Before we start, let's give some credit to McCain for finding a message that seems to be working. Tying Obama to random celebrities - Paris, Britney, etc. - is pure genius. It plays directly to the middle-aged white voter who still is unsure about Obama, and puts into words the hesitation. It also occured right after the time Obama was on his Europe trip and made a speech in Germany in front of 200,000 people.
One piece of advice my Dad gave me - if you want to attack something that seems unassailable, attack their strengths. Example: Burger King in the 80s. They wanted to attack McDonalds. How? They were the king - burgers fast and fresh. How do you attack them in an ad?
Answer: By attacking the fact they were fast. Why were they fast? Because they made the burger one way. You can't get it any other way. But what if you wanted a burger...your way? And a slogan was born.
McCain is doing exactly that. Obama is very popular - almost too popualr. He's attacking that image effectively. And (by chance!) where is Obama giving his acceptance speech next Thursday? Why, at Mile High Stadium in front of 75,000 people! This just adds to the celebrity/rock star label that McCain has given him. Obama has got to be careful not to provide more ammunition for that image.
Anyway, what is the end result of that ad campaign? An unquestioned tightening of the race - one poll shows McCain up 5 right now - and in the overall electoral vote count, McCain is seen to be ahead, 274-264.
There is no question that we are at the high point in McCain's campaign right now (so far?). All the toss up states are leaning McCain's way right now - Ohio, Virginia, Missouri, and so on. The good news for Obama is that it is very hard to see how Obama loses any more states. If Michigan and/or Pennsylvania start to turn to McCain, this thing could turn into a rout.
But for now, Obama should have a floor of 264 votes. The big question he needs to answer - given the current themes of the campaign and the current electoral map, can a VP pick influence either?
Some choices, with Eric's proposed odds:
1. Tim Kaine (VA): 10-1. Virginia's popular governor has been listed as a possibilitiy. Could this pick swing Virginia back to the Democrats? However - and I feel bad for saying this - I can't believe that America would elect a VP with that haircut. I'm sorry -some images do matter.
2. Joe Biden (DE): 4-1. Picking Biden would help close the "experience" issue Obama may have - Biden has 30+ years of experinece in the Senate and extensive foriegn policy credentials. However, he is the consummate Washington insider - would that hinder Obama's message of change?
One other thing - there was a presidential candidate that didn't have a lot of foreign policy items on his resume. He chose a VP who had a lot of congressional experience, various foreign policy responsibilities, and was seen as a sharp debater/good speaker.
It's not hard to draw parellels between Biden and Cheney.
3. Kathleen Sebelius (KS): 20-1. The chic rumor going around now - the Kansas governor would help with the female vote and would add to the "change" campaign them. And Sebelius is a conservative Democrat, and certainly can not be confused as a liberal. But would it deliver Kansas? The 5 electoral votes - with the current map - would make the election projected to be 269-269. (And, at this time, a tie goes to the House, which assuredly should remain Democratic).
And do we really know anything about her? What vetting is going on right now? A risky pick.
4. Dianne Feinstein (CA): 7-1. I'm surprised she's not talked about more often. The more moderate of the California senators, Feinstien has experience in Congress (16 years in the Senate) and has served on foreign policy committees, I think. She was a Clinton ally, so that may help mend some bridges. She is Jewish, but that issue should be put to rest given Lieberman's run in 2000 (and it may help in Florida). Not a bad pick.
5. Hillary Clinton (NY): 40-1. What, is Obama insane?
6. Evan Bayh (IN): 3-1. I think this is the smart pick. Bayh is the conservative senator from Indiana, and the Bayh name is powerful in that state. I would have to predict that the 11 electoral votes would swing toward Obama - meaning McCain would need another state to win. He has almost 10 years of experince in the Senate, and serves on the Armed Forces committee; he is 53 years old but looks younger, so can effectively look the part of "change".
7. The Field: 2-1. There's always a surprise lurking around the corner. As I was walking the dog, I tried to think about the last several VP picks and whether they were in the running for a VP and talked about before the announcement:
84: Ferraro: a complete surprise, and not a good choice. She did not deliver her home state.
88: Quayle (R): another complete surprise
88: Bentsen (D): I think he was mentioned on a short list as a possible balance for the northereastern Dukakis
92: Gore: yes, he was mentioned. Gore ran for President 4 years before!
96: Kemp: another surprise, not in name (since many knew him) but was not talked about as a VP candidate.
00: Cheney (R): medium surprise. He led the VP search committee - and then came back to Bush and said "nope, no qualified candidates out there....except moi!"
00: Liebermann (D): boy, it seems weird now putting a "D" next to his name! I think this was a small surprise.
04: Edwards: no surprise here.
So about half the time the pick comes out of left field.....will it happen again this week?
I say no - I say the pick is Evan Bayh. Your thoughts?
2 comments:
Although I love Biden, I'm afraid he's too old. Also, it would be strange to pick someone who has run unsuccessfully for Pres to continue the Obama legacy. Same goes for Wes Clark, who you didn't mention. Personally, though, those would be my top 2.
Another interesting pick would be Hagel-they agree on the war and it promotes the change and cooperation theme. But, although I think Obama needs to pick someone to the right of him, this may be too far right.
Kaine is pro-life, which I think excludes him right off the bat. The true lefties would go NUTS. (just like McCain picking Tom Ridge-maybe a good pick for neutral voters, but a complete turn off to the base)
Feinstein is maybe a tad too liberal. Just the fact that she's from CA should exclude her. It just gives republicans too much fodder.
Amazingly, I know little about Bayh. From your assessment, he sounds like a good choice. He was a popular governor as well. But will anyone be excited about him?? And how does his early support for the Iraq war play with the base?
I'm actually wondering now about Clinton. Although she's completely distasteful, I honestly think this gives him the best chance to win. Listening to talk radio lately, it's amazing how many Clinton supporters are currently refusing to vote Obama in order to give her a chance in 2012. His #1 priority right now should be to unify the base-there is a surprising amount of dissension. I believe that's why he's falling behind in the polls. It would be quite the surprise because everyone has written her off.
So, does Obama pick who he wants or does he do what he needs to win even if she (and HE) drive him completely insane? Ugh. I'm tired of losing these stinkin elections.
Anyway, I'm all signed up and awaiting my Friday night text message from the Obama campaign about the veep pick. Should be interesting!
Eric-for the R's, will you even bother to analyze anyone other than Romney?
I think the following post is a nice balance to Eric's thoughtful review of the candidates:
http://wonkette.com/402054/freak-out-your-friends-with-fake-obama-vp-txt
Jeff W
Post a Comment