Dorf on Law

Mostly law-related musings by Columbia Professor Michael Dorf and some of his lawyer/professor friends

Monday, May 12, 2008

Dreams & Nightmares

As it becomes increasingly clear that Senator Obama will be the Democratic nominee, speculation will focus---as it inevitably does between the primaries and the convention---on who his running mate will be (and who Senator McCain's running mate will be). Obama will be under considerable pressure to offer the slot to Senator Clinton, as a means of healing the rift that the primary contest opened between their supporters.

The arguments against a so-called "Dream Ticket" are strong: 1) Clinton probably doesn't want the VP job; she doesn't need it as a stepping stone to the White House; the best reason for her to take it would be the hope that the ticket would lose in 2008, so that she'd be well positioned for a run in 2012, rather than having to wait until 2016; if so, Clinton might take the slot and not campaign with full vigor, which is a reason not to pick her; 2) Clinton has very high negatives, so that adding her to the ticket would energize Republicans and turn off independents; 3) Part of the argument for Obama is that he can tie McCain to the Bush Iraq war because Obama opposed it early on. Pairing him on the ticket with Clinton undermines Obama's ability to make that argument. 4) Despite the trope of "change" versus "experience," neither Obama nor Clinton (nor McCain for that matter) has any substantial executive experience, which argues for picking a governor. 5) Clinton doesn't help with a potential swing state in the way that, say, Jim Webb might help Obama carry Virginia.

So there you have a whole lot of conventional wisdom. And yet, I wouldn't bet a lot of money against an Obama/Clinton ticket. The traditional role of the VP candidate is attack dog and if the last 6 weeks have proven anything, it's that Hillary Clinton can play that role effectively. Plus, once Clinton fully realizes she's not getting the No. 1 slot on the ticket, she's going to look at the damage she has done to the Democratic Party and herself, and realize that the best way to undo that damage is through a gesture that allows her to claim she was never trying to be racially divisive; she was only pointing to the uncomfortable fact of existing racial divisions; she can then offer herself as a bridge-builder, and potentially bring her supporters along. To be sure, vigorous campaigning by Clinton for an Obama-led ticket that does not include her could also have this effect, but not in as large a degree.

Those are reasons why Clinton might sincerely want to take the VP slot if offered. But what does Obama gain by offering it? Many of the Clinton supporters who have told exit pollsters that they would support McCain in the general if Obama gets the nomination will likely change their minds between now and November, especially those that usually vote Democratic. But some won't, and Clinton's presence on the ticket will bring some of them around. It's also quite likely that the economy will be a more important issue for voters than the war (although obviously they're related; the expenditure of dollars in Iraq limits options at home). An Obama/Clinton team could be very effective on economic issues.

There is also the Rovian truth. Turdblossom showed that you can win general elections by doing just enough to stay viable for independents while massively mobilizing your base. I have a hard time believing that an Obama/Clinton ticket would not lead to huge voter turnout for Dems---especially given its historic nature. True, it will also inspire Republican turnout, but given the way turnout has been going in the primaries (even when the Republicans still had a live contest), and given the fundamentals, turnout has to favor the Democrats.

Bottom Line: I have no idea whom Obama will name as his running mate, but I no longer think the "Dream Ticket" is a crazy idea. The bigger Hillary's victory in West Virginia, the more likely it becomes, so long as she stays in her more restrained mode of campaigning (i.e., directs her fire at McCain). Of course, I'm a lawyer and law professor, not a politico, so what do I know?

Posted by Mike Dorf

9 Comments:

  • At 8:04 AM, Blogger egarber said…

    Another disadvantage of having Clinton as VP is that it would cloud up the change theme generally. Obama has been consistently on message when it comes to change, so it would look at least awkward if he chooses one of the names MOST tied to our current political establishment and dynasty battle. (Of course, a woman on the ticket is itself a major change).

    Personally, I like these names:

    1. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson.

    2. Ohio governor Tedd Strickland.

    3. General Wes Clark.

    Since he's close to the Clintons, Clark could be a uniting type pick. Plus, he's a General who already has campaign experience, having run for president in 2004.

     
  • At 9:06 AM, Blogger egarber said…

    This post has been removed by the author.

     
  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger egarber said…

    2. Ohio governor Tedd Strickland.

    Actually, I should also add that Strickland is a Clinton supporter. He could be a huge uniting factor. And of course, it wouldn't hurt to win points in Ohio, although I'm somewhat skeptical about those types of geographical balancing acts. I wonder if there's some study out there looking into how effective such strategies really are in the end.

    And if it is valid, that would lend force to choosing Richardson, since he would add MORE balance, bringing western states into play.

     
  • At 3:44 PM, Blogger Sobek said…

    Obama apparently likes to pass the buck as much as Hillary:

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/obamas-inabilit.html

    Dream ticket, indeed.

    I really think there's too much bad blood, not just betweent he candidates, but between their supporters, such that either will view a joint ticket as a capitulation. And now that Obama has pulled ahead in the superdelegate count, he has no reason to pander to the Clinonites.

     
  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger Mithras said…

    VP picks don't win an election, but a bad VP pick can lose you one.

    Clearly, pairing a woman - any woman, much less Clinton - with the first black major-party Presidential candidate is very risky. You'd need to find someone who polls very, very well with both Democrats and Independents, who doesn't have high negatives, and who has the experience you say Obama lacks. The media narrative on Hillary as the VP candidate would constantly bring up her negatives and how white men feel about a ticket with no white men on it.

    I think a far safer pick would be a white male (I would have said Clark, if he hadn't cut ads for Clinton) or Hispanic male (Richardson, who many people don't even realize is Hispanic - a plus, unfortunately). Either way, the VP has to be someone less a charismatic figure like Obama and more someone who inspires confidence in their skill and steadiness.

     
  • At 6:47 PM, Blogger Cristie L. Ford said…

    We've all seen the polls that suggest that white working class voters would choose to vote for McCain over Obama. This is usually put forward as a reason to see Clinton as the strongest nominee. But -- is anyone aware of polls that ask those same voters to choose between McCain and Clinton? It seems to me that a good portion of those numbers may be (some modern version of) Reagan Democrats who would, in the final analysis, choose the "maverick" John McCain over the newly anointed blue collar queen anyway. (BTW, the Dems need a sticky one-word moniker to describe McCain -- flip-flopper perhaps? sell-out? -- that can rival the positive image he has cultivated of the independent, straight-talking "maverick.")

     
  • At 6:59 PM, Blogger Sobek said…

    "BTW, the Dems need a sticky one-word moniker to describe McCain..."

    Contrary to your suggestion, I see "maverick" as a very negative label. It recalls to mind all the times the straight talk express has sold us out to satisfy his vanity.

     
  • At 7:40 PM, Blogger egarber said…

    Hey Sobek (or anybody),

    What does Bob Barr jumping into the race mean for McCain? He used to be my representative down here in Georgia (my guy always lost to him), and he's pretty popular in the south. He also has a national profile, coming out of the impeachment mess in the 90's. I actually respect him because of his bold defense of the fourth amendment post 9-11 (though I have many disagreements with him in other areas).

    As a Libertarian, might he pick off McCain voters? Absent a choice, a lot of conservatives are planning to vote for McCain holding their noses.

     
  • At 8:46 PM, Blogger Sobek said…

    I don't know anything about Barr except that he's a third party candidate and a libertarian -- ordinarily two factors that would preclude me completely from taking him seriously, but this cycle, who knows?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home