Ted Presents Open VP Thread

by tgirsch

August 18th, 2008

Feel free to engage in rampant and irresponsible speculation. I believe Ted suggested you should place wagers.

Categories: Politics |

52 Comments

Ted August 18th, 2008
My money (or hope anyway) is on Biden. I like what he brings to the table in terms of foreign policy. He will say a few dumb things, but I think the press is pretty much innoculated to his gaffes. He will totally kick ass in the VP debate(s), I don’t care who he goes up against. Only drawback is he is an established insider, but can’t have the policy experience without that. Worst pick: Kaine. Adds to the inexperience issue, which is Obama’s biggest exposure. No chance pick: HRC
Dan M. August 18th, 2008
Kucinich. I want to see it just to watch the lather rise off the mouths of the “mainstream media”.
gattsuru August 18th, 2008
My vote would be Kathleen Sebelius. Good political experience, looks experienced without looking ancient, has been able to portray herself as moderate without doing anything that’d alienate the left, and that’d help Obama a hell of a lot. She’s an absolute asshole on gun control and taxes, but I don’t think that’s going to hurt the Democratic Party much.

After that, Clinton. Yes, she’ll probably stab the man in the back by January, hopefully figuratively. Obama’s smart enough to deal with that. She’s the best chance Obama has for holding a lot of Democratic voters, especially now it’s clear that no NARAL records are going to get his popularity among women to normal Dem numbers.

Biden would probably be a ‘better’ choice, except he’s further left politically than even Clinton on a lot of issues, with the downside of not resonating well with a bunch of the rabid left physically. The man doesn’t just look experienced, he looks old — that’s not the sort of image Obama wants to put into politics when his opponent starts calling HopeChange the same old news. He’s also a gaffomatic. That doesn’t really matter much for Democratic candidates, but it matters more than it used to.

Kaine is worse, both in terms of appearance and in terms of politics. He’s got a few tentacles pushing to the right, but they’re on topics like gun control and taxes, neither of which is going to persuade a voter that’s heard Obama talk, or go places Obama can’t touch (hello, abortion). He doesn’t fill the perceived Obama experience gap, and probably worsens that perception. I’m honestly surprised he got as far up the list as he did, and I assume most of that’s due to his early support of Obama and some cash.

Bayh has similar issues. He’s got a better vibe, if a bit Edwardsian, but at least he’d bring the appearance of experience. Too right-leaning, though, especially on foreign policy, and a bit gaffprone on the subject (you’re going to punish Iran by cutting off gasoline and weapons shipments? What?). Again, a bit too anti-abortion for what Obama’s trying to present. Parental notification’s one of those things that gets the pro-abortion folks upset.

Of the three, Biden’d be the best bet, but Bayh being more likely. I’d put Sebelius, Clinton, or even Jack Reed first.
Ted August 19th, 2008
I think the PUMAs would revolt even more if Sebelius is chosen. If not HRC, then can’t be a woman. IMO. And even if it could be HRC, I think Bill provides too much potential distraction. I could see HRC in a cabinet position, if she were so inclined, or health care czar.

Kucinich would be fun to watch in the VP debate(s), but obviously he isn’t on the short list (even though he has anatomical qualification).
Derf's Irom August 19th, 2008
Can you imagine the trouble Barry will have trying to pick someone who will not outshine him in experience and substance?
Derf's Irom August 19th, 2008
“opponent starts calling HopeChange the same old news.”

He is the same old news. How is he change from McGovern and other radical liberals? Same old tired warmed over socialism.
tgirsch August 19th, 2008
Well, I do have to give Fred this much: he’s a proven expert on lacking substance…
Derf's Irom August 19th, 2008
“Well, I do have to give Fred this much: he’s a proven expert on lacking substance…”

That’s not a very positive thing for you to say, Sunshine.
shirt August 19th, 2008
Kathleen Sebelius or Hilary Clinton. Since republican crackers are truly afeared of a woman in power. It would guarantee that Barack remains insurable.

The real question is, of course, Which of these two ladies is capable of shooting a whining supporter in the face?

I hope it’s Clark. Any one of the three would do.
Derf's Irom August 19th, 2008
“Since republican crackers are truly afeared of a woman in power”

Aside from your racist remark, you need to check out the number of Republican women who have been governors. I assume you have heard of Condi Rice and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Your ignorance is typical of bigots.
Derf's Irom August 19th, 2008
Five senators are Republican women.

Twenty representaatives are Republican women.

The first woman appointed to the Supreme Court is a woman. Perhaps you’ve heard of her.
tgirsch August 19th, 2008
Fred’s right. It’s not the women Republicans are averse to so much as it is the non-whites. I think Bobby Jindal is only about the second non-white Republicans have actually elected. J.C. Watts is the only other one I can think of, although there may be one or two more.

(Someone’s sure to point out Alberto Gonzalez, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Clarence Thomas, but these are all appointees, not elected officials…)
Derf's Irom August 19th, 2008
(Clarence Thomas)

You need a lesson in civics. A president doesn’t “appoint” a Supreme Court judge. He nominates him or her. The senate then “elects” him or her.
Derf's Irom August 19th, 2008
I bet Barbara Walters could name at least one black Republican senator in the modern era.
tgirsch August 19th, 2008
You’d almost have to be Barbara Walters’ age to remember that far back. Edward W. Brooke served in the US Senate as a Republican from Massachusetts from 1967-1979 (and in the rest of the country, they have a name for a Massachusetts Republican…). Before that, you have to go back to 1898.

Oh, and regarding the civics lesson, it would seem you’re the one who needs it, not me. US Constitution, Article II, Section 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States

[Bold mine]

Just because they require Senate confirmation doesn’t mean they’re not appointees. But thanks for making my point about no substance. Yes, that was a negative remark, but you had it coming (as usual).

Sunshine out.
Dan M. August 19th, 2008
Fred @13,

If you’re going to be penantic, do your research.Article II, Section2, Paragraph 2:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] judges of the Supreme Court[.]
Dan M. August 19th, 2008
Sorry to duplicate, TG.
gattsuru August 19th, 2008
*sigh*

Edward W. Brooke, United States Senator.
Melquíades Martínez, United States Senator.
Samuel I. Hayakawa, United States Senator.
J.C. Watts, United States Representative.
Gary Franks, United States Representative.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, United States Representative.
Henry Bonilla, United States Representative (in gun-toting, Mexican-hating, cousin-humping Texas, no less).
Richard Pombo, United States Representative (which bit us in the ass).
Jay Kim, United States Representative.
Patricia Saiki, United States Representative.

There are a couple others that come to mind that I’m not sure count as minorities (Turkish from Cuba?), don’t demonstrate stereotypical physical attributes of a given minority, or go back further in time than I can reasonably remember.

But, as we all know, the Republican Party must be {JesseJackson}racist{/JesseJackson}.
Derf's Irom August 19th, 2008
“You’d almost have to be Barbara Walters’ age to remember that far back”

She just came out with a book about it. Haven’t you heard?
tgirsch August 19th, 2008
Fred:

Nope, I’ve admittedly been living in a cave on that one. I had no idea about the Walters-Brooke connection. Anyway, bringing that up seems out of place, even for you. And I note that you haven’t apologized for your “civics class” remark, even though two of us have proven you wrong on that count.

gattsuru:

That’s all well and good, but Fred’s message concerned “black Republican senator[s]” in the modern era.

Now, I understand that your list was likely aimed at my earlier “nonwhite” remark, but again, the point isn’t that Republicans never elect non-whites, just that it’s exceedingly uncommon for them to do so. In truth, neither party is very good about electing minority candidates — minorities are significantly under-represented, especially in the Senate — but the Republicans are a lot worse.

A quick glance confirms this. If minorities were represented roughly in proportion to their share of the population, there would be 78 Hispanic representatives; 18 Hispanic senators; 52 African-American representatives; and 12 African-American senators. Instead, we have 26 Hispanic representatives (1/3 of what we should expect), of which only four are Republican; 3 Hispanic senators (1/6 of expected), only one of which is Republican; 42 African-American representatives (a surprisingly good 80% of expected, although two of these are non-voting members), none of which are Republican; and just one African-American senator, Obama.

As previously mentioned, only three African-American senators have ever been elected in the modern era, and two of these were Democrats from Illinois. The third was a “liberal Republican” from Massachusetts. In the House, it looks even worse for the Republicans: of 93 African-American representatives elected in the modern era, only three of these were Republicans, and one of those dates back to before the civil rights era, when the Republicans were the good guys on race and the Democrats were the bad guys. (Unfortunately, I don’t have good numbers on Hispanics.)

Looking at those numbers, it’s not hard to see why so many people think we’ve still got a long way to go, why the Republicans don’t have a good reputation with minorities, and why allegations of tokenism have teeth.
Ted August 19th, 2008
Time to ban fred again. He is in complete thread hijack mode. Little prick can’t contribute, so fuck him.
Derf's Irom August 19th, 2008
If you notice, Mr. Diversity, that all my posts were about picking a VP, the theme of the thread, until the racist comment by Shirt in comment #9. If you think I’m hijacking a thread, don’t respond to me.

I’m not surprised that an “open-minded” liberal would want to ban someone. As far as having intercourse with me, dream on, you pervert.
Ted August 19th, 2008
Fred, I want to ban you because you are an asshole. A sad, lonely, ignorant, asshole, who never contributes anything to this blog. Grownups try and have a conversation and you are shrieking from your highchair trying to get attention. There are plenty of blogs that would fit your style perfectly. This is not one of them. So why not just leave? Well, I know why. You derive pleasure from simply antagonizing people. Probably because you have never been able to do it in person, so you do it over the Internet. The people who work to produce Lean Left put a lot of effort into trying to provide a place for meaningful discussion. You continually abuse their patience with your childish crap. You have already been banned a couple of times - as far as I know the only person ever to be banned from the site. Think about that for a minute. You are the only one. It’s not everyone else. It’s you.
tgirsch August 19th, 2008
Well, that, and he’s trying to compensate for his tiny pee-pee.
Big U August 19th, 2008
tgirsch > just curious. I see the % but how does that tie into population density? i.e. with a large Hispanic population, one would expect several Hispanic representatives. However, if the bulk of Hispanic people live in only 4 or 5 border states, that would mean that even if they elected 100% Hispanics from those states, it is possible that the overall Hispanic population would be underrepresented due to the lack of any being elected in the other states.

Also, it is important to look at the financial where-with-all. From my understanding, it takes a lot of money to get elected so it would stand to reason that people with money or connections to money would get elected more often.
Ted August 19th, 2008
Big U, So how do those two factors explain the difference between the two parties?
tgirsch August 19th, 2008
Big U:

Your objection applies and makes sense with respect to the senate, but not so much with the House, since the latter is proportional to the population. Indeed, in the house, the problem would be worse if their populations were more evenly distributed: there simply wouldn’t be enough to make up a majority in most places where they live, so they don’t get anyone elected at all.

And yes, it’s true that whites (in the US, at least) make up a disproportionate share of those wealthy enough to even consider a successful run for federal office.

I’ve suggested fixing this problem by banning outside contributions — all of the money you raise would have to come from within the district you’re running to represent.
Ted August 19th, 2008
Big U and Dan M, you owe me a comment on VP selections. No more off-topic posts allowed unless you meet the minimum criterion of addressing the post topic first. There’s a new sheriff in town!
Big U August 19th, 2008
hehehe. okay Ted, here goes….who would work if McCain gets elected? (there. obligatory thread-related comment supplied)

Ted - re: why the disparity in parties - one example I would use is this (feel free to tell me if I’m wrong): California is very heavily Democtrat from what I understand.

My understanding is that a significant portion of the voters and people running for office there are non-white. So if the Democrats sweep California, even if the Republicans ran a slate of 100% non-whites, none would get elected. That is not a reflection of the party’s willingness or intention to run minorities but rather a reflection of what party has been elected.

Then take a look at North and South Dakota. Both parties run slates of only white people but the Republicans sweep those states. When they get to the capitol, it looks like Republicans only run white candidates while Democrats only run non-whites.

For a true reflection of parties’ intentions, it would make more sense to see a breakdown of what each party ran in every spot.

The reason I bring that up is that here in Canada, it was discovered that the party that was viewed as being racist and anti-woman actually ran more minority candidates and more women candidates than the other parties. However, due to excellent campaigns painting the party as racist and anti-woman, very few of those candidates got elected. Once it was discovered that the party was not racist or anti-woman, several more minorities and women were elected to represent them in the next election.

Now back on track, I think appointing Hillary as a VP would be a horrendous mistake and would completely obliterate any chance for Obama to run a second campaign. From what I have seen, Hillary is not willing to happily run second to anyone for any length of time.
tgirsch August 19th, 2008
Big U:

I think you overstate the importance of California. At least with African-Americans, the highest concentrations (as a percentage of total population) aren’t in the big states; they’re in the heavily-Republican deep south (e.g. Mississippi, Alabama, etc.). Which again brings up the whole Southern strategy, the racial resentment and baggage, yada yada.

For an example of how the party politics work here with respect to race, you need look no further than the primaries. The Democratic primaries included a woman (Clinton), and African-American (Obama), and a Hispanic-American (Richardson), and two of those three were front-runners. The Republican primaries? ¡Solamente los gringos!
tgirsch August 19th, 2008
Now, to be fair, there is a not-directly-racially-motivated reason why minority candidates tend to be overwhelmingly Democratic. It’s about demographics. Minorities overwhelmingly tend to live in urban areas, and urban areas tend to have strong Democratic preferences. In rural and suburban areas, they tend to be more suburban, but the populations of those areas is generally quite homogeneous. I’m not entirely sure which is the chicken and which is the egg here.

In Canada, from my experience, it’s a lot different. The population of Canada is much more urbanized than that of the United States — that is, if you look at the percentage of the population that lives in a major city or other high-population-density area, that percentage is much higher in Canada than in the United States.
gattsuru August 19th, 2008
Five Hispanic Senators and ~40 Hispanic representatives since 1950. Of those, one Senator and seven representatives were Republican when elected (and another was elected Democrat, tried to move Republican, didn’t keep enough Dem support after the switch).

As others have tried to point out, a lot of the issue is demographics. There have been a lot of African-Americans trying to get a foothold in the Republican party, but running as a Republican in Dayton, Ohio’s local elections is just not going to work. The Republican Party hasn’t done well among minority voters since the Great Depression (yes, a whole two decades after Wilson decided segregation was a wonderful idea), and most of the places where it has done well are among minorities fleeing communist or socialist states. As a result, any place with a high concentration of most minority groups is statistically rather unlikely to get a Republican minority individual into politics.

There are other some… other disincentives. Republican minority candidates are a lot more vulnerable to a lot of rather nasty tricks. Gary Franks lost his position not do a better opponent or changing political tides, but mostly due to a series of advertisements that (afaik) had little factual background. You don’t need to be a real inner-city slumlord for accusations of such to be damaging, especially to someone already accused of not paying attention to inner-city folk. Most of the people I’ve listed have been accused of being a “banana”, “oreo”, or other racial slur that boils down to “white on the inside”, regardless of how those individuals actually vote. It might seem odd, but those accusations can hurt you even with Republicans; conservatism lends itself toward them.
gattsuru August 19th, 2008
I think you’re overstating the South. It’s hard for a Republican to win without it, but the place is a bit more complicated than you’re giving it credit for.

To take Alabama as an example (albeit not a good one– the place isn’t worth many electoral college votes), the state isn’t heavily Republican. Federally, it sure as hell votes that way, but the state government leans Democratic 85-55 between both the House and Senate. Thanks to the idiocy that was the racist FHA’s effective redlining plans (who the hell sees a government list saying “racially inharmonious neighborhoods” and things that’s a good idea?), the internal demographics are a mess, as well.

I’m not good enough at math to break down the statistics, here, but I can give you a pretty good guess that some of those districts don’t even have Republicans running.
gattsuru August 19th, 2008
Biden is out, it appears.

Please not Kaine, please not Kaine. I can do without seeing Krusty the Clown as a serious Democratic contender.
Ted August 19th, 2008
Biden was joking. I’m not saying he’s the pick, but I’d like him to be.
tgirsch August 19th, 2008
As others have tried to point out, a lot of the issue is demographics.

Hell, I tried to point that out, right up there in comment #31.

Most of the people I’ve listed have been accused of being a “banana”, “oreo”, or other racial slur that boils down to “white on the inside”, regardless of how those individuals actually vote.

The same type of thing exists on the Democratic side. And as we (re)learned here in Memphis during the Democratic primary, white people don’t have a monopoly on racism by any stretch. Cohen was accused of all manner of nasty things because he’s white and Jewish in a majority African-American district. This despite the fact that he had a much better voting record on African-American issues than did his African-American predecessor.

Federally, it sure as hell votes that way, but [Alabama] government leans Democratic 85-55 between both the House and Senate.

Well, there are a lot of “blue dog” Democrats in Alabama still. Being an Alabama Democrat is rather like being a Massachusetts Republican.

As for Biden, I’m not sure I’d accept him at his word on that. I agree about “not Kaine,” though. Also not Bayh.
digglahhh August 20th, 2008
Let’s take a look at a random inclusion on Gatt’s list, Lincoln Diaz Balert.

1. He looks white as Opie.

2. He’s the son of a famous Cuban politican.

3. Said famous Cuban politician was famous for early and emphatic opposition of Castro. In fact, his father, Rafael, founded the first anti-Castro organization. Catro was his brother-in-law btw.

4. Lincoln, in his last four elections defeated another Hispanic - a Hispanic Libertarian at that, and ran unopposed the other two times.

So, we have an Anglo-looking Cuban with strong anti-Castro ties who ran unopposed in the two of the last four elections occupying a seat representing the Southernmost coastal district of Florida.

The proportional representation data shows that trying to list elected minority Republican candidates is a pretty rickety hat rack. And, an examination of the hats you intend to hang shows they’re more like visors…

(Offers unsolicited confession of guilt to any potential investigating members of the analogy police)
Ted August 20th, 2008
Huffpo reads tea leaves to say it might be Bayh. Please, please, don’t let it be Bayh. Please.
tgirsch August 20th, 2008
Well, it wouldn’t be the first Democrat to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory…
Dan M. August 20th, 2008
So, my comment about Kucinich wasn’t enough?

I also think Wes Clark’d be nice, since Obama could then happily tell the right-wing blowhards to take their nationalism and shove it. Other than being military, he seems to be solidly progressive and damned smart.

It’d be kinda nice to suspect that both Pres and VP are smarter than me for once.
Ted August 20th, 2008
I would like to see Clark have a position in Obama’s administration for sure. And I won’t be disappointed if he is the VP pick, but it’s pretty much a lock that he is not based on recent events. At a minimum, would like to see either Clark, Powell, or Webb in a cabinet position. Two of three would be good. SOS, SOD maybe. Pull in Hillary as HHS and make it the health care czar position. Biden as VP. Richardson too - maybe head up DHS (and oversee splitting it back up into meaningful departments and not the mishmash of gridlock it is now). Now we are talking a heavyweight team. AG will be a challenge. Need someone to restore integrity to a badly crippled organization. Any suggestions for this slot? Downside to all this is a lot of talent is getting pulled out of Congress…
tgirsch August 20th, 2008
Well, until very recently, I would have suggested Edwards for AG. Hell, he’d still be an improvement over our last few…
Ted August 21st, 2008
Yes, that occured to me too.
Ted August 21st, 2008
Reports out that Mitt is McCain’s pick. There goes the religious right. Not to Obama, but to sit this one out.

I’ll say this, between McCain, Mitt, and Obama, there probably isn’t a single major issue that at least one of them has changed sides on in the last couple of years..
Big U August 22nd, 2008
Ted: Do you mean “has” or “has not”??
Ted August 22nd, 2008
has not. sorry.
Ted August 22nd, 2008
So, Biden is out, then not. Bayh is in, then out. Kaine is on, then out. And Clinton was never even vetted.

I’ll say it’s 85% Biden, and if he’s the pick, I’m happy. We will find out in about 12 hours.
Big U August 22nd, 2008
I hear it’s Bayh. Let’s see if the Canadian’s sources know what they are talking about. :-)(posted 10:30 eastern time)
Ted August 23rd, 2008
It’s Biden. 99% sure. Leak is out 1:30 AM Saturday.
Dan M. August 23rd, 2008
Um, doesn’t look like it, BU:
http://news.google.com/news?client=opera&rls=en&q=obama+vice+president&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title
Big U August 23rd, 2008
hehehe. Now you see why I don’t bet.
Ted August 23rd, 2008
Based on my prescient analysis in this thread, MSNBC has just offered me a prime-time show in the slot following Rachel Maddow. It is expected to run until McCain picks his VP, then it will have to be canceled.