If Obama wins the nomination, he still faces a red state-blue state-swing state electorate, with little margin for error. Even with large African-American populations in Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, those states may be out of reach. Western states like Arizona, Idaho, and Montana are probably out of reach as well, Arizona in particular for obvious reasons.
That makes his choice for Vice President critical.
In an earlier post I noted several swing states that are critical for the 2008 National Election. At first, I assumed some of the New England states, like Maine and New Hampshire will be toss-ups, but I am starting to doubt that. Those look good for Obama.
I now see the key swing states differently.
First off, we have to assume that Obama will carry the Democratic-leaning swing states like Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. If he doesn't carry these, then the Democrats have lost ground since 2004. We all know that is not the case.
That leaves eight key swing states: Colorado, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. I will cede Florida to McCain, in the interest of this analysis.
If Obama wins all the blue states, and loses all these swing states, he has 249 electoral votes and loses the election.
Ohio only has 20 electoral votes and that would create a tie (269 to 269). But, we know if he wins Ohio and any other of these states, he wins the election.
But what if he doesn't win Ohio?
Well, then he needs at least three of the eight swing states. He should be able to win Wisconsin, although Kerry won by only 11,000 votes in 2004. Nevada and New Mexico remain small, with 10 electoral votes between them. He probably needs to win one of these.
Now, Obama could approach Ohio's Governor, Ted Strickland; although he has been a Clinton supporter. He could approach Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, and an Obama endorser. Yet, perhaps he needs to attract someone from one of the larger swing states. These include Colorado, Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia.
Just picking a Vice Presidential candidate from one of these states is not good enough. Whoever he picks will need to address his weakness on national security and executive experience. Therefore, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri is not a good choice as a freshman Senator. The same goes for Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado, who is also a freshman Senator.
In Virginia, Mark Warner would be ideal to help with executive experience, but he is running for Senate, so he is out. While Tim Kaine seems interesting, he has less than three years experience as Governor of Virginia, and shouldn't be considered a serious contender. That leaves Jim Webb. With his military credentials and respect among conservatives, he would add a serious credibility to Obama's candidacy. The downside with Webb is that his approval rating in Virginia has not yet risen to a high level. He was only elected two years ago, so he would abandon his post. So, while he may be appealing on a National level, we can't be assured he would tilt Virginia to Obama. Still Webb remains one of the best choices.
What about North Carolina? Well, on the surface John Edwards seems interesting. However, when Edwards was on the ticket in 2004, he failed to produce any change in the results in the Tarheel State compared with 2000. Also, Obama-Edwards will appear to be an all-liberal ticket. Edwards does not address Obama's weaknesses either.
That leaves one more North Carolinian: Governor Mike Easley. Mike Easley is a moderate who is well respected. Unlike Jim Webb, he isn't in the middle of an elected office since Easley is in his final year as Governor.
Therefore, I recommend to Obama, for whatever that is worth, that he considers Jim Webb or Mike Easley for Vice President.
I am sure that Bill and Hillary Clinton are right now considering their options. First, they will ask themselves whether the presidency is a possibility for her in 2012 or 2016, whatever the case might be, and the best way she could get there.
It seems to me everything goes from there. If she wants to pursue it, then I believe she will conclude that her best path would be returning to the Senate and running for governor of New York (though David Patterson might have something to say about that).
If she is not interested, then the world is her proverbial oyster, and she will get to decide how t leave her mark on history. I would think at the end of the day her choices would boil down to Senate Majority Leander, Supreme Court Justice or, of course, simply remaining in the Senate nd becoming a "Lioness of the Senate."
I also think both she and Obama would conclude she is not right for the ticket. Now that Obama is the nominee, this election should focus on two things: Obama's positive messages of change and hope, and the fact that McCain is smply more of George Bush.
I would think both Clinton and Obama realize that wre she to be on the ticket, that would become the dominant meme through November.
also, she would help in Iowa, which border MO.
Similarly, Sebelius is Catholic, might give you a shot at KS, and would also help in MO.
And were Webb elected VP, Kaine would be appointing his successor for the next two of the 4 remaining years of Webb's term, which would give more than enough time for that person to develop a significant record on which to run. And right now the Republican bench is not all that deep. Someone like Don Beyer or even Don McEachin would be able to develop real credibility. Only problem with the latter is that Bennie Lambert would be favored to win any special in that district.
But, just to keep the facts straight:
Clinton/Gore carried Tenn. in both 92 and 96. Gore lost the state as a presidential candidate, not as a vice presidential candidate.
Since 1960, the only candidate at the top of the ticket who lost their home state was McGovern, I believe, but if I missed one, I'm sure someone will tell me.
BTW, I considered Texas GHW Bush's home state, although wasn't he raised in Connecticut?
Sebelius's numbers are one factor to look at . . .
http://www.surveyusa.com/clien...
61 percent approval; 36 percent disapproval in a state where Bush's approval numbers are about 10 percent above the national average (e.g. strongly red). Well known and liked Governor in the heartland. Choosing her would be consistent with the "one America" and change rhetoric (e.g. a Washington outsider).
My sense is that she's been auditioning for the job since Iowa -- as one of Obama's most active surrogates (including stops in Ohio and PA).
The only way I see someone else getting the nod is if there's a determination that Clinton or a Clinton surrogate needs to be brought on board to shore up base support.
It might hurt her along parts of the Appalachian ridge.
Just completing the circle. =)
I think that we are stuck into thinking of the 2000/2004 maps as being static, and that is simply not true. It is rare for an Electoral map to mirror the previous election, and I fimly believe that there are some changes in store for us.
I forsee that Texas yes, Texas, will be a competitive state. I also think that the states you have said, (CO, MO, NV,NM,NC, OH, VA, and WI) are definitely in play, but also, IA, MN, NH, PA, NJ, MT, NE, SD, ND... and TX.
I would say that Brian Schweitzer (Governor of Montana) has a strong VP possibility. He would push MT, ND, and SD into play, he would be a Western Democrat in an area where Democrats can really, truely make up ground in the Electoral map.
Kathleen Sebelieus is a wonderful idea too. a Moderate Democrat in a Ruby Red State... sho has converted more Republicans to the Democratic fold in Kansas... she is good at what she does.
I think a true home run would be Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as a VP. Before I am crucified, hear me out. Hagel and Obama have worked together before on legislation and has had a great working relationship. He has a vocal critic of the war and many of Bush's policies. It would show that Obama is serious about bringing the nation together, and it would bring up hope in the Unity ticket that Hagel himself was pushing hard. Hagel's nomination would shake up the map in a major way. The Upper Great plains, and the west would be shaken up, and McCain (with his limited resources) will have to defend much more of those states in order to win.
This election will not be settled by Ohio and Florida. I belive this election will be settled by Colorado, Virginia, and Nevada. (and I think Texas will be very close).
The best thing about this primary is that Obama now has a 50 state network full of people who are going to volunteer for him for the next 6 months. He has offices from Illinois to Wyoming... and that is going to pay dividends for him come november, regardless of the VP.
There is that type of "shoot fromt he hip" response that people enjoy... who knows?
His most recent SurveyUSA numbers show him with 53 percent disapproval amongst conservatives in the state and only 36 percent approval.
Odds are he'll reinforce Obama's appeal with independents -- but he could polarize some of the Clinton support; his selection might seem to be a finger in the eye.
I like Webb and wouldn't be disappointed with his selection. It's an open question though what his impact would be.
Kind of an open question for any RK readers --
Is there anyone who would be MORE inclined to vote for Obama if Webb was his VP?
Would anyone be LESS inclined to vote for Obama if Webb as his VP?
A Rasmussen poll last week put the race at 48-43 McCain v. Obama. Think SurveyUSA had this as a two to three percent race a month or so ago.
http://rasmussenreports.com/pu...
One consistent thing with polling -- in Texas and nationally -- has been the "strongly favorable" ratings for Obama -- usually in the high 20s versus McCain's high teens.
McCain's unfavorables aren't as bad, but I think a lot of his support is likely to be the "I'm voting against his opponent, not for him" variety. That can be a little tricky if it comes down to a battle of the bases.
Cornyn 47% versus Noriega 43% . . .
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...
for an incumbent those are tricky numbers, so the national mood is definitely playing into this one.
Noriega and Obama could potentially reinforce each other's numbers.
Whereas I see someone like Cornyn carrying McCain. Social conservatives don't trust McCain and the anti-illegal immigration crowd is pretty hostile too him.
Obama's state organization too seems to have built up an organization from scratch (one of the benefits of a drawn out primary). I see the main challenge for him in getting the support along the Texas-Mexico border. If he can do that the race could be very close.
Yet ~6 months is a long time to uncover McCain's baggage, or more importantly to allow McCain to uncover it for us... and Texas is far more maverick than John McCain will ever be or ever has been. I am not going to count on it happening, but it would be a nice surprise.
I do see this as very competitive in both Virginia and North Carolina. I am not bullish on Pennsylvania nor Florida; I see PA as a swing battle ground that leans Republican and Florida as safely Republican. I hope I am wrong about them, but I just don't see Florida as a swing state anymore. Too many states have lost their older people who were brought up in racist times to Florida, that is a powerful voting block; and it's going to be tough to get them to change their minds.
I say texas because of the myriad of polls that have come out in the past few months (detailed by others above... thank you!) that make it competitive. The goal of Texas being in play (even if Obama doesn't win it) is that McCain has to put money into the state and fight. A costly market to dump ads in will help Obama in other places, like PA, OH, and others.
I read the Burnt Orange Report, and I find it pretty valuable when talking about Texas Politics.
Immigration is a much trickier issue for the GOP. If the GOP caters to the white Texas farmers and country-folk, it risks alienating some Latinos, which it will need to win a statewide election. If it doesn't cater to the nativist sentiment it risks depressing turnout with that same base (e.g. folks will say -- and have said -- "on immigration, the most important issue, McCain is Obama. I'm not going to vote for Obama, so why should I vote for McCain?").
Oil in Texas is a two-way street as well. On the one hand -- especially along the coast it's a big money maker. On the other hand, many Texans tend to drive big cars, and I suspect that they -- perhaps even more than other Americans are starting to feel the hurt from high energy prices.
I understand that space program funding is one area that could be an issue in Houston. Not sure where the candidates stand on those issues.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/74...
In terms of the immigration issue -- and the viability of the Texas vote -- though I still don't think it's a huge stretch of the imagination to see the state put in play this year. Bush will need to continue his dismal performance, and it probably wouldn't hurt if Paul and Bob Barr ran as independents -- but unlike 2000 or 2004 -- it is not inconceivable that Texas could be competitive in 2008.
...his wife (Jackie Clegg Dodd) is also an accomplished, intelligent woman, COO of the Export/Import Bank under Clinton, successful businesswoman, Masters in National Security Policy from Georgetown, was born a Utah Republican and can win red state votes. She alone can force the RNC in to spending money defending states they shouldn't have to even visit.
Just putting someone on the ballot from a given state does not make that state more winnable, you need someone who can make a winning argument and in the case of the VP dish out some "big hits" on the opposition. Chris Dodd is well versed in policy and practice and had probably the most comprehensive and realistic platform on immigration. Beyond the content, he has conviction, something National Democratic candidates have been short on in recent elections. He will engage people from all segments of the political spectrum and argue for what he believes is right, not what seems like it might sell better to that crowd. This is a big part of why Democrats have been seen as weak for 30 years.
Conviction is the most underrated characteristic of candidates. In 2000 and 2004 Bush had an excessive advantage in terms of conviction, while Gore "Re-tooled" his campaign several times, Bush stayed consistent and focused. While Kerry floundered on many issues and failed to stand up to the Swift Boating, Bush stayed the course. It helps to be right, but Bush proved that isn't a requirement.
The VP needs to be someone who can talk on any subject at any time without a script prepared and an aide assisting, which leaves Gov Richardson out. Dodd's "filibuster" efforts on FISA demonstrated his passion and conviction well, only a handful stood up to defend our Constitution, wouldn't it be nice to have that kind of person in the White House?
This is a time when we have a huge opportunity to put the right people in to office. We need to be confident in our choices and go after every available inch. We should not be saying things like "s/he is too liberal", we need to go for the gold. For decades the Republican party has been moving the Left to the Center and the Center to the Right, isn't it about time we reversed that?
As a disclaimer, I worked for Chris Dodd in Iowa and spent a great deal of time with the Senator and his wife.