Democratic VP Sweepstakes

Ever since Barak Obama made a few foot in mouth moments a few weeks ago, the feeling around the country is that Hillary Clinton is steadily solidifying her base and will secure the Democratic nomination. Granted, major gaffes are still possible to open doors for other candidates, but most of the Democratic field has been hurting themselves in one way or another, leaving Ms. Clinton in the dominant power position.

As such, talk among political activists has started to turn from who will win the Democratic nomination to who will Ms. Clinton choose as her running mate. Many pundits have argued that Ms. Clinton should take Mr. Obama as her running mate. A little while ago that might have seemed like a good idea, but his recent mistakes have made him appear to be a political lightweight. His other attributes are of no need to Ms. Clinton. She already has good inroads with the African-American community through her husband and the Democratic candidate is probably going to win Illinois anyway so there is no need to bring in the senator from that state. Ms. Clinton having been raised in Illinois doesn’t hurt her chances in that state as well.

So, who does that leave? There are several choices being bantered about right now. The first is to take a strong southern Democrat. No Democratic ticket has won without a southerner since 1944 and one could make arguments that Truman would have qualified as a southerner being from Missouri (a border state). The problem with this is that there are no real strong southern Democrats. Most have been wiped out by the relentless Republican attacks to strengthen their base. Probably the only viable candidate is Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia and he is unlikely to buy Ms. Clinton much outside of Virginia. Indeed, even his selection might not be enough to carry Virginia into the Democratic column.

Option two would be to take another also ran: Bill Richardson of New Mexico. This would probably swing New Mexico back into the Democratic column and make some strong inroads into the Hispanic community. Conversely, Mr. Richardson has had some personal scandals that have hurt him lately. He also is not overly popular with the strongly liberal set as he is a bit more to the center than other candidates (with exceptions in immigration and health care). But probably the biggest problem is that Hispanics do not vote in large blocks the way African-American voters do. So picking a Hispanic candidate does not motivate large groups to your side the way other constituencies would. Plus, the option of a Hispanic over an African-American might alienate large percentages of the African-American block, leading them to abstain or vote third party (possibly even Republican in some critical areas).

Option three would be former governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa. Iowa narrowly went Republican last election and Mr. Vilsack is very popular there. In addition to Iowa, the selection of an upper Midwest governor might enable the Democrats to secure their sagging flanks in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Wisconsin almost went Republican in 2004 and there have been strong rumors that only voter fraud is what prevented it from swinging. There are additional rumors that if Mr. Kerry had challenged the Ohio vote, Mr. Bush would have challenged Wisconsin, undermining Mr. Kerry’s attack. Even Minnesota did not vote as heavily Democratic as it has in the past and the Republicans are hosting their convention in Minneapolis (under the auspices of a Republican governor who is considered to be a strong VP choice). The selection of Mr. Vilsack might help secure these three states and give the Democrats additional play in the plain states.

Option four would be to try for a magic bullet. If the Democrats can hold the states that Mr. Kerry won in 2004, Ms. Clinton would only need 18 electoral votes to win. This means that her primary focus of attack is going to be Ohio and Florida. Florida has a lot of former New York residents (to say nothing of elderly people) who might be strongly influenced by Ms. Clinton’s populist message. The selection of a Florida Democrat as VP might swing the state just enough to the Democratic side.

Ohio is an even better target though than Florida. The victory margin for Mr. Bush was quite narrow in 2004 and voters threw out the corrupt Republican regime wholesale in 2006. Ohio has a strong potential to trend Democrat, especially if Ms. Clinton can make any hay out of job losses that have hit the state. She also could try to select an Ohio politician to secure it. But, like Florida and most of the south, there aren’t many strong Democrats to choose from. If he hadn’t just been elected a year ago, Gov. Strickland might have been a good choice. But he and all the other Democrats in power are a bit wet behind the ears for a VP slot.

Out of all the options, I think Mr. Vilsack is probably the best choice. He will secure Iowa (bringing 7 electoral votes back into the Democratic column) and should help offset Democratic weakness in the Midwest. With that, Ms. Clinton can march around to secure the states that Mr. Kerry won and then pour every last dollar and ounce of strength she has to spare into taking either Florida or Ohio (I’m betting Ohio will take the principle focus). Only if she is facing Mr. Giuliani will she have to worry about any flack in New York or Michigan. Most other Republican candidates will not fare too well up in those areas.

So the board is set and the opening moves are just about over for the Democrats, barring a nasty surprise. Thus we move into the VP sweepstakes and then the full game.