June 26, 2008
The Perils of Picking a Running Mate
By
Reid Wilson
Over the next two months, Washington gossip-mongers will fill each others' heads with the latest speculation about which politicians will inhabit the bottom half of John McCain's and Barack Obama's respective tickets heading into the late summer conventions. What no one will ask is whether the vice presidential nomination actually has any political implications. Based on recent history, some might say the answer is no.
Arguably, no vice presidential candidate has contributed the votes necessary to actually deliver an election since Lyndon Johnson helped John Kennedy secure Texas' electoral votes in 1960. Since that first election in the modern television era, presidential contests have been driven by the personalities atop the tickets. This year, with such recognizable and well-defined presidential candidates, the vice presidential pick could become nothing more than political dead weight, with the opportunity only to hurt, and not to help.
Given the relative brand strengths of both candidates, and their inherent interest in keeping those brands unique, picking a vice presidential nominee this year can, and almost certainly will, do more harm than good. Considering for whom the veep vetters are performing their search, a low-key ticketmate will be the way to go.
After primaries in which entrenched traditional party interests failed entirely to win both nominations, and after down-ballot races throughout the country produced surprising results, it has become clear that 2008 will be a year dominated by change. Each party chose the nominee who seemed to represent the most significant departure from party leaders in Washington (though both voting records suggest a different story), and the nominees maintain a strong interest in keeping that image.
For Barack Obama, the call for change resonated with a frustrated and angry Democratic electorate. The party that had been out of power for eight years, and after two incredibly close elections, has been rejuvenated by Obama's calls for hope and change. Obama rails against lobbyists, the status quo in Washington and other ills, the problem policies a result of the processes by which Washington operates, and those processes as much to blame as the policies. His is an image of one who can, and will, create fundamental, revolutionary change.
John McCain, on the other hand, is the agitator. Having been a member of Congress for more than a quarter century, it is impossible for McCain to run against the mythical beast of the Beltway. Instead, he has spent large parts of his career irritating his own party, and Democratic leaders, with policies that give him the title "Maverick." So McCain's more nuanced approach won the GOP primary with an appeal to those Republicans furious with their own party's lack of direction, overt corruption and political collapse. Had not Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, it is unlikely McCain would have won his primary.
Both parties chose nominees who appeal to independent voters, one for his maverick appeal, one for his fresh approach. And both candidates would never have gotten where they are by running as the best candidates to carry on their party's status quo.
What's more, both candidates are hugely popular for politicians. Obama enjoys a whopping 63% favorable rating, while just 33% see him unfavorably, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll out this week. For McCain, the ratio is a nearly equally impressive 56% favorable to 39% unfavorable rating. At a time when just 14% of Americans say the country is moving in the right direction and 84% see the country headed on the wrong track, such positive numbers for two men who have day jobs inside the Beltway is remarkable.
When it comes to picking a running mate, then, the choice becomes less about which candidate would give Obama or McCain a geographical edge, or would excite the party base, or would offer the best compliment to mitigate a deficiency, and more about which would do the least harm to either Obama or McCain's pristine reputation.
The key to winning in November will be figuring out how to translate primary season success to general election magic. If McCain plays too much to his conservative base and too little to the media, which he jokingly refers to as his real base, he will tarnish the outsider image that appeals so much to independents. If Obama plays too many games, beyond his seeming reversal on NAFTA and his withdrawal from public financing, he will tarnish his above-the-fray image that appeals to the same independents. Choosing a running mate to McCain's right, or one that ameliorates Obama's lack of Beltway experience in a manner that could be seen as a political choice, could instead do more harm than good.
High atop their pedistals, Obama and McCain are nonetheless doing their best to portray their opponents as politicians as usual. Both camps have played the victim, and both routinely slam the other's proposals. The choice of a vice president will offer another opportunity for a research dump that will tarnish someone with little name recognition. While Arthur Culvahouse searches for McCain's running mate and Eric Holder and Carolyn Kennedy seeks a partner for Obama, research shops at Republican and Democratic headquarters are compiling their own briefing books. The moment a name is announced, the opposition research will pour forth.
Neither McCain nor Obama will be able to avoid the headaches that come with picking a vice presidential candidate. But this year, when the image of an outsider and post-partisan politician is so crucial to each candidate, the choices will almost certainly hurt more than they help. The search teams can only hope to limit the pain they will inevitably cause.
Reid Wilson is an associate editor and writer for RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at
reid@realclearpolitics.com
