Comments on: A-Veeping We Will Go

By: paxr55

paxr55 — Mon, 26 May 2008 22:17:12 +0000

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.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Mon, 26 May 2008 19:17:21 +0000

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.

By: ethancorso

ethancorso — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:53:36 +0000

Chris Dodd would be an excellent VP as well.

By: ethancorso

ethancorso — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:52:01 +0000

You assert that vanquished VP candidates from past elecrtions are electoral poison, yet later propose John Edwards as the most viable running mate.

By: conradg

conradg — Sun, 25 May 2008 10:49:07 +0000

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?

By: M.Z. Forrest

M.Z. Forrest — Sun, 25 May 2008 03:27:59 +0000

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.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:43:55 +0000

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.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:37:40 +0000

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.

By: bayesian

bayesian — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:34:39 +0000

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.

By: bayesian

bayesian — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:29:11 +0000

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.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:14:38 +0000

Oops, I forgot to mention the FDR exception. Thanks for the reminder.

By: Young Geezer

Young Geezer — Sat, 24 May 2008 23:47:59 +0000

“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.