Should we elect the VP nominee?

some history (4.00 / 2)

Originally the second-place finisher for President was made Vice President. That idea was abandoned very, very quickly: watching the Veep undermining the President in preparation for an upcoming challenge (a la Vice President Jefferson) convinced people it didn't work well.

We have had the ability to vote for Vice President during the primaries. Some people have run serious campaigns - Chub Peabody did decades ago. Others have run vanity campaigns. Nobody paid any attention in either case.

Electing the Veep means:

1. We could have the President and Veep from different parties
2. We would have a new group of candidates raising and spending tens of millions on a national campaign
3. Veeps may oppose the President's program in the Senate
4. If the President leaves office we may get a dramatic change in policy, cabinet, and judicial nominations
5. Vice Presidential debates with (for example) Social Security proposals that may be completely independent of what the Presidential candidates support

Would this crop of candidates be winnowed in a primary? If so, would it be after the Presidential choice was decided - allowing a Clinton or Biden to run - or not?

---

by: elwood @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:14:30 AM CDT

Potent analysis, Elwood (4.00 / 1)

I agree with every word.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:48:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excellent points (0.00 / 0)

Just to be clear, on point 1 --  I meant the Democratic VP nominee.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:32:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's an excellent question (4.00 / 1)

And an intriguing one. Why do we do it this way in MA anyway? Any ideas on that? Is it just constitutionally mandated?

I have to say that elwood posts some good cautionary points to consider, especially on the money piece. Obama has shown a new way of doing business that works for Democrats, but I would support any reforms that get more money out of the system first and foremost. Also, if you have a separate vote and a separate campaign don't you run the risk of candidates having opposed positions even if they're in the same party? Recent history shows that conventions did decide nominations, but now all of those choices are made well before the summer shows.  

Most elections back in the day were decided by the legislature because we didn't have a two-party system. Consequently no one really got a plurality and choosing the VP in this manner was always a compromise.

Did you hear Tim Murray's great opening joke when he used to stump with Patrick? He was the Mayor of Worcester and Patrick had the pedigree, Murray was more the street guy. So Murray used to open joint appearances by way of this introduction. "So now that you've heard from me about the lowest levels of government, let me introduce Deval Patrick so you can hear about the highest levels of government."

I didn't know you were a Masshole, a fellow Masshole. Deval's re-elect is going to be tough. Tough but good.  

---

by: mbair @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 14:13:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That it will (4.00 / 1)

I'm trying to think of an alternative for Masshole but I'm blanking ... around here I usually use flatlander in residence, which I didn't know you were. Greetings!

I'll be there for Deval in 2010; I sometimes wonder how many of his 2006 supporters will.

As for Tim Murray, I've had a soft spot for him ever since I saw him at the New Bedford Democratic breakfast. I was there to write about the lieutenant governor's race for my since-ended column. He was carrying his kid on his shoulder, while campaigning.

I'll bet the LG runs separately here because the U.S. Constitution draws heavily on the Mass. Constitution, and here we had no early bad experiences to change the practice.

The modern "run as a ticket" practice was Bill Weld's innovation. (Actually Paul Cellucci's, according to the rumor -- he allegedly told Weld that if he flipped on guns, and Cellucci would flip on choice, that they would win. That's just a rumor, and I may have the issues backwards, but it's a good rumor.)

---

by: JimC @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 15:29:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For what it is worth... (4.00 / 1)

Politicker polled some NH Democrats for our opinion, with these results:

The most interesting thing is while Biden received the most "Obama will pick" votes he received no "Obama should pick votes"

Obama Should Pick
Total Votes

Hillary Clinton  14

Evan Bayh  9

Bill Richardson  6

Kathleen Sebilius  4

John Kerry  2

Rahm Emanuel  1

Tom Daschle  1

Robert Rubin  1

I was in the "should pick Hillary Clinton" bloc.  

Energy and persistence conquer all things.

Benjamin Franklin

I'm a strategist for the NH Coordinated Campaign

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 21:09:24 PM CDT

That's a really interesting list n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: JimC @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 22:01:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm still pulling for Richardson for VP (0.00 / 0)

But I think Biden would be a very good pick, and I'd be happy with it.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 22:22:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No. (4.00 / 2)

In my opinion, an appointed, or 'picked' VP successfully allows for three things to happen.

1. In the unfortunate case of tragedy or scandal, when the country will be in a state of shock and grief, it will be important to have some continuity of Government and policy that an appointed VP will, in theory, have.  

2. Electing the President should be the most important thing that the voters do every four years.  To add the distraction of electing a VP, or even nominating a VP, would detract from the job of vetting and voting for the next leader of the free world.

3. By appointing a VP nominee, all qualified applicants will undoubtedly be considered and vetted by the Presidential nominee's people, the Party and the press, allowing less-well-known but good candidates both to gain consideration and some national exposure that may one day allow them their own run at the Oval Office.  The name-recognition needed to run a national nominating campaign would leave out these candidates, who, through the process, become the next generation of Democratic leaders.

It's not perfect, but I think it works pretty well.  

"He who loves correction, loves knowledge.  He who hates reproof is stupid." - Proverbs 12:1

---

by: jdblanch @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 23:14:47 PM CDT

Does history bear out point 1? (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure it does.

On point 2, if the VP nominee were elected during the primary process, theoretically you'd get the strongest electoral VP.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 23:48:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The first point is fascinating (4.00 / 1)

Presidential candidates often try to broaden their bases with the Veep pick - and as a result, there may be a more jarring transition. (Lincoln-Andrew Johnson - a "post-partisan" ticket! - may be the classic example.) But, if the ticket had not been balanced in that manner it might have lost.

Kennedy-Stevenson might have provided greater continuity in terms of style - but LBJ used his transition to make Kennedy's tentative moves toward civil rights real.

On point two you're missing a crucial point. If the VP is elected during a primary process that happens alongside the Presidential nomination, we rule out all the strongest candidates - who would be usually be running for the top spot. No Kennedy-Johnson, Reagan-Bush, Kerry-Edwards.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:34:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are right (4.00 / 1)

I was missing that.

I think I am persuaded that the current system works, nationally. On the state level, a separate election probably makes more sense.

However, the most famous example of the state scenario going wrong is Illinois, which nominated a LaRouche-ite to be lieutenant governor a while back (and secretary of state, I learned getting this link).
http://www.prin.edu/users/els/...

---

by: JimC @ Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:49:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]