Reagan's Strategy: Pick a VP Candidate Early

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:03:08 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Democratic presidential primary has been fairly unconventional so far. The Boston Globe has an article today about what Ronald Reagan did in 1976 when he was losing big-time to Gerald Ford: He named his vice-presidential running mate. He came closer, but ended up not winning the nomination.

Despite naming Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania the would-be vice president to shore up support among Republican moderates, Reagan lost the delegate race by a little more than 100. But picking a vice president while trailing in delegates was a bold technique that some political analysts think might repeat itself in this year's tight Democratic race, the first since the Reagan-Ford contest that could go down to the wire in the same way.

....Selecting a popular vice presidential nominee could win over some superdelegates - uncommitted party leaders invited to the convention - while perhaps also attracting some voters in late primaries, analysts said.

The article considers whether this is something Hillary Clinton might do now. It mentions, as possible picks, General Wesley Clark and Bill Richardson.[ More...]

Richard Scweicker, who was the running mate picked by Reagan, thinks it would not be a winning strategy and that in highly contested election like this one, the front runner has to pick the second place finisher...e.g, an Obama - Hillary or a Hillary-Obama ticket.

I can't see it happening. I think if Hillary does not win big in Texas and Ohio, she will call it a day and throw her support to Barack Obama. She's too loyal a Democrat.

< Experience As A Political Weapon | Oscar Starring Roles: Who Would the Candidates Be? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Reagan's Strategy: Pick a VP Candidate Early | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Wes Clark... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by reynwrap582 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:54:27 PM EST

I actually wasn't a big fan of HRC and didn't plan on supporting her, instead waiting for Gen. Wesley Clark to announce his run. When he endorsed Hillary instead (which I saw coming as soon as I saw Bill Clinton blurb his autobiography/commentary on america) a lot of fellow Clark supporters freaked out and basically called him every ugly thing under the sun, and statements like "I no longer respect you" just because of who he likes for President. It all really disgusted me considering the life of public service this man has lived.

I went to his defense despite not being a Hillary supporter myself. Oddly enough it ended up leading me to be a Hillary supporter because I actually had to do real research and read beyond the headlines and gotcha political news coverage.

So one of the reasons I've supported Hillary as well was the hope that Wes Clark would play a role in her administration, whether it be VP or something else. I only hope that if Obama wins the nomination, he'll extend a hand to Clark in some form rather than shutting him out just for preferring Hillary. I've never heard him say anything bad about Obama.

I remeber that well (4.50 / 2) (#3)
by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:25:11 PM EST

Schweiker was not an A-list choice, and it is not my sense that he helped Reagan very much.

And that points to an inherint problem with this approach. The very fact that there is a sense that Obama has the edge in becoming the nominee would cause any really serious figure to be very reluctant to jump on board what may be the losing side.

Why would anyone do this? They would need to be either unalterably opposed to Obama as nominee, which would in itself indicate that they probably wouldn't help Hillary expand her support within the party, or they would be willing to gamble that their presence could put her over the edge. But few serious people would really believe that a VP nominee would really change the dynamic of a race.

Plus it smacks of desparation. There are a couple of widely understood criteria for choosing a VP. Either you try to balance your ticket by region, or ideology or some other factor, for the fall campaign, or you go with someone you feel comfortable working with. Choosing a VP now would represent the obvious use of a new critierion - making a choice simply on the basis of what works in the primary season.

Thats how it would be seen - that she is not choosing the best person to take over for her should something happen during her presidency, not choosing a person to unify the party, but merely choosing someone to help her in the primary.

Unless she announces that she intends to ask Obama if she wins.... Vote for me, you'll get him anyway! :)

Don't understand. Super-delegates (none / 0) (#6)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:35:28 PM EST

are committing, and many of them are exactly the pool from which VPs would come. And many more have committed to Clinton. Your thinking here smacks of . . . a memory loss in ignoring that?


sorry, don't follow (none / 0) (#8)
by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:45:01 PM EST

why would choosing one superdel as her VP help her with any of the others?


Why would committing to be a VP (none / 0) (#11)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:27:18 PM EST

be dangerous but committing as a superdelegate not so? Committing to a candidate is committing to a candidate, and publicly so.


: Committing to a VP is a bigger step (none / 0) (#13)
by andrewwm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:31:57 PM EST

And the fact that many super delegates haven't pledged yet or have taken the route of supporting whomever won their state shows that many aren't even comfortable endorsing.

How big? (none / 0) (#1)
by xjt on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:11:51 PM EST

So even if she wins the popular vote in both states, she will throw her support to Obama, unless the margin of the victory is "big?" How big does she have to win?

Big Enough (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:17:54 PM EST

to catch up or come really close on total delegates.

One article:

With the freshman Illinois senator about 100 delegates ahead of her and with 444 delegates at stake in next week's four contests, which also include Rhode Island and Vermont, party strategists said she cannot afford even a narrow win to remain competitive in the delegate count.

: If she does reasonably well in (none / 0) (#4)
by hairspray on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:27:57 PM EST

Ohio and PA then she should announce a possible VP candidate, if Obama will not accept that role. I would vote for Wesley Clark as the more attractive candidate. He is foreign policy plus and extremely straightforward. He would counter the McCain, "I will keep you safe" meme and make Hillary stronger in the GE. I don't know who Obama can put up that would do that for him. He is already going to look inexperienced and putting a very strong leader as VP will only make the contrast more obvious.

: NYTimes has Obama up by only 5 (none / 0) (#5)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:32:31 PM EST

delegates, fyi. It is cautious, as the Good Gray Lady oughta be -- and even it does not see the caucus voters as "soft" as they oughta be seen, as evident in yesterday's Nevada fracas.
As for VPs, I think Ohio's Strickland could be a good choice. He is immensely popular, so I read, in a large and significant state -- especially now, if your thinking is followed about announcing it now.
And he certainly has no compunctions about coming out against the other candidate now -- not that I think that would be a concern of anyone tapped for VP.

Not a chance in the world (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:43:20 PM EST

How about John Edwards- (none / 0) (#9)
by kenosharick on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:53:18 PM EST

if he would do it?

Since neither candidate can win outright (none / 0) (#10)
by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:04:39 PM EST

I would hope Hillary would keep going through PA in any case. I think Obama will if he should slip. Personally I'm in favor of a brokered convention, with reforming the primary process taken up and seriously addressed. A strong nominee should still be able to take on McCain in the GE.

Why do you think he'll slip in the next month? (none / 0) (#12)
by andrewwm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:30:51 PM EST

He's been campaigning for over a year now and hasn't made anything remotely resembling a race-ending slip yet.

Whoever gets it, we're going to end up with a candidate that won a true marathon; this marathon includes not slipping up, showing long-term fundraising prowess, and demonstrated consistent ability to win.

The Republicans are going to get a guy who can't fundraise his way out of a paper bag and won only because they were sick of everyone else running.


: well Kerry didn't slip during the nomination fight (none / 0) (#18)
by diplomatic on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:07:48 PM EST

Kerry went on a solid near-sweep of all the primaries and never had a serious slip. It was not until after he was the nominee that the swift boating began. You can never predict a slip. If you could, you wouldn't slip.

Obama Is Seriously Deficient (none / 0) (#14)
by bob h on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:33:59 PM EST

in gravitas, especially foreign policy gravitas. He should pick Joe Biden. Not some Red State lady Governor.

: the problem (none / 0) (#20)
by facta non verba on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:07:30 PM EST

I have with that is it creates vacancies in the Senate where the margin is narrow and the talent to replace Biden still not quite ready for prime time. I suppose that there are a few Senators that I wouldn't mind being pried from their Senate desks, Dianne Feinstein comes to mind but that's hardly a good choice for one heart beat away. Governors and perhaps former Cabinet Officers might make sense or former Senators but none spring to mind. Tom Daschle? Ugh. Bob Kerrey. Maybe. Strickland from Ohio or Bayh from Indiana?
I like Biden a lot. Don't always agree with him but he's really now the senior statesman of the party especially on intelligence and foreign affairs. Jack Reed from Rhode Island is a rising star. Robert Rubin, Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury or Bill Richardson.

It is a good time for some publicity... (none / 0) (#15)
by Oje on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:42:17 PM EST

Look at Gallup's national numbers...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104521/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

Obama's momentum has stalled since February 17th. Obama rode a media wave of endorsements from Oprah to Kennedy and, then, his string of February victories. Nevertheless, his national poll numbers look nothing like his victories. I suspect the Obama campaign, with a great media team, will be looking at similar strategies to put the media narrative of momentum back on track.

I'm afraid that Clark is about to be blamed (none / 0) (#17)
by beefeater on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:12:03 PM EST

When things get uglier in Kosovo. I don't know if he will deserve it but he was kind of given the credit for resolving the issue, now he'll get the blame when it comes unglued.

: Kosovo (none / 0) (#21)
by facta non verba on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:11:39 PM EST

has little to with Clark and everything to do with a US base now located there. There was a quid quo pro. Bush went to Albania last year. It is not stretch to think rendition flights or worse went through Kosovo's Camp Bondsteel. Clark's work in the Balkans is now what 10 years old. So much has happened since then.

no good (none / 0) (#19)
by chemoelectric on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:21:32 PM EST

Remember what Barack Obama said a while back:

I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.

I am using italics to indicate the key part of the statement. It wasn't really about Reagan, but about Bill Clinton's deficiencies. If Hillary Clinton starts emulating Ronald Reagan, it simply gives Obama more opportunities to jab at the Clintons this way.

Picking Wes Clark as a running mate would be a disaster for her, by the way. These days talking to Wes Clark about Iraq, Iran, etc., is one of the surest ways to ruin a party. Bill Richardson maybe not so much, but it's not as if he comes from outside of the Clintons' circle.

: though (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by facta non verba on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:18:04 PM EST

Obama is historically inaccurate. It was Nixon that redefined the GOP with its "southern strategy" and his "silent majority" was the forerunner of Reagan's grand coalition. GOP dominance in the White House goes back to 1969. 28 out of the last 40 years. Furthermore, Nixon put into place the first assault on the Great Society. True Nixon was a maverick in some ways the EPA which Reagan then trashed. But it should be remembered that many of both Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 got their starts in the Nixon White House. Nor is it a stretch to concede that the US is fundamentally a conservative country.
Reagan gets a lot of undue credit for his unbridled enthusiasm but Nixon I think that more apt is the transformative figure. Gave Karl Rove his first job as well.