I was wrong on the VP front, and I really wish I wasn’t. Not for personal glory, rather for what the future of politics would mean in the U.S. I had staked everything on Virginia’s Governor Tim Kaine to be the pick. My process of deduction factored in a few things. He had been Obama’s first non-Illinois supporter. He had some executive experience. He was young. He was white. He was from a swing state. He was popular. And he was fresh and not exposed to D.C.
Obama, instead, went with Joe Biden. I’ll copy to here what I said about Biden previously, and why I didn’t think he would get it:
Senator Joe Biden, a former primary candidate, is 65 years old and has more foreign policy experience than even John McCain. Biden is the current chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations – and has been 3 times prior for a total of 4 years. He also, interestingly enough, serves on the current committee with Obama, who chairs the subcommittee on European Affairs. Biden has been part of this committee since 1997, which is big experience.
More previous experience? Biden has it. He was chair of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary for 8 years, is the senior senator from Delaware and has held his post for 35 years, and was part of the United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control.
And the biggest problem for Biden? That he has all this experience. He is significantly older than Obama, has a bit of a renegade reputation among Democrats, and can be painted as having supported President Bush’s foreign policy decisions in the early stages of the Iraq War. While not true, he has been supportive of some of Bush’s policies, and this is a big lose for Obama who needs to basket McCain and Bush as much as he can. Also, Biden has said he doesn’t want the position.
From what I can see, what I listed as Biden’s weakness was what Obama saw as his biggest strength. He must have some expectations that this election will be about experience more than anything, and that his best way to counter this attack was to pick based on experience. George Bush picked Dick Cheney for exactly the same reason – Bush had little experience, Cheney had heaps.
I ranked Biden 7th on my list which was obviously far too low. Even if I took another look at the condidates again, I couldn’t see ranking Biden higher that 4th. Personally, I just don’t see ‘it’ in him. But, then again, I’m not running for office.
With a pick of Biden, I think that Obama conceeded shaping what the race was about to McCain. Picking a Kaine would have meant the race would be about change and fresh politics. Picking Biden means it’s a race on party lines. It’s not going to be ’same old’ in Washington is Obama wins, but the race might not reflect that too much. Picking Biden is a good way to counter attacks on experience, there’s no question there. And it’s a good move to sway some of the Clinton faithful (who are die-hard Democrats) by picking a party-faithful politician. And he will be a very effective attack dog through the race. Biden is the master of one-liners.
I’m guessing that Obama thought having himself at the top of the ticket was as much change as American could handle at the moment. He would have access to polls and data that would tell him who to pick and which direction to go. But I just keep thinking that Biden is the safe pick, while Kaine would have been the good pick. Picking Biden indicates to me that Obama is going for a 270 win (or, as a redundant saying for a U.S. presidential election, 51% win), and nothing bigger (like a 50 state win) or exciting. I might be wrong. I hope I am. But the pick doesn’t bring any swing state into the focus andsures up the base only.
At the end of the day, Obama is still my overwhelming favourite to win, and I’m eager to see the Obama/Biden ticket in office. And at least now I have a favourite VP candidate too.
Thomas.
I think Biden was a good choice. Someone to keep Obama grounded in the realities of the real world and who has preexisting relationships with important foreign leaders. This will help Obama to get his own style of international diplomacy off the ground and give it the (slim) chance that I believe it has of working. A safe choice? Yes A reassuring one for those of us who are not Obama fanatics? You bet!! Biden is a Democrat Cheney for sure. There to help the President govern.
Surely you don’t have to be an Obama fanatic to want him to be elected though?
No, but not being a fanatic can help you see that he light on when it comes to foreign policy and sounds a little naive in this area. Senator Biden gives him credibility there. It says I will be listening to this guy who I can’t fire if I don’t like his advice (unlike a Sec of State).
So ‘fanatics’ aren’t seeing the whole picture, or aren’t judging a candidate properly?
And I don’t agree that he sounds naive, I think he sounds different to what has been said for the past 8 years.
They just have more faith in their candidate that others. With fanatics you are preaching to the choir. Biden helps him with that wider audience called the electorate.
Perhaps I should have used the term “committed supporter” and then you would have understood my point
I agree with Thomas: we don’t need an aging white guy to dim the warm chocolaty glow Obama radiates on the American nation.
Well I think that anyone who knows my political opinions knows my thoughts on domestic issues lean far more with Obama and that Biden’s views on foreign policy are much closer to mine than Obama’s or those of the current president. I am speaking purely in electoral advantage. On that count I would like to make some observations on McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin.
Firstly, this is a smart move! If the McCain campaign can attract even 5% of the disaffected Hillary supporters (women & PUMAS) who voted in the primaries that’s 1 million votes. Second, Pailin doesn’t have to face the same scrutiny on experience because she is a governor. Why, well why has no senator won the presidency since JFK? Because governors have a track record of running things and senators don’t. Does Gov. Palin have national security cred? Who knows or cares, she is a Republican and therefore is deemed to do so and as a govenor has experience running domestic policy. (This is not an argument on this, but a perception that electorates have). Just as Democrats are presumed to be able to look after health and education, Republicans are presumed to be tough on foreign policy. These are left/right perceptions that in policy terms have very little standing, but are preconceived notional of political parties that occur in the US and many other western democracies.
The choice of Palin stands McCain apart from other Republicans, a job he must be doing well, since Obama is a long way behind his party’s rating in polls. Palin will only reinforce this image and give women an excuse to vote for McCain, it also gives him a change feel and allows for people who are wrongly judging Obama on race an excuse to vote for McCain/Palin as a change ticket – voting for a woman.
As I say this is a statement about where I see the race heading NOT policy. I am prepared to go out on a ledge and give Thomas among others a chance to say they told me so come November. I believe that at the moment McCain has the better chance of becoming President. (I still think that the Dems will clean up both the House and Senate). I believe he will serve 1 term and 2012 will be Palin vs Clinton. The 2008 race will be seen as the race the Dems should never have lost and Obama will be viewed as a candidate who ‘jumped the shark’ before election day and as a diabolical decision by the base in the primaries that will neglect the close race that he lost. Clinton gets 4 years of “I told you so!” I am happy to be proven wrong, but that is how the race appears to me at the minute.
If I weren’t at work, I’d be able to write an entire post about this. I’ll get it up by Monday at the latest. In sum, it’s going to refute all your argument with this:
- She’s being investigated for breaking ethics *currently* – and argument for more of the same
- She has no national image, meaning she needs to be rebranded. McCain doesn’t have the money to do it fully, and Obama will be able to influence people this way
- She has *less* experience than Obama, so that takes that off the table in terms of attack – Obama/Biden now is the more experienced ticket
- From this, she has no experience in anything. No national experience whatsoever
- Alaska hardly counts for much
- It will be seen as an obvious play at women. And the Democrats will be able to spin it as though the Reps. were saying “You didn’t get your first choice, here’s the consilation prize. Vote for us!”
- She’s ridiculous right on some of the issues, and won’t appeal to any Democrat voters (note, I didn’t say women who are not voting Obama, because they can hardly be considered Democrats) and her independent appeal is very small
- Palin stands next to McCain and she looks like his daughter! She emphasises agemore than anyone. Obama hasn’t said the word, and now everyone is talking it because he picked a 44 year old VP
- She will be killed in the debate with Biden. No doubt
- Expect 100 ads by the Dems quoting Palin, who said the VP job isn’t “productive” and she stated she didn’t even know what the job was! (“[A]s for that V.P. talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day?”) And another pre-made gaff – she called Clinton a “whiner”, so if she makes progress with women, expect that ad. And while we’re on gaffs, she’s never been in the national spotlight – who knows what else she will say, with a running partner who already makes enough of his own
- She differs with McCain on gay rights (she supports them)
- She and McCain have known each other a whole of 5 minutes
- As well as taking off the experience attacks, it takes away the celebrity attacks. If Palin is going to be promoted as anything, it won’t be on experience, rather on being the first female VP (celebrity). You can’t attack Obama on that front without exposing yourself to a big weakness
- The only way she will make in-roads with women is with her pro-choice views. But the top of the ticket is anti-abortion, whereas *both* Democrats are pro-choice. It might become a mute point come the time her gloss wearsoff in a month
- The question of “Can you see Palin stepping in to be President” will be the question asked, followed by “Can you see Biden stepping in?”
I’ll get into why she doesn’t do much much electorally (your 5% is ambitious I think, and the most hopeful figure, because Palin is only VP) in the longer post.
And saying all that, it’s for the sake of an argument. I’m very excited about Palin, if only because it means the Rep. party is being rebranded. I don’t want to see them win, but it means there’s a start of change in the party that really needs it.
Let me ammend something there: Palin is pro-life. I wonder if she will win over as many Democratic women as you think.
Wow, I was way off just saying Palin is pro-life – she has openly stated she is against *all* forms of abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. The latest poll on that topic indicated that 90% of the US disagrees with that opinion.
Also, Palin was a heavy Pat Buchanan supporter in his run. Pat Buchanan, for those who don’t know, is a *known* and *spoken* Nazi sympathiser, very anti-semetic, and anti-Israel. Buchanan has said it, and it’s on record. This won’t help with the Jewish vote *at all*, no matter how much they use Liebermann. And with Florida having a high percentage of Jewsih votes, and Jewish women voters, it’s a state that might become a whole lot closer.
Oh yeah, Palin wants to teach creationism in school – *the* most right-wing religious view you can have in US politics.
And on top of this (because all this is going round the Internet and online news outlets already) questions are being asked if she is being picked as a token female. Obama won it outright, whereas Palin was picked *because Obama beat a woman*. If they are already questioning it now, expect the Democrats to hammer it home once the excitement wears off after the convention. And she’ll have to go out stumping then.
I’m glad I was right (in April, Palin was my darkhorse pick), and doubly now that the Democrats are beginning their vetting of her. It seems they did more of a vetting than McCain. Was it a good picked? No. Was it a pick that he needed to make (that is, take a big gamble and pray)? Certainly. How this will play out will be interesting.
Thomas,
I appreciate the post given your time constraints and look forward to the full rebuttal. Yes there is merit in your points and it was a crazy/brave type of pick. It was also probably the best pick McCain could have made and I stand by my belief that it is potentially game changing when you look at how poorly Obama is doing in comparison to the Dem. vote. Something there does not add up. Also the Dems. can’t attack Palin as inexperienced as she has more executive experience than Obama who has never run anything larger than a lemonade stand in the same 2 years they have both been in any political office of significance.
As I said before, I’m not arguing the policies of the matter, just the politics. but from reading your analysis of Palin’s views on foreign policy lets hope McCain stays healthy and that if Obama gets in that he lets Biden deal with ALL the foreign relations policy!!
Sorry to point this out, but Palin has more executive experience than McCain. If they rebutt an attack on experience with a launch of *executive* experience, the Dems will have a field days going on about ow *McCain* has no executive experience. It opens a door they they need to keep closed.
Palin has been governor for less time Obama has been a national senator. It hasn’t been the same two years.
I think you don’t give enough credit to the policies. They are what is defining the the candidate in the eyes of the voters. This won’t change the game because none of her policies change the game. All she does is sure up the base – which according to you is already sured up against Obama.
Also, Obama is registering 82%-85% among Democratic voters. That’s not ‘poor’, it’s to be expected in national polls with a black candidate. Obama only needs to get as high as 88% on voting day and he will win. In this respect, I still don’t think he’s doing ‘poorly’. He’s still winning independents, and now, with McCain and Palin the ticket, he will improve in the moderate Republicans.
All fair points, but as I say the lack of experience that Obama has means he can’t have a go at Palin over experience. 1 1/2 years as governor vs 2 years as a senator, most of which has been spent running for President meaning he hasn’t got much of a record in the senate. As for McCain’s lack of executive experience, at some point the years on the board and a hefty legislative record cancel out the argument but this could also be why senators don’t usually get to move up to The White House.
I think the polls are tighter than they have any right to be for a reason. Perhaps the Obama ticket looks the wrong way around or maybe Obama is the “change” and Biden is the “we can believe in” bit. In any case, Obama should have had this locked away ages ago.
Maybe things will blow out if policy comes to the fore, but I think people might just vote on impression unless they are rusted on to one candidate or the other. If Palin is as far right as you say (and I have no reason to doubt you given the extent to which I rely on this blog for non podcast election news), she may turn out to be symbolic with the electorate (willing to challenge the party on some issues & a women) and a reassurance for the base (a record of conservative actions) OR a disaster in the VP debate.
Regardless, if policy had come front and centre, McCain can be pegged to Bush on policies that he was forced to adopt in order to get the nomination. (I doubt he would have advocated the Bush tax cuts if he had the choice, he did after all vote against them and WAS the anti-Bush Republican). So given the closeness of the polls, policy can’t be an issue or the race would be over and the Obama’s would be choosing new curtains for the Oval Office. As for the polls I am talking about, I mean voter percentage overall.
In terms of the Palin debate, I think both sides are put very well below. I believe it was a smart choice, but acknowledge the potential flaws and that I could be proven wrong in the fullness of time. Its a gut reaction.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/08/30/smart_tactical_pick.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/08/30/worst_pick_ever.html
If you acknowledge that Palin has all the flaws that I’ve outlined, how can you possibly still see it as a ’smart’ choice? It’s a bad choice. Pick a Romney who knows the issues and had more executive experience than Palin. Pick a Huckabee who was good with the base, had more executive experience, and was popular with audiences. Pick a Pawlenty who was from a key swing state, was good with the base, and has executive experience. Those are smart choices. Palin’s pick is a lame attempt to get media attention, a tokenistic choice, and one that will not go down well once the gloss wears off.
Obama never was shaping the race about experience – he was the one who was the weak link there. Now that there is a less experienced person in the debate, it only *helps* his argument to be president. If the Republicans are happy to have someone less experienced than him to be a heartbeat away from being the president, then they can’t attack Obama for not being experienced. It takes off the major advantage McCain had, and the area that Obama was diverting attention away from. Obviously, this is a bonus for Obama.
And no, terms served as senator doesn’t cancle out lack of executive experience. If you want to specifically refer to executive experience, the you have to acknowledge that McCain, like Obama, has none. And if it’s McCain’s legislative record that does count for “executive experience”, then which record is it? Is it the pre-2000 election one? The post-2000 one? The current pro-Bush? He has had more turns in policy face than anyone in the race.
Palin is as far right as I said, and she has no where to really challenge the party on as a result. So it’s another 4 years. She won’t be symbolic of anything other than the woman John McCain picked as an obvious grab for women votes. And she will be a disaster in the VP debates. When the question “What would you do if Russia invaded Georgia again?” comes up in the debates, do you honestly think she will give a *better* answer than Biden?
The polls are not tight. You look at it at a national level, much like the media does. You, and the media, have it all wrong. This is a race for state EVs. Remember that next time you look at a national poll that has polled people:
- From states that won’t change hands
- At proportions from the 2004 election
- Changing times of days
- Different times of the week
Each of these will wildly change the results of a poll. Getting a proportion of black respondents relative to 04 levels will be nothing near the levels of African-American turnout this year. Similarly, Democrats have registered more than a million new voters, while the Republicans have lost registered voters.
Obama is winning all of the Kerry states. Bush won against Kerry 286 to 252. So start just on that. Iowa is going to Obama – 259. New Mexico will go to Obama – 264. He’s 5 EVs away from a tie (which he will win) and 6EVs short of an outright win, meaning he needs just one of the following swing states:
- Ohio
- Florida
- Virginia
- North Carolina
- Indiana
- Colorado
- Nevada
Or a combination of the following states that are close between the two:
- Montana
- North Dakota
- South Dakota
Go flip a coin 7 times and see if you get at least 1 heads from 7 tails. Seriously, because McCain *must* win all those 7 swing states. National polling doesn’t tell you this because national polling suggests the race is close – it is not. National polling fuels the media who want to make everything to look like suspense and anger are running the race. It is not.
And it’s a known thing that internal McCain polling shows Obama to be *stronger* in these 7 swing states than public polling does.
McCain doesn’t have the money, and now he doesn’t have the VP, to keep at least one of these states from falling to Obama. All Obama has to do is pick one and dump his $250 million into it, move all his campaigners there, and himself into the main street, and he wins the election. But what do you see him doing? Competing in *more* than just the one.
Polling, as you read and use it, I say is not reflecting the race at all accurately. And when policy *does* become an issue (because it was never going to be before the conventions had happened or when the Olympics were on!), the national polling won’t reflect it at all either. Look at state polling for a better idea what’s going on.
McCain will be pegged to Bush. You haven’t seen it yet because Obama hadn’t started his campaign proper until the DNC. He played this well. While everyone was railing him for not doing anything prior to the convention, he knew no one was listening. That’s why McCain “improved” in the polls (it’s all a fake bounce, and it should be sustained through and after the convention, but it will drop off) – and I’m talking about some state polls, not the meaningless national polls – because Obama took a vacation. Now, the DNC has come, and if you heard the 4 day’s worth of speeches, you would know that the ball got rolling then. It was smart to not start it early and waste money, time, and go backwards in the polls because people are bored with you.
You say ““What would you do if Russia invaded Georgia again?” comes up in the debates, do you honestly think she will give a *better* answer than Biden?”
Does anyone actually think Obama can answer that better than McCain???? Ideally we would have Obama running domestic policy and keep him out of the situation room where we can have Biden running the show. Its a kangaroo ticket. All the legs are at the bottom.
Even though we weren’t questioning the qualifications between Obama and McCain, I think Obama can answer that question as good as McCain can. McCain is deluded with his Cold War foriegn policy that all the conservatives are caught up in. At least Obama is bringing fresh and new views to the table, and a diplomatic head. And if you (in the generic sense) don’t think that diplomacy is worth its weight, then you’re (in the generic sense as well) as much a war monger as the rest of them.