Do Veeps Matter?

David Brooks:

... most of the commentary on vice president picks is completely backward. Most discussion focuses on what state or constituency this or that running mate could help carry in the fall. But, as a rule, recent vice presidential nominees haven’t had any effect on key states or constituencies. They haven’t had much effect on elections at all, except occasionally as hapless distractions.

A vice president can, however, have a gigantic impact on an administration once in office (see: Cheney, Richard). Therefore, a sensible presidential candidate shouldn’t be selecting a mate on the basis of who can help him get elected. He should be thinking about who can help him govern successfully so he can get re-elected.

From this premise, Brooks goes on to argue that Obama should consider picking Sam Nunn and Tom Daschle, both of whom are sufficiently uninspiring choices to harden my suspicion that the premise might be flawed. For one thing, while it's true that Dick Cheney and Al Gore have been more influential than previous vice presidents, it's by no means certain that the pattern will continue (and even Al Gore wasn't all that influential, particularly as his relationship with Clinton cooled). Indeed, given the cautionary example of Cheney, it's easy to imagine the next few Presidents steering back toward the model that prevailed throughout much of American history, and limiting the vice president's portfolio to the office's traditional duties - attack dog, goodwill ambassador, and resentful heir apparent.

As for whether a veep pick can swing an election - well, certainly it doesn't have the impact that the level of breathless speculation in the media (and this blog is as guilty as any other outlet) would lead one to believe it does. And Brooks is right that the days when picking a native son would deliver a contested state seem to be behind us. But that doesn't mean that an inspired choice can't have a powerful impact on the overall narrative of a Presidential campaign. As I've argued before, I think that Clinton's pick of Gore in 1992 and Gore's pick of Lieberman in 2000 changed the dynamics of both races in the Democrats' favor, and while Clinton might have won without Gore, I'd be willing to wager a lot of money that Gore wouldn't have won the electoral or the popular vote if he'd gone with, say, John Kerry instead of Lieberman. It's true that even the most inspired pick can't save a doomed campaign, and it's likewise true that often there aren't any inspired picks available, in which case picking someone who can help you govern may make a certain sense. But while I'm not sure there's an ideal running mate for McCain floating around the Republican Party at the moment, on the Democratic side I'm pretty sure that Obama can do a Webb of a lot better than Sam Nunn or Tom Daschle. (And posts like this one only harden that conviction.)

Comments

Here's an important piece of advice: If it looks like it's going to be McCain/Palin anyway (and that should be a "no brainer" for Team McCain), McCain should announce NOW or VERY SOON, rather than later towards the convention. There's currently a growing chorus for Obama/Hillary (as VP) ticket (in fact the Dems are likely aware of the Palin phenomenon). If the GOP waits while movement for Hillary as VP grows -- even worse until after it is solidified that Hillary will/could be VP pick -- selecting Palin will be portrayed by Dems/liberal media more as a reaction by GOP selecting its own female (overshawdoing Palin's own remarkable assets), rather than McCain taking the lead on this. Selecting Palin now or early (contrary to the punditocracy) will mean McCain will be seen as driving the course of this campaign overwhelmingly, and the DEMS will be seen as merely reacting. And, there's absoultely no down-side to this because even if Hillary is a no-go as VP for Obama, the GOP gains by acting early. McCain the maverick. Palin the maverick. Do it now!

There's no reason, and actually substantial negative, in McCain waiting to see what the Dems do first insofar as his picking Palin as VP, because, no matter who Obama picks, Palin is by far (and I mean far) the best pick for McCain and the GOP, especially in this time of GOP woes. The GOP can be seen as the party of real 'change' (albeit I hate that mantra, change, change, bla bla), while not really having to change from GOP core conservative values, which Palin more than represents.

In light of the current oil/energy situation, as well as the disaffected female Hillary voters situation, and growing focus on McCain's age and health, Palin is more than perfect -- now.

(Perhaps Team McCain is already on to this.)

Posted by Ted | May 27, 2008 4:22 PM

Brooks recommends Portman and Pawlenty for McCain. I think Portman is the far superior choice. He's an awfully impressive guy in person and he brings a steady, conservative hand to the ticket while avoiding any negative labels like "neocon". Indeed, his most prominent piece of legislation in the House was Portman-Cardin, a bipartisan retirement savings bill. And he'll be able to run circles around the Dems' VP nominee on Trade if he or she espouses anything close to what Obama's position was in the Ohio Primary.

Brooks likely has campaign sources telling him that both Portman and Pawlenty are on the short list. My hunch has been that everyone invited to Arizona this past weekend was NOT on the short list.

Ted, do you know something we all don't about Palin? I don't think McCain doesn't need to shake things up all that much.

Posted by Keilwerth | May 27, 2008 5:03 PM

You should explain why you think Lieberman helped Gore in 2000 - isn't he one of the most uncharismatic people alive?

Posted by Norway | May 27, 2008 6:13 PM

Ross,
As to Obama’s ability to do “a Webb of a lot better” particularly because of Kathy’s post, well, why? Given the number of arguments she puts forth, your dismissal is a a bit abrupt.

Posted by jason | May 27, 2008 7:26 PM

Norway asks: "You should explain why you think Lieberman helped Gore in 2000 - isn't he one of the most uncharismatic people alive?"

He managed the neat trick of losing the charisma battle in his debate with Undead Dick Cheney. The Liebushman pick was a poor one for a variety of reasons. Connecticut was a safe state for the Dems, and no one really ever thought that Liebushman, who is a dead ringer for Mister Mxyzptlk, had what it takes to make a convincing could-be president. Liebushman's ability to suck dollars out of pharmaceutical companies didn't impress the voters much.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 27, 2008 10:34 PM

Mark Warner would be far and away a more productive choice for Obama than Webb - successful entreprenuer, Governor, a man who's personality and demenor will do no harm and would be very appealing in NC, PA, and Ohio as well as VA. Webb personality is the mirror image of Ollie North, and the kiddie porn sections of his novels would be a painful distraction during a campaign.

Posted by wayne | May 27, 2008 10:43 PM

Clinton has taken Kentucky and Obama is right there in Oregon.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates – as CNN points out clearly

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/primary.wrap/index.html

If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama

If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com

Obama Supporters:

Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy...

Clinton Supporters too …. !

It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !

Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy...

Posted by feeba | May 28, 2008 12:42 AM

Given the number of arguments she puts forth, your dismissal is a a bit abrupt.

He's doing the snotty NRO "if the libs love it, it must be bad" thing.

Posted by goethean | May 28, 2008 4:41 PM

And Brooks is right that the days when picking a native son would deliver a contested state seem to be behind us.

I'm not convinced that this is true. I think Clinton's victories in Tennessee (especially 1996) are largely attributable to Gore's favorite son status. Clinton won Tennessee by 2.41% in 1996. The only states that were closer are Arizona, Kentucky, and Nevada. And presumably Dole made no effort in Tennessee because of Gore.

Similarly, in 1992, Clinton did not really contest Indiana, in part because of Quayle's presence on the ticket. Bush only won Indiana by about 5 points.

In 1980, the same can probably be said for Minnesota. Carter won it by 4, so I don't think one can say that Mondale played no role there. Even in 1976, Mondale may have helped Carter in Minnesota - it's worth recalling that Minnesota's status as a safe Democratic state partly developed as a result of the fact that in almost every election between 1964 and 1984 there was a Minnesotan at the bottom or top of the Democratic ticket. It had been Democratic in the New Deal era, voting for Roosevelt 4 times and for Truman in 1948, but so were all kinds of states that reverted back to the Republicans in the 1950s - the mountain west states come to mind. Like everywhere outside the south, it voted for Eisenhower twice, by reasonably solid margins. It barely voted for Kennedy in 1960. In 1976, Carter generally fared worse in the Midwest than Humphrey had in 1968 - partly as a result of facing Ford, a Midwesterner. But he still easily won Minnesota. I won't say that he would have lost Minnesota without Mondale on the ticket, but I think it would be fair to argue that Mondale's place on the ticket secured the state and prevented it from being strongly contested.

And I'm fairly certain that Humphrey's big win in Maine in 1968 (a state Kennedy had lost by 15 points) is largely attributable to Muskie's place on the ticket. And of course Johnson helped Kennedy carry Texas in 1960. Governor John Bricker probably helped Dewey carry Ohio in 1944 - he won it by less than 0.5%.

Of course, there have been some big busts - Bentsen couldn't carry Texas in 1988; Agnew couldn't carry Maryland in 1968; Lodge couldn't carry Massachusetts in 1960; Kefauver couldn't carry Tennessee in 1956; and, worst of all, Warren, a very popular governor, couldn't carry California in 1948 (to say nothing of William Miller, Sargent Shriver, and Geraldine Ferraro). But I don't think the link between home states and running mates is as totally severed as one might like to believe.

Posted by John | May 28, 2008 6:01 PM