It seems like almost everyone (and I include myself in this) feels that they are qualified to give authoritative advice on who a major party nominee should choose as a running mate. If you bring up the topic, people who are very reticent to offer an opinion on health care or transportation policy will suddenly get very chatty.
I’m not saying that some people don’t have well-informed opinions and even some good solid advice that the nominees would be wise to consider. But, if you really think about it, this is a bit like telling someone who to hire as their personal assistant or even their nanny. It’s not that the job of the vice-presidency is really comparable to those jobs. It’s that there is a personal chemistry and comfort component involved that we’re not in a good position to judge. A veep candidate can check all the boxes and look great on paper but actually be a very poor fit for reasons we don’t understand.
And we’ve seen presidential candidates make this kind of mistake themselves. Dan Quayle was young and photogenic and helped Bush shore up the conservative right. He looked like he’d help Poppy Bush in the competitive Midwest. But he was a bad candidate and an even worse vice-president, and he certainly never fit in in Bush World. John Edwards looked great on paper, but a closer look revealed something ugly. Sarah Palin couldn’t stand even modest scrutiny but she convinced Bill Kristol that she’d be a great running mate.
Ultimately, picking a running mate is a very personal decision. And it’s a difficult one because just having to make it offers all kinds of perverse incentives. You want someone who could run the country if they needed to, but you’d also like them to help you win. You want someone who would be a good and loyal solider in your administration. It’s easy to begin thinking too much about one of these factors at the expense of the others. A loyal running mate might not be a good leader. Someone who helps unite the party might ultimately divide it if they insist on maintaining their power base and independence. You could pick up votes with an important constituency but wind up with a candidate who has big skeletons in their closet, or who simply isn’t prepared to be president if need be. Maybe the best candidate is a senator from a state with a governor from the other party, and selecting them could cost you control of the Senate.
There are so many considerations, and so may ways to screw up this decision.
The first-do-no-harm advice is probably the best.
Plus, for Hillary at least, she has to be thinking that her choice must insulate her from impeachment thoughts with this Congress if possible.
Huh?
Well, I have seen it discussed–that the VP should be toxic for Republicans in Congress, such as Warren and even Richard Cordray for the same reasons.
Like Cheney made Bush bullet-proof.
So, long as they’re not toxic for good reason.
Yes.
Someone here, I think, suggested Lieberman as Trump’s VP for the same reason.
LOL I think was me.
And I seconded it. I still think it’s good. Maybe not Lieberman but some rogue Democrat to create a bi-partisan ticket.
It was a good thought. Points for consistency.
I’m glad they got the message:
Now will they allow this new calculus to move how they make decisions, or will typical Clinton-era politics and instincts rule the day, giving us Mark Warner or Tim Kaine? I’m getting mixed messages from this:
I agree. So why is it framed as a “but” and as if it’s contradicting the above passage as opposed to complimenting it? Add that into the mix of her surrogates continuously insulting young people, and I don’t know what the hell is going on.
My mistake on the “but” part. I thought it was referencing something else, but they meant it’d alienate The Menz to pick two women.
Hillary is lucky: she has an opportunity to do great things by moving the country sharply in a progressive direction. Is that really who she is, with so much evidence to the contrary? I don’t really think so, but the opportunity is there for her to be a consequential President. With the country at a tipping point demographically, authentic progressive middle and lower class policies could secure the Democratic coalition, at least in presidential elections, for the foreseeable future.
So if somehow Clinton IS someone we’re all convinced she’s probably not, i.e. if she has an interest in being of consequence in a positive way, she won’t choose Castro, Kaine, Warner or any of the other tired choices being floated, she’ll go for a win that could actually make a difference. Choose Elizabeth Warren and make it clear that Warren would have a consequential portfolio of responsibilities in her administration (with the possibility of ascending to the presidency herself).
Sanders has created the climate in which such a choice makes sense politically, although Clinton could pick Warren simply as a calculated gesture and then immediately set to work marginalizing her. I’m talking about an affirmative choice, and although there is virtually no evidence of Hillary doing this on important issues throughout her career, the opportunity sits there, waiting.
So in other words, “do no harm” may be enough this cycle to beat Trump, but defensive choices could also be the very things that cause Clinton to blow it and bring about the unthinkable. If there was ever a moment to be bold, this is it.
it’s a nice idea, but it looks like Bill is going to fulfill that function, if he’s talking about his “portfolio”; big mistake imo, what you suggest is more constructive and future oriented.
[trying to link to RidgeCook’s diary wapo link, can’t get link to work]http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2016/5/14/231346/391
I agree that this is a chance to be bold, but there are two directions of potential boldness. You are emphasizing the economic direction by suggesting Warren, but a good number of people would prefer to see the social direction emphasized by choosing someone who is Latinx, for example. It would be great to have someone who can fulfill both needs.
I think somewhat the opposite. In the election it might make sense to be very centrist with the coalition that might exclude some young people (who I think are unlikely to vote for Trump and more likely not to vote at all). And then the progressive caucus can push Hillary further to the left on policy to bring in young people for mid-term elections. ie., run to the middle for the general and then push to the left. Is that in Hillary’s DNA? I think it is. Other folks disagree with me on that. But it’s up to the other Democrats to see the writing on the “future wall,” to incorporate the lessons from the Sanders campaign, and to constantly push left.
You write:
Indeed.
That’s why I predict that Donald Trump will pick…himself!!!
It’s the
onan…errr, ahhh, I mean the only…way to go.Sigh…
AG
P.S. Too bad John Gotti is dead. What a match made in…wherever…that would have been!!!
Teflon Don I, meet Teflon Don II.
I mean…it looks to me like they even went to the same barber!!!
Well…maybe not. Gotti’s was better.
Surely The Donald has other mobster contacts from Atlantic City.
Interesting that the Founding Fathers made the Vice-President a separate election that evolved into a runner-up or sometimes a Sir Congeniality consolation prize.
For quite a few years, the convention itself had the power to name a running mate. In 1952, the GOP forced Richard Nixon on Eisenhower. The Democratic Convention denied FDR Wallace as a running mate, forcing Truman on him.
Anyone have a fix on when the candidate naming his own running mate became pro forma?
It is also interesting what the results of naming a VP running mate before the convention does. Have any primary campaigns benefited from naming the whole team during the primary? The downside is a lot of disappointed wanna-be’s (yes, for VP!) who would switch to another candidate.
Another VP who was not properly vetted was Spiro Agnew. Because Richard Nixon was not properly vetted aside from those who wanted to push his conservative views into power, he was not properly vetted either and resorted to maudlin appeal to save his skin in the Checkers scandal. How quaint?
As a “running mate” seemed to materialize along with political parties almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified, it appears that candidates have always had some say in choosing the Veep. Not so much before the 12th Amendment. How much since appears to have been a question of who held the balance of power; the candidate or the party.had the power. The candidate seems to have won out by 1960, but doubt any nominee would contradict that if that’s not what actually happened.
A couple of interesting write-ups on this — 1968 – HHH and 1980 – Reagan.
OT
This is what will consequentially affect voting turnout in November–having seen how the establishment of the Democratic Party actually operates and plays hardball.
Twelve years of legislature-dictated lessons in citizenship and civics shot down the tubes in one election cycle.
Republicans don’t expect democracy and they don’t get it. They don’t get “public things” (res publica) now either.
Samantha Silverman, Medium: From Caucus to Convention: The Democratic Disappointment
Now, tell me that this is a phony article by a propaganda shop.
If so, it plays on common experiences of people who try to engage locally and in state political parties. I have had enough friends and trusted acquaintances have similar experiences with political engagement with the Democratic Party. I don’t know many who are politically engaged with the Republican Party; there is a bank consultant who gets on Nikki Haley committees but he apparently is on the inside of the SC GOP.
It also says that we have deliberate efforts to exclude serious political participation at the grassroots in order that political marketing be the only means of political input. That advantages professional consultants and media from the git-go. And raises the cost of running for office, thus reducing or excluding entirely competitive challenges.
Are you aware that DNC routinely restricts access to voter files to only their approved candidates? Have to threaten court action for remedy…
Is why the Sanders groups are staying outside of the DNC to recruit and fund candidates for all positions in 2018 and they won’t be shy about incumbent challenges, either, I suspect.
Wish someone would post that photo from Nevada with the cops lined up in front of the podium…worth a zillion essays.
Just yesterday our county committee met to explain to interested folks the process for selecting delegates to the national convention. It is a convoluted, daunting process, for sure. Those rules have been in place for a while and they were designed, we’re told, to promote inclusiveness and to reward organizational ability. But those rules have probably outlived their usefulness and should be streamlined and revised.
Some suggestions are to hold primaries in all states (no caucuses); to allocate proportionally but to know in advance what the breakdowns would look like; and to lower the number of super-delegates (a system many oppose right now but which I favor.
The Sanders supporters there think the system is rigged. But they have forgotten, or perhaps never knew, that Obama never really relied on the DNC for his election. He set up a parallel system once he had the nomination (whose rules his team really understood). So for eight years the DNC has been languishing as a voice for Democrats. Folks have awakened and their continued participation is needed to make rules going forward.
also, the result reflected the election in February so at the end of the day did anyone really lose anything this weekend?
this is not good; it’s shaping up that a Clinton admin will be crippled from the get go, (plus Bill’s “portfolio” to protect coal miners in KY)
Hillary should choose a younger version of herself. Julian Castro, Tim Kaine, Sherrod Brown would be good picks. No to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
One of these is not like the other…. lol
Clinton Hints at the `His and Her’ Presidency If She Wins
So it’s really an end run around the Constitution. The first woman President is just a front for her husband.
yes, and I hope we can amend to exclude spouse of living ex president and vp.