To choose a Vice President….

by Ali-Asad

"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy"
Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle at the 1988 Vice Presidential debate

Now that we’re in the thick of the primary season, let's step back and assess another important decision that must be made; who will the parties' nominees choose as the Vice Presidential candidate? This decision will depend a lot on who becomes the eventual nominee of the parties because presidential nominees decide who their running mates will be, and not the primary voters or the parties’ establishment.

So, on what basis are vice presidents chosen? The first question every vice presidential candidate is asked concerns their readiness to assume their presidency in the midst of the crisis. And so, experience and trust should weight heavily in voters minds. But voters tend to mostly ignore who is running for vice-president; very rarely has a vice-presidential candidate made or broken a presidential election - witness our amnesia when recalling those vice-presidents who never ascended to the presidency; in the voter’s mind, this position is not all that important. Therefore, presidential nominees know that the vice-president they select need only barely pass the experience and trustworthiness test. This fact lets presidential nominees weigh another important factor more heavily - electoral impact.

On the democratic side, Obama and Clinton do not put any traditionally republican states in play. Hillary does have a base in Arkansas but that state has been trending Republican for a decade. John Edwards may be able to put North Carolina and South Carolina in play due to home advantage. However, Edwards was not able to deliver either of the Carolina’s for Kerry in 2004 and won his senate seat in North Carolina by 51% to 48%. Also, Edwards cuts quite a divisive figure in North Carolina because of his work as a class action suit lawyer. Hence, the potential presidential contenders on the Democratic side bring no new electoral advantage to the table. So who should they pair up with?

An obvious candidate is Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. He’s a likable guy and a hearty campaigner – he has the world record for number of hands shaken in a day (around 18,000). Richardson is hugely popular in his state and would put the West in play for the Democrats. The West will be important for the Democrats come November. This is the only area in the US that has been trending Democratic with the election of Governors and congressmen in hard fought contests. So which states are in play: Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico – a total of 29 electoral votes. What does this mean? Back in 2004, the conventional (and correct) wisdom dictates that whichever candidate won 2 states out of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio would win. Now each of those states has around 20 electoral votes. So, the West gives an added opportunity for the Democratic candidate to make up for a loss in an Ohio or Florida. Richardson passes the experience and trustworthiness test and would not overshadow the eventual nominee. Therefore, I think that he is the best running mate for any of the 3 leading democratic candidates.

But there are other potential candidates; Hillary has become good friends with Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa. Both men have ambitions for the Presidency. Both would help strengthen the Democrats control of the Mid-West which has been slipping in recent elections though it is unlikely that Bayh would be able to put the very Republican Indiana in play. Iowa is a swing state though but only holds 5 electoral votes. Kerry barely won the Mid-West in 2004, all were in the low 50’s and Kerry actually lost Iowa to Bush very narrowly. Democrats better what their backs in the Mid-West. Former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska ruled out a senate run earlier this year; he may be courting the Veep slot, and he is yet another Clinton ally.

But what about Obama and Edwards you ask? How does an Obama-Edwards ticket sound? This is a very real possibility especially if Edwards garners enough primary delegates to make Hilary and Obama fall short of the required number. In this situation, Obama would be obliged to offer Edwards the VP position in return for his support in a brokered convention. Both men match up well; each appeals to the concept of change and only differ in the ‘how to bring about change’ aspect i.e. they have a major difference in style. Electorally this match brings no benefits for the democrats. Illinois is already a solidly blue state and, as I stated above, Edwards is too divisive a figure to turn around either of the Carolinas. Personally, I don’t like this ticket; Edwards on the ballot again as a Veep just seems a reminder of a forgettable past.

The Republican race is way too complicated and convoluted to analyze deeply. Suffice it to say, Mitt Romney will not be a Vice Presidential candidate; none of the Republican candidates like him. It’s that simple. He’s been a target of the flip-flopping charge in many debates. If McCain wins the nomination, look for him to choose Huckabee as his Veep. This matchup is probably the strongest matchup for the Republicans. McCain appeals to fiscal conservatives and independents while Huckabee gets the support of the evangelicals and religious people in general. But they are both anti-establishment candidates. The Republican party will have to change significantly to get behind these two. Guliani would also look to Huckabee to balance the ticket out geographically and on social conservatism issues. Fred Thompson is quite the lazy man and wouldn’t be much of an asset as a VP candidate unless he starts showing more fire like he did in the fox debate in South Carolina.

Look out for a deeper electoral vote analysis once the nominees are confirmed (and once you are subscribed!)

And that’s jus’ the tip.

References

US 2004 election, Wikipedia