The only thing I really care about in a VP is the he/she helps us win a state

[Quixote1818]

that we otherwise wouldn't have won. That he/she impacts our probability of winning the most. For me it's only about statistics and math probability because the VP is not going to impact policy much unless he is nuts like Cheney. However, I won't risk putting a Republican into that position so Hagel is out. His voting record is way too conservative for him to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Clark is my favorite but as I said, what matters most is who will help us the most in the General.

I think if they think Bahy will mean the difference in Indiana with its 11 EV's then I think he is a good choice. We are not going to win Kansas, Montana is only worth 3 EV, New Mexico is only worth 5 and we are probably going to win NM anyway. Delaware is in the bag, Virginia could be brought in with Webb, Georgia is too risky to bet on, Arkansas might be brought in with Hillary or Clark but again only delivers 6 EV's. Perhaps Richardson could have an impact nationally with Hispanics and put close states like Colorado and Nevada over the top but he could also hurt us by having no whites on the ticket. Hillary might have an impact nationally too but I think any impact nationally will be minimal. Though a shift of 2% in several states might result in huge gains in the EC. I worry that Hillary's attacks on Obama during the primary would come back to haunt us. Claire McCaskill would probably make Missouri a lock and help with the women vote perhaps having a national impact and maybe moving several states into our camp.

I think Webb, Bahy, McCaskill and Clark would be safe bets. But who would be the best bet statistically?

[babylonsister]

1. That's not what Obama thinks: he wants someone who he can

trust. It's not about winning one state: the position is too important for short term thinking.

[Quixote1818]

In a close election it could come down to one state

and the VP choice. I don't think we should take ANY chances this time around. Getting the presidency is the most important thing. If we don't have that then we don't have that VP that Obama liked either.

[babylonsister]

6. Yea, but which state? We WIN if you know the answer! nt

[Motown_Johnny]

10. how about Texas? If a VP could carry TX then wouldn't we win?

It has been suggested that Richardson could help flip TX. I don't know if that is true, but if you also spend a lot of money in the huge media markets there you might be able to make that happen.... maybe.

[babylonsister]

20. How ABOUT Texas? Have you researched it? Do you know about

Rick Noriega vs. Cornyn? That would be one to target. I don't know or think that TX might go blue, but there are a lot of people who are watching.
I worked for Lampson and I'm disgusted. He's a DINO. Worse, a blue dog.

[Motown_Johnny]

29. Did you read my post?

I admitted that I didn't know....


I was parroting what others here have suggested, nothing more.




But I did pick a state, that is what you were asking for. I picked Texas. If we can win Texas (along with other traditional Democratic states) we win.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Running mates don't win states.

The last time a VP pick even arguably made a difference in winning a state was in 1960, when Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson and won Texas.

The most important thing about the running mate is whether he/she is capable of actually being the President if that should become necessary. A VP's only Constitutional duties are to act as president of the Senate and cast tie-breaking votes, and to assume the duties of the President if the President should die or become incapacitated. In a modern election, the VP is useful only as a spokesperson for the top of the ticket.

So what is really needed is someone who can speak eloquently on behalf of the presidential candidate, and who has the experience and qualifications to act as president. Voters don't vote for the #2 person on the ticket, and the #2 person doesn't do much to deliver a state.

[Muttocracy]

9. thank you! I am so sick of this state-winning nonsense! nt

[Quixote1818]

14. I think their are some states that the VP would make the difference in

Dukakis was NEVER going to win Texas. I think Richardson would have a huge impact here in New Mexico. Living here I can tell you New Mexico would be a lock for Obama if he was picked. Some politicians are soooo popular in their home state I can't believe they wouldn't have an impact.

[Skittles]

27. absolutely VP's can make a difference

I believe the selection of Joe Lieberman, a sanctimonious asshole with the personality of a paper towel, lost Gore some votes

[Motown_Johnny]

3. Webb and McCaskill have very little experience, Clark has never held elected office

from your list Bayh makes the most sense.

But IMO Richardson is the best choice.

[DemocracyInaction]

4. I know what you're going through

My head is exploding trying to figure it out. There are some that MIGHT (and it's always a 'might') help deliver a particular state but are such "no names" nationally that we could lose in places that just a plain, old "strong" VP could deliver (i.e., maybe we don't have to sweat Delaware, but Biden is a force to be reckoned with). On the national front (as talking heads have pointed out) all the VP needs to do is knock the shit out of the other VP in the debates--that's why some of these rookies just will be a disaster. Bottom line: if a state is not firmly in our column, it's 50-50 someone from that state will deliver it to us anyway. While someone who is universally strong could bring that "particular" state and lots of others with them. Christ, I'm confusing myself..........

[Muttocracy]

11. no, you're making perfect sense - noone is going to vote for Obama because of his VP's state

I mean, what does it get them? Some pork project their Senators and Reps couldn't get? Not even that!

My favorites are Schweitzer, Biden, Clark, Feingold. None of them needed for states. All have good foreign policy credentials, with different flavors of diplomacy, military, and energy.

And all would be excellent surrogates for Obama.

[DFLforever]

5. Webb is not under consideration: he has withdrawn. in a very

public manner. The only Virginian being considered is Kaine.

Sen McCaskil said she is not being vetted.

Why bring up people who say they are not in the running?

[Quixote1818]

7. Anything can happen. Biden says he doesn't want it either but said

out of a sense of responsibility he would take it if asked. I suspect others might do the same even if they don't want it.

[DFLforever]

12. I wouldn't rule out Biden either but I would the other two.

One story I read (Time?, NBC?)was that Webb was unwilling to submit to a thorough vetting and that's why he withdrew in such a Shermanesque manner.

Claire M. has said no one from the campaign has ever asked her for anything in reference to vetting.

While we know (or can reasonably infer from their statements) that Sebelius, Bayh and Kaine are being vetted.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. VP's don't win states, that's a throwback to the political machine days

When a really powerful Senator or Governor from a crucial region or state could really mobilize the machinery in favor of a nominee that the region or state wasn't otherwise comfortable with. It doesn't work like that anymore.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. How many times has the VP become president?

Twice in my lifetime - about once every 25 years or so.

That ALWAYS has to be a consideration. Whoever is VP MUST be sympathetic to the president's agenda. Bayh will NOT be so aligned with Obama. He's damn near a republican in policies, he IS DLC, and he is to Obama what Obama is to Kucinich.

Fuck balancing the ticket. I want an administration I can trust.

[DFLforever]

15. That's an excellent point.

and I think the reason Obama is unlikely to pick someone like Bayh.

[BlooInBloo]

16. That's conventional wisdom, and it's not bad....

It's not clear that that's how Obama is thinking of matters, however.

Just because one way of thinking is good, doesn't mean that others can't be equally good, and possibly better.

[Quixote1818]

17. If we didn't suck at winning elections so badly I might think differently

and be more interested in someone that would complement Obama and really make a difference with policy. However, I am in a cautious mood right now and this election is very close. I just don't want to take any chances. If you are in a card game and there is a million dollars on the line, you are going to want to use probability to win.

[BlooInBloo]

18. That's why I like Schweitzer. Helps the map a lot AND he's forward-thinking.

[Danger Mouse]

19. VP's don't bring in states. Period.

Unless your name is LBJ, it's not going to happen.

[Quixote1818]

21. I think it depends on the person

Like I posted above, Richardson is so popular here in New Mexico we would be a lock. People would go crazy here if he was on the ticket. I don't know how popular Bayh and some of the others are. As others have pointed out, some are relatively new on the scene and may not have a huge following in their state yet.

[Danger Mouse]

22. I think that's the wrong reason to put someone on the ticket...

unless, like LBJ, they can truly carry a portion of the country. None of the VP prospects are LBJ's, so going that route is a mistake.
We need a VP that is well-rounded in all categories and a solid pick that won't upstage Obama. And for heaven's sake, not somebody divisive!

[nsd]

23. Arguably the best VP pick of the last several decades was when Clinton picked Gore.

He didn't do so because of Tennessee, because Gore couldn't guarantee it. (In fact, Gore himself lost Tennessee in 2000.) No, Clinton recognized that he and Gore complemented each other really well and would be a dynamic team. The bus tour they put on after the convention was a political tour de force.

What would be great is if Obama could pick someone who would similarly complement him.

[Quixote1818]

25. You make a great point!

I agree with you 100%! I remember seeing them in Las Cruces, NM and they were like rock stars together! I remember thinking they were a force to be reckoned with!

[LeftyMom]

24. It has to be somebody who would make a good president in a time of crisis.

That's the point- a backup president, not a few more electoral votes.

[Awsi Dooger]

26. I agree

I can't believe the crap in this thread, that a VP can't deliver a state. The garbage is belief that a VP can impact a region or a demographic. He absolutely can boost his home state 3-3.5 points. And with the proper application that can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

Does anyone seriously believe Kerry wouldn't have begged for a high profile popular Democrat to deliver Ohio 2004?

Virginia has always been the obvious VP target for 2008. I didn't think Indiana would be competitive even with Bayh but Obama's strength in the areas near Illinois might make it close. I'd prefer to target Virginia, a state that is much closer to balanced partisanship than Indiana, all things being equal.

[paulk]

28. Hillary brings more than two percent nationally

two most recent polls -

"In late June, polls conducted by The Wall Street Journal/NBC and Fox/Opinion Dynamics -- using entirely different samples -- both showed Sen. Clinton giving Sen. Obama a +3% bump, pushing him over 51% for the first time, when the two of them were paired against Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney.

Most recently, in nationwide polling on July 22-23, a Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll showed a more dramatic bump of +8% with Sen. Clinton as Sen. Obama's vice presidential running mate. In a head-on match, it was Sen. Obama 41% to Sen. McCain's 40% (this was before the intense media coverage of his European trip). But with exactly the same sample, when all voters were presented with the choice of an Obama-Clinton ticket vs. McCain-Romney, the results were Obama-Clinton, 48% (+7%), and McCain-Romney 39% (-1%)."

(from huffpo article)