2008 Veep Candidates
I am starting a thread for folks to muse or opine about who they think the likely vice presidential picks will be, or else what they think they should be. For both the Democratic and Republican races.
I will just let a picture describe my best case scenario at this point.
Think about it.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
I've thought Bill Richardson was the strongest and best running mate for either Obama or Clinton.
I still put Richardson in a top 5, and let's assume that with this big Wisconsin win, it actually is Obama as the nominee.
Then I'll suggest these 10 possibilities:
1. Gov. Tim Kaine, VA
2. Gov. Bill Richardson, NM
3. Gov. Kathleen Sebilius, KAN
4. Sen. Byron Dorgan, ND
5. Sen. Jim Webb, VA
6. Gov. Brian Schweitzer, MON
7. Sen. Ken Salazar, COL
8. Gov. Janet Napolitano, AZ
9. Sen. Chris Dodd, CT
10. Sen. Claire McCaskill, MO
For a McCain candidacy, it feels like there's more pressure for him to choose a former primary opponent, but I have my doubts.
1. Gov. Charlie Crist, FLA
2. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, MN
3. Gov. Mark Sanford, SC
4. Sen. Lindsey Graham, SC
5. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, ARK
6. Gov. Haley Barbour, MISS
7. Former Gov. Mitt Romner, MASS
8. Gov. Rick Perry, TEX
9. Former Sen. Rick Santorum, PA
10. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, TEX
Thoughts as of 2-20-08 (let's see how it starts to shake out by mid-June...)
Wes
Why create a vacancy? Wes Clark would make a fine VP. He has a long military resume, which is one of the few areas that McCain can legitimatly attack Obama on. And he drew votes well in 2004, winning Oklahoma and finishing strong elsewhere.Originally Posted by wesvolk
I would also add John Edwards to the list.
There's going to be a lot of pressure on him to pick a true corporatist as his running mate. If for no other reasn than to set up those who really run the party for 2012. Having said that, I will add that several of the names on your list would fit the bill.For a McCain candidacy, it feels like there's more pressure for him to choose a former primary opponent, but I have my doubts.
1. Gov. Charlie Crist, FLA
2. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, MN
3. Gov. Mark Sanford, SC
4. Sen. Lindsey Graham, SC
5. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, ARK
6. Gov. Haley Barbour, MISS
7. Former Gov. Mitt Romner, MASS
8. Gov. Rick Perry, TEX
9. Former Sen. Rick Santorum, PA
10. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, TEX
Thoughts as of 2-20-08 (let's see how it starts to shake out by mid-June...)
Wes
I think Wesley Clark and John Edwards would serve the country better as a cabinet member: Wesley Clark as the Secretary of Defense, John Edwards as the Attorney General. Of course, Wesley Clark can't be Secretary of Defense until 2010.
I'm putting my money on Sebelius for Obama, Crist for McCain
10% solution
Since the POTUS candidates of the Democrat and Republican Parites adhere to the 'invade the world/invite the world' meme.
I would like to see some sanity in the President of the Senate's chair. D-5 and R-3 fit the bill. I doubt either will make the cut.
R-2 is the North Star State's version of RMN; but it would be worth sending him to the Potomac shores and give Minnesota some ease from "Tricky Tim" who has given us non-tax taxes.
To the person who dismissed the list of governors with "Why create a vacancy?" - let me point out that to nominate Bill Richardson would not create a vacancy; it would merely extend the one we have now. Bill's spent more time on the road than a traveling sales rep. Lt. Governor Diane Denish is running the government. And when Our Bill does pop in and say "Honey! I'm home! I'll take over now!" it's proving to be a rat's nest of petty problems very similar to those created when the traveling spouse comes home and wants to start running things again.
Don't get me wrong. I like Our Bill. But his off-again-on-again gubernatorial style has created problems for the state, and so - Hillary, Barack, take him with my blessings. Please!
One advantage to having him as vice president in Hilary's administration is what I noted during their local whistlestop - she can park her Bill in the office of our Bill and give them the sort of gladhanding job that suits their talents best, which will keep her Bill out of everyone's hair. Plus do our state's economy a favor by increasing the popularity of our cuisine in the nation's capitol.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."
"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.
Mark Sanford, the governor that my state is suffering under the tuteledge of, supported McCain back in 2000. That may give him a leg up in the competition. He certainly has the ambition. Of course, many in this state, this writer included might be happy to see him leave the state's executive mansion, but not at the cost of being only one sepetugarian heartbeat away from the oval office.Since the POTUS candidates of the Democrat and Republican Parites adhere to the 'invade the world/invite the world' meme.
I would like to see some sanity in the President of the Senate's chair. D-5 and R-3 fit the bill. I doubt either will make the cut.
R-2 is the North Star State's version of RMN; but it would be worth sending him to the Potomac shores and give Minnesota some ease from "Tricky Tim" who has given us non-tax taxes.
Selecting a current Senator would upset the balance in the Senate. Both party candidates (McCain and Obama / Clinton) are current Senators; selecting another could potentially put the winning party down by two. In states where the party has a Governor of the same party, this may not be a problem, assuming the assigned replacement is selected by the Governor and can hold the seat.
For these current Senators, the current Governor in ( )
Obama
4. Sen. Byron Dorgan, ND (John Hoeven - R)
5. Sen. Jim Webb, VA (Tim Kaine - D)
7. Sen. Ken Salazar, COL (Bill Ritter - R)
9. Sen. Chris Dodd, CT (M Jody Rell - R)
10. Sen. Claire McCaskill, MO (Matt Blunt - R)
McCain
4. Sen. Lindsey Graham, SC (Mark Sanford - R)
10. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, TEX (Rick Perry - R)
Following this rule, McCain retains the slate; Obama loses 4,7,9,10, leaving for him
1. Gov. Tim Kaine, VA
2. Gov. Bill Richardson, NM
3. Gov. Kathleen Sebilius, KAN
5. Sen. Jim Webb, VA
6. Gov. Brian Schweitzer, MON
8. Gov. Janet Napolitano, AZ
From these, I like
Jim Webb - Vietnam; Secretary of the Navy - Good to help blunt McCain.
Bill Richardson - Sec of Energy; United Nations Amb - Good for International
Janet Napolitano - Immigration - Another hot issue and helps the Southwest
On Generations,
Jim Webb - '46
Bill Richardson - '47
Janet Napolitano - '57
I am not sure how the other players help the Obama ticket.
I cannot even begin to figure out McCain's running mate. He has always been a national stage figure, so almost anyone he picks will be overshadowed. But from a conservative base / economic point of view, I think Romney has the inside track.
As an aside (since I am pro-Rail) - McCain selecting Kay Bailey Hutchinson would be absolutely schizoid for Amtrak - matching a top opponent (McCain) with a top friend (Hutchinson).
Last edited by Arkarch; 02-20-2008 at 12:55 PM.
But what if the Clintons "steal" the Democratic nomination from Obama, using some combination of Michigan/Florida and the superdelegates?
In that case, if I'm head of the RNC, I consider one VP candidate, and one VP candidate only:
Condoleezza Rice!
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.
Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!
She has been whispered.
One problem for the social right
She is pro choice.
If you want dirt on Condi, all you have to do is read Wonkette (no, not The Wonkette here, but Wonkette the gossip blogger). Condi is one of her favorite targets. One entry in particular should be especially troubling for social conservatives.
Your local general nuisance
"I am not an alter ego. I am an unaltered id!"
Jim Webb
I found out that I'll be hearing Jim Webb speak at my NTEU annual Legislative conference on March 4th. I'll give you all a report.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Please do!!!
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Update - Bill Richardson Looked Darn Good on Stage with Obama Today
Richardson moves back to the top of my list - ties to the Clinton camp, loads of DC and foreign policy experience, Latino, governor experience, nice guy, a bit older and unlikely to have an agenda of his own in 8 yrs (the only good thing Cheney brought to being the Veep).
I will start with the assumption that the Presidential election will be close. The old idea that the VP candidate can carry a State has been shown invalid. Senator McCain might under that model find Mitt Romney attractive as one who can influence voters in the state in which he was Governor (MA) and the one to which he has lots of ties (MI, more on his late father's reputation as Governor)... but neither Michigan nor Massachusetts is likely to vote for any Republican candidate in November. John Edwards couldn't win North Carolina, and that would have been enough to give us John Kerry as President. Napolitano will not neutralize John McCain's obvious strengths in Arizona.
I can rule out former Senator Santorum offhand; the man got trounced in 2006 in Pennsylvania, a state split almost 50/50 D/R despite offering the ostensible benefits of having the #4 Republican in power in the nation. He has huge negatives, having shown himself as an extreme Bushite and as a reminder of what people hated about Dubya.
Rick Perry, Dubya's successor as Governor of Texas? Texas is too similar to Arizona in politics and demographics, and Texas is one of the few States completely out of play for the Democrats in the Presidential race. Besides, most Americans have had one too many ex-Texas Governors as President; Texas ways of doing things (lots of private-public partnerships that bleed the taxpayer to feed special interests) don't seem so attractive outside of Texas and perhaps Florida. Except for Pawlenty, all of the rest are Southerners whose States are likewise out of play for the Democrats (including Florida, in my opinion). Huckabee couldn't win a primary outside of the South, suggesting that he would have cultural problems in a northern State in play -- like Ohio or Iowa. Minnesota is a State in play for the Republicans, and not one that would go R only in a landslide.
As Hispanics, Salazar and Richardson, both from States in play are best described as... intriguing. Webb, for all of his strengths, hasn't even completed one term in the Senate, so even if Virginia is in play (the only former Confederate State in play) the supposed weakness of Obama in a short time in national politics is intensified.
I have to say that Richardson looks like the best possible VP for Obama at this point.
I have to object to the idea that Texas is a total red state: the demographics disagree here, with 35% Hispanics and 11% Blacks, if those two groups turned out with 80-90% favoring Democrats, you'd overcome the white population easily.
Texas has the potential to turn in this election: but whether it turns or not hinges heavily on which way Hispanic voters swing. McCain and Obama are very similar on immigration, so it's a wash in that regard. But if Richardson can turn out Hispanics for him, he could easily turn Texas blue.
If Texas turns blue, Obama will create an unbeatable trifecta: New York, California, and Texas. He won't need to win Pennsylvannia or Florida or even Ohio. Those three states along with the midwest and maybe parts of the south will make him the winner.
Even without winning Texas, Richardson would make the state competitive, and make McCain waste money on the state.
After a couple months, I still consider these three for Obama...
Jim Webb - '46
Bill Richardson - '47
Janet Napolitano - '57
Of those, Bill Richardson probably has the inside track based on foreign policy, energy experience and latino vote. I think he made the calculated decision that Obama is the candidate and he needs to make his move. Still, it may come back to chemistry. The others have reasoned chances.
For McCain,
I predict Mitt Romney; with a Romney-Huckabee rematch in 2012.
These are reasonable choices, though reason doesn't always apply. I have to agree that Richardson looks best.
McCain and Romney don't get along well enough to run together, and Huckabee is a non-starter. I see McCain picking a sitting governor from a bluish state. Donald Carcieri from Rhode Island would be a good choice. I know Matt Blunt from Missouri is salivating at the possibility, but I don't see him getting the nod.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Stealth Veep Candidate - Not So Much
Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota's favorite son at this year's Republican convention in St. Paul is regularly touted - or outed - as a leading contender to team with John McCain this fall. Of course, the Governor steadfastly notes that he's our Guv, and fully intends to stick with us to the end of his term in early-2011.
So, as a Governor he might be a bit lacking on those foreign policy creds, right? So, one shouldn't be suspect of yet another unannounced trip to the midst of a former well-known Eastern European war zone, at this time of year - with the Legislature still in session and his big anti-St. Paul line item vetoes fresh on everyone's minds - should one? Hmmm....
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/17578299.html
Pawlenty checks on Minnesota troops in Kosovo
Gov. Tim Pawlenty traveled secretly to Kosovo this weekend to meet with the more than 400 Minnesota National Guard troops stationed there.
While political tensions remain real in Kosovo, which in February declared its independence from Serbia, Minnesota's Guard members are doing an important job helping keep the peace, he said.
"The Minnesota National Guard is one of the highest performing Guards in the country," Pawlenty said during a conference call Saturday. "We're here to let them know Minnesotans are thinking of them.''
The Minnesota troops stationed in Kosovo are from the 2nd Battalion, 135th Infantry, headquartered in Mankato. Deployed in October, they're part of the U.N. international peacekeeping force in the country.
The governor made a whirlwind tour of the country over the weekend, visiting the Minnesota unit's base at Camp Bondsteel, in the town of Vitina, which the troops are responsible for patrolling, and several small towns. The day's activities ended with a dinner with the troops at Camp Bondsteel followed by a town meeting with soldiers. Pawlenty said he relies on such meetings to learn what's on their minds.
Although there is speculation that Pawlenty is working to boost his vice presidential credentials, the governor said the sole purpose of the trip was to touch base with the troops and let them know Minnesotans were thinking of them.
Since becoming governor, Pawlenty has made a point of visiting Guard troops overseas, starting with a venture to Bosnia in 2003. In March 2007, Pawlenty conducted a similar trip to visit troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bill Richardson and Janet Napolitano sound like good Obama choices, McCain should choose a Republican well regarded by the Conservative Activist base of the party, in a close election with a very likely strong Democratic turnout, a Republican not having the support of Ann Coluter, Rush Limbaugh is a handicapp however matter small.
"The f****** place should be wiped off the face of the earth".
David Bowie on Los Angeles
Webb
Interesting analysis on Obama's potential problem with the Scots-Irish in this article.
If his analysis is even partially correct, it would be another good reason for him to choose Jim Webb for the Veep slot.
*For Discussion Purposes ONLY*
Upcountry
05.13.08 -- 10:00PM
By Josh Marshall
If the exit polls (and the pre-election polls) are accurate, Hillary Clinton is set to win West Virginia by roughly a 2 to 1 margin over Barack Obama. Oregon, next Tuesday, favors Obama. But Kentucky, which votes the same day, seems likely to yield a similar margin for Sen. Clinton. So what is it about these two states that makes them so favorable to Hillary Clinton?
There's been a lot of talk in this campaign about Barack Obama's problem with working class white voters or rural voters. But these claims are both inaccurate because they are incomplete. You can look at states like Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states and see the different numbers and they are all explained by one basic fact. Obama's problem isn't with white working class voters or rural voters. It's Appalachia. That explains why Obama had a difficult time in Ohio and Pennsylvania and why he's getting crushed in West Virginia and Kentucky.
If it were just a matter of rural voters or the white working class, the pattern would show up in other regions. But by and large it does not.
In so many words, Pennsylvania and Ohio have big chunks of Appalachia within their borders. But those regions are heavily offset by non-Appalachian sections that are cultural and demographically distinct. West Virginia is 100% Appalachian. If you look at southeastern Ohio or the middle chunk of Pennsylvania, Obama did about the same as he's doing tonight in West Virginia.
Below is a map of the Appalachian counties stretching from New York down into Mississippi. Below that is a map of counties that Hillary Clinton has won by more than 65%. As you can see match up quite closely -- the grey gaps are Kentucky and West Virginia which hadn't voted yet.
So what is it about this region?
Let me offer a series of overlapping explanations. First, some basic demographics. It's widely accepted that Hillary Clinton does better with older voters, less educated voters and white voters. These demographics perfectly match West Virginia -- and, more loosely, the entire Appalachian region. A few key points from tonight's exit polls demonstrate the point: 4 out of 10 voters were over 60 years of age. 7 out of 10 lacked a college degree -- the highest proportion of any electorate in the country. And 95% of the electorate was white.
Basically you have a state that is made up almost exclusively of Clinton's voters. But there's a deeper historical explanation that we have to apply as well -- one nicely illustrated by the origins of West Virginia itself.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, in the middle Atlantic and particularly in the Southern states, there was a long-standing cleavage between the coastal and 'piedmont' regions on the one hand and the upcountry areas to the west on the other. It's really the coastal lowlands and the Appalachian districts. On the other side of the Appalachian mountain range the pattern is flipped, with the Appalachians in the east and the lowlands in the west.
These regions were settled disproportionately by Scots-Irish immigrants who pushed into the hill country to the west in part because that's where the affordable land was but also because they wanted to get away from the more stratified and inegalitarian society of the east which was built by English settlers and their African slaves. Crucially, slavery never really took root in these areas. And this is why during the Civil War, Unionism (as in support for the federal union and opposition to the treason of secession) ran strong through the Appalachian upcountry, even into Deep South states like Alabama and Mississippi.
As I alluded to earlier, this was the origin of West Virginia, which was originally the westernmost part of Virginia. The anti-slavery, anti-slaveholding upcountry seceded from Virginia to remain in the Union after Virginia seceded from the Union. Each of these regions was fiercely anti-Slavery. And most ended up raising regiments that fought in the Union Army. But they were as anti-slave as they were anti-slavery, both of which they viewed as the linchpins of the aristocratic and inegalitarian society they loathed. It was a society that was both more violent and more self-reliant.
This is history. But it shapes the region. It's overwhelmingly white, economically underdeveloped (another legacy of the pre-civil war pattern) and arguably because of that underdevelopment has very low education rates and disproportionately old populations.
For all these reasons, if you're familiar with the history, it's really no surprise that Barack Obama would have a very hard time running in this region.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
I dig the article Zar, and the Scots-Irish are something I'm interested in as well. But I'm not satisfied with the conclusion of the article. The author lays out why these areas are the way they are with their own particular history. But it does not say why that necessarily appeals to one candidate or the other.
Is Hillary really that much more egalitarian than Obama? Is Obama really a throwback to inegalitarian feudal society? This seems a critical link in the author's argument which is completely skipped over.
Edit to add:
After reading upthread to see the picture you posted - this does make a great argument for that particular combo. I dig the man.
I grew-up in the part of Western NY that is Appalachia through and through. The locals who didn't go to college, pack their bags and leave are an odd mix of resenters and individualists. For many of them, it's quite possible to resent how they are treated at their less-than-stellar jobs, but fight tooth and nail to keep unions out of their companies.
Before you ask, there is no rational reason, but the emotional reasons are strong. These are people who will defend property rights, yet have virtually none of their own. They are proud to a fault. They invented the Kool-Aid.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
All this reminds me of Jim Webb's book (forget the title) that I started reading at Jenny's last month.Interesting analysis on Obama's potential problem with the Scots-Irish in this article.
If his analysis is even partially correct, it would be another good reason for him to choose Jim Webb for the Veep slot.
*For Discussion Purposes ONLY*
Upcountry
05.13.08 -- 10:00PM
By Josh Marshall
If the exit polls (and the pre-election polls) are accurate, Hillary Clinton is set to win West Virginia by roughly a 2 to 1 margin over Barack Obama. Oregon, next Tuesday, favors Obama. But Kentucky, which votes the same day, seems likely to yield a similar margin for Sen. Clinton. So what is it about these two states that makes them so favorable to Hillary Clinton?
There's been a lot of talk in this campaign about Barack Obama's problem with working class white voters or rural voters. But these claims are both inaccurate because they are incomplete. You can look at states like Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states and see the different numbers and they are all explained by one basic fact. Obama's problem isn't with white working class voters or rural voters. It's Appalachia. That explains why Obama had a difficult time in Ohio and Pennsylvania and why he's getting crushed in West Virginia and Kentucky.
If it were just a matter of rural voters or the white working class, the pattern would show up in other regions. But by and large it does not.
In so many words, Pennsylvania and Ohio have big chunks of Appalachia within their borders. But those regions are heavily offset by non-Appalachian sections that are cultural and demographically distinct. West Virginia is 100% Appalachian. If you look at southeastern Ohio or the middle chunk of Pennsylvania, Obama did about the same as he's doing tonight in West Virginia.
Below is a map of the Appalachian counties stretching from New York down into Mississippi. Below that is a map of counties that Hillary Clinton has won by more than 65%. As you can see match up quite closely -- the grey gaps are Kentucky and West Virginia which hadn't voted yet.
So what is it about this region?
Let me offer a series of overlapping explanations. First, some basic demographics. It's widely accepted that Hillary Clinton does better with older voters, less educated voters and white voters. These demographics perfectly match West Virginia -- and, more loosely, the entire Appalachian region. A few key points from tonight's exit polls demonstrate the point: 4 out of 10 voters were over 60 years of age. 7 out of 10 lacked a college degree -- the highest proportion of any electorate in the country. And 95% of the electorate was white.
Basically you have a state that is made up almost exclusively of Clinton's voters. But there's a deeper historical explanation that we have to apply as well -- one nicely illustrated by the origins of West Virginia itself.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, in the middle Atlantic and particularly in the Southern states, there was a long-standing cleavage between the coastal and 'piedmont' regions on the one hand and the upcountry areas to the west on the other. It's really the coastal lowlands and the Appalachian districts. On the other side of the Appalachian mountain range the pattern is flipped, with the Appalachians in the east and the lowlands in the west.
These regions were settled disproportionately by Scots-Irish immigrants who pushed into the hill country to the west in part because that's where the affordable land was but also because they wanted to get away from the more stratified and inegalitarian society of the east which was built by English settlers and their African slaves. Crucially, slavery never really took root in these areas. And this is why during the Civil War, Unionism (as in support for the federal union and opposition to the treason of secession) ran strong through the Appalachian upcountry, even into Deep South states like Alabama and Mississippi.
As I alluded to earlier, this was the origin of West Virginia, which was originally the westernmost part of Virginia. The anti-slavery, anti-slaveholding upcountry seceded from Virginia to remain in the Union after Virginia seceded from the Union. Each of these regions was fiercely anti-Slavery. And most ended up raising regiments that fought in the Union Army. But they were as anti-slave as they were anti-slavery, both of which they viewed as the linchpins of the aristocratic and inegalitarian society they loathed. It was a society that was both more violent and more self-reliant.
This is history. But it shapes the region. It's overwhelmingly white, economically underdeveloped (another legacy of the pre-civil war pattern) and arguably because of that underdevelopment has very low education rates and disproportionately old populations.
For all these reasons, if you're familiar with the history, it's really no surprise that Barack Obama would have a very hard time running in this region.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King
