All Posts Tagged With: "VP candidates"

Thanks to Diogenes the Dog for writing this thoughtful and comprehensive piece on Delaware Senator Joe Biden for this second post in our series “Urbanagora Vets.”

I have to admit, though I tried to get a sense of all the candidates late last year, Joe Biden was not a major blip on my radar, nor, apparently, on that of most Iowans, claiming 1% of the vote. That said, I think he’s as good a pick as any deserving of serious consideration, though I admit that is not a stirring endorsement. With nothing much to go on and having precious little else to do, the media is speculating wildly about who is going to get the number two slot, leading to a lot of pro and con arguments on the flimsiest of pretexts. As such, I hope to present some of those arguments and then sort out which ones I believe hold some weight and which are utter bullshit.

PRO:

As the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden brings some international kun-fu to the ticket. His long record of public service, a thirty-five year career in the US Senate, helps to counter Obama’s image as inexperienced. Born in Scranton, PA, he offers to help in a critical swing state. He’s also an old white guy which might make those slightly xenophobic white males in the party a little more comfortable with Obama. In addition, he has been an outspoken critic of the Republican party in general and John McCain in specific. Plus, he’s Catholic, a demographic Obama has struggled with.

CON:

Biden is old, and at sixty-five years of age he doesn’t help bolster the youth and energy that has come to characterize Obama’s campaign. He’s from Delaware, which is worth a whopping three electoral votes and Obama’s going to get those anyway. Also, thirty-five years in the Senate does more to conjure up thoughts of the status quo rather than “change.” He’s sought the nomination twice, in 1988 and 2008, neither of which were stellar runs. In addition, he’s a senator, making the ticket two senators and yielding a grand total of zero executive experience. There’s also the potential for old skeletons to come back. And to top it all off, Biden doesn’t want it.

ANALYSIS:

The foreign policy mojo is good stuff, and I think Biden’s age and experience are both good qualities. Sixty-five isn’t all that old in politics, especially when the opposition is McCain, and Obama’s youth seems indelible. Ultimately this is a contradiction anyone pushing for change is going to run into. Either you’re too new to the game to have enough experience or you’re too entrenched in the system to have an credibility to be convincing when you say you want change. All things considered, I don’t think it’s a big deal.

As far as Pennsylvania is concerned, I have long said, and maintain, that barring some massive fuck-up, the state is Obama’s to lose and the latest RealClearPolitics numbers have Obama up by an average of 7.7%. It’s a long way to November, but I think he’ll ultimately carry the state. Besides Biden left the state when he was 10. But then pundits are treating geography like the holy grail where VP’s help in states they lived in when they were 3. As far as I’m concerned, if you’re the popular elected official from a given state, you can be a plus. Otherwise, it’s rubbish.

Where white males are concerned, it doesn’t matter what Obama does. He is going to lose that demographic. No Democratic presidential candidate has won that demographic group since 1964 when LBJ stomped Barry Goldwater, 486 electoral votes to 52. On the Catholic angle, he could be an asset. McCain is a Baptist and it seems unlikely, looking at the names being touted, that he will pick a Catholic for his running mate. That puts Biden in a good position to pick up some Catholic votes just by showing up. And since a lot of Latinos are also Catholic, there’s the possibility that Biden could offer in-roads there as well, Biden having the added bonus of hiring Luis Navarro as his presidential campaign manager. Navarro is one of three Latinos to hold his position in US history.

Side note: The other two were Patty Solis Doyle on Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Sergio Bendixen, who was the first Latino campaign manager. He ran Alan Cranston’s 1984 campaign. Just in case it comes up the next time you play Trivial Pursuit.

I think Biden’s ability to be an attack dog is a solid plus. A VP needs to be able to get out there and get his hands dirty so that the head of the ticket can talk about plans and ideals. Dick Cheney’s been a model of this kind of strategy. For example, George W. Bush never said “Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons.” He said Hussein might have them, might get them, wants to get them, will have them really really soon, etc, but it was Cheney took care of saying that Iraq already had nukes. If it’s a gigantic whopper of a lie, it’s Cheney’s ball to run with. But I digress.

Obama has shown no real aptitude at attacking his opponents. Then again, his only major opponent up until now was Alan Keyes, and attacking Alan Keyes in that race would have been like kicking a puppy. A bat-shit crazy puppy, but still a puppy. Biden could easily fill that role on the campaign trail. The only caveat would be his stamina, which I can’t vouch for. And overall he’s good at it. It was Biden who came up with the Giuliani line, “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb, and 9/11.” And he hit hard against Bush for the whole appeasement comment.

The issue of executive experience could be a factor, although McCain may face similar criticism assuming he doesn’t pick a former governor as VP. Ultimately, Obama’s going to get his with that one no matter what and saying, “My second has some executive experience,” isn’t going to immunize him.

As to whether or not Biden wants the job, there is some question about that. He has said in the past that he has no intention of seeking the position. However, he has not been as strident in his denials as Jim Webb, who has flat out refused to be considered. Asked by Brian Williams on Meet the Press, Biden said, “If the presidential nominee thought that I could help him win, I’m [not] going to say to the first African-American candidate about to make history in the world, no, I will not help you … Of course I’ll say yes.”

Biden has a few old skeletons in his closet, but nothing new. He dropped out of the 1988 nomination race in September of 1987 amid accusations from the Dukakis campaign that he had plagiarized sections of various speeches, including one major piece from British politician Neal Kinnock. His college transcripts were also trotted out, highlighting an F he received for plagiarizing a paper in law school. That said, I doubt that twenty year-old plagiarism will hurt him all that much without something recent to back it up. He has a tendency to shoot his mouth off, which can be to ill-effect. There was, for instance, the time he said of Obama, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” But so far there’s been nothing truly damning.

On the whole, I think Biden’s a good choice, but not a great one. He’s not the magical solution to all of Obama’s problems that everyone seems to be looking for, but then no one out there is. Geographically he does nothing for the campaign. In the end, it’s all down to what the chemistry is like between Biden and Obama.

Marks out of ten, I’d give him six and a half, maybe seven.

Many times the argument for a particular vice president is made on the basis that he has broad appeal. Joseph Lieberman was chosen by Al Gore in 2000 because of his broad centrist appeal. However (I enjoy beginning sentences with “However,” because I think semicolons are pompous and “Nevertheless” is not a precise synonym :), Lieberman’s home state of Connecticut is not crucial in the electoral college. Gore should have chosen a vice president that would have pushed him over the electoral edge in a crucial state…Florida, for instance.

The impact that a VP candidate has appears to be minimal in most, if not all, elections. The media builds up the importance of the VP selection process, but when the final November round arrives the bout is between the guys in the ring, not the trainers in their corner (that’s a rather annoying analogy :). Given that the impact of a VP is minimal, if you diffuse that impact across 50 states then you can expect a slight effect in the popular vote, but no effect in the electoral vote. Instead, VP candidates should be chosen on the basis of one criteria: Whether they change the electoral vote in one key state. If you concentrate the minimal impact of VP candidates in one state then you could magnify their importance via the anachronistic follies of the electoral college.

It is possible that picking an all-star VP like Hillary, could disprove my theory. But if McCain and Obama are to listen to the trite wisdom of never picking a VP that could outshine the Presidential candidate, then this would be a rare exception. I cannot think of a VP candidate who has been so bright that his radiance blinds the audience as to the virtues of the Presidential candidate. Regardless, it would be a mistake to pick Hillary because she would not have a concentrated impact in an electorally significant state. The state she would help with the most, New York, is already out of McCain’s grasp.

This is free advice to the campaigns of McCain and Obama. Pinpoint one electorally crucial state and find a candidate who can help you win it. Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania (I am anti-serial commas, join the revolution) are good options to choose from. Ignore everything else.

This is a post from a law school friend of mine, Craig “Mr. Stallion” Kline. He has contributed to Urbanagora before and is an occasional commenter. He has bold predictions on many subjects and he believes himself to be infallible.

Edwards will endorse HRC

Everyone pretty much knows this by now. As much as it is now easy to hate Edwards, he still does matter. Not as much as Gore, contrary to what Edwards said on Colbert, but nearly as much because of how important North Carolina will be. A timely Edwards endorsement will give HRC a substantial bump. Commentators are correctly noting that Edwards was not favored to win NC before he dropped out, and his presence on the ticket didn’t propel Kerry to victory in NC in 2004. Fair points. But this primary is different than both of those races, because of who the undecided voters are. The undecided voters are moderate ‘Reagan democrats’ and working class white males. Edwards does well with these demographics.

Edwards alone won’t be enough to propel HRC to victory in NC. Even with a victory in PA, the margin should still favor Obama in the high single digits. It seems HRC will need something more- an Iran attack, or another Wright-Ayers montage- to close the gap in NC.

McCain will pick Romney as VP

McCain’s campaign manager works for a company owned by Mark fucking Penn. When HRC wins the general, hopefully you will all understand the manipulation.

Romney’s ascension to the McCain ticket will be of great value for HRC, and be a lot of trouble for Obama. First off, Romney will paint the west red, locking up a large number of Obama’s western states up for the Republicans. Colorado is the most important of the swing states in contention between an Obama ticket and McCain ticket. It will also help put Arizona out of Obama’s grasp. The nation might not follow Utah, but much of the West actually does, as Mormonism is exploding in some neighboring states.

Romney is an attack dog, who is all-of-the-sudden a media darling, certain to get preferential treatment. Poppy Bush and Karl Rove have made it clear to McCain that Romney is their guy– and of course, both Bush and Rove want HRC in the White House.

As HRC said herself “it took one Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, it will take another Clinton to clean up after the second.” Poppy and Rove need some pardons and some cover ups, and it worked before. Also…Poppy and Rove ain’t so hot on giving up Gitmo, Iraq, NSA surveillance, etc.

Party Split: 60 % Democrat, 40% Republican

When conducting polls, a polling company must ensure that its sample is random. It is rather contradictory to ensure the randomness of anything, because of course this means subjecting the sample set to a number of criteria, which if the sample set does not pass, it is rejected as an insufficiently random sample. Therefore a filter operates negatively to select only certain samples as “random.”

What is meant by “random.” Statistical randomness means conformity to the ‘normal curve’ distribution within a %5 margin of error. So a sample set of voters will be tested on a number of parameters; party, age, gender: and the sample will be rejected if the data regarding party split, age, and gender is not ‘randomly distributed along the normal curve.’

Normally it is a simple matter to determine what the normal distribution of age, gender, and party split are: one simply uses US Census information about national averages over the past five years. This is what all the major polls do, and it is standard operating procedure.

But for this election cycle, five year averages for party split data are wildly inaccurate compared to all other proxy measures of the party split parameter. Since 2005, the United States has undergone a wild, historic, record smashing explosion of the left, while the Republicans have receded badly. There are many reasons to suspect that the party split data from 2003 and 2004 is irrelevant and inconsistent with the current state of political affairs.

Consider: the democrats are crushing the Republicans in fundraising, more than 2-to-1, the primary turnout for democrats has shattered every record, beating Republicans 2-to-1 (even back when both nominations were contested, and open primaries for both parties were held at the same time), democrats are dominating the advertising cycle, spending more than 2-to-1, and receiving a similar percentage of media coverage.

In Congress, Democrats are expected to make huge gains, climbing to 60 Senators and overwhelming the house. Besides Louisiana, the Republicans are unlikely to pick up a congressional seat anywhere in the country. Thats not hyperbole, that is the consensus projections at present.

Once the Democrats have chosen a nominee, and once Gore brings both his popularity and global warming initiative into the fold: we are looking at a 1964 type landslide.

Florida and Michigan

Both States will be seated, as Obama now readily concedes. The Credentials Committee is chaired by 3 close friends of the Clintons. Simply because they voted to strip the delegates before, does not mean that they will vote to strip the delegates again. The reason for this seemingly contradictory logic, is because when the first vote took place [in the Rules Committee, not the Credentials Committee which had not yet been formed], there was a great deal of discussion about how the delegates would only be stripped leading up to the convention, and would not [by this vote] by stripped at the convention. At the time of the first vote, the DNC people knew perfectly well that the Credentials Committee would be in charge of how to handle the delegate situation should it really matter: which could only happen if the race was very close and going to convention.

It should be noted, that senior persons in the parties and government knew all along that both Florida and Michigan would be seated, as did both the Obama and Clinton camps. Everyone anticipated a convention as early as January, and at that point the Michigan and Florida fate had already been sealed.

The delegates will be seated, but probably with a %50 penalty akin to what the Republicans did.

The %50 of the delegates seated will also probably be based half on the actual primaries they conducted, and half on the total popular vote of the rest of the primaries and caucuses. Iowa and the 3 other caucuses that do not tally individual voters will probably be accounted for with some sort of proxy. The popular vote from the primaries will likely count in full.

The Nomination will go to Convention

Both the Obama and Clinton camps released projections from before the Iowa Caucus, and it revealed something important: they both anticipated battling long through February 5 and into April. Both camps had projections that closely matched what has happened, and infact both camps had projected 11 straight for Obama in February.

Some in the media commented on these projections when they were released, which was right before March 4^th. Most of the media continued promoting the lie that “no one saw this coming,” and that HRC had underestimated Obama.

Similarly, the media promotes the lie that the party leaders are going to step in and force a superdelegate vote or a “convention-before-the-convention” in July. That is not going to happen.

Conventions were designed for issues for Florida and Michigan. Or more likely, the Florida and Michigan issue was designed for a convention. If you think HRC is going to forfeit Michigan and Florida…and in doing so forfeit her claim to the popular vote which will critical depend on how Florida and Michigan are counted…then you are in for an unpleasant re-aquantance with who the Clintons are.

Furthermore, it has been obvious for some time that the superdelegates who have not yet sided with Obama are, largely, holding out for Clinton. Pelosi, Richardson and Dean have called repeatedly, and now Dean has nearly demanded, that superdelegates pick sides to wrap the nomination up. Obama currently leads in everything, even counting Michigan and Florida: delegates, states, and the popular vote. If the supers want to hand him the nomination now, they could. It would be over. HRC would have to drop out, because it would be over, Obama could have the 2025. She would have no chance to run up vote totals in the remaining States in order to de-ligitimize Obama: instead the party would rally to their nominee.

HRC’s only chance to win the popular vote, is if the superdelegate remain undecided even after being demanded to chose by Dean. They will remain undecided.

I was wrong to say Obama currently leads in everything. He still trails in superdelegates, and that should conspicuously stand out to observers. What the hell are they waiting for.

HRC will win the Popular Vote

Of course this won’t be determined officially until the Convention. The Florida and Michigan primary votes will count in full toward the national popular vote. There is absolutely no reason to not count the votes. Only the delegates were ever sanctioned: the DNC never sanctioned the vote, nor rendered it invalid by their own laws and regulations. The DNC currently recognizes the Florida and Michigan votes, as Dean told legislators from Michigan when the topic was discussed. There is no reason this will change, and infact, it would be illegal to not count the votes. No party official ever said that the vote would not count, regardless of how many Clinton people were trying to get black people to not vote in Michigan (unless of course that fraud can be proven).

So with the Michigan and Florida in the mix, HRC would trail by about 300,000. HRC will probably concede a vote count for Iowa and the 3 other caucuses, even though the count will have to be estimated since those states do not keep exact figures of how many individuals participated in their caucus. Such a likely concession would bump Obama’s lead back up to about 350,000.

A 10% victory in PA will bring that lead down to zero. Four million voters are expected in the Pennsylvania primary, a historic showing that HRC will argue was a “national primary.” She’s wrong, of course, PA is a rather quirky state of Germans and small towners, but the effect of Pennsylvania will greatly change the nature of the national popular vote race.

With the national popular vote evened up, or close to it, HRC will put forward the popular vote argument and the battle lines will become clear. Obama only has a chance in three remaining primaries: NC, Indiana, and Oregon. He should win two, but he needs all three, and he needs big wins.

The Edwards endorsement will hurt him in NC, but he should have enough to win big. Nearly 2M voters are expected in NC, and perhaps even more will rally to Obama if they realize he is in trouble. A 10% margin of victory should net Obama 200,000 +.

But that same day, Obama needs to win Indiana. He doesn’t need to win it big, but he does need to win it. Indiana is expected to have a large turnout as well, certainly over a million voters. Despite two recent polls, HRC is expected to win Indiana. The only polls that show Obama doing well, are those with a very high percentage of ‘undecideds’. As with the superdelegates, most of the undecideds are against Obama, and only undecided of whether to support Clinton, McCain, or not to vote. The exit polls of all the recent primaries have demonstrated this, as the late breaking vote goes to Clinton regularly.

West Virginia will not be kind to Obama. If he fails to win Indiana, his NC lead will be whipped out by the combination of WV and Indiana. Similarly, Kentucky will not be kind to Obama. Obama must run up a huge victory in Oregon and the two other northwest States to balance out Kentucky.

Some may suggest that Obama will compete in Puerto Rico, but that is a fantasy. The Clintons are wildly popular in Puerto Rico, and they now have friends running the powerful party structures in the Commonwealth. Puerto Rico’s recent switch from a caucus to a primary is horrible news for Obama, and if the “you shouldn’t change the rules half way through the race” argument is used, it should be used to contest the Puerto Rico primary: not the Florida and Michigan primaries, which as I have said before, are legally valid.

Even without further damage to Obama from political developments– a near certain conflict with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, and further character assassination– HRC is projected to win the popular vote, as a number of commentators have already observed.

A Crazy Convention will nominate HRC

It is hard to imagine what the narrative will be at this point, but if I know one thing, it is that the establishment does not like to give up its ownership of empires.

For example, in 1968, the most obvious comparison to this year, Bobby was leading a revolution of young voters quite akin to Obamarama. Bobby opposed the Vietnam war, and wanted to shake up Washington with a new kind of politics. Not only did the establishment gun down Bobby, but then they insighted violence with agent provocateurs at the Chicago Convention, and gave the world President Richard Nixon. After the liberals had scared the establishment with JFK and Bobby, the establishment struck back with Nixon and Kent State. Nixon immediately put Bush Sr. in the White House, quickly promoted to head of CIA. And that’s pretty much where we have been ever since…with the brief theatre of fake liberals Carter and Clinton.

In 2000, Bush stole the election with the cooperation of the establishment. In 2004, Bush stole it again. The systematic manipulation of the election through corporations like American Intelligence Group, ChoicePoint, and Diebold is blatant. Choicepoint was 95% incorrect when identifying suspected felons, and supplemental ballots were oftentimes not distributed in violation of standard operation procedure.

To think that the establishment will just roll over and watch Obamarama shut down Gitmo, prosecute criminals in the Bush administration, leave Iraq, repeal Bush’s executive orders, talk with Iran, and all the much wilder things he has said in the more distant past (pursuing reparations, decriminalizing marijuanna, releasing non-violent drug offenders), is insane.

Many youngsters who have no experience in real politics think that this nomination process has been historically contentious. That is a misunderstanding. The democratic nomination process has been mild compared to contests of similar length and importance. Bush treated McCain mush worse. Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy were slandered way more. Ditto McGovern, not to mention JFK and Bobby.

Gore, Kerry, and Clinton were all Bush tools not worthy to mention (more on Gore in a bit). Threats to the Prescott Bush dynasty, that has ruled since JFK was shot, are met with extreme obstacles.

Obama has not yet overcome those obstacles.

Al Gore will endorse HRC after the Convention

Or at the Convention. There is a lie that the MSM spreads, that Gore and the Clintons had a falling out. They say that either Gore chaffed at HRC’s audacity, or that he was upset with Bill for not supporting him the right way leading up to the 2000 election. Of course the reality is that Bill was not very popular at the time, and Gore’s advisors, including Wolfson and the Clintons themselves, had carefully crafted his distance from Bill.

Gore used this ‘distancing’ to remain ‘neutral’ in the run up to the 2008 presidential campaign. Gore has never been neutral, not in 1992, 1996, 2000, or 2004. He is not neutral now. But in order to win a Noble Prize in the best light possible, he had to ‘depoliticize’ himself. Of course this process of de-politicization has only worked in the eyes of the young: who are oftentimes completely uncritical of the global warming movement. Many older Republicans see Gore as he is: a highly partisan, Clinton crony, who is pushing a well-financed propaganda campaign for the European neo-liberals. These Republicans are not subjected to the same comprehensive propaganda that the young are: especially since the global warming propaganda is heavily academic. Those who refuse to acknowledge that the (Bush led) CIA infiltrates American Universities, will also refuse to acknowledge that global warming campaigns are propaganda. But it suffices to name who leads the international global warming initiatives: Maurice Strong, Etienne Davignon, David de Rothschild, as well as General Electric, General Motors, Ford, British Petrolium, Lehman Brothers, and Dupont (Climate Action Partnership).

Unfortunately, Americans are very gullible, and without examining the science or knowing how to interpret linear regressions, they are anxious for a global carbon tax or a cap and trade system that will allow global body, possibly under the auspicies of the WTO, to regulate global carbon consumption.

Even if such a global body were completely staffed by Obamas and Kennedies, the group itself would be targeted for capture by the Bush/Rockefeller people, and the resulting control would ruin our prospects for increased liberty. Global carbon control is a nightmare. The only reasonable comparison is OPEC, which has obviously been a great detrimental to world wealth.

Obama will accept the VP

The media has constantly hyped up the conflict between Obama and the Clintons, when it is actually fairly mild. Bill mentioned the name “Jesse Jackson,” an excellent and very real candidate in 1986 by the way, and the media wants us to believe there was a huge racial flap. Obviously, the race issue was going to run its course somehow. Similarly, the name Hussein Obama, in conjuncture with growing up in a Muslim country, automatically inspired the secret Muslim rumors. Those were issues certain to emerge, and they were dealt with in a relatively mature fashion by all parties and the electorate.

Don’t get me wrong, the Clintons are scum. They were involved in Iran Contra, the genocide in Kosovo, the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Haiti, and pander to the Bilderbergers. But if you think that the worst thing the Clintons will do is encourage rumors about his name, or race bait, or comment on his verbal slip ups and associations; then you are underestimating how awful the Clintons are, how awful the Bush people who need cover ups and pardons are, how awful the fake democrats are, and how important this election is to the establishment.

The media will constantly play up the idea that the party is in danger of being divided. It will cite the polls that show McCain close in the general, using 5 year party split data. This will build a narrative that Obama needs to accept the VP in order to save the Democrats and ensure a public mandate for change in 2008.

He will lose some die hard supporters that hate HRC, but his legend will only be further augmented by “saving the party” in accepting the VP.