#55 The 2008 Vital VeepStakes, and the 2012 Election

Let's be clear about this: if Obama is elected in 2008, he has a good shot at being reelected in 2012; if McCain is elected, his VP candidate has a good chance of becoming president, either during the next four years or on his own in the 2012 election. That's why the Republican choice for VP is so vital right now.

Thus, before I talk about Joe Biden, let me reiterate (for the fourth or fifth time) that Tim Pawlenty would be the best VP candidate the Republicans could choose. Not Mitt Romney (for all the reasons I've already listed), not an Ohio congressman or a Virginia congressman, but Pawlenty. Now, Pawlenty may have removed himself from consideration by his comment, "The Republicans should adopt the positive tone of Senator Barack Obama," but he would bring genuine conservative evangelical credentials to the Republican ticket. And he's younger than John McCain. But, then again, who isn't? My word, even I'M younger than John McCain!

But the odds are still that John McCain will choose someone else. I think, if I were a Republican, "someone else" would be a weaker VP nominee than Tim Pawlenty.

Speaking of weaker, I still think Obama can do better than Joe Biden. I like Biden. He has good ideas (some of them possibly his own), and a tragic and sympathetic family background. The hair implants he had years ago have taken root, and he looks the part of a Vice President. More importantly, however, he has tremendous foreign policy experience during his six terms in the senate.

Did I say SIX TERMS? How in the Blazing Saddles does a six-term senator fit in with Barack Obama's call for "change" in leadership and "change" in direction?

There's a problem with Joe Biden as the potential Democratic vice-presidential nominee. Actually, at least four problems: (1) calling for change, should Obama choose a Washington insider, a long-time feeder at the public trough? Again, Biden is smart, personable, and now seems to have gravitas and dignity. But (2) he doesn't quite know when to stop talking, and tends to say TOO much; (3) he will be 66 years old a few weeks after the election this year and, while he certainly has the qualifications to become president if that need arises, if Obama wins in 2008 Obama will run again in 2012, and Biden would likely be replaced on the ticket by a younger running mate.

There's another problem about Biden, from my point of view a big problem, that would almost certainly surface were he to be on the ticket. The Evil Karl Rove or one of his minions would bring it up: (4) the claim of plagiarism against him in 1988, and a history of stretching the truth, or at worst, just "saying the thing that is not so" (to use Jonathan Swift's Gulliverian euphemism).

See NOTE 1 at the end of this entry for the discussion of Biden's not-always-telling-the-truth, if you're interested in the details.

I think that either Biden or Richardson--both with foreign policy experience--could be pre-announced (i.e., before the election) as likely Secretary of State. Biden has previously said he wouldn't accept such a position, but he's had some time now to mull it over. Besides, if a newly-elected president comes to him and asks him to serve, it's less easy in practice to say No than it is in theory to say it.

For his VP, Obama should consider choosing a qualified candidate from a state that has not recently gone Blue in presidential elections, but could this year if a favorite son were the VP candidate.

You all remember that I think that Jim Webb (VA) or Ted Strickland (OH) would be good candidates, but both have claimed they're not interested in that position. Tim Kaine would also put Virginia in play. And Evan Bayh, whom I could not stop thinking about as a VP candidate, would help put Indiana in play. All of these good folk are qualified leaders.

We'll know soon enough. The Democratic convention begins in less than a week. In the meantime, John McCain would do well to say nothing about his VP candidate until after the Democratic convention, and perhaps use the Democrats' choice to help him decide.

-- triton --

NOTE 1 -- quoted material is from Wikipedia (not always a reliable source, but I've checked it out, and this does seem to be accurate). This is serious material against Joe Biden:

Biden ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, but "the campaign ended when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video. In the video Biden is filmed repeating a stump speech by Kinnock, with only minor modifications. 'Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go a university? Why is it that my wife . . . is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? . . . Is it because they didn't work hard? My ancestors who worked in the coalmines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It's because they didn't have a platform on which to stand.' After Biden withdrew from the race it was learned that he had correctly credited Kinnock on other occasions. He failed to do so, however, in the Iowa speech that was recorded and distributed to reporters (with a parallel video of Kinnock) by aides to Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee. Dukakis fired John Sasso, his campaign manager and long-time Chief of Staff, but Biden's campaign could not recover. A speech that Biden had given to California Democrats earlier in the year contained passages from a Bobby Kennedy speech, but it was reported that Biden pollster and strategist Patrick Caddell had slipped the lines into the speech without Biden's knowledge. This however was hardly Biden's only problem. It was also revealed that he had plagiarized an article when he was in law school. As the New York Times pointed out: 'The faculty ruled that Mr. Biden would get an F in the course but would have the grade stricken when he retook it the next year. Mr. Biden eventually received a grade of 80 in the course, which, he joked today, prevented him from falling even further in his class rank. Mr. Biden, who graduated from the law school in 1968, was 76th in a class of 85. The file also included Mr. Biden's transcript from his days as an undergraduate at the University of Delaware. In his first three semesters, his grades were C's or D's, with three exceptions: two A's in physical education courses, a B in a course on Great English Writers and an F in R.O.T.C. The grades improved somewhat later but were never exceptional.' When questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school Biden claimed falsely to have graduated in the 'top half' of his class."

#52 The Second of Two Posts: The Media's Conservative Bias

I know that some folk will argue that the media are liberally biased, and favor Barack Obama by giving him more face time, more complimentary stories. I don't buy that. I see the media as having an increasingly strong conservative bias.

I'm not just talking about Rush Limbaugh or other radical right-wing talkers, though Rush (as those of us who don't know him call him) is of course a prime example. I'm talking about the lack of success of liberal talk shows (Al Franken's, anyone?) whose audience has been sufficiently small that liberal talk radio's number of markets has decreased noticeably in recent months. Of course, that's the result of "market forces," but it doesn't change the nature of the argument. There are more--many more--hosts spouting the conservative mantra in the media than there are liberals, or even moderates.

Glenn Beck appears daily on, of all networks(!), CNN Headline News. I watch his show occasionally. At least, until what he says makes my blood pressure rise to untenable levels. The fact is, I agree with some of the things he says, but I'm very much put off by his frequent nastiness. Tonight, for example, he had an ad on about his now appearing on YOUR cell phone. Well, okay, not on mine. I don't have video, and I don't keep my cell phone on anyway. But he has select ringtones that (I suppose) people can download or buy or whatever one does with ringtones, and one of them (he indicated) says, "I smell a liberal calling!"

That may be his attempt at humor. But even as a joke, it's not funny. It's just silly and sophomoric, though I admit that I had to suppress a smile when I first heard it.

But when you add the Glenn Becks of the media to the ENTIRE fox network, and combine their conservative ranting with the fact that other networks generally do NOT editorialize within alleged news shows (as fox does), then you get a pretty heavy dose of anti-Obama "news" and commentary. Note that I did not say, "pro-McCain." I find it significant that the editorialists, even when parading under the guise of news reporters, have more negative things to say about Obama than positive things to say about McCain.

I am concerned that the weight of such anti-Obama comments will eventually takes its toll, the precise hope of the far-right commentators, and that people on the fence will fall over into the McCain camp, in order to cast a vote against what Obama allegedly stands for (as alleged by the conservative media). Obama cannot afford to be answering his many critics all the time, and so far I think he's found a pretty good balance between answering them and providing the positive information about his own ideas for change in America.

Obama needs to continue doing so.

On another (though always related) topic, I think that Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, my favorite choice for the Republican VP slot, has intentionally or unintentionally removed himself from consideration by John McCain. Yesterday Pawlenty said--out loud, in public, for everyone to hear--that in this campaign the Republicans should adopt the more positive tone that Senator Barack Obama has adopted. Pawlenty did not say that McCain was being negative (though McCain's ads, probably under the guidance of the Evil Karl Rove, have been very negative).

With Pawlenty likely out of the running (will McCain surprise everyone and pick him anyway for his legitimate conservative credentials?), Mitt Romney may have the upper hand as the VP choice. I've already discussed why he would be a weak choice for McCain (he won't bring Michigan, but he will bring Idaho and Utah, which have no chance of NOT going Republican anyway). I see only one "positive" to Romney's being selected: that he can adopt McCain's negative campaigning by being the attack dog against Obama; and John McCain can try to elevate himself to a higher level than he has been on so far. I actually don't think McCain is in sufficient control of his own emotions to carry it off.

-- triton --

#48 Governor Tim Kaine has made the cut

Those of you following the last five months of blogposts here know that I'm a Jim Webb fan. Webb is the current Democratic senator from Virginia, what could be a battleground state if Webb were to be chosen for the VP slot on Barack Obama's ticket. However, Webb, like several other Democrats I've liked for the VP slot (Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, for example), has indicated he isn't interested in running for VP.

Tim Kaine, current governor of Virginia, has apparently made it to the most recent "List of Five" for Obama. Kaine is, as I've pointed out, not as well known nationally as is Webb, though that deficiency can be addressed with the media blitz that will accompany whoever is nominated.

Kaine is also missing some of Webb's other credentials. Kaine is 50 years old, barely older than Obama, whereas Webb is a more seasoned 62 years old. Webb graduated from Annapolis; Kaine graduated from the University of Missouri in 1979. Webb served as a Marine in Viet Nam (and perhaps could counteract McCain's experience there); Kaine was too young to serve there.

But Kaine has certifiable "governing" experience as Mayor of Richmond, as Lt Governor of Virginia, and now (since 2006) as governor. He could bring some administrative skills to an Obama presidency. However, because of his own previously held positions, Webb would seem to have more knowledge of international and defense issues. On the other hand (and I'm dangerously close in this paragraph to having three hands), Kaine apparently has nothing in his background akin to Webb's long-ago comment about women in military academies.

Whoever is nominated, we can assume the Democrats will mount a furious campaign to convince the public that he (and, yes, I'm still saying the Democrats will need to nominate a white male to be VP) is most qualified for the position. The Republicans, of course, will mount a counter campaign.

On the Republican side, right now at least John McCain is doing exactly what he should be doing. No, I don't mean his flubbs and his fluff and his funky comparison of Barack with Britney and Paris. I mean that John McCain should wisely NOT announce his VP candidate until after the Democrats announce theirs. The chronology of the conventions the last week of August (the Democratic convention in Colorado) and the first week of September (the Republican convention in Minnesota) plays beautifully into McCain's strategy...if there actually is a strategy.

There is no reason for McCain to announce anything until after the Democratic convention. In fact, there's no reason for him even to make any decision, just to vet the possible candidates, and hold off actually deciding until he sees who might best counter the Democratic choice.

I'd love to see a race between Obama-Webb (or, I suppose, Kaine) and McCain-Pawlenty. That race could possibly move the Red Virginia to Blue, and the Blue Minnesota to Red, and just throw the last eight years out the window. Hmmm. Another reason to get rid of these last eight years....

-- triton --

#43 Everyone's Top Five Lists

John McCain has allowed his list of Top Five potential VP candidates to hit the tube. I still think Romney (the alleged favorite) isn't a good choice, and Pawlenty is. Both are on his list.

Barack Obama has his Top Five contenders as well, and Jim Webb is not on it. Pity. Of course, Webb's indication that he isn't interested may have had something to do with his being omitted. The Democrats need to chat with him about becoming interested.

Interesting that Evan Bayh is on the list. Remember how I discussed Senator Bayh and could NOT let go of him, since he LOOKED so vice-presidential even though one has difficulty determining where he'll stand on an issue. A political problem if Bayh were on the ticket and actually became VP is that the governor of Indiana is a Republican and would appoint a Republican to replace Bayh in the senate. The Democrats may not be able to afford to lose a seat through appointment.

Joe Biden is also on Obama's short list, as is Sam Nunn. They're both good guys, though Biden ran into some "plagiarism" accusations years and years ago.

But the key point in all this is that McCain is trying to take some of the headlines away from Obama's trip abroad. If McCain actually announces before the Democratic convention who his VP choice is, he deserves on that basis alone (not including his positions on the issues) to lose the election: it would be a really not-smart thing to do.

As I said in post #10 on February 26, "If his advisors are thinking ahead, John McCain will not announce his VP candidate until just before or early in the Republican convention; that is, AFTER the Democratic convention. That way, the Republicans can see whom the Democrats nominate for VP, and then adjust their own choice accordingly."

But can the impetuous and impatient McCain hold on...hold on...hold on...and NOT open his mouth to make an announcement within the next month?

-- triton --

#40 Mitt Romney and a puddle of brown gravy

In post #13, on March 16, I wrote about the Dow Jones Utilities average possibly serving as an indicator of a stock market crash, particularly if it dropped below the 474 level. I was quoting an online technical analyst, but since that time the DJU moved up strongly to above the 520 level. Yet, the rest of the market plummeted, at one point recently to under 11,000 on the Dow Jones Industrial average. Well, now, in the last week or so the DJU has plunged to under 489.

This is NOT to say that it will continue to decline or that it will drop below 474. But IF it does, we can expect a further decline in the broader market, perhaps just in time for, or a short time after, the Democratic convention in late August and the Republican convention in early September. And, indeed, today's financial news indicates strong agreement that today's rally is to be shortlived. Last year I predicted that the Dow would drop below 10,000 in 2008. Unfortunately for all the pain that would cause good folk, I still think it's possible.

Not that the Democrats are hoping for a big stock market drop, but that kind of stock action could bode well for them, since the crash would possibly occur under a dubya administration and just before the election. If the DJUtilities Average closes below about 474, it will have broken down out of its technical pattern, and could test the 471 it hit in late August 2007. If it drops below that level, its next major test areas are in the 450 range, then the 420 range, and, going back to March 2006 and November/December 2005, the 390 range. I’m certainly not saying it will drop that far, just that the Utilities average appears right now to be testing a breakdown and has some serious technical downside risk.

On the other hand, it could just be blowing smoke.

NOT in the realm of blowing smoke, there's been some talk about John McCain choosing Mitt Romney as his VP candidate. On the one hand, Romney looks like a good possible choice. He's handsome; he claims to be a successful businessman who understands economics (a self-confessed weak point for McCain), a claim supported by his being a millionaire who spent a lot of his own money running for the Republican presidential nomination (in the hopes of becoming the VP candidate?); and finally--so the word goes--he could help McCain carry Michigan.

There's one other point: he's Mormon. He will certainly help carry the Mormon vote, and the two states with the heaviest percentage of Mormons, Utah and Idaho. There's just one problem. Well, there are at least five problems.

(1) Utah and Idaho are the two states most likely to vote Republican in November even were John McCain to choose for his vice president--to use a Monty Python line--"a puddle of brown gravy." Utah and Idaho aren't voting any color in November except Republican Red.

(2) Yes, Romney will likely bring the Mormon vote into the Republican camp. Oh...Wait.... Recent presidential elections have shown Mormons voting heavily Republican anyway. Advantage: "puddle of brown gravy," again.

(3) On the other side, Mormons, like Jews and Blacks and Muslims and Polka Dots and any other minority group, invoke a fear factor in some part of the public. There's a number of folk out there who just plain don't like some minority groups, and wouldn't consider voting for them. How large a number? No way really to know, since the folk who fear don't always 'fess up. That's why I've said over and over that polls this year showing Obama ahead of McCain may not be particularly accurate.

(4) Romney would help the GOP carry Michigan. Not so fast, brown gravyites! If the economy continues to stumble, if inflation continues to increase while jobs and income and the stock market and the auto industry decline, Michigan's electorate may not so readily vote Republican, even though Mitt's dad was former three-term Michigan governor George Romney, and Mitt was born in the state.

(5) Note, in fact, that no one is predicting a Mitt on the ticket would bring Massachusetts (where Mitt was governor) into the Republican camp. It won't, and neither would it by itsef likely bring Michigan.

On the surface, then, Mitt Romney may look like a good VP candidate for John McCain. Not so far under the surface, however, he isn't.

If I were a card-carrying Republican, I would still go for Tim Pawlenty, in his second term as governor of Minnesota. From a Republican point of view, he looks like an almost ideal complement to John McCain. His place on the Republican ticket would put Minnesota in play (as I believe Romney would not put Michigan in play); he has economic governing experience as a governor; he's nearly as young as Barack Obama (Pawlenty will be 48 in late November); and he has strongly conservative political and religious credentials.

Next post: the October (or September, or very early November) surprise.

--- triton --

#25 The Three Speeches

Yes, yes, I know. This post was supposed to be about the current status of electoral votes. But that discussion will have to wait, in the light of the three speeches given this evening. The three were studies in contrast, not just because one was by the presidential candidate who locked up the Republican nomination months ago, the second by the unrepentant Democratic runner-up, and the third by the history-making Democratic candidate. No. The three are major contrasts because of the tone and the look and the implications.

John McCain did his candidacy no favors tonight. He looked old and tired, not helpful appearances in his case. The commentators had trouble letting go of the blank green screen behind him, but I think that may have been a goof by McCain's people. Perhaps computers were supposed to project for the television audience images of the imaginary supporters sitting behind him on stage, but for some reason the computers failed.

I'm kidding of course about his imaginary audience. But he didn't look good, and green is not too many people's best color. McCain can't afford too many photo-ops where he looks old and tired.

Hillary.... What can I say? It had been leaked all over the press that she wasn't going to concede tonight, and indeed she didn't. But her speech was self-aggrandizing to the point where she wrenched her arm patting herself on the back. Oh, sure, she brought into her speech the eighteen million people who voted for her, out of the thirty-five million total who had voted in the Democratic primaries. Anyone want to do THAT math -- she made it sound as if she got more votes than ALL the other Democratic candidates combined. And what was she trying to accomplish by asking all eighteen million to email her with advice on what course she should follow now. That isn't a question. She's trying to apply pressure on Obama: "I have control over these people's votes," she seemed to be saying. But toward what end: put her on the ticket? pay off her $20 million campaign debt? step down as the nominee and give it to her?

If there had been any doubt in my mind whether Obama should consider her as his running-mate, her speech tonight would have resolved that doubt: stay away from her, far far away.

Now that advice may fly in the face of everything I've said on this blog: that it's all about the math, getting to 270 electoral votes; and the VP choice is likely to be instrumental (or at least a good choice will be instrumental) in getting to that number. But it doesn't really contradict what I've written many times in the previous twenty-four posts. I don't believe people will vote for Hillary. She has not made herself likable during much of her shrillness in the campaign, and she came off petulant again this evening.

Besides, Obama doesn't need her on the ticket. He probably needs her stated support, but she and Bill have behaved so badly--and her handlers have run such a poor campaign for her--that he would do well to choose someone from a truly tossup state rather than someone with her amount of "baggage." Nasty way to talk about an ex-president, you say? Wait til dubya leaves the White House.

And, as I mentioned in the last post, she would make a fine Sec'y of Health and Human Services, in which capacity she would have a legitimate shot at creating universal health care. The promise of this cabinet post might get her on board the Obama campaign.

Barack Obama may not need much more than that from Hillary. By selecting the same venue for his speech tonight as the Republicans have chosen for their convention in early September, Obama is signaling that Minnesota is his state, even if the Republicans go with favorite-son Tim Pawlenty as their VP candidate. I have maintained that Pawlenty would be a smart choice for the Republicans, and it is, because it would put Minnesota into play. Pawlenty is the governor, and the state also elected a Republican, Norm Coleman, as one of their senators. Obama's people seem to be warning the Republicans not to try to make the state a battleground in the election.

Seventeen thousand people jammed into the arena, and fifteen thousand more watched huge monitors outside. They, and we, were rewarded. Obama's speech tonight was brilliant. It didn't quite have the charisma that Bill C's best speeches had, but it had enough charisma to get people's juices flowing. It was delivered beautifully, but just as importantly it had substance, it was far more specific than any speech I had previously heard from him, and it laid out what I hope will be his approach during the upcoming campaign.

"I honor John McCain for his outstanding service" to the country, Obama said, "even if he denies mine." That's not the exact line, but it epitomizes Obama's position that he will not attack McCain personally, but he will also not sit back and take blows to the head without retaliating more subtly. That answers those people who questioned how Obama would handle personal attacks.

More outstanding were Obama's point by point specific references: on the economy, with examples of individuals whom he's met during the primaries; on judging the candidates on their positions on substantive issues, and not on the cliched tests of religion and patriotism (and he phrased it so much better than I have just done); on a paced withdrawal from Iraq, in which the Iraqis will be increasingly responsible for their county's wellbeing, rather than McCain's "hundred years" of occupation (which has actually been taken out of context, and exaggerated); on education and the environment; and on taking pride in making the world better for all our children rather than for a few wealthy individuals.

If Barack Obama can maintain this intensity and this rhetorical power throughout the campaign, John McCain will have great difficulty winning. Hidden, even subliminal, racism may play a role in the voting totals, but Obama's ideas and style give him a strong initial advantage in the upcoming campaign.

And so, barring some other exciting intervening event, next time a look at the electoral vote possibilities at this time.

--triton--

#23 Weirdness is Running for Vice

Well, that title got your attention. And it's true. Weirdness is the word for what's going on with McCain and Obama looking at vice presidential possibilities.

McCain is allegedly interviewing Mitt Romney, Charlie Crist, and Bobby Jindal this long weekend. "We're just going to go hiking and boating, and sit around the campfire and eat beans and talk man talk and do ballsy stuff," McCain was not quoted as saying when asked directly if he was interviewing potential vice presidential candidates.

Romney, a native of Michigan, a former governor of Massachusetts, and a current Mormon, has the business and economic experience that McCain admittedly lacks. He's actually not a bad political choice. He would bring Utah into the Republican column, and probably Idaho (where Mormons dominate the southern desert). The only problem is that Utah and Idaho are so completely committed to voting Republican that were no one to show up on election day they would still vote for McCain. Thus, it isn't necessary to put Romney on the ticket unless he could also bring Michigan to the dark side. I mean, the Red side. Barring something extremely weird, I don't see Massachusetts voting Red even with Romney on the ticket.

Crist is the governor of Florida, and would do wonders to secure that all the Chads in the state would vote Republican. His presence on the ticket would just about sew up Florida as a Red state again and, if the Democrats were to go with Bill Nelson, would likely negate Bill Nelson's influence on the election. If it appears that McCain will go with Crist, the Democrats need to look elsewhere for their VP candidate. (Ohio might be a good choice.) With Crist and Nelson we encounter a strategic choice for McCain: announce his VP candidate before the Democratic convention, and give the Democrats a chance to choose or bypass Nelson? or hold off to see whom the Democrats select for the VP position and then counter their choice?

Jindal is the first-term governor of Louisiana, a state that is likely to vote Republican after so many African Americans and Caribbean Americans have been disenfranchised as a result of not rebuilding their homes after Katrina. Jindal was a two term congressman and, at age 36, is still the nation's youngest current governor, just barely eligible (35 is the eligibility age) to ascend to the presidency should it be necessary.

Jindal is a weird choice to interview. On the one hand, he is the first elected Indian-American governor in our country's history, and he's very popular in Louisiana. But he's very young, very inexperienced, and very unnecessary on the ticket. He wouldn't solidify either Louisiana or the rest of the south for the Republican ticket any more than it already is--and it already is.

More importantly from a political point of view, Jindal's youthful presence on the Republican ticket would emphasize how old McCain is and looks (and looking even older standing next to Jindal) at a time when McCain seems to have been finally overcoming the age concern.

Maybe McCain will interview some others as well, and is including long shots in order to show those individuals how highly he thinks of them even when he doesn't choose them to be his running mate. I am genuinely suprised that Tim Pawlenty's name has not re-surfaced in recent news stories. Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, is qualified, and could be a serious means of moving MN from Blue state to Red state in November. Besides, the Republican convention is in Minnesota: how better to reward the state than to choose a favorite son to be the vice presedential candidate.

On the Democratic side, Obama seems also to be churning out names for the press, even though he does not yet have quite enough delegates to secure the nomination. By talking VP choices, however, he turns attention away from Hillary's campaigning, and creates the impression of a fait accompli.

Some of the names that Obama's advisors have leaked are just not realistic. As I've said in earlier posts (#7, 8, and 9), Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas) and Jennifer Granholm (Michigan) would be excellent candidates, but having a minority and a woman on the ticket is pushing the envelope a bit too far for voters who are already having trouble with the possibility of Obama heading the ticket. And even to bring up Janet Napolitano, governor of Arizona, has to be a ploy to show her how important she is to the Democratic party. She would add nothing to the ticket, since Arizona is as committed to voting Republican as are Louisiana, Utah, and Idaho.

I still like Ted Strickland or Sherrod Brown from Ohio, Bill Nelson from Florida (but with the warning about Charlie Crist as possible VP behind McCain), and Jim Webb from Virginia. Bill Ritter, newly elected governor of Colorado (taking office in 2006), and Ken Salazar, senator from Colorado, are two favorite-son possibilities with the party having its convention this summer in Denver. Salazar, by the bye, is in the middle of his first term, and is one of three Hispanic memers of the senate.

Colorado has nine electoral votes, four more than Bill Richardson could bring from New Mexico, only one less than Minnesota's ten. Salazar or Ritter might be a way to counteract the potential loss of Minnesota were Pawlenty to be McCain's running mate, and might have the added advantage of putting some other Rocky Mountain states in play. Jim Webb might bring Virginia's thirteen electoral votes to the Blue side. Florida (27 electoral votes) and Ohio (20 electoral votes) are still the large states very much up for grabs, though I expect Michigan (17 electoral votes) and Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) to be major battlegrounds as well.

Enough to think about for the time being. Have a wonderful long weekend, good people, and remember: when you retire, every day is a wonderful long weekend.

--triton--

#18 Race and Age in November

Well, I knew it would happen. I just didn't know when, or how soon. But race and age are becoming explicit issues, rather than remaining quietly subliminal. In an ideal world, race certainly wouldn't matter, and age might not matter (health is more important than years), but the real world was bound to intrude eventually. It's just happening sooner rather than later.

RACE:
Based on what they were quoted as saying in exit polls for the Pennsylvania primary, some voters indicated that they are "not ready for an African-American president." Honestly, while I recognized that attitude would be held by a small number of pitiful voters, I wasn't expecting it to surface this early or to be expressed this blatantly. But there it is. If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, polls approaching election time may not be even nearly accurate, especially if voters become reticent about expressing their prejudices. We could be looking at even more inaccurate polling in 2008 than we saw in 2004 (Ohio) and 2000 (Florida).

I also have concerns about intimidation of African American voters in some states, either directly by threats or indirectly by sending them to the wrong voting stations or giving them incorrect instructions, both of which practices have occurred in the not-distant past, and not only in the south. Local officials will have to be particularly on guard against either practice, to insure that all who wish to vote get a legitimate opportunity to vote.

AGE:
An AP article today (Sunday) discussed what we already knew: that if he is elected, John McCain will be the oldest president inaugurated for a first term. Reagan was older when he began his second term. But McCain, at 72 (which he will turn in late August), actually seems older than Reagan did at either inauguration, 1981 or 1985. The article discussed the strategies that both parties could employ to emphasize or downplay his age.

Barack Obama will be 47 in early August, nearly a quarter of a century younger than John McCain, but Obama must be careful not to attack McCain's age directly: the Democrats had best not use any of the type of humor that was directed against Robert Dole twelve years ago --"Question: Which underwear does Bob Dole prefer, boxers or briefs? Answer: Depends." Instead, the Obama campaign will have to be more subtle, by emphasizing the Democrat's 21st century perspective rather than McCain's 20th century perspective. Referring to McCain's 19th century perspective would be nearly as insulting and vote-losing as the more direct underwear joke. It may need to be left to the Jon Stewarts, Jay Lenos, David Lettermans, and Conan O'Briens to refer more directly to McCain's age.

John McCain will have to deflect the age issue by humor and by his vice presidential selection. Reagan did both successfully, bringing up age in one of the 1984 debates against Walter Mondale: "I will not make age an issue in this campaign," Reagan said, setting up his audience; "I will not refer to my opponent's youth and inexperience." Everyone got the joke, and Reagan successfully removed age as an issue. Four years earlier, he had selected George H W Bush as his VP running mate; Bush was thirteen years younger, an age difference that reassured much of the American voting public.

Obama and Clinton don't have this kind of problem to contend with, though Obama may have the opposite concern: Hillary has targeted him for his "inexperience" (youthfulness?) in national politics. He has pretty convincingly turned it against her, and he and his handlers may be able to do the same if McCain's operatives attack his lack of national experience.

NOVEMBER:
I don't see any reason yet to change any of the designations I included for each state in post #17. I still see the Democrats--whether Hillary or Barack--as ahead for 240 electoral votes, and McCain ahead for 237, with 61 votes still viewed as tossups. And I still see the major tossup states to be Florida (currently leaning Republican), Pennsylvania (currently leaning Democratic), Minnesota, and Ohio. I also still believe that the Republicans would do well to nominate Gov Pawlenty of MN, and the Democrats would do really well to nominate Nelson (FL), or even better Brown or Strickland (both OH) as their VP candidates. Pennsylvania must go Democratic, but without using the VP position to get it--unless the Democrats can arrange to win Ohio without Brown or Strickland on the ticket. Then Gov Rendell might work as the VP candidate.

#14 President McCain has indicated...

Well, that got your attention. And that's what we'll be hearing for the next four years if HRC and BO keep doing a number on each other. In all fairness, to me it sounds as if Hillary is shrill and nasty and all those bad things, though Barack is apparently beginning to tire of being her punching bag and is starting to respond in kind.

Once again, the Democrats have seemingly believed that they will do better as underdogs, as Bill Clinton had been sixteen years ago (my word! has it been that long??), and so, from a "can't lose" position, the Dems have seized the initiative, thrown themselves into the mud, and decided to sling it -- at each other. I cannot believe how stupidly both sides, and especially HRC once her advisors and she realized that she wasn't going to waltz into the White House, have behaved. Worse, now that the media realizes that it probably has been giving Obama a free ride, the reporters are looking for anything that may smell in his background and behavior.

Meanwhile, McCain is getting the free ride. No, I'm not thinking of moving to Canada, eh? I don't like some of McCain's proposed statements, but the new desk chair I got for our anniversary would make a better president than dubya has been, even without me in it. Maybe especially without me in it.

If the election were held right now, President McCain would take office in January 2009. My hope is that the Democrats will start behaving more credibly as presidential candidates, that they will coalesce and support whoever gets the nomination, and that we'll have a Democrat in the White House and more Democrats in the House and the Senate come January. My hope right now also is that I'll win the lottery, and live happily ever after. Yes, yes, I know the punchline: "meet me halfway: buy a ticket." Right now, none of these hopes looks good. But it's a long time until November 4, and American memories can be short. Look how John McCain has been resurrected from the number that Rove's Raiders did on him just eight short years ago.

The Democrats need to start acting like they actually want to win the White House, not because HRC and BO want to be president but because Democratic policies are GOOD for America, and dubya's policies have been bad for America. To win the White House, they need to make nice to one another, and to look at the numbers.

And that brings me to Ed Rendell.

Ed Rendell, governor of Pennsylvania, has been publicly touted as a possible Vice Presidential choice. He’d be excellent. Except it would be a waste of that spot to give it to someone from Pennsylvania. The Democrats MUST win PA to win the presidential election, but if they can’t win it without using the VP slot on the ticket to do so, they probably won’t win the election. They need to give the VP slot to someone who can bring with him a red state. The Democrats have to keep PA in the blue column without using the VP prize to do so.

And, as Liz Sidoti has written (AP, March 4, 2008), “As Ohio goes, so goes the nation — at least for the past 44 years.” Take a hint, donkeys: Ted Strickland or Sherrod Brown. But wait. There's more.

They're going to have trouble holding Minnesota in the blue column this year, especially if Governor Pawlenty is the Republican VP candidate. If they lose MN, they will need to win Ohio AND Florida. The Democratic delegates need to decide which of those two states the Democrats can win in November without using the VP position, and then choose an elected official from the other state as the VP. That leaves Jim Webb of Virginia out of the loop, and I don't like that idea, but right now I think they need both OH and FL, to provide some additional security against the possibility of losing MN.

However, all is fluid, and come October, especially if the stock market has really tanked, the picture could be vastly different.

triton

# 10 First Strategy in Jeopardy

Omy, another necessary digression before we get to strategy. On Sunday (Feb 24) Ralph Nader announced his run for president…again. My first reaction was ‘That freakin’ @$$#0!=’ but I don’t think I said “freakin.’” Then I did a little research, and realized that in 2000 he received 2.7% of the popular vote, and may indeed have caused Florida to go to dubya rather than to Gore (though I still can’t shake my own conviction that Brother Jeb had at least as much to do with that result). Okay, any voter can make a mistake once, and by 2004 most of his 2000 supporters realized that, contrary to what Nader had been saying, there IS a difference between the two parties. Hence, in 2004, Nader got 0.3% of the popular vote, and was not a factor. That’s LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT of the vote. This year, I believe, he won’t qualify for federal funding. I believe the American people, fooled once but not a second time, will dismiss his candidacy and he will, again, be a non-factor. Is he selfish, self-centered, arrogant, an egotist, and all those other negative things? Perhaps. Or perhaps he’s just lost his mind and doesn’t realize that he is at least in part responsible (from his run in 2000 that may have contributed to dubya’s becoming president) for the deaths of more than 4,000 American and Coalition service-men and -women, and countless tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Or maybe he did realize it, and that caused him to lose his mind.

An alternative view is that Nader isn’t senile, and that he is trying to influence the Democratic platform come August, in what he hopes will be the Democrats’ attempt to get him out of the race by adopting his views on the various issues. That would make sense, except that the Democrats already share many of his views. Further, he needs to remember that the Democratic Senate and House the last year-plus were not veto-proof, and so they had to accommodate dubya to some extent if ANYthing were to get accomplished.

In either case, Nader’s not going to make it to the finish line this year. Remember: you saw it here first. If I’m wrong…you don’t remember where you saw it.

And now, what this post was supposed to be about, BR (Before Ralph):

In one area in particular my first strategy—picking a vice presidential candidate who will balance the ticket by being a centrist from a red state that he can move to the blue—may not work out as I hope, despite the strong potential VP candidates for the Democratic party. Clearly, Ted Strickland, Jim Webb, Bill Nelson, Sherrod Brown, Bill Richardson, and possibly others, could provide a great advantage in the national election. Strickland, Nelson and Brown in particular could potentially bring a large number of electoral votes into the Democratic column if they helped to carry their home states. Any of these potential VP candidates for the Democrats will provide more talent than anyone I can think of as a VP candidate for the Republicans.

But the Republicans have the advantage in scheduling. The Democrats are convening in Denver to nominate their presidential and vice-presidential candidates from August 25 to 28, and the Republicans have scheduled their convention in the twin cities of Minneapolist/St. Paul immediately after, from September 1 to 4.

In post #8, I indicated that Minnesota, while nominally a blue state, is pretty closely contested between the Democrats and the Republicans. I don’t know if holding their convention there will actually help the Republicans. I am surprised, however, they’re holding it on the Labor Day weekend. Of course, the nominations and acceptance speeches will take place after Labor Day, so they may not lose much audience.

And maybe the Republicans don’t want a large audience for the discussion of their national platform, which will likely be strongly right-wing: anti-Choice, pro-Finish-the-Job-in-Iraq, and an echoing call to balance the budget (echoing since it will be so hollow). Oh, and maybe some form of providing vouchers, chits, or some other means of allowing people to send their children to private sectarian schools without having to pay much or anything. dubya sneaked this last item into his State of the Union speech last month (seriously!), somewhere between "Chocolate-for-Everyone" and "Tax-Breaks-for-the-Rich-Trickle-Down-to-Soak-the-rest-of-You-Slobs" (okay, so I made up those last two; but dubya would have put them in had he thought of them).

With their convention coming after the Democrats meet, the Republicans have a strategic advantage. If, for example, the Democrats were to nominate Senator Bill Nelson of Florida for VP—both because he’s qualified AND because he may bring Florida into the Democratic column in November—the Republicans could counter by nominating Charlie Crist, the 52 year old governor of Florida, or Mel Martinez, the other senator from Florida. Martinez, elected in November 2005, is much newer to the national scene than is Senator Nelson, and is much less qualified, but he is Hispanic, and he might make major inroads in the Hispanic vote nationally. A Martinez VP nomination could help swing Florida and other states with large Hispanic populations into the Republican camp. Let’s remember that Hispanics are now the largest minority in the country. That could be a lot of votes going red instead of blue in November. And please let’s not claim there’s no such thing as block voting, not when something like 70% to 80% of the African Americans voting in the later Democratic primaries were voting for BO. I have no problem with that size vote, but that looks pretty darn block size to me. Of course, in my view there's a significant difference in qualifications between Obama and Martinez, since I'm far more partial to the former as a candidate than I am to the latter.

Another possibility, with the Republican convention already in the Twin Cities, is that Senator McCain could choose Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, in order to make inroads into what had been a blue state (though weakly so) for the Democrats. I’m sure there are other possibilities for the Republicans, but frankly…I don’t care.

If his advisors are thinking ahead, John McCain will not announce his VP candidate until just before or early in the Republican convention; that is, AFTER the Democratic convention. That way, the Republicans can see whom the Democrats nominate for VP, and then adjust their own choice accordingly.

Your thoughts and comments are always welcome. Next time: Strategies Two and Three

triton