Note that there wasn’t one mention of running mates. We keep playing up the signifigance of the bottom half of the ticket even though it will always be the top half that wins the election.
This IS a great article. It expounds upon something that I have been feeling for a long time. 2008 is a rerun of 1976. A so-so Republican up against an irresponsible Democrat. A disliked two-term incumbent GOP President dragging done the Republican brand.
Barack Obama reminds me so much of Carter, it’s scary.
#2. Before this year, I never paid much attention to the presidential primaries. I never cared who was selected as the VP nominee. But not this election — the VP choice matters to me a lot.
I want to vote for McCain because I dislike Obama so much. But do I vote for McCain if he chooses the same old same old white guy for VP and thus perpetuates the Republican’s image? That would cause me major heartburn.
I don’t want to vote for Barr if that helps Obama win, so what to do? It just seems unamerican to go to the polls and vote for everything but the presidency.
In my part of the country, not voting for an election invalidates the entire ballot.
As to the point about picking “same old same old white guy”, shouldn’t ideas matter more. Look at McCain and say… Ron Paul. Both are old white guys who are as far a part on the issues as you can get. I think the ideas are what matters, not the skin color or the age or gender of the candidate.
My read is that Americans feel uneasy about the future with the falling dollar, soaring energy/food prices, and economic uncertainty. I think McCain should choose someone who is qualified to help him turn those things around. If there is a woman who fits that profile, great! But I don’t think he should select a candidate based on whether or not he/she is a man/woman/whatever. I think McCain will do well to go for competence. As many know, I was a Romney supporter, so I naturally feel Romney would fit this role very well. He is a turn-around artist of the highest order. I really think he could do this country a great service by streamlining the government and pushing for balanced reform that would help restore people’s confidence in the future.
Of course, maybe the American public don’t really want that. There are huge swaths of people that vote on emotion alone. I myself knew plenty of Hillary Clinton supporters that knew absolutely nothing about her record or what she would even do for the country, but were willing to throw their support and votes because she was a woman and represented “change”. I think many support Barack for the same reason. I certainly don’t see the logic in putting a man as president who has had only 3 years of national experience, no significant political contributions, and no history of executive management or leadership of any kind (unless you count running his own campaign).
#5, I understand your point, but it will be voters such as #4 that determine this election. Voter dynamics have changed in this country. Reagan won a majority of men, and was easily elected President. Now, women are the majority of voters and they will determine this election.
After 232 years, we should see a woman on the ticket, not because of “gender equality”, but because there are qualified female candidates that Obama and McCain can select from.
That is why it will be a “crime” if Obama does not select Clinton.
Obama is the old wine of Carter put in the new wineskin of corrupt Chicago politics.
I think McCain has a disadvantage in regard to Ford. McCain isn’t an incumbent President and the unpopular President is still on the scene stinking things up.
I know what you are saying, but I don’t think there should be a kind of affirmative action for Vice Presidential candidates. A potential Veep shouldn’t get any points added to them just because they have 2 X chromosones or have a darker skin pigmentation.
#5 and #6. You can’t have it both ways. Do you want to be RIGHT in that voters should base their decision on ideas, or do you want to WIN based on “huge swaths of people that vote on emotion alone”?
I’m one of those 15% independent voters who will decide this election and I’m telling you this election is different. The VP choice matters.
HearMeRoar, I wish everyone voted based on ideas, but I recognize that in big elections like the general presidential election, the voter field is full of people who vote on identity and emotion alone.
For all the differences we all have on this site, I am confident that as a group, most on R408 do not favor affirmative action of any type.
BUT! That is what the entire VP process is about. We never select the candidate (VP) with the best qualifications to help Governor our country, the POTUS candidates selects a VP candidate that will help him/her win.
See, by your logic, Lee Iacocca should be VP, and maybe that is the way it should be, but it is not.
What if there’s a Bush bounce back from Iraq and energy in the next few months given some positive news on both fronts? If the trends of this past week can somehow continue, McCain could win in a landslide.
Of course, not all the economic woes are going to be undone in the next 3, or even 12 months. But if Bush can somehow be repainted as the guy who persevered and did something on his way out, McCain will reap some reward.
You make a really good point. Bush’s approval ratings were never as low as the MSM polls insist. I believe that he remains a very popular President - look for a huge popularity surge for Bush at the end of his two terms as victory in Iraq and in the war on terror are declared. Also, if Bush invades Iran at the end of his term, America will rally around him and his approval ratings will likely shoot through the roof.
I don’t see that the affirmative action of selecting Palin or Whitman or Fiorina because of their gender or Jindal because of his race is necessarily any more offensive than selecting Pawlenty because he might help win Minnesota, or Romney because he would placate the right, or Ridge because he’s Catholic.
Interesting article. Anything by Barone is always worth a read. 1976 is an interesting case. I wonder what would have happened if Ford didn’t screw up by saying “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe”. That may have cost him that election. If he had an extra week or two to campaign in 1976, he might have been able to win.
1976 is also an interesting year in that Ronald Reagan announced Pennsylvanian, Richard Schweiker as his running mate during the convention. This gives John McCain a road map for choosing Pensylvanian, Tom Ridge as his Veep.
Schweiker didn’t give Reagan any votes from the PA delegation and it contributed to him losing support among Southern delegates. While it Schweiker didn’t cost Reagan the nomination it backfired badly.
If Ford kept Rockefeller on the ticket, he would have won New York state and the election. He only lost New York by about 4% and Rockefeller would have likely given him at least an extra 2%. This would have resulted in a 281-256 EV victory for Ford even while losing the popular vote by 2%. McCain needs to pull something like this off if he is going to win.
I believe that McCain’s VP pick will reveal how optimistic or pessimistic he is about his chances. If he picks Romney, it likely means that he is skeptical of his chances and needs a lifeline. If he goes outside of the box its a sure sign that he is optimistic.
MAC TATTLES ON O’S SECRET TRIP TO IRAQ
McCain will be in New York this weekend - attending a fundraiser tonight at Ron Perelman’s East Hampton estate and attending a Yankee game with Rudy Giuliani tomorrow.
I can almost, almost say I don’t care if Obama or McCain wins. I think they will both have to be propped up. Obama because he is unqualifies and knows little, McCain because he is tired and becomes irrational if opposed, which he frequently will be.. and they both have liberal leanings. Both generate ZERO enthusiasm in me. I think McCain is a better person integrity-wise, but after many years in politics, not by much - he has been worn down to bad compromises several times as proof. The VP choices will absolutely determing whether or not I even get out to vote this cycle. And it steams me that I might have to waste my precious vote due to unacceptable choices. A pick of Romney or greater calibre for VP, I would even open the wallet again.
He basically suggests that it’s in Romney best interest to decline the Veep spot, if asked, and hold out until 2012 or 2016.
If McCain loses, the only candidate who could potentially knock out Romney in the 2012 primary would be Jeb and I believe that he will wait until 2016 to make his move.
28. I really think McCain may choose to be a one termer if he wins and if Romney is the VP he will have a large advantage in 2012 everywhere except Iowa.
McCain should make a one-term commitment before the election so that others in the party can plan their futures. McCain should also retire from the Senate as Dole did in 96 and become “Citizen McCain” and focus on the Presidential campaign. This move would also make him more populist.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Great article, and reason for optimism.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Note that there wasn’t one mention of running mates. We keep playing up the signifigance of the bottom half of the ticket even though it will always be the top half that wins the election.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
This IS a great article. It expounds upon something that I have been feeling for a long time. 2008 is a rerun of 1976. A so-so Republican up against an irresponsible Democrat. A disliked two-term incumbent GOP President dragging done the Republican brand.
Barack Obama reminds me so much of Carter, it’s scary.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
#2. Before this year, I never paid much attention to the presidential primaries. I never cared who was selected as the VP nominee. But not this election — the VP choice matters to me a lot.
I want to vote for McCain because I dislike Obama so much. But do I vote for McCain if he chooses the same old same old white guy for VP and thus perpetuates the Republican’s image? That would cause me major heartburn.
I don’t want to vote for Barr if that helps Obama win, so what to do? It just seems unamerican to go to the polls and vote for everything but the presidency.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
#4:
In my part of the country, not voting for an election invalidates the entire ballot.
As to the point about picking “same old same old white guy”, shouldn’t ideas matter more. Look at McCain and say… Ron Paul. Both are old white guys who are as far a part on the issues as you can get. I think the ideas are what matters, not the skin color or the age or gender of the candidate.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
HearMeRoar,
My read is that Americans feel uneasy about the future with the falling dollar, soaring energy/food prices, and economic uncertainty. I think McCain should choose someone who is qualified to help him turn those things around. If there is a woman who fits that profile, great! But I don’t think he should select a candidate based on whether or not he/she is a man/woman/whatever. I think McCain will do well to go for competence. As many know, I was a Romney supporter, so I naturally feel Romney would fit this role very well. He is a turn-around artist of the highest order. I really think he could do this country a great service by streamlining the government and pushing for balanced reform that would help restore people’s confidence in the future.
Of course, maybe the American public don’t really want that. There are huge swaths of people that vote on emotion alone. I myself knew plenty of Hillary Clinton supporters that knew absolutely nothing about her record or what she would even do for the country, but were willing to throw their support and votes because she was a woman and represented “change”. I think many support Barack for the same reason. I certainly don’t see the logic in putting a man as president who has had only 3 years of national experience, no significant political contributions, and no history of executive management or leadership of any kind (unless you count running his own campaign).
July 19th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
#5, I understand your point, but it will be voters such as #4 that determine this election. Voter dynamics have changed in this country. Reagan won a majority of men, and was easily elected President. Now, women are the majority of voters and they will determine this election.
After 232 years, we should see a woman on the ticket, not because of “gender equality”, but because there are qualified female candidates that Obama and McCain can select from.
That is why it will be a “crime” if Obama does not select Clinton.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Obama is the old wine of Carter put in the new wineskin of corrupt Chicago politics.
I think McCain has a disadvantage in regard to Ford. McCain isn’t an incumbent President and the unpopular President is still on the scene stinking things up.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
That is, “on the right side of the ticket”.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
#7:
I know what you are saying, but I don’t think there should be a kind of affirmative action for Vice Presidential candidates. A potential Veep shouldn’t get any points added to them just because they have 2 X chromosones or have a darker skin pigmentation.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
#5 and #6. You can’t have it both ways. Do you want to be RIGHT in that voters should base their decision on ideas, or do you want to WIN based on “huge swaths of people that vote on emotion alone”?
I’m one of those 15% independent voters who will decide this election and I’m telling you this election is different. The VP choice matters.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
HearMeRoar, I wish everyone voted based on ideas, but I recognize that in big elections like the general presidential election, the voter field is full of people who vote on identity and emotion alone.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
#8,
- McCain didn’t pardon a sitting President with an approval rating below 30%, Ford did.
Ford would have been re-elected if he had not done that.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
#12. Hypothetical: Let’s say there is a candidate that has very good ideas, but his/her character is lacking.
Do you vote for that person because of their great ideas or vote against them because you have reservations about their integrity?
July 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
#10, “kind of affirmative action”
For all the differences we all have on this site, I am confident that as a group, most on R408 do not favor affirmative action of any type.
BUT! That is what the entire VP process is about. We never select the candidate (VP) with the best qualifications to help Governor our country, the POTUS candidates selects a VP candidate that will help him/her win.
See, by your logic, Lee Iacocca should be VP, and maybe that is the way it should be, but it is not.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
What if there’s a Bush bounce back from Iraq and energy in the next few months given some positive news on both fronts? If the trends of this past week can somehow continue, McCain could win in a landslide.
Of course, not all the economic woes are going to be undone in the next 3, or even 12 months. But if Bush can somehow be repainted as the guy who persevered and did something on his way out, McCain will reap some reward.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Brian,
You make a really good point. Bush’s approval ratings were never as low as the MSM polls insist. I believe that he remains a very popular President - look for a huge popularity surge for Bush at the end of his two terms as victory in Iraq and in the war on terror are declared. Also, if Bush invades Iran at the end of his term, America will rally around him and his approval ratings will likely shoot through the roof.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I don’t see that the affirmative action of selecting Palin or Whitman or Fiorina because of their gender or Jindal because of his race is necessarily any more offensive than selecting Pawlenty because he might help win Minnesota, or Romney because he would placate the right, or Ridge because he’s Catholic.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Interesting article. Anything by Barone is always worth a read. 1976 is an interesting case. I wonder what would have happened if Ford didn’t screw up by saying “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe”. That may have cost him that election. If he had an extra week or two to campaign in 1976, he might have been able to win.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
1976 is also an interesting year in that Ronald Reagan announced Pennsylvanian, Richard Schweiker as his running mate during the convention. This gives John McCain a road map for choosing Pensylvanian, Tom Ridge as his Veep.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
#20:
Schweiker didn’t give Reagan any votes from the PA delegation and it contributed to him losing support among Southern delegates. While it Schweiker didn’t cost Reagan the nomination it backfired badly.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
If Ford kept Rockefeller on the ticket, he would have won New York state and the election. He only lost New York by about 4% and Rockefeller would have likely given him at least an extra 2%. This would have resulted in a 281-256 EV victory for Ford even while losing the popular vote by 2%. McCain needs to pull something like this off if he is going to win.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I believe that McCain’s VP pick will reveal how optimistic or pessimistic he is about his chances. If he picks Romney, it likely means that he is skeptical of his chances and needs a lifeline. If he goes outside of the box its a sure sign that he is optimistic.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
‘COMEBACK’ RUDY TO LAUNCH GOP ELEX FUND
July 19th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Giuliani Firm Plans Real Estate Investment Fund
July 19th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
MAC TATTLES ON O’S SECRET TRIP TO IRAQ
McCain will be in New York this weekend - attending a fundraiser tonight at Ron Perelman’s East Hampton estate and attending a Yankee game with Rudy Giuliani tomorrow.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I can almost, almost say I don’t care if Obama or McCain wins. I think they will both have to be propped up. Obama because he is unqualifies and knows little, McCain because he is tired and becomes irrational if opposed, which he frequently will be.. and they both have liberal leanings. Both generate ZERO enthusiasm in me. I think McCain is a better person integrity-wise, but after many years in politics, not by much - he has been worn down to bad compromises several times as proof. The VP choices will absolutely determing whether or not I even get out to vote this cycle. And it steams me that I might have to waste my precious vote due to unacceptable choices. A pick of Romney or greater calibre for VP, I would even open the wallet again.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I tend to agree with Patrick Ruffini on the Romney question:
http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/does-mitt-romney-want-to-be-vice-president
He basically suggests that it’s in Romney best interest to decline the Veep spot, if asked, and hold out until 2012 or 2016.
If McCain loses, the only candidate who could potentially knock out Romney in the 2012 primary would be Jeb and I believe that he will wait until 2016 to make his move.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
28. I really think McCain may choose to be a one termer if he wins and if Romney is the VP he will have a large advantage in 2012 everywhere except Iowa.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
McCain should make a one-term commitment before the election so that others in the party can plan their futures. McCain should also retire from the Senate as Dole did in 96 and become “Citizen McCain” and focus on the Presidential campaign. This move would also make him more populist.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Hillary bets short on Obama?