Josh Patashnik at TNR pens what I would normally consider a pretty thoughtful piece on choosing a Vice-President. Just as Howard Dean, with the fifty-state strategy, has turned the DNC into a long-term party building organization instead of a slush fund for media consultants, and just as the value of contested primaries as party building activities is gradually coming into focus, Patashnik argues that the selection of the Vice-President should also be an exercise in party building, rather than a futile attempt to gain an ephemeral advantage in a single election.
In my view, the veepstakes frenzy currently descending upon us focuses on entirely the wrong set of questions. The debate is usually cast in terms of who can help win the election in November. I'll have more on this in a piece that will be on the website later this week, but the evidence indicates that running-mate selections usually have zero impact on election outcomes, even in the running mate's home state.(...)
By contrast, a vice-presidential nominee is somebody who (in addition, of course, to being potentially a heartbeat away from the presidency) will instantly become one of the four or five most recognizable figures in the party, and will likely be a frontrunner for the presidential nomination at some point in the future. It's somebody who, with any luck, will be popular enough to campaign with and raise money for candidates across the country for years to come. And yet the conversation hardly focuses on this at all. One of the most important things a party does is cultivate talent for the future, and selecting a vice presidential nominee is absolutely critical in that regard... I can give you three reasons why the GOP presidential field was so weak this year: Dick Cheney, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle.(...)
I'm not totally opposed to the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket, but this strikes me as one of the main arguments against it. Hillary is already a major figure on the national stage; she will continue to be very influential regardless of whether she's the veep nominee. There is no shortage of promising prospects who could achieve much if given that level of stature--why pass up the opportunity to put one of your rising stars in that position?
Good idea. And if I favor contested primaries and the fifty-state strategy because of their long-term party building effects, I should also favor elevating a new, rising progressive star rather than, say, John Edwards as VP, right?
Nope. After looking at the Senate Forecast today, I am actually inclined to disagree with this seemingly sensible, long-term party building approach when it comes to picking a VP. This is because the time period from 2009-2012, and maybe for two more years afterward, will probably be the only stretch of time over the next forty years when Democrats will have 60+ seats in the Senate. The odds of reaching 60 are pretty decent this year, since we are actually only 3-5% away in five different states from hitting 62 seats already. Now, throw in the 2010 picture, when Republicans will have to defend another 19 seats--including eight freshman, Jim Bunning, Arlen Specter, and David Vitter--compared to only 14 seats and two freshman (one of whom is Barack Obama) for Dems, and the number could rise into the mid-sixties. Almost inevitably, this number will begin to drop in 2012, and probably drop below 60 for good in 2014. There is no way that we can keep winning two-thirds of all Senate campaigns indefinitely. I mean, the Iraq war will end at some point (I hope).
So, as progressives and as Democrats, we are presented with a four to six year window where we can pass a lot of big legislation, and fast. We probably won't have this sort of opportunity again for at least another twenty years, and probably much longer than even that. This period will also produce an enormous Democratic presidential bench, since we will probably hold 60+ Senate seats and 30+ Governors for about four to six years. That will build us a huge list of strong contenders for the Presidency. As such, the main purpose of the vice-presidential choice should be on building the party's presidential candidate bench long-term, and not building the party long-term in general. Simply put, we have those areas covered. Instead, the purpose of the VP pick should be maximizing our chances at holding the Presidency during the extremely rare, but upcoming, landslide window when we should have around 60 or more Senators for four or six years.
This is our big moment to really pass progressive legislation. The opportunity is on par with FDR's first two terms, and the first three years of the LBJ's Presidency. While the Senate is mainly crawling mainly with New Dems instead of Progressives, this is still going to be our best opportunity for a loooong time, and we need to make sure we have the Presidency in order to make it happen. Throw in the fact that we are facing crippling global disasters from climate change and peak oil, that the USA has been passed as the world's largest economy for the first time in a century (the EU is now larger), that we are running a disastrous war in Iraq, and that we have countless other major crises, the window really can't come soon enough. This is going to be our chance to, for example, pass nearly universal health care, and we ain't gonna get another one for a really long time. We need the Presidency in order to do all of this and take advantage of this narrow window. As such, the VP selection should be maximized to acquire the Presidency. There simply is no future when it comes to the VP pick. The time is now. |
