presidential nominee than Hillary Clinton.
Filed under: politics
“Losing VP nominees may go back to their old jobs or are never heard from again.”
Except FDR, yes.
But yes; Strickland over Webb is a better idea.
Oops, I forgot to mention the FDR exception. Thanks for the reminder.
Daniel, would you mind expanding on why you think VA is a more likely pickup for the Obama/TBD ticket than PA? (ignoring for a start VP choice effects, if any). Recent polling sure doesn’t seem to be running that way to me (e.g. yesterday’s Rassmussen has BO +2 in PA, and the Rassmussens don’t have the wild swings like the SurveyUSA VA polls).
Thanks.
Oh, and re the Webb as VP, that link is to Ross, not Reihan, and from last January, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
For starters, Obama is leading in SUSA polling in Virginia, while he is trailing in Ohio and leading very narrowly in PA in Rasmussen polling, Virginia has been trending Democratic, they have a very strong Senate candidate there who should help boost turnout and even in Rasmussen polling McCain’s lead in Virginia is very narrow. Obama also does not seem to have encountered the same degree of resistance among white Democrats in VA that he has encountered in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and this had something to do with his very strong performance in the Virginia primary. A Democrat should have no trouble securing Pennsylvania, but his support there is weaker than it is in Virginia, even though he technically leads in PA. That’s how I’m thinking about it anyway.
Thanks for alerting me to the missing link. I was responding to Reihan’s new piece in The Current and then forgot to link to it! Whoops.
Sebelius won’t be chosen given her present issues with the Archbishop of Kansas City. That situation seems to be getting hotter, and you don’t make a person VP so that you can have embarassing fights. Strickland strikes me as weak. There would seem as much reason to choose him as Doyle in Wisconsin. In both cases, there aren’t coattails and neither is particularly known outside his own state. Webb is weak in the areas you mention, but he is also one of the more competent anti-war voices in the party. McCain and his VP are going to be attempting to offer a nuanced position on Iraq, and that is a very difficult position to play against Webb. A name you don’t mention that I would add would be Joe Biden.
The issue of losing a key senator is really very important, which as you say is a good argument against Webb, and a good argument in favor of Edwards, who holds no office at all. It also tends to limit senate picks to those who live in states with strong Dem bases and Dem governers who can control interim appointments. Someone like Biden would work, but not the many of the others. Strickland has very little appeal outside of Ohio, and it’s not certain he could carry the state anyway. Edwards seems as valuable in Ohio as Strickland, and probably as valuable in Virginia as Webb, and certainly more so in NC than either, and stronger in PA than anyone. Much as I had ignored or written him off for VP early on, he’s beginning to look like the strongest overall pick, and clearly the most seasoned, vetted, and talented campaigner.
What I haven’t seen are any polls which demonstrate Clinton’s affect on the ticket in comparison to other VP choices. Is there any info our there you know of?
You assert that vanquished VP candidates from past elecrtions are electoral poison, yet later propose John Edwards as the most viable running mate.
Chris Dodd would be an excellent VP as well.
According to SUSA, Edwards *is* the most viable running mate. I’m not persuaded that he brings that much to the ticket, just as I didn’t think he brought very much last time, but respondents in these polls think differently. Selecting him would be extremely unusual, not because past VP candidates are “electoral poison,” which I never said, but because they are almost never chosen a second time after having lost once before. The exception to that rule is FDR, who broke most of the rules of 20th century politics, and even FDR didn’t get to come back the very next election for a do-over.
I like Webb. (Describing him as merely a first-term senator misrepresents him badly.)
And despite Webb’s sort of pro forma protestations to the contrary, he’s clearly delighted by the VP speculation. See his recent appearance on MTP, where he was clearly enjoying his good week. The GI Bill, his new book, and the veep rumors. He said he would consider an invitation. Link? Hmmm, try this one: Webb4VP.. Scroll down for the MSNBC video of his MTP interview. Yes, he says, “I would” be open to a VP invitation.
Sebelius is too polite and lacks attack-dog chops that Obama will need. Love Edwards, who I think has lived down his war vote. But the ticket needs two solidly antiwar candidates, and it needs a converted Reagan Dem, and it needs a Scots-Irish highly decorated former marine who can speak to “his people” in the refractory13-state swath of Appalachia.