VP Selection Speculation

[jerseyhoya34]

The latest scuttlebutt is that Joe Lieberman just may be McCain's "transformative" option. Whether that "transformation" is for the good or the bad is a separate issue entirely. I think McCain would be well suited to pick someone with discipline on the trail. To date, McCain's campaign has been shockingly undisciplined without any kind of unifying message. Lieberman is more of a classic bandwagoner who will abandon his values and party if it means electoral gain.

McCain would be better off with Lindsay Graham, who I think is a good moderate and fresh face, if he is going to pick a dark horse candidate.

[DFW HOYA]

I respect Sen. Lieberman but what does he add to McCain? He doesn't bring a consituency (conservative Eastern Democrats) or carry a state, and would stir up the heretofore dormant evangelical wing that would certainly sidetrack the Republicans in some states.

For July, McCain is running a desparate campaign. His campaign is looking a lot like Jimmy Carter in 1980, who wanted to cast doubts that Ronald Reagan could be trusted to lead rather than articulating a vision of his own. When the public accepted that, yeah, maybe this ex-actor could be commander in chief, Carter's campaign began to fall apart. That's the fate awaiting McCain --if the rank and file start believing in Obama, he'll have nothing left in the tank.

[Boz]

If McCain tabs either Lieberman or Graham, he will lose and lose resoundingly. Like, landslide loss.

Conservatives will desert him in droves and focus on nominating Bobby Jindal (or a similar conservative governor) in four years.

I know everyone here thinks that McCain is not the McCain of 2000, but he still does well with moderates and independants. He doesn't need that in his running mate. He needs:

- someone with strong conservative credentials
- someone who can be seen as a successor
- someone who can help carry a state or region

Joe & Lindsay meet none of those criteria. I've still got my money on Romney.

Having said that, I think if Obama picks Kaine, he also will lose and lose pretty bad, IMO. As much as I always believed this election will be close, I'm beginning to think that Tucker Carlson has a point & that there's a possibility it could break pretty stong in one direction or the other in the fall.

DFW brought up Reagan/Carter, which is an example of how it could break against McCain, but I can envision a number of scenarios in which it could break the other way as well (one of which being Tim Kaine impersonating a 50-state fire blanket).

[rosslynhoya]

Chris Matthews was giggling like a schoolgirl the other day about how Mitt Romney would be the best choice for McCain.

If this didn't set off every alarm bell in McCain HQ that he should NOT pick Mitt Romney, this campaign is doomed to failure. Er, moreso than it already is.

As for the Lieberman et al. concerns, if the rumor I've heard is correct, an absurdly small number of convention delegates can reject McCain's VP pick and force the convention to choose a new nominee from the field.

While I think this would be highly entertaining for most of us, it would likely lead to an even worse candidate (coughuckabeecough) being selected for the ticket. And of course would be an unprecedented embarrassment to the presidential nominee. If so, he made his own bed, he can sleep in it.

[hifigator]

As a fiscal conservative, I'm scared that Boz might be right. As much as I would personally like to see a truly centrist ticket have a chance and therefore wouldn't mind seeing a McCain-Lieberman on the ballot, I'm afraid that too many of the right wingers might stay home come election day, effectively handing the reigns over to a far worse option in Obama.

[EasyEd]

Everybody seems to be trashing McCain for running a terrible campaign but did anyone notice that today's Gallup Poll has Obama leading by only one point (down from nine a few days ago) and the Rasmussen has Obama by two points? I think this points to the fact that this race is almost totally about Obama and his "rock star" trip around the world did not gain him anything and, in fact, might have cost him. How anyone like Obama can go to Iraq and still not be willing to acknowledge the surge was a major contributing factor in the improved situation says something about Obama. Also, if the Democrats don't allow a vote in Congress on energy, including offshore drilling, the Repubicans will hammer them on that. $4 a gallon gas is now the major issue of the campaign.

[Boz]

I don't think McCain is running a bad campaign, I think he's doing what he needs to to right now.

It won't work through November, but it is an effective pre-convention tactic. Obama's folks haven't really been on message in quite some time, even with the successful overseas trip.

After a few weeks, I expect McCain to switch focus more exclusively to his own positions (though there'll be plenty of surrogates ready to pick up the mantle of questioning Obama).

I do worry about McCain's VP selection though. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a moderate pick, I just think it will doom him to a very bad loss.

[hifigator]

Jul 31, 2008 13:23:29 GMT -5 Boz said:

I don't think McCain is running a bad campaign, I think he's doing what he needs to to right now.

It won't work through November, but it is an effective pre-convention tactic. Obama's folks haven't really been on message in quite some time, even with the successful overseas trip.

After a few weeks, I expect McCain to switch focus more exclusively to his own positions (though there'll be plenty of surrogates ready to pick up the mantle of questioning Obama).

I do worry about McCain's VP selection though. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a moderate pick, I just think it will doom him to a very bad loss.

Boz, I think that could work in reverse as well however. If, for instance, McCain were to select Huckabee or Romney then I can see McCain's age and therefore Huckabee's or Romney's religion being a focal point. I think there would be a sizable number of moderates who might lean the other way for fear of something happening to McCain and therefore having a true right winger in the WH. I understand the point of bringing the people out to vote, but when push comes to shove that is a republican strength and I don't think too many of them are going to be willing to cut off their nose to spite their face by allowing Obama in there by not voting at all. The right wingers aren't going to jump ship and vote for Obama, but the moderates/independents might if they are scared of an ultra conservative VP.

[Bando]

Jul 31, 2008 14:33:54 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Jul 31, 2008 13:23:29 GMT -5 Boz said:

I don't think McCain is running a bad campaign, I think he's doing what he needs to to right now.

It won't work through November, but it is an effective pre-convention tactic. Obama's folks haven't really been on message in quite some time, even with the successful overseas trip.

After a few weeks, I expect McCain to switch focus more exclusively to his own positions (though there'll be plenty of surrogates ready to pick up the mantle of questioning Obama).

I do worry about McCain's VP selection though. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a moderate pick, I just think it will doom him to a very bad loss.

Boz, I think that could work in reverse as well however. If, for instance, McCain were to select Huckabee or Romney then I can see McCain's age and therefore Huckabee's or Romney's religion being a focal point. I think there would be a sizable number of moderates who might lean the other way for fear of something happening to McCain and therefore having a true right winger in the WH. I understand the point of bringing the people out to vote, but when push comes to shove that is a republican strength and I don't think too many of them are going to be willing to cut off their nose to spite their face by allowing Obama in there by not voting at all. The right wingers aren't going to jump ship and vote for Obama, but the moderates/independents might if they are scared of an ultra conservative VP.

This is why Romney is the worst of both worlds for McCain. Romney tacked to the religious right during the primary, which alienates moderates/independents, but he didn't gain with the religious voters because he's a Mormon.

Best case scenario: he increases turnout in Utah (if you care about the popular vote) and possibly (but unlikely) offsets Dem gains in Nevada (which McCain will win anyway) and Colorado (which he probably can't with even with an increased Mormon turnout). And perhaps memory of his father can help in Michigan. Worst case scenario: the religious right and the moderates both get mad at you and don't vote.

As a Democrat, I hope dearly that McCain is stupid enough to pick Romney.

[EasyEd]

I predict John Thune.

[Bando]

Jul 31, 2008 15:19:12 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I predict John Thune.

Has he even been under discussion? Romney and Pawlenty seemed the most likely picks, but that's just what the media was saying, so it could be totally wrong.

[EasyEd]

Jul 31, 2008 16:29:12 GMT -5 Bando said:

Jul 31, 2008 15:19:12 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I predict John Thune.

Has he even been under discussion? Romney and Pawlenty seemed the most likely picks, but that's just what the media was saying, so it could be totally wrong.

The media wrong? But, that's impossible.

[HealyHoya]

Romney tacked to the religious right during the primary, which alienates moderates/independents, but he didn't gain with the religious voters because he's a Mormon.

I don't know about some of this reasoning. Respectfully, every Republican candidate in the field tacked to the right during the primary. That's what candidates do during the primary -- attempt to placate the hardcore because they contribute cash/time and vote when most of the country simply isn't paying attention. McCain also tacked hard to the right. Romney did. Giuliani too. The problem? Each of those candidates, as well as the rest of the field with the exception of a lunatic named Tancredo on the immigration issue, were always going to be outflanked by Huckabee. Still, everyone tacks right.

To that point, the Ds tack hard left during their primary in an effort to shore up support from labor (SEIU, Teachers) and minority coalitions.

In the general they all come back to the center, Romney included. He may not be the pick but he's a clear net positive when you tally the sum of his parts.

Jul 31, 2008 16:29:12 GMT -5 Bando said:

Jul 31, 2008 15:19:12 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I predict John Thune.

Has he even been under discussion? Romney and Pawlenty seemed the most likely picks, but that's just what the media was saying, so it could be totally wrong.

Thune is a lower name ID candidate for VP but he is absolutely under strong consideration. Romney, Pawlenty and Thune. That's your short list.

Those still discussing Lieberman as a viable VP candidate are living a dream. It makes no sense. None. He has already endorsed McCain and will practically live in Florida on behalf of the campaign for several months but that's it.

You want a dark horse? A long shot for VP? Eric Cantor (R-Va.)

[kchoya]

Jul 31, 2008 13:00:35 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Everybody seems to be trashing McCain for running a terrible campaign but did anyone notice that today's Gallup Poll has Obama leading by only one point (down from nine a few days ago) and the Rasmussen has Obama by two points?

For me, and I would assume most Republicans, that is what gives us the most hope at this point. McCain has run a middling campaign to date and Obama is still getting fawned over by the press and did his rock star tour around the globe, and he's still only up by a few points. I felt the same way in '96, except Clinton always seemed to be up 10-12 points - a gap Dole could never really close (maybe temporarily with the post San Diego bump).

[hifigator]

Healy wrote:

Those still discussing Lieberman as a viable VP candidate are living a dream. It makes no sense. None. He has already endorsed McCain and will practically live in Florida on behalf of the campaign for several months but that's it.


I might have been a bit unclear. I wasn't predicting Lieberman, I was just saying that personally I would like a centrist ticket. McCain/Lieberman would certainly qualify. Once again the question is whether or not the lost votes from the ultra right wing that would be disenchanted and stay home would offset the moderates, independents and undecideds that might go for such a ticket.

[HealyHoya]

Aug 1, 2008 12:06:02 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Healy wrote:

Those still discussing Lieberman as a viable VP candidate are living a dream. It makes no sense. None. He has already endorsed McCain and will practically live in Florida on behalf of the campaign for several months but that's it.


I might have been a bit unclear. I wasn't predicting Lieberman, I was just saying that personally I would like a centrist ticket. McCain/Lieberman would certainly qualify. Once again the question is whether or not the lost votes from the ultra right wing that would be disenchanted and stay home would offset the moderates, independents and undecideds that might go for such a ticket.

I understood your point. I centrist ticket might work but my point is that it won't be Lieberman. And not to nitpick but the question isn't simply how many votes from the ultra right wing the GOP would lose but also how many votes they would lose from solid, not extreme, Republicans who still find a lifelong D-recent I on the GOP ticket distasteful. Lieberman is a moderate but for the vast majority of his career he was a moderate Democrat who caucused with the Democrats. The suggestion that less-than-extreme Republicans might pause before supporting his selection as VP when there exist plenty of viable moderates who are Rs and have caucused with the Rs during their career is, at worst, reasonable.

Further, more important than the loss of votes would be the potential loss of direct campaign contributions and the limited-to-non-existent status of third party groups.

A "centrist" ticket may work for the GOP but Lieberman isn't the right selection.

[EasyEd]

Why do we often refer to the ultra right of the Republicans but seldom refer to the ultra left of the Democrats? I have read that Obama has the most liberal voting record of any U.S. Senator. In my book that makes him an ultra left wing candidate but you never hear this term. And, why is there no discussion of Obama naming a centrist or a conservative for his running mate? Why no pressure to have him name a real pro-life VP candidate? Heaven forbid the media may have something to do with it.

I hope McCain picks a real conservative for his running mate and let the chips fall where they may.

[DFW HOYA]

Aug 1, 2008 15:41:02 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I have read that Obama has the most liberal voting record of any U.S. Senator. In my book that makes him an ultra left wing candidate but you never hear this term.

That's mostly election year hyperbole. I'd put Bernie Sanders (a self-described socialist), Kennedy, Feingold, Boxer, Schumer and maybe Kerry ahead of him.

[Bando]

Aug 1, 2008 15:41:02 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Why do we often refer to the ultra right of the Republicans but seldom refer to the ultra left of the Democrats? I have read that Obama has the most liberal voting record of any U.S. Senator. In my book that makes him an ultra left wing candidate but you never hear this term. And, why is there no discussion of Obama naming a centrist or a conservative for his running mate? Why no pressure to have him name a real pro-life VP candidate? Heaven forbid the media may have something to do with it.

I hope McCain picks a real conservative for his running mate and let the chips fall where they may.

Because the "center" in this country has moved right in the past few decades, largely because the Republicans won so much and won long-standing ideological arguments while doing so (e.g. gun control). Obama's certainly on the left side of this country's political divide, but he'd be a center-right in Europe. Not that that means anything in a judgmental sense, that's just where we are. When you say Obama is far left, you mean that he's pro-union and anti-war, whereas somewhere else "far left" would mean he wants to nationalize the oil company.

The US has the weird peculiarity in the world of it's major left part having nothing to do with socialism. Part of this is the grand centrist coalitions that a two party system encourages (incidentally, I think this is why the Republicans don't have "Christian" in their name like right parties in Europe do). Sanders is the only socialist in Congress, and he's not even a Democrat, although he caucuses with them.

[Bando]

Also, I know we've been talking about the GOP VP for a while, so I want to ask the conservatives on the board:

1. If you were Obama, who would you pick?
2. Who would scare you, i.e., who would help Obama the most?
3. Who would be your dream VP pick, i.e., who would help Obama the least?