Friday Veepstakes (Part I)

The all-female edition!

Today we'll explore women who might join Senator Barack Obama on the Democratic ticket - and my number one pick may surprise you. As always, curious to read your feedback.

And awaaaaay we go...

5.  Claire McCaskill, Senator from Missouri: an early supporter of Senator Obama, McCaskill has demonstrated an ability to win repeatedly at the statewide level in Missouri, a key swing state.  Downside: she struggles among rural voters, an area in which Democrats need to improve.

4.  Loretta Sanchez, Congresswoman from California: as a Latina from the west coast, she could help Senator Obama among a crucial bloc of Latino voters in Nevada, New Mexico - maybe even in Arizona.  She is a star in the Democratic Party with strong union ties, and as a Clinton supporter could help represent a unity ticket.  Downside: she doesn't help much in rural areas, plus - is the country ready for a black/brown ticket?

3.  Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas: as a former chair of the Democratic Governor's Association, she is well-known on the national Democratic scene and has demonstrated an ability to win in an otherwise conservative state.  Coming from Kansas, she helps in rural areas and was given national prominence earlier this year when she gave the Democratic response to Bush's state of the union  Downside: adding her to the ticket doesn't ensure that Kansas, the home of Bob Dole, will follow her in the election.

2.  Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York: what makes her a strong pick is her name recognition, ability to raise money from large donors and the level of organization demonstrated by her presidential campaign.  The main problem will be that some people might think that the same things which make her a strong pick are what make her a weak pick.  But she has to be in the mix.  To be honest I'm not sure that she would accept a VP position, but an Obama/Clinton ticket would be tough to beat.

1.  Blanche Lincoln, Senator from Arkansas: she is only 48, but she's been in Congress and the Senate for nearly two decades.  She has a background in rural and farm issues, and is considered to be a moderate and centrist Democrat.  As a Superdelegate supporting Senator Clinton, and hailing from Arkansas, she could be the person that brings the Clinton and Obama wings of the Party together at the convention.  Even though she's been around Congress for a while, she could represent a "fresh face" for the party as most Americans still do not know her.  She is also a relatively young mother with two small children, a lot of Americans may find she is someone they can identify with.

Comments

[Truth]

Funny, I just e-mailed Loretta Sanchez about her Clinton endorsement. I remember her having a mini-Florida style recount to get into office (but unlike Gore, she was successful).

I think Obama needs someone with executive experience though. I think a woman other than Hillary Clinton will look like pure political manuevering. Ron Paul – VP. Strong on economy. Crossing aisles. Exact opposite message that Obama will create a welfare state on the backs of the rich and middle class. Obama could say something simple like “Ron doesn’t like to spend money, so if I can get Paul to agree on a certain program then I know it is spot on.” Enter the flood of Republican votes.

[John]

"...an Obama/Clinton ticket would be tough to beat." Yes, it would be. This HAS to be the ticket or else a number of people I know who supported Sen. Clinton are thinking of sitting this one out. She got 48% of the vote and he got 49% in the primary. It is completely sensible, and they are good complements to one another. In this Democratic year, you win easily with this ticket. Obama gets huge turnout among African-Americans and young voters. Clinton brings along white women, rural voters, older voters, and some white working class independents (especially independent working class women, often a swing vote in states like Ohio). Obama appeals to middle-to-upper income white men who are independents. Truly, a winning ticket.

[JMF]

The idea of a female Veep sounds superficially attractive, but as you wonder if the country is ready for a "black/brown" ticket, I'm afraid a black/female ticket is also stretching the good will of the electorate a bit too far. That said, Sebelius looks the best, albeit she was not really given very high marks for her State of the Union response as I recall. It is absolutely vital, I think, that the Dems not take anyone, male or female, out of the Senate unless their seat will almost certainly remain in Dem hands. That's just too risky. And as to Hillary, not only do I think Obama would have a hard time acting friendly to her, but she also couldn't really be trusted not to say things that undermine Obama's message. And frankly, I agree with Biden when he said with Hillary as Veep Obama would need to employ a food taster.

[Diamond E.]

NONE OF THE ABOVE.

They're all good people, would make good Presidents. But under the circumstances and for one reason or another, are not good picks for Obama's VP.

Obama's going to need someone who reinforces his strengths - e.g. opposed the Iraq war, and also helps in his weakness - e.g. military experience.

MUST ..... yes, MUST be someone who will attract either LATINOs or RURAL VOTERS.

MUST ..... yes, MUST be a familiar face who doesn't need national introdution. Someone people will be confident with, if they have doubts about Barack.

[Patrick]

Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona is more popular in her home state than John McCain. Nominating her would send a signal that we really are waging a 50-state campaign and could force McCain to spend valuable time in October trying to prevent an embarassing home-state loss.

[Joe]

How do you poll for this? Obviously, you want someone who gets you the support of a lot of people who are on the fence, without being too offensive to your core supporters.

So how do you poll to see who to pick? There's obviously little use in making the people who will vote for you a little happier if you don't pick up any votes in doing so...

[Mr Super]

Oh there's unpublished polling that is done all of the time - and it's not always done by the campaigns. So you can bet that the potential running mates will be poll-tested in some way.

[Joe]

Yeah, but you didn't tell me how :-)

How do you find people on the fence to poll about possible VP picks?

[Mr Super]

Typically what's done is a poll will be taken of a large sample of voters and their reactions to a set of criteria will be recorded. For example, the poll question might ask on a scale of 1-10, 1 being lowest and 10 being highest, what would you rank military experience? Or, if you have to rank the following issues, in what order would you rank economy, healthcare and the environment? They will also ask voters if they are supporting a candidate, who they supported in the primaries, if they are undecided, etc.

Then what you do is delve into how certain segments of the sample audience responded. Example, if you polled 500 people, and you want to see how "undecided white women" polled, you would cut out that segment and look at their responses. This is called a "crosstab" of the poll - crosstabs are rarely made public because the data is a competitive advantage that campaigns don't want opponents to see, but also because the numbers are not easily consumed by the general public.

But, the crosstab can give you an idea of how these population segments view certain issues and respond to certain things.

Hope this helps.

[Joe]

Interesting, that's more what I wanted to find out.

Do they ask them to volunteer opinions, too, so that you don't end up finding out only what you wanted to hear about?

All I can think of is all those polls where McCain's age keeps coming up, even though it's not really that much of an issue, at least in the press. IMHO, it doesn't matter much, but who knows? I mean, if he had a heart attack or other health problem on the campaign trial, it'd probably open that issue up, though I can't imagine anyone arguing that it should disqualify him or anything. Usually, it's something of an asset.

And I'm still surprised that they haven't hit back about McCain ending the war in 2013, when it so clearly indicates that he will NOT end the war in his first term (or, likely, his second...). "Four more years!" seems like a good way to frame his position...

Then again, I guess some Democrats (Richardson) were floating that timetable once upon a time, so I dunno?

[Jen]

Why not Dianne Feinstein? I am not a fan of hers, but she is a woman and has been in the Senate since 1993. She has foreign policy experience and is very good at appearing nice while eviscerating an opponent. Obama needs an attack dog v.p. that does not appear to be attacking and Feinstein is great at it.

How important is the home state for a v.p. candidate? Does it really bring their home state in contention in the current era? I know I would still not vote Republican even if my mother was the v.p. on the ticket. (Mom, if you read this, I know you would never, ever run or vote as a Republican.)

[Truth]

Joe, keep in mind the next term is actually 2009-2013, so McCain bringing up 2013 was more about America at the end of his 1st term, not after.

"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won,"

The past two days the Republicans have been playing chess to the Democrats' checkers. They are setting long term traps that are being walked right into.

[Blame]

You can’t solve this problem with a poll for one obvious reason. Except for Clinton the bulk of the voters will not have any real knowledge of these women. I will be surprised if they even know the names. Floating the names, so that the public can comment is the correct procedure. Then at least you get feedback from people who know enough about them to have opinions.
A poll to check the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket might have a point, but only depending on some questionable assumptions. Consider the negotiations involved. Hillary would want assurances that she would have a real role to play after the election; otherwise the VP slot would not be worth a bucket of spit. Obama would want assurances that the Clintons stay on message during the entire presidency. On both sides nonbinding assurances could be given, but then where would the trust come from?

[Blame]

Kathleen Sebelius is the only governor in your list, and that has to be a real plus. If her page in Wikipedia is accurate she is a perfect fit. She has proven experience in managing at state level. More importantly she has proven talent.

Her age at 60 is perfect too. Just about right to pose as a parent figure with youthful looking, hyper talented, but perhaps inexperienced Obama. Voters will believe he will listen to her. I believe it.

[Mr Super]

2013 is a gimmick.A five-year plan is something that is brought up quite a bit in presidential campaigns because it gives the candidate wiggle room in the event that he doesn't make that much progress on an issue. It gives him an out when someone tries to pin him to his words during the re-elect.

The next term may end in 2013, but it ends in January.

Richardson promoted 2013 only to highlight the position of other candidates, he was actually in favor of bringing all troops home within one year.

[Truth]

"You can’t solve this problem with a poll for one obvious reason. Except for Clinton the bulk of the voters will not have any real knowledge of these women. " - Blame

I agree with you Blame. Can you name all the governors, congress(wo)men, Senators, diplomats, etc? I feel no shame in saying I can't. Most people can't even locate all 57 states. What about their actual records if you do know them. I would say most couldn't even name Obama's/Clinton's/McCain's platforms, let alone a list of VP candidates. Besides Clinton, Kathleen is the best on that list. Her State of the Union rebuttal was weak and lifeless though. She should have had balloons and confetti yelling "he's almost gone !!!!" She was boring though. Clinton & Edwards are the lightest on their feet. The majority at best will judge the VP off one debate.

"2013 is a gimmick" Mr. Super

Yes & no. Not sure what you meant by the five year plan. January 2009 to January 2013 is four years (1 term). I’ve found little reason to research McCain’s platforms that deeply, but I’m pretty sure he hasn’t given an outline on how to get from here to 2013. Most ideas start with a simple thesis though, so jumping on it immediately would be in bad form. It discourages discourse, which would once again be the opposite effect Obama is trying to achieve. I’m sure Republicans see “Obama will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of his first term in office“ as a gimmick. You need to view this from the Independent – Swing Republican view. The 100 year remark can no longer be used. It was a stretch to call that his plan to begin with, but McCain deserved it to talk about war so lightly. Now that Obama has taken unconditional talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad off the table, I’m not sure how he differs from Bush’s policy on Iran. Leaving all options on the table (thinly veiled code for nuclear) and sanctions is exactly what has been going on with Iranian diplomacy since the revolution. His original Sadat-inspired rhetoric was the way to go. Republicans will call him weak, but he can cite Sadat himself. The number one enemy of Israel going into the Lion’s Den of Israel was anything but cowardly. Without actually researching it, I believe more leaders have been killed over peaceful leadership than hiding behind the armed forces.

Back to the point, dismissing another candidate’s ideas as gimmicks will take the debate in the wrong direction. Imagine if Obama instead said “I’m glad to hear McCain is aiming for a real resolution for Iraq. I look forward to his road map.” Compliments, holds McCain to it, makes McCain come up with a plan, and follow up if elected. Now we have the two candidates ending the Iraq(i) / America(n) violence within 1-1/3 to 4 years. Future looks much brighter with an end in sight. New Politics = Show, Don’t Tell.

[rokchok]

One thing you [and almost all others] miss about Kathleen Sebelius is her dad and how that will play.

Jack Gilligan.
Who? [as many are asking]
That's former Governor Jack Gilligan.
That's former OHIO Governor Jack Gilligan.

Gov Sebelius is an Ohio girl, born and bred.. and Obama picking Sebelius very well could help a very tossed up Ohio turn blue.

And just to give you more useless trivia, her husband is Gary Sebelius, a federal magistrate judge and the son of former U.S. Representative Keith Sebelius, a Republican.