Monday, July 28, 2008

A Short List of Short Lists [UPDATED]

It is unclear whether Barack Obama's Vice Presidential search team is actually consolidating its list of choices or not. But the conventional wisdom is certainly consolidating. It being a slow news day -- and an equally slow polling day -- let's combine the names mentioned in four recent "short list" articles to see just what that CW says. The articles are as follows:

1. A Politico article which touts Tim Kaine's prospects and mentions three other candidates, published just moments ago.

2. A Wall Street Journal column from Saturday.

3. A New York Times piece published last week. Adam Nagourney's new piece at the New York Times.

4. And finally, Chris Cillizza's most recent Veepstakes entry.

For good measure, we'll also throw in the most recent odds from Intrade.



So, the media CW pretty clearly seems to be centered around four choices -- Kaine, Bayh, Biden and Sebelius -- probably in that order. The betting markets, which really don't have any other information to traffic on but the media speculation, have largely followed suit.

My sense is that Obama is somewhat more likely than is implied in these articles to throw everyone a curveball. These lists are not truly independent from one another, as everyone is talking to the same sources. But that may just be my wishful thinking as a partisan, as this blog officially still has a crush on Brian Schweitzer.

UPDATE: Added two more sources: a fresh article from the Washington Post -- which unhelpfully lists all nine candidates that we had listed originally -- and this bit of tea-leaf reading from MSNBC.

97 comments

Clintonian Sanjay said...

If Obama doesn't have the foresight to pick Clinton, he should at least pick Bayh (could help big time in India and shore up major foreign policy and economic credentials). On the other hand however, Bayh makes Kerry look like a rock star. But you don't need two incredible orators on the ticket to win.

BAYH!

al-urdun said...

Whatever happened to Richardson?

Anonymous said...

When I first saw this post, I thought, "Man, ANOTHER post not about polling, statistics, or general number geekiness." But then you put in a chart and that made me like it. And then I looked at the extended Romney post and saw that there was not one but TWO charts in that one. And so I wonder why you hide the best parts, the charts, below the break where people won't see them?

Sugerfunk said...

Methinks Richardson has some dirt in his bag.

ajb said...

al-urdun,

Among other things, I think Obama has been polling well enough among Hispanics that it doesn't seem necessary to add Richardson to the ticket to appeal to them.
Also, the Pew Hispanic poll that came out last week showed that Richardson isn't actually all that popular among Hispanics -- 32% favorable, 29% unfavorable among Hispanics registered to vote.

http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/90.pdf

Anonymous said...

Um, how many electors does India have, Sanjay?

I would prefer a candidate who reinforces Obama's message of a fresh new start. Kaine seems like a great pick. I do agree that it could be someone not on this list, but I expect the Obama team would at least float the name to get some reaction, so I doubt whoever it is will be a complete surprise.

Stephen C. Rose said...

People who take Obama at his word and have followed him VERY closely will understand WHY Schweitzer is more likely than anyone on the drab list above. He is another Obama and Barack is too proud to pick someone he does not feel is an equal and not a toady. Go Brian! I even forgive him for calling people like me nut jobs for blogging about him.

zegota said...

Bleh, none of the above! Claudia Kennedy for VP!

Anonymous said...

I'm with you on Schweitzer -- even after Schweitzer's own comments about people forwarding his name (look it up). Schweitzer would be able to reassure a lot of the rural NRA crowd who are sick of the neocon foreign policy, sick of the trade deficits and debt, sick of the economy, but don't trust big city Democrats on an issue like guns, and will vote Republican because of this single issue.

Virginia Conservative said...

Toll Road Timmy?

AHAHAHAHAHA! Bring it on!

Michael said...

Nate, I take it you discount the article by Taegan Goddard that the Obama campaign floated the idea of former G.W. Bush Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman for veep.

zegota said...

Bleh, none of the above! Claudia Kennedy for VP!

babagaia said...

You guys see McMc up by 4 in a national poll -how cool is he now?!

John M. said...

I would be happy with any of the top four. Bayh is the safest pick and checks the most boxes. My preference based on temperment and upside is Sebelius. I guess there are still too many die-hard Clinton supporters around for that to be likely; what a bummer to see gender issues damage a potential female VP. Biden provides a great counterbalance of experience and foreign policy cred alongside a high frequency of gaffes. He would have been my choice in the primary if not for Obama. Kaine I do not know as well. He seems bright, but is shorter on experience than Obama and pro-life.

Cugel said...

I thought this comment by Prof. Alan Abramowitz on Pollster.com about the strange USA Today/Gallup poll just released yesterday showing McCain at +4 was very useful, as it points out the problem with using likely voter screens in July, when nobody has a real clue who will vote in November:

"Alan Abramowitz:

How do you get from a 47-44 Obama lead among RVs to a 49-45 McCain lead among LVs?

A few quick calculations shows how. You have 900 RVs and 791 LVs, so that means that among your 109 UVs (that's unlikely voters according to Gallup) Obama leads McCain by a whopping 61% to 7%.

Putting it another way, according to Gallup 16% of registered Obama supporters are unlikely to vote compared with only 2% of registered McCain supporters.

Posted on July 28, 2008 4:12 PM


If 15-20% of Obama's supporters really don't bother to show up and vote in November, he will certainly lose, and so would almost any candidate since Reagan in 1980.

But, it's just ridiculous to assume that will happen.

Virginia Conservative said...

"Kaine I do not know as well. He seems bright, but is shorter on experience than Obama and pro-life."

First of all, hes not pro-life. At least not where it matters (in policy). He follows the Ted Kennedy mantra that while hes "Personally" opposed he won't seek to change the law. Same with his view on the death penalty. I.e., he has no moral courage.

Secondly, hes awful on the stump.

Third, hes not popular here and the legislature basically tells him to bug off whenever he wants something done. Hes weak.

Lastly, the only reason he won in 2005 was because our candidate was an idiot who ran ads comparing Kaine to Hitler.

TERRIBLE choice. But go ahead, Dems. He will be your Dan Quayle.

Robby said...

Schweitzer would be great...except who else in the Montana Democratic Party could do what Schweitzer has done? For a Democrat to be able to effectively govern in an overwhelmingly rural state with a Republican legislature is nothing short of miraculous, and until we can find someone else with that kind of political acumen I think he should stay put. Plus, the Lt. Governor there is Republican, so we'd lose that mansion, and wouldn't get to run for it again until 2012 (which is AFTER the district realignment).

Schweitzer, along with McCaskill (another potentially great VP choice), belongs in the "needed right where they are" category.

I wish to second, or third, the calls for Richardson. What the hell?!??! Energy Secretary in the Clinton Administration (gas prices?! hello?!?!), Ambassador to the United Nations (foreign policy experience!!!), was hand-picked by President George W. Bush to negotiate with the North Koreans over their nuclear program...I know he's a crappy campaigner, but to me that just says he'll do no harm.

I remember talking to my dad (a GOP-leaning libertarian) about the 2000 election, and how utterly incompetent Bush would be. His response? "That may be true, but no one can deny that Dick Cheney is an intelligent man." He went on to vote for Bush, if I recall.

I think Richardson would be the "Cheney" pick of 2008: not a guy that could win on his own, but a competent guy that reassures independents about the ticket as a whole.

Virginia Conservative said...

Schwitzer is very impressive but he won't do it.

He knows Obama will lose, and wants to run in 2012. I would be very very scared of a Schwitzer as a Presidential candidate. He'd beat us really badly, and he knows it. He doesn't want to be on a losing ticket.

Anonymous said...

thanks for that Cugel
I'd have to say you are the number one poster on this site. Your posts are almost always about the original post by Nate or Sean, and they are not just opinion. You routinely answer questions by other posters with insight and other sources (like the pollster.com article on this last post), and you articulate your thoughts very well.