Friday Veepstakes (Part II)

Some questions have trickled in about the VP process and rather than save them for the Saturday Q&A, figured I'd offer them up as part of the discussion during Friday Veepstakes.  So here goes...

Q: CAN THE CONVENTION DELEGATES PICK A VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE OVER THE WILL OF THE PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE?

A: Can we?  Yes.  Will we?  No.  This question comes in part based on an article at Real Clear Politics by Bob Beckel, who writes "count on it" when it comes to the big bad Superdelegates pushing to put Senator Clinton on the ticket.  Hmm...not so fast.

The convention votes on a vice presidential runningmate, but it is highly unlikely that we will act beyond the will of the presumptive nominee.  Both pledged and Super delegates alike are savvy folks.  We've all been heavily immersed in the political process for years (OK some pledged delegates only for months, but what an intense few months they've been).  Add to that, whereas the DNC has allowed the campaigns to run their course during the nomination period, the national Party will likely be compelled to step in and defend the presumptive nominee's ability to own the VP selection process.

Right now we all want to come together as a Party, and while 50% of the delegates at the convention are women (all state delegations are gender-balanced), the majority of voters are for Obama, and with a few possible exceptions, we will cast our votes the way the Obama campaign asks us to.  Party unity starts with coalescing around the decisions of your Party leader, not by forcing other candidates on him. 

Yet I do believe that Senator Clinton will be on the short list of VP names that is floated around, which should offer delegates satisfaction that she is being given a fair shot in the selection process.

The last time the convention picked a running mate at its own will was in the 1950's, when Adlai Stevenson left the deciding of a Vice Presidential candidate up to the floor of the convention, where the delegates selected Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver over John F. Kennedy (I'm not clear on whether or not the 1968 convention chose Ed Muskie, or if presumptive nominee Hubert Humphrey put Muskie forward as his pick).
 

Q: WHEN WILL THE PROCESS START?

A: While it is evident that Senator Obama will be the Democratic nominee, his campaign will likely wait until he has a majority of pledged delegates and/or until the campaign has 2,025 delegates (likely to occur at the same time or within days of each other) before announcing a VP process. Once that happens, vetting for potential runningmates will begin and a few names may be floated to generate some buzz in the media.  But overall, we shouldn't expect to hear serious speculation from the campaign or the Party until June, with an announcement likely coming at the end of July or early August.

From what I can recall, Al Gore was on the short list with Lee Hamilton, Bob Kerrey and Bob Graham in late June of 1992, and he was then officially named on July 9th, 1992.  However, the 1992 DNC convention was also scheduled to start on July 13, so in effect Gore was named just four days prior.  Al Gore announced the selection of runningmate Joe Lieberman on August 8th, 2000 just six days prior to the 2000 DNC convention.  And John Kerry chose John Edwards on July 6th, roughly three weeks prior to the 2004 DNC convention which opened on July 26th.

Thus there are traditionally two time markers which indicate when a VP nominee will be announced: after the July 4th holiday, and just before the opening gavel of the DNC convention.  What is unique this year is that the gap between the 4th of July and the start of the convention is nearly seven weeks.

So, why the wait?  The first reason is that the excitement of a runningmate brings something new and interesting to the campaign - thus generating buzz and added news value for the Democratic convention. The other reason is that the vetting process needs time to play out, time to float names in the papers and see what the public reaction will be, and to give a thorough background check to each contender.  There are also legalities that need to be addressed when adding a runningmate to a national ticket, all of which take some time.

Q: MIGHT THERE BE A CHANCE THAT A REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE WILL BE ON THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET?

A: No.

Comments

[John]

"Yet I do believe that Senator Clinton will be on the short list of VP names that is floated around, which should offer delegates satisfaction that she is being given a fair shot in the selection process." If her name is simply 'floated around' and she is not picked for VP, I will sit out this election. If the Democratic party and Obama as its titular head want to tell her voters she was "floated" and we should be happy about that, then he picks Sebelius or Webb or someone I simply can't get that enthusiastic about, then forget it. Imagine what Obama voters would do it it was inverted, with Clinton as a 100+ delegate leader and Clinton choosing Dick Durbin or Harold Ford, Jr. or someone that allegedly will "excite" his supporters, but of course it would not. That is how a lot of Clinton supporters feel. If Edwards got to be VP in 2004 because he won South Carolina and Oklahoma in the primary, then Clinton gets it. The superdels need to show some backbone. Otherwise, why bother having a convention anymore. The convention is part of the rules, and we should play by the rules. The superdelegates and wise men (and hopefully women) of the party can say, this is right, and it is a very strong, winning ticket. I only hope Obama's nearly all-male staff realizes a stand-in for any woman won't do it.

Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc. all won a majority of delegates outright easily and steamrolled at the end of the process, thus they deserved to choose who they wanted. Obama is much more constrained this year because he simply did not close the deal, though is heading for a narrow, narrow primary victory. Obama is someone who has won a plurality of delegates, but he did not win big, which is where the norm of the candidate 'choosing' the nominee came from. Obama needs to heal the party with the right choice.

[Joe]

Awww, putting in that last question when I was going to mention this article about Hagel...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24658218/

[Mr Super]

For the record: I didn't say "name" floated around, I said "list" that is floated around. I believe she'll be a strong contender for the #2 slot. But like I also said, I'm not sure she'll take it.

After all, not everyone thinks that the Vice Presidency is really a step-up from serving as the US Senator from New York.

[suekzoo]

John,

You are assuming Clinton wants the VP slot. What if she doesn't and would prefer another slot?

P.S. Clinton has as much responsibility in uniting the party as Obama does.

[Nate]

Mr. Super,

Can you explain the categorical "No" to a Republican VP? Some of us have been hoping for Lincoln Chafee.

[Mr Super]

You can take it to the bank - there won't be a Republican on the Democratic ticket.

If we want to prove to the country that Democrats are a better option to run the country, then we need to make that case with Democrats on the ticket. Adding a Republican is not going to mobilize the Democratic base - if anything it will probably keep them home. Adding a Republican doesn't lure Republican voters, as they already have a Republican ticket to vote for.

The way to lure cross-over voters is to stay true to what you believe in and offer a unified show of force from within your own party.

Sorry, no Lincoln Chafee this year. No Chuck Hagel (he's too good of friends with McCain to bolt anyway) and no Colin Powell.

The only Republican could remotely be considered for a position would be NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who isn't really a Republican in the first place. Even then, he won't be on the ticket.

[John]

Suekzoo, peronally, I have no knowledge as to whether Sen. Clinton wants the VP slot. My guess is that the answer is yes, as the only people within the last week (since Clinton has gone pro-unity and 100% positive) putting forward the "I don't think she really wants it" claim are associated with the Obama campaign (or its house organ, MSNBC). I agree with you that Clinton has responsibility for unity too, but by no means does she have "as much" as Obama. He is the nominee--and is supposedly very good at brining people together. Obama's theme is that he is a uniter, and not a divider. Further, before a single vote was cast in the Iowa caucus, Obama was running around campaigning against the Bush-Clinton years, claiming there were no good ideas during the 1990s, implying that Reagan had better ideas than Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton has no responsibility for these comments, Obama does. When he said she did nothing but "have teas" as first lady, or derided her Armed Services committee experience, he is responsible for this. Unite us, please, Sen. Obama.

So unite us by picking Hillary Clinton. 49% + Webb = 49% of the primary vote; 49% + Sebelius = still equals 49% of the primary vote. Obama + Clinton = 97% of the primary electorate. If he does not pick Clinton as VP (or if she is not asked), then I am not voting or I will write in her name.

[Grapevine]

Let's not overstate the 49% thing. 49% of primary voters preferred Clinton to Obama, but don't necessarily think she's better than anyone else. As a Hillary supporter, she was not my first choice, or even really my second or third choice. If we open up the possibilities to the entire universe of democratic politicians, I don't even think she'd make my top 5 favorites. The same is true of some other Hillary supporters I know, we have others we'd prefer for VP. Of course, many of her supporters do consider her their first choice, but let's not pretend that 49% of the party would revolt if she wasn't picked.

If we want unity, just convince Bush to attack Obama every week or two. Each time he does it, it pisses off the entire base, including Hillary supporters, and motivates Democrats to back Obama. Bush will keep the party together, let's just focus on picking the best possible VP.

[RS]

@John:
I am not sure where you got the idea that Senator Obama's staff is almost all-male.
His most important/closest adviser is Valerie Jarrett. His senior foreign policy adviser is Susan Rice, and till recently, the team included Samantha Power. His national finance chairperson is Penny Pritzker. Not to mention the elected women who support Senator Obama - Sibelius, Napolitano, McCaskill. And that's just off the top of my head.
Axelrod and Gibbs may be more on TV, but there are plenty of *very* influential women not-named-Obama in his campaign.

Sorry to be off-topic, but I had to correct that biased & wrong perception.

Yes, I do agree that Senator Clinton would be a *very* strong contender for VP. But I also agree with Mr Super - does she want it? She was effectively VP in the '90s, and if she stays in the Senate, she could overthrow Senator Reid ;-)

[Blame]

John.

There are certainly disgruntled Hillary supporters like you who will not vote Obama without her on the ticket, but your maths is questionable.

Clinton has high negatives. It would take a poll to determine whether Obama would loose more potential supporters than he gains with Hillary. Even that would be doubtful. Many disgruntled Hillary supporters will return to the fold in time, but how to quantify that number?

Not even a poll could quantify the effect of the additional target that Hillary and Bill represents for Republican negative campaigning, or the energising of Republican voters who hate Clintons as a species, or the muddled message of two very different management styles.

Obama will just have to listen to the arguments, sleep on it, make an educated guess, and hope he has got it right.

[Truth]

Blame, the only thing better than an Obama/Clinton ticket would be a Clinton/Obama ticket. Even 538.com shows her dooing better than Obama now, and it is clear the site is Obama-biased. electoral-vote.com is even worse for Obama.

[John]

To RS. I don't want to get into a flame-off, but I apologize for not providing more evidence of my claim that Sen. Obama's staff is nearly all male. Of course he has a few female staff, the most prominent ones that you mentioned (most are policy advisors, though, and he has many male policy advisors as well). But reading this week's Newsweek which profiled all the top staff, the only woman was Valerie Jarrett, and she appears to be as much Michelle's friend who is now Obama staff. Other than that, all men in the inner circle (Axelrod, Plouffe, etc). Further, in Sen. Obama's senate office, he hired many more men than women (compared to both Sen. Clinton). Sen. Clinton also paid her female staff equally to the male staff, but Obama has not--and Obama hired nearly all men for the upper echelons of his senate staff. Shockingly, even Sen. McCain paid his female senate staff higher than Sen. Obama in the upper echelons. Source: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11574535/

I bring this up because I do think many men on Sen. Obama's staff (including his VP vetter, who did it for Kerry and is also male) do not sense the gravity of the intense pro-Clinton feelings among many of her supporters, both male but especially female. Having more female staff that are political advisors might help him realize he has quite a bit of work to do with Clinton supporters, especially women. And if he had a more diverse staff at the top, I think he would be more open to choosing Sen. Clinton, but I am afraid his top staff will go with what Mr. Super initially said--putting Sen. Clinton on a 'list' and circulating it to make Clinton supporters feel better. Unfortunately, if she is not picked, I think a lot of her supporters will not feel as welcome in the Democratic party any longer.

[Blame]

Truth

I tend to rely on RealClearPolitics for their “poll of polls”. When matching Obama against Clinton, Obama has been mostly ahead in recent months. When matching ether against McCain the honours are about even (Obama currently doing 1.2% better). I guess one could go on quoting cherry picked data all day, but an honest pollster would probably say it is too close to call.

Frankly none of the above matters much, because they are not polls of team Obama/Clinton vs. McCain. Would the voters see them as the Dream team, or the team with something for everyone to hate? We could have both Clinton haters and Obama objectors sitting on their hands come November.

Regardless I stand by my last post. Any poll would only give part of the picture in this matter.

[Nate]

Mr. super,

Thanks for your response. The reader feedback is what has made this site so great. Questions answered.

[Jay]

Oh here we go again with the Obama crowd doing nothing to help unify the party. Instead of urging Obama to put Clinton on the ticket by telling him to do so, you just expect everyone to be happy because he will consider it. I really am getting tired of all of this as you just want Obama to the point you have lost all perspective. McCain is going to win in November based on the electoral map as most see it at the moment. Obama must do something bold to get the voters he needs to make up for the many he has lost. I talk to real Democrats all the time (not just political ones) and most are convinced Obama is going to lose without Clinton on the ticket. Kennedy didn't want Johnson either but knew it would be a winning ticket. Think about it.

[Truth]

Blame, enough with the cherry picking. RealClearPolitics is good for the Primary but not great for the General Election. I haven't found RCPs electoral vote results by state polls. EV.com has that along with a historical track record.

Cherry picking would have been using the two most recent McCain v. Obama polls:
Gallup Tracking 05/11 - 05/15 4366 RV 45 47 McCain +2.0
Rasmussen Tracking 05/12 - 05/15 1600 LV 45 45 Tie

Clinton v. McCain
Gallup Tracking 05/11 - 05/15 4366 RV 48 45 Clinton +3.0
Rasmussen Tracking 05/12 - 05/15 1600 LV 45 44 Clinton +1.0

I'm sure I will be rebutted on the above when the next round has Obama doing better than McCain, but it would be making my point as to why I don't put too much weight in the pure popular vote v. McCain. I won't say I dismiss the plain whole total popular vote v. McCain, but I give it far less weight than how we actually elect a president.

I was actually expecting EV.com to start swinging better for Obama v. MC over Clinton v. MC due to the "MSM" basically calling the Primary over and Clinton not being allowed to continue a winning campaign strategy. The fact that it hasn't should be troubling to Obama supporters.

I love how I originally was told I cherry picked because I didn't cite 538.com, but now I am cherry picking because I mentioned it. Seriously, you guys need to get a bit more objective.

[suekzoo]

Jay says: "Instead of urging Obama to put Clinton on the ticket by telling him to do so, you just expect everyone to be happy because he will consider it."

Jay, you sound certain Hillary wants the VP spot. What's your evidence? How do you know that she wouldn't prefer another spot in the administration, like a cabinet position?

[Blame]

Truth

I check RealClearPolitics. Again. They list 5 polls that they concider reliable enough, and recent enough to use. You quoted the 2 that showed Clinton ahead. You ignored the 3 that showed Obama ahead.

Do you have any particular reason to concider Quinnipiac,ABC News/Wash Post or POS/GQR invalid?

Of the five only Galup gives Clinton a clear advantage. Rasmussen shows Clinton up just 1% - too close to call.

I repeat. Too Close to call and Cherry picking.

[Truth]

Blame, I'm not sure if you are joking around now.

I made it clear that we are talking about different types of polls. You were arguing total population, whereas I was arguing electoral, so you citing a totally different type of poll does not show cherry picking. If you weren't clear what cherry picking would have been, I showed you prefaced with:

"Cherry picking would have been ..."

and finished that yet another rebuttal
" ... would be making my point as to why I don't put too much weight in the pure popular vote v. McCain"

538.com doesn't seem to keep a day by day tracking or making the GE a winner take all race that it actually is, so I've always looked at it as the weaker compared to ev.com HOWEVER

"The headline today is that for the first time since we started tracking the state polls in early March, we are now rating Hillary Clinton as a favorite against John McCain."

"Barack Obama is also polling quite strongly in blue states recently. However, he appears to be backtracking somewhat in red states like Kansas. This is undoubtedly fairly typical for this point in the election cycle, when support begins to revert toward being more partisan. But the reason why we don't yet show Obama getting a surge in his electoral math even as he has improved his standing in national polls is because we haven't gotten a lot of data from key purple states recently, and what data we have gotten -- as in Wisconsin and New Hampshire -- has not been especially good for him. "
538.com 5/16/08

So you can stop calling me a pathological liar or cherry picker when I have used the Obama favored source to show Hillary is the stronger candidate in the GE and becoming stronger by the day.

Also, Chris Dodd stumbled across my point that Obama should not run from his diplomatic position on Iran, but embrace it. They need to back off the tactic of Bush's diplomacy being in line with Obama's (Libya, Iran, North Korea) and make bold statements like "I know John McCain lacks the confidence to meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad face to face for fear that he may somehow be tricked into appeasement. I have no such fear. I believe when we leave the public posturing at the door, we will find we both want peace with each other and across the Middle East."

Obama mising this opportunity is showing him as weak, not strong. He could make a dramatic swing towards him right now, but nobody will accuse him of being a closer.

[Joe]

Ehh, I don't know about ABC any more. I saw some of their coverage delve into Fox news territory at times. I love that feature of Google news--it lets me compare stories and see who are the outliers (or out-and-out liars, at times). I don't know if it affects their polls or not, but I do know that Fox for one has had some VERY warped numbers. True, it might be because they poll their own viewers, but I don't know. And I don't know how that reflects on their coverage, except to say that I remember a few stories they've written that were pretty biased.

That said, I haven't looked into the daily polls much any more. We're too far away from the election for them to be meaningful and the movements, if not the trends, are almost always within their margins of error.

[Blame]

Truth

The polls you quoted were total population, not by state. As such I have good reason to point out the unquoted total population polls that show a different story. I am not sure how you move from that to thinking that I am calling you a pathological liar.

There is a valid argument that Obama would under perform his total population vote in the election. Obama appears to have lost some support with the lower income white vote. Wright undoubtedly did him some lasting damage that was only offset by Hillary’s snipers. How much is indeterminate. I rather suspect that his opposition to the gas tax holiday is more to blame for the loss of voters among the less educated.

It was not all bad. Wright has not just solidified black support, it has made it fanatical. Just whisper “Obama” and watch them run to the nearest polling station. Obama’s opposition to the gas tax holiday will solidify his support with anybody who understands basic economics, or at least knows that there is no such thing as a free lunch. In short you are right to point out that 538.com 5/16/08 indicates problems for Obama, but they are far from terminal.

However I do not think you have proved that the correct solution to those problems is Hillary as VP. You just can’t add her share of the vote to his. As VP Hillary would have only as much relevance as Obama chooses to give her. Her supporters would know that, and might not be impressed. They would only have rational reason if they figured that Obama’s life expectancy was short. Indeed one can’t help wondering if among all those millions of Clinton supporters there isn’t one who would move from fond imagination to action.

In my mind only a VP who the voters believe Obama will respect and listen to will have a significant impact. Obama who is surrounded by a campaign team even younger than himself, needs a new mentor who is white, non radical, and experienced in the practicalities of good government to take away the bitter aftertaste of Wright. That is a political necessity, and quite likely for him a psychological necessity. It can never be Hillary because the trust isn’t there.

Regardless the Presidency is now Obama’s to loose, as it would have been Clinton’s. Obama has good support among independents and those few still calling themselves Republicans look unmotivated by McCain. Obama has massive support among grass roots activists and donors. He has a first class campaign team.

The only thing he doesn’t have is the respect of a large fraction of Clinton supporters, and that is what the polls are telling us. They may truly intend to vote for McCain now, but before November they will be better acquainted with his policies. As yet I would bet they have only examined Clinton’s. The party will heal in good time, just not quite yet.

I am aware that you would have preferred Hillary for president. Would Hillary have made a better candidate? That is another wonderful topic for debate, but only because a definite answer is unlikely. 538.com would suggest yes, but it doesn’t give her a fraction of the 20 point lead she somehow lost against Obama. How many points would she have lost against McCain with her shambles of a campaign team? On the other hand you could argue that 20+ was her “natural” share of the vote and that Obama is holding a temporary peak that he will never achieve again. Life is cruel, both to the Clintons and to us who must live never knowing the true answer to “what if…?”.

[John]

While you all bicker about electability and polls, I think we should think about actual elections being held Tuesday in Oregon and Kentucky. Obama is expected to win by 20+ points in Oregon, and Clinton is expected to win by 20+ points in Kentucky, just like she did in West Virginia. This suggests Obama--assuming he is the nominee--can rack up numbers in upscale liberal territory like Portland, OR; Bellingham, WA; State College, PA (in an important swing states), but can't do well with downscale Dems in states like Charleston, West Virginia; Scranton, Penn., Youngstown, Ohio, etc. (also in important swing states). Need to put these two coalitions together for a win.

[Joe]

Hey Blame, it's just a pet peeve of mine, but "loose" means "to let go of". You want "lose" if you're looking for the opposite of "win" :-)

Anyhow, yeah, I don't know what Obama can do to get better numbers with the working class, but I hope he finds out soon. I see that he's going after seniors these days by talking about social security.

[Blame]

John

I don't think you have quite got the point. Within a few weeks at most, probably days, Hillary is going to concede and tell all her supporters to vote Democrat and vote Obama. The fear that we all have is that they are not sheep to meekly do her bidding. They supported her because they saw qualities in her that they do not see in Obama. Those qualities will not magically transfer to Obama with Clinton’s (forced by events) nomination of him. He will not become female, will not adopt Hillary’s (very slightly different) policies, won’t become the spouse of Bill Clinton whose presidency gave most Americans 8 rather better years than they have had since, and won’t even become white!

Some feel that giving Hillary the VP slot will do the trick. I don’t because for her it would be an empty position that brings no powers, influence or responsibilities. She knows it, and they would know it. I think that all Obama can do is make himself (and the team he brings with him) as electable as possible and pray that they work out that he is preferable to McCain.

But please, if you know some way to guarantee joining the two tribes together tell all because my solution doesn’t amount to more than hope & prayer.

[Jay]

In response to Suezkoo above: It doesn't matter whether Hillary will accept. It matters that there is a public offer to her that she can either accept or turn down. Now, as to the other posts above, it seems clear Obama's problem is both with blue collar Democrats and seniors. I don't think he appeals to either and that is his weakness as a candidate. All you Obama supporters should have given this matter more thought instead of relying on the size of crowds to show enthusiam. The biggest crowds I ever saw for a Presidential candidate were for McGovern in 1972. Some of you old enough to remember will note he lost 49 states. I am not suggesting Obama will lose 49 states but some of our dear liberal bloggers are losing their minds in suggesting Obama might win Mississippi (Daily Kos) and proposterous things of that nature. The concentration must be on holding onto to Wisconsin, Penna. and Michigan. You start with the 2004 map and add Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa and you don't lose New Hampshire to McCain and you end up with 273 electoral votes. If Obama wins, it will be a squeaker of that type because of all you Obama lovers. Had we choosen the right candidate, we could have added Ohio and Florida and sealed the Republicans fate. Instead, we are left to hope and dreams of putting together 270 electoral votes. The best way to do it would be to put Hillary on the ticket assuming she will accept it. I personally believe Obama will lose the election without some help from somewhere. Hillary can provide it or there might be some outside factors unknown at the moment that might help him. He is simply a flawed candidate. Again, they put up their best and we are putting up our weakest. It makes for a very close contest.