It’s way too early to talk about presidential running mates, so why don’t we do precisely that? Ideally, the choice of a running mate would be made based on their suitability to take over as president at a moment’s notice but (Geraldine Ferraro, Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin) we know that this is not always even the smallest of considerations. In practice, the choice is usually made with electoral considerations at the fore, although there are several different strategies that we’ve seen be employed. The oldest is a strategy of creating some regional balance. So, for example, northerners like JFK and Dukakis chose southerners like LBJ and Lloyd Bentsen, while southerners like LBJ and Jimmy Carter chose northerners like Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale. Another strategy is base mobilization, which means picking someone who has appeal to the your strongest partisans and who will also throw the red meat. Eisenhower did this with Nixon, Nixon did it with Agnew, McCain did it with Palin and Romney attempted it with Paul Ryan. Another strategy is one we could call ‘compensation.’ A candidate who has an obvious weakness chooses someone that can make up for that weakness. George McGovern tried to unite a split party by picking (as his second choice) Sargent Shriver as his running mate, thereby hoping to get people to rally around the Kennedy family. Ronald Reagan and John Kerry made their selections in an effort to reunify their respective parties after a bruising primary season. Poppy Bush tried to compensate for his age by picking a young energetic senator in Dan Quayle. To some degree, Obama’s selection of Biden was an effort to cover for his lack of foreign policy experience.
The most unusual strategy is one we could call “amplification.” This is a strategy where you try to find someone with the same strengths and profile as yourself in order to bolster your advantage. This is what Bill Clinton did by selecting another young southerner, Al Gore, as his running mate. Many people assumed that Clinton would follow the practice of picking a northerner. Others thought he would try to compensate for his young age or lack of foreign policy experience by choosing an old hand. Al Gore did have some limited military experience which partially addressed Clinton’s “draft-dodging” problem, but he would have picked someone else if that was his main concern.
If Hillary Clinton wants to amplify her advantage, she’ll pick a woman as a running mate, perhaps one who is also of a certain age, and maybe one who has a reputation for political centrism and toughness on foreign policy. That’s why I’ve been thinking that Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri would be an interesting choice.
I see that McCaskill was out in force over the weekend defending Clinton and working to atone for her stinging endorsement of Barack Obama in the 2008 cycle. That’s the kind of thing the Clintons want to see. And being from the Obama camp could be helpful to McCaskill because she could form a bridge of sorts, allowing Clinton to show magnanimity and at the same time a peace offering to Obama’s supporters.
The Clinton-McCaskill ticket would take two baby-boomer women with political roots in the Ozarks, a centrist streak, and demonstrated toughness on national security issues, and offer them as two-for-the-price-of-one.
There would be many downsides to this. Amplifying strengths also can amplify weaknesses. Doubling down on age, gender and region prevents you from broadening your appeal. The base will like McCaskill’s endorsement of Obama, but her politics not as much. People whose main concerns with Obama and Hillary are related to foreign policy and national security won’t be encouraged by a hawkish running mate.
One last consideration is Missouri. The state has moved sharply away from the Democrats in the Obama Era, but in 2004 John Kerry did slightly better there than he did in Virginia. Actually, the results were almost identical. Going back a little further, Bill Clinton won the state twice and Al Gore came within 78,000 votes of carrying it in 2000. Overall, Georgia is a riper state for takeover, but Missouri is in second place among states that McCain carried in 2008. If the Dems are going to launch a challenge for Missouri’s electoral votes, a Clinton-McCaskill ticket would be their strongest team.
Finally, I wish I didn’t need to discuss race here, but it’s unavoidable. Clinton certainly could go in a totally different direction by picking a black or Latino running mate, and/or someone young and vibrant and (perhaps) more progressive. She could go with Elizabeth Warren, who would do much more to excite the base. I’d probably be more comfortable with those kinds of picks, as they’d send a signal that Clinton understands the future of the party, the nation, and the importance of the progressive critique of American politics. But picking McCaskill would have some benefits precisely because Clinton wouldn’t be sending that signal. Mainly, she’d be restoring the image of the party back to what it was prior to Obama when it did much better in places like Arkansas, Missouri, rural Ohio and Pennsylvania, and Kentucky and West Virginia. This might broaden the appeal of the party substantially enough that a lot of House seats would become competitive and put control of the Speaker’s gavel on the table. There’s no point sugar-coating this, but racism is so prevalent in so many communities in this country that it is polarizing the electorate in a way that makes winning control of the House extremely challenging for the Democrats.
And, ironically, a more excited progressive base brings a more polarized electorate, and a more polarized electorate means more Republican control in Congress and in state legislatures. So, progressives need to think hard about how to get what they want. The shortest road to the goals might not be a straight line. President Hillary Clinton with a Democratic House and Senate will give us more progress than would be possible if she’s dealing with Boehner and McConnell.
That’s just reality.
I’m not endorsing this ticket, but it would be formidable.
You know what kind of an empty suit McCaskill has been on Ferguson and the Saint Louis area, right? Didn’t Obama only slightly lose Missouri to that bitter asshole in ’08?
don’t bring such things up…after all, McCaskill’s non-performance and action during the Ferguson fiasco and beyond only upsets ‘ the Blacks’.
As Booman said, she’s definitely not a pick that excites people like us. But I think his analysis is worth consideration. If we want progress, are we best off pushing for a progressive like Warren (who would certainly make me happy) or someone who might help with coattails and putting the House in play?
Like Booman, I’m not going to posit an answer. In my case, that’s only because I have no idea which approach would be best. If it were my choice, I’d say let’s go with the progressive ticket and, while we’re at it, let’s return to funding the 50 state strategy. May as well go with what you believe in, at least until that proves problematic. But given the state of politics in this country, Clinton could serve for two full terms while not being able to accomplish much of anything due to gridlock. If there really is a way around this, it’s worthy of serious consideration.
I’d be interested in WA’s gov Jay Inslee because he’s been formidable on trade and climate change. He’s a good age and more progressive than Clinton.
Also intrigued by Julian Castro. Though he’s too young, perhaps, he is eloquent, charismatic, and knowledgeable. He’d be a good choice to run after Clinton.
McCaskill feels to me like she’d drag Clinton down, not boost her. She may have been a prosecutor but she doesn’t seem to always get her arguments lined up.
I am a big fan of the Castro brothers. Oh not THOSE Castro brothers, I mean THESE Castro brothers. Look you and me and the commentators at Booman might fully understand the difference between two young progressive Castro’s from Texas and two very old communist Castro’s from Cuba but as we all know “No one ever went broke betting against the intelligence of the American people”
Politically putting Julian on the ticket makes a certain sense, at least for the politco-junkies among us. But anyone who has ten seconds of experience in marketing is going to recoil from the following sign:
Clinton-Castro 2016! Both the jokes and the spittle flecked rants from the Teabaliban write themselves.
Almost as bad as Clinton/Nixon 2016.
This is a joke, right?
Her running mate is going to be a Latino. If she doesn’t pick Julian Castro it will be another Latino that moves polling more in her direction in swing states with Latino voters, and not because Teabaggers will makes “soshulist’ jokes about Fidel Castro being her running mate.
I was tempted to troll-rate this comment because it’s it’s so ridiculous.
A woman would be fine, but I think at her age she needs someone younger on the ticket. And not McCaskill in any case, do not see the appeal there.
Clinton is so awesome that she doesn’t need a running mate. And if that’s not enough, she comes packaged with the first dude in waiting that I’m been told for the past twenty-three years is super-duper awesome and all on his own will turn AR, TN, and GA blue.
As she must choose a formal running mate, if she were to go with “amplification,” she needs someone younger than McCaskill. And while not absolutely necessary, not let Jeb! or Rubio turn FL red without a fight. Is there anyone better to fit all that criteria and is most more sympatico with Clinton than DWS?
There is the traditional role of the Vice President. Being post to which someone the party wants to get rid of is promoted upward and never heard from again.
Let’s all add the needed caveats:
We all expect, with good justification, that these numbers will grow much closer as the campaign goes on.
But, let’s say that they never really do get all that much closer. :et’s say that Clinton’s polls hold steady in the Reagan-Mondale range, with her projecting somewhere north of 55% of the popular vote.
A lot depends on where her opponent’s votes are coming from. If she’s just maxing out massively in New York and California, then the House is still probably in Republican hands.
But if she’s making big inroads into formerly Republican areas, then a landslide presidential will translate to a landslide across the board.
This is how states like Georgia and Missouri can fall. It’s also how supposedly safe seats in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Ohio can fall.
Now, if you want to be defensive-minded, you can protect Florida and try to shore up Ohio and Virginia. But there is a much bigger prize in the offing, potentially.
First term average approval numbers for GH Bush were 60.9% As of 4/25/91, GH Bush’s approval number was 76%. Not until January 1992 did his approval number drop below 50%.
Approval numbers for a high profile X are almost always extraordinarily high when there is no Y. An exception was Bill Clinton. As of 4/21/95, he garnered a meager 51% approval rating. That didn’t improve until the public got a look at his 1996 opponents.
DWS might be much more attractive a VP candidate if she’d won statewide office at least once, and done decently well there. But only the small house seat. And not such a great job as DCCC chair (or whatever that position was) during recent midterm elections.
McC is six yrs younger than Hillary, but not too young, so not such a threatening or radical proposition for those worried about having two women on the ticket. She’s four years younger than Eliz Warren. She has that tough, no-nonsense personality that should play well nationally.
In the TV era, appearance of age is as important as actual chronological age. Warren looks a decade younger than McCaskill.
Guess I didn’t go far enough in making an objectively ludicrous suggestion not to need a snark tag.
While many have tried (most recently the awesome Romney), plucking a member of the House for VP is for loser POTUS nominees.
Warren I’d prefer on ideological grounds over McC, but the latter is intriguing for bringing us a fair-sized swing state we’ve been unable to get recently. And if Hillary continues along the populist path on the stump and it is accepted by most of the base, the need for Warren on the ticket diminishes.
As for appearance, McC does not look so aged as to raise the issue of her being well past her prime. Ditto for Hillary, btw, a few yrs older.
Don’t you mean, “if Hillary’s populist marketing plan continues to sell?” You don’t seriously think there’s any substance to it do you? If there were, all her Wall Street money would dry up in a New York minute. And Koch and Adelson money could elect practically any doofus if the opposition has no big money.
I’d put MO out of reach in this election cycle. Unlike many current and seemingly unmovable “red” states, the transition from blue to red in MO was more gradual, but the macro-trend was steady from election cycle to election cycle. Absent a GOP nominee as obviously loony as Akin, it’s not going to suddenly flip blue and when, or if, the trend reverses, it will be a gradual bluing process.
If she fails to come through governing in a Main St way as president, she’ll be a one-termer for sure.
As for MO, I’m not so sure as you seem to be that’s it’s out of reach. I’d way winnable with the right ticket, and assuming the economy continues to improve and Obama hasn’t gotten us into war with Iran or Russia. Definitely puts it in play at the very least, forcing the other guy to spend valuable time there.
And which serious presidential candidate does not use some sort of marketing to sell him/herself? Been happening since the days of Honest Abe the Rail Splitter.
Interesting idea, but I don’t want to get too enthused until I hear more about McC’s FP positions, particularly Ukraine/Russia. If she out-hawks Hillary, that’s not so good. And it could even make Hillary vulnerable to MIIC intrigue as TPTB might find McC a more loyal ally in all their foreign designs.
Dems do have a long history of looking to that state for VPs. 1944 and Truman. 1972 Eagleton. And I would argue JFK in 1960 really wanted Sen Stu Symington, but Lyndon intervened and insisted he be put on the ticket or else.
McCaskill of course is not a liar or crook or schemer like Lyndon and so would be a rather loyal and benign VP for Hillary.
So pending further research on her FP, I’m inclined to be interested in this. Warren would energize the base, but otoh we already have MA in the bag. Not so MO, which would be a very helpful feather in the EC cap for our party’s chances. And I’m expecting a Hillary v Jeb showdown which will be close — close enough for the Repubs to steal if we aren’t careful.
Politically, Hillary Clinton needs a running mate that in governance will (1) deter thoughts of a phony impeachment, (2) have an area of expertise that can lighten the advisory load on less experienced staff, (3) be able to work Congress on the President’s behalf. Al Gore had expertise in foreign affairs, technology, and nuclear non-proliferation that Clinton lacked. Being from the Congress, he could work with the Congress, especially the Senate on some issues. In 1992, phony impeachment was not an issue.
Campaign considerations include backfilling the seat if the candidate is an incumbent. This is a big issue with McCaskill. Who keeps the seat Democratic? Otherwise you have to dig out of a deeper hole in the Senate. That indicates to me that the running mate needs to be a former governor or a respected former member of Congress.
Then there’s ideological balance, a plea to expand the constituent base. In 2008, Obama’s selection of Joe Biden seemed to balance rightward toward the center. The selection of First Gulf War hawk Al Gore seemed to give Clinton some insulation from his lack of service in Vietnam. And Gore had served in-country (in a “Congressional offspring” slot to be sure). But that was before the Gingrich “revolution” and the impact of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News in creating the modern Iron Curtain.
If Hillary Clinton is going to amplify with a woman from the Senate, the obvious pick is Barbara Mikulski. There is no backfilling problem. And impeachment insurance.
If Hillary CLinton is going to amplify ideologically, there is Andrew Cuomo and Chuck Schumer.
If Hillary Clinton is going to amplify experience, there is John Kerry. Another case of impeachment insurance.
If Hillary Clinton is going to amplify offending as many people as possible and still coming out winning, the choice is Rahm Emanuel. On the campaign trail, Rahm will go there.
If Hillary Clinton is going to set up a future bench, who does she pick that both balances out her age and scares the GOP of his or her actually becoming President. IMO Tammy Baldwin is one, but not necessarily the only one. Al Franken is another one, although he is not quite young enough to be the bench candidate. Drawing from the House, Keith Ellison surely is one.
What are some of the other strategies beside complementing, amplifying, and populating a bench are involved in selection of a Vice Presidential candidate?
Well, first of all, you can cross all New York politicians off the list because they are banned by the Constitution from running on a ticket with another New Yorker.
that’s reassuring since his mention of Andrew Cuomo almost made me puke.
Mentioning Cuomo and Rahm as potential picks for Hillary seems to be a common refrain among HillaryHaters and other severe critics in the progosphere, in order to scare off potential HRC primary voters.
Please stop it with the generalized “HillaryHaters” refrain. Not that they don’t exist, but they hang out in their own rightwing ponds. The only ones that wander over are the Paul fanboys recruiting for the stopped clock that they haven’t noticed isn’t exactly stopped and for real and legitimate reasons repulse liberal women.
If Hillary were a man, the spouse of a former president, I wouldn’t find him anymore acceptable as the next president than I do Hillary.
And Mikulski will be 80 yo in 2016. Good grief, not even close. Were any of your suggestions serious?
Kinda points out the shape of the bench, doesn’t it.
Depends on what “serious” means as far as strategy. After all, Bush 41 dragged in Dan Quayle.
Leaving aside the amplification strategy, Jerry Brown and John Hickenlooper are serious candidates.
Without worrying about backfilling the Congress, Patty Murray, Al Franken, Jack Reed, and Jeanne Shaheen are strong candidates. And then there are the ones acting like they are running: Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, and the fans of Elizabeth Warren.
I think that the “amplification” strategy requires stating what it is that is being amplified that would bring in more voters and ensure a more successful administration.
The most interesting question give Hillary Clinton’s background is what are the areas in which a skilled Vice President could improve actual governance.
In case you missed it, my point of view is that the Congress is the limiting factor on any Democrat president elected in 2016. If the Presidential candidate flies solo in 2016 and does not make major efforts to turn around the Congress with a wave elections and sweepingly large coattails, who the President is really doesn’t matter that much except to be able to eek out a sustained veto. I’ve not seen any Democratic Presidential candidate move in that direction. So I view the next five years with dread, especially because Social Security is my primary income.
It’s way too early to be defensive about any of the candidates jockeying for position. Even for the purposes of hippie-bashing or boomer-trashing. The problems the Democratic Party and their flotilla of highly-paid consultants has created for itself are that daunting.
Ideologically there’s no distinction. McCaskill has had to emphasize her differences with Obama (see: Joe Manchin) in order to maintain her popularity back home. That would be a loser of a ticket, frankly. Two moderately conservative Democratic Caucasian women?
No chance.
Julian Castro is in “vice-president” training. Since Hillary is already popular in the RGV in her own right, picking him isn’t just an amplifier, it’s a force multiplier. The Republicans would have to spend money defending turf they usually take for granted.
And if either Rubio or Cruz is to be the GOP VP, it’s going to be HAVE to be a Latino for the Dems. Convention-wise, the Republicans go first this time. (The good news is that we will be spared a Bush-Rubio ticket due to constitutional requirements.)
Just what turf would Republicans have to defend with Castro running? None of the obvious ones seem to have a sufficient margin to me. Winning back lost Democratic territory is more likely: Colorado, Illinois, even North Carolina. And maybe changes in some Congressional races. I would love for someone to run the numbers for various levels of turnout of Latinos if Castro was the VP pick and estimate which districts flip as the turnout increases.
Texas. (Psst: that’s where the RGV is, and it’s as bright blue as Austin. So are the rest of the metros in Texas: Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, essentially all of them except Fort Worth, which is purple.)
If you’d prefer to write off Texas this soon, then I will point out that if Clinton has to fight for Illinois, then the election is already lost.
I’m sure someone will eventually run the numbers you want to see; it’s a little early yet. I believe you can count on some Latino being her running mate if — as a poster above noted — the optics of ‘Clinton-Fidel Castro’ are unsuitable for white Southern males.
And, ironically, a more excited progressive base brings a more polarized electorate, and a more polarized electorate means more Republican control in Congress and in state legislatures.”
I quarrel with this conclusion a bit. The increasingly polarized electorate in Presidential elections has been delivered smashing victories for President Obama, for Congressional Democratic Party candidates, and to a lesser degree for Democrats running for State offices.
The problem we have this decade is that the election which selected the people who controlled the drawing of State Legislative and Congressional District lines was not a Presidential election. Since the Republicans swept that 2010 election, and chose to exhibit their control of District lines in preposterous and unethical ways which stepped on or over legal borders, they have blunted the ability for Democrats to win elections even when majorities of voters vote for Democratic Congressional candidates, as happened in 2012.
Those who will control the next redistricting will be selected in a Presidential election. Therefore, won’t a polarized electorate work to our advantage in 2016 and, most crucially, 2020?
Now, you and I agree that waiting until we have the ability to leverage the redrawing of District lines to take effect in the 2022 election is a long time to wait to have representation in the House and State Legislatures which is more representative of the will of the voters and, therefore, more favorable to Democratic candidates. But that’s baked into the cake in Republican-controlled States, since almost all have avoided having their unethical, undemocratic, gerrymandered-up-the-wazoo District lines thrown out by the Judiciary.
How does demoralizing the Democratic Party base by putting up a ConservaDem ticket like Clinton/McCaskill help us in the crucial 2020 election? They would theoretically be up for re-election, and it is unlikely that Hillary/Claire would have taken positions and passed legislation which would have truly excited the Dem base. Most importantly, such a ticket is less likely to deal aggressively with economic inequality and the lack of collective bargaining power for workers in jobs which happen to be paying poverty wages because corporations want it that way, not because the jobs are low-wage jobs.
Most of the manufacturing jobs of the 20th Century were relatively low-skill jobs, like many of the service jobs of today. But the jobs of today are necessary and important ones which obscenely enrich the employers of many of these workers. That we have allowed propagandists to label lower-skill jobs low-wage jobs has been a successful, painful, destructive scam. And do we believe Hillary can be pushed to do something to change not just the laws, but the cultural discussion which has helped put the worker-stomping laws in place? Not terribly likely, and less likely if McCaskill is on the ticket, I say.
I recognize I got on a rant at the end there. But, as a snakelike but effective political campaign chief said once, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
bleah.
your analysis ignores the issue of whether the Dems can hold McCaskill’s senate seat, if not this would be a terrible idea instead of just a bad one.
McCaskill needs to stay in the Senate. Reddish state Senators need to be preserved, and incumbency is the way to preserve them. I don’t care that she’s squishy on progressive issues, because she’s from freaking Missouri.
I’ve always assumed Marty O’Malley was auditioning for the job anyway. And it would drive Progressives – especially the Emo wing – crazy, but I could see her selecting Jim Webb, if he didn’t show too crazy in the primaries.
Given her age, I think selecting a young, rising star makes the most sense. And O’Malley fits those as well as anyone.
O’Malley has ruled out accepting the VP nomination. If he’s authentically less craven than most politicians, he won’t revers his hypothetical decision if a real offer were on the table.
Odds favor this being a smart political move for O’Malley. A Veep nomination is a poor starting position for those that don’t want their political career to end there.
Oh they all say that, in order to try to get the press to believe they’re serious candidates for P. But once that falls short, they all always have a chance to “reconsider” their once-firm stance against it. Given that Walter is now out of office, it’s likely he would accept being #2.
But I wouldn’t recommend it for Hillary, granted there are far worse potential picks out there.
The quirky cranky Jimmy Webb for instance.
Already conceded that O’Malley may be like most craven politicians and would be lobbying for it once out of contention for POTUS. Just like Edwards and Hillary did.
How old is Jimmy? Nothing would inspire more confidence in young voters than a Grandma and Grandpa ticket. One with only a year left of her sixties and the other having left his sixties behind.
Didn’t advocate Jimmy — said in fact I think he’d be a worse pick than Walter.
But less for the age than for this being too maverick. He might decide, on “principled” grounds, to turn against the P, and in public ways. Very predictable he would do that given his quirky, kind of never-satisfied persona.
People like him, stubborn, odd ducks, are not good Veep material. Ditto Russ Feingold.
Yes, Presidents Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Bush the First are only half our presidents since D-Day.
Why, yes. If one accepts the VP nomination with the expectation that the POTUS will die or resign under threat of impeachment, it’s a good starting position to win a subsequent presidential election in one’s own right. Recent historical odds are 66%. Or maybe 100% because Ford wasn’t elected as Veep and the highest federal office that he was ever elected to was Rep.
So, your dataset of natural promotion from VP to POTUS is down to two. Nixon and Bush. One if it’s limited to directly from Veep to POTUS and he got his single term as well. Veep losers: HHH, Mondale, Quayle, and Gore. Odds are good for a Veep to get the nomination — 83%. But plummet for winning the general election. Seven attempts and only two wins.
As I was more specifically speaking of the Veep nomination as a launching pad to the presidency, what’s the post-D-Day history on that?
Earl Warren did have a second act after losing in 1948. But not in electoral politics. Alban Barkley was elected to the Senate again after his term as VP — until he died before completing it.
What happened to Sparkman (’52 and Kefauver (’56)? Henry Cabot Lodge was appointed to various jobs after losing in 1960. Miller (’64) and Muskie (’68)? May have been good for Eagleton that he was dropped from the ticket in ’72 because he was re-elected to his Senate seat a few more times. Dole managed to hold onto his Senate seat and get the nomination twenty years later as a symbolic gold watch. Mondale was also nominated after being at the bottom of the 1980 ticket and a former Veep, but was never elected to office again after 1976. Ferraro was last elected in ’82. Bentsen wasn’t elected after 1986. Nor Quayle after ’88. Nor Jack Kemp after ’88.
Unfortunately, Lieberman managed to hang around in the Senate for another twelve years, but he flamed out in his ’04 POTUS quest. Edwards (’04) lost in ’08, Palin hasn’t even bothered to run for another office. No indication that Ryan is considering anything but his House seat in the near future.
I don’t know how many times to say this…
But, those White working class voters who vote against their self-interest, will not be voting for Hillary.
And, the entire underlying, well, we can’t put a non-White on the ticket because it would offend those folks has past the point of pissing me off.
I’ve said it before and it bears repeating.
Barack Obama won the Presidency TWICE without a majority of the White vote.
Won handily in the Electoral College and Popular Vote.
We need the 40% of White folks who want to progress in this country.
The rest of them can continue to vote against their self-interest as the rest of the country passes them by.
No need to coddle them in any way, shape, or form.
In what world, except for the one telling Black folks that they should just pipe down and stifle their concerns would you possibly suggest McCaskill for VP?
get da phuq outta here.
If Hillary wins the nomination, she better have both Castro brother’s names in a hat, and pull one.
“But, those White working class voters who vote against their self-interest, will not be voting for Hillary.”
The Dems should hunt geese where the geese are – which would be somewhere other than Bible belt states like Missouri, home of Branson.
Actually, the votes out there open to Clinton that were not open to Obama constitute the single biggest group of swing voters that there is, and the only one that is not basically about mobilization and turnout and enthusiasm.
For white voters who feel like the Democratic Party is a party for city-dwellers, potheads, pointy-headed professors, and minorities, the Clintons are welcomed like saviors. I don’t like it, but you’ll see evidence for it virtually anywhere you look.
You’re right, of course, that these voters can be ignored. They aren’t needed for victory, as Romney and McCain can both attest.
However, they are the key to winning back the House and state legislatures. I wish it were not so.
I’d like to keep riding the progressive wave into the future, but there are more ways than one to make progress and we’re kind of limited right now with what our coalition can accomplish even when it delivers the White House.
If Clinton goes with a Castro, she’ll get one kind of turnout, with Warren another. Those turnouts should bring her victory either way. What I’m discussing is a different kind of turnout that could do more to break this logjam.
I don’t expect progressives to appreciate the advice and I’d be happier with a progressive pick. But the professionals will be thinking along the lines I’m thinking, and for a justifiable reason.
I stand where I stand. They would rather cling to the WHITENESS than vote with the Black man who give a shyt for them and would enact policies for them.
You want to coddle them.
I say, without hesitation, phuck ‘ em.
The Black working class gets it.
The Latino working class gets it.
The Asian working class gets it.
The Native working class gets it.
But, the White working class doesn’t seem to be able to get it.
Seriously?
I’m supposed to give a shyt that they don’t?
Out of phucks to give.
They can continue to vote against their self-interests all they want.
A-fucking-gree about 137.6% with Rikyrah (it’s only .6% because I know there are at least 3 white working class men who’ll vote for Hillary if McCasskil is on the ticket).
Realistically, if it matters, it don’t matter. The center and center-left will vote for Hillary unless she puts one of the Koch bros on the ticket. It might be that the one-armed votes will have trouble while holding their noses, but they’ll vote Hillary.
Center-right will piss and moan and bitch and pitch a fit … then vote republican/democratic 50-50.
The right wouldn’t vote for Hillary if she ran with Jesus Christ, promised to resurrect Charlton Heston for State and agreed to allow the South to secede.
Phuck ’em.
Every single one of the climate change denying, cross wearing, LBGT hating, racist cop-loving bastards. Just phuck ’em.
These swing voters you want to chase:
Is there any data quantifying how many people voted for Clinton in the 2008 primary and McCain in the 2008 general?
My guess is the number of these who would be swayed by a McCaskill type VP pick would not be all that many.
My guess is that the McCain/Romney voters who voted for Gore and Kerry is actually very substantial and somewhere in the realm of three percent of the total electorate. If Obama had been exactly the same but white, he probably would have won in 2008 with about 55% or 56% of the vote. I think a three percent estimate of the straight racism factor is probably safe.
The Clinton family has even more upside because the voters we’re talking about have seen their economic condition go down since the 1990’s and a lot of them think the Clintons can bring the good times back.
But they’ve been feeling like the Democrats only care about other poor people, which the GOP and the media outlets work overtime to reinforce.
Hmm, I see the professionals, being the good little DNCers that they mostly are, finding rationalizations to keep the DNC-types ascendant.
Remind me what has been happening to Blue Dogs?
The pros and the DNCers blow that off as midterm madness. Never mind that the madness has kept the House in GOP hands for all but four years from 1995 through 2017 and the Senate for twelve plus of the twenty-two years. (And that four of those DEM Senate majority years were coalitions and not outright.)
They have visions of super-giant Clinton coattails in 2016 when there’s no precedent for Clinton coattails and the Clintons (especially Bill) were active campaigners for the 2014 Blue Dogs. Incumbent Pryor couldn’t even get 40% in AR against a creepy newcomer.
They also see nothing wrong with the DEM bench now being really old. Not that a large contingent of GOP Senators aren’t also old. There are some potential DEM Senate pickup opportunities if they can get some decent candidates, but there are also opportunities for Republicans. Incumbent DEMs running for re-election, with the exception of Bennet appear to be safe, but that open NV DEM seat may be difficult to hold onto.
These swing voters that you mention – I believe Obama won handily without them, yes? How about we go with a plan that actually worked?
Twice.
Clinton will be more effective the more seats can be gained in the House (and Senate). Instead of worrying about electoral college states like Missouri and Georgia, (which are irrelevant to a Dem Prez victory anyway) I think it better to treat this as a turnout election and pick a VP with national appeal who can get voters to the polls nationwide. Stodgy rightists like McCaskill are not that.
We have the female and moderate angles covered. Let’s go for someone young and liberal with a minority background. Let’s get as many groups excited as possible.
Damn. I was going to suggest Rosa Luxemburg, too.
All these considerations about some sort of “balance” on a ticket is fluff because it assumes that voters are rational and informed. The majority aren’t. And it ignores the new model that originated, more likely accidentally than planned, in 1992.
The ticket that looks (television/video, folks) most like a team gets the advantage. While I date it from 1992, in 1988 Bush/Quayle did look like more of a team the Dukakis/Bentsen. By 1992 not so much in comparison with Clinton/Gore.
Gore should have sliced/diced/filleted GWB. But going the “affirmative action” and “scold” route, he and Liberman never looked like a team. That gave team Bush the opportunity they needed. By 1994 Bush/Cheney had honed that team appearance. Kerry/Edwards looked like two left feet.
Obama/Biden instantly and obviously looked like a team. And that image has been reinforced since then by keeping Biden “in the loop.” McCain/Palin not only didn’t look like a team, but Palin scared enough GOP leaning voters that it wasn’t a close race. Romney struggled to repress a sneer when he was in the presence of Ryan.
While Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney, and Obama/Biden all looked like teams compared to their competition, Obama has set a higher bar for this measure than Clinton or Bush did. Not one that it’s easy to see that any of the announced candidates can come close to matching.
Not really buying your team theory but you’ve got the visceral part of it right.
Granted it’s too small to be considered a dataset. But it does break with all the older models of “regional balance,” “key state necessity,” and “political orientation balance.” It also suggests that voters recognize that the office of the Presidency has become too large for one person to consign his/her running mate the sidelines doing nothing essential.
Times and technologies will always change and preclude identifying a sure-fire winning model. Plus presidential nominees have to go with the talent pool available and not the fantasy one.
1988 GHW-Danny: Well, yes, a team sort of in the way a fox-hunting country squire astride his horse looks good when his tail-wagging hound is pictured nearby. And, yes, Bentsen-Dukakis could only be considered a team in the same way as a corporate CEO sitting in the back of his limo talking on his car phone looks in the same photo as his funny-hatted limo driver.
And no one would ever say Kennedy-Johnson looked like a team. Not with the awkward, crude, backwoodsman Lyndon being paired with the sophisticated, urban and urbane JFK. Of course the opposing pair didn’t look like much of a team either — the awkward, crude back storesman Nixon with the blue-blooded urbane Cabot Lodge. So I suppose, in your theory, it doesn’t matter when the other side has put together an uneasy team.
1988 — looked (visually) more like a team than Dukakis/Bentsen. By 1992 the public had learned that Quayle was an empty suit; so, the visual illusion was gone.
What wasn’t clear in my specific dating of this change occurring in 1992? 1960 was thirty-two years before that and therefore, is completely irrelevant to my point. LBJ was selected because he would carry Texas for the ticket and JFK needed TX. While TX was traditionally Democratic in that period of time, Ike had carried the state in 1956. Do Senators Johnson, Kirk, and Toomey have that kind of weight in their now traditionally DEM home states of WI, IL, and PA to flip them “red” in 2016? Would have to smoke some really good shit to buy into that.
The notion of striking a regional or ideological party balance went out with the smoke filled rooms.
It’s all about the mass media reception.
I don’t see McCaskil. It’s not impossible, but I’d be surprised.
I expect a white male from the west coast or the Mountain West. Jay Nixon was the odds on choice until he stepped on his … well, messed up in Ferguson.
If Jerry Brown wasn’t as old as dirt, he’d be the one. If O’Malley keeps his primary running noise to acceptable levels, it could be him.
I’m looking for a young(ish) congressman or state official (possibly as low as Lt. Gov). Maybe even someone outside political office but well connected (a dot com guy?).
Of course, I’m the guy who swore that Hillary would never run.
Caveat Emptor.
It might be better to figure out where a Democratic presidential victory in 2016 will take the country before we figure out how to put the ticket together.
The heck with it – just pick Bill.
Theoretically possible.
The 22nd amendment says you can’t be elected pres more than twice AND that you can’t be elected pres more than once IF you succeed a president AND served more than 2 years (LBJ skated because of this one).
Unintended consequences. If the asses had just said: No person shall serve as president more than 10 years from the date of first inauguration. They’d have nailed it.
More unintended consequences:
No person shall be sworn in as president if the full term requires more than 10 cumulative years of service as President.
This means that if Bill is elected to Congress he CAN’T be sworn in if he is subsequently Speaker and the Pres and VP die in office.
And yes, JQA was elected to the House after serving as President so it CAN happen.
I think Kristen Gillibrand would be a better choice, but an unlikelier one. Amplifies advantages in some areas, but is more of a “peace offering” for Obama supporters. A woman of color would be even better but there aren’t many with the national profile, and that’s important because the republicans/neanderthals are going to come out in force against them and it would help to have some experience in handling their vitriol.
As with Schumer and Cuomo, Gillibrand isn’t an option for Clinton.
And much more to excite disaffected, “low information” voters. Perhaps you haven’t noticed yet, but Warren’s appeal isn’t at all limited to “the base.” Far from it. She’s already won significant crossover appeal, and it’s growing. We used to call this form of politics “populist,” and Warren is its master.
If Clinton wins the nomination, Warren would be her best running mate, by far, for precisely this reason. I’ve said so before, and I continue to say so. There’s also every indication the two very much like each other, and that’s a strong basis for a partnership. Reportedly Clinton regularly talks with Warren to get her views and advice. Very much like Biden, Warren can be the effective VP that says things Clinton cannot say directly. And Warren amplifies Clinton, much like Gore amplified the other Clinton. There’s no vacancy problem either since Massachusetts is solidly blue and requires a rapid special election to fill a Senate vacancy, so that seat will stay Democratic and continue supporting the Clinton Administration. (Unless Martha Coakley somehow gets the nomination, please God, no. :))
Warren, and let’s go win this thing with a big Congressional wave.