A handy clip 'n' save guide:
1. Vice presidential selections rarely affect election outcomes.*
2. The selection is therefore only likely to be important insofar as the VP choice (a) helps or hurts the president they serve during his time in office and (b) becomes more likely to be a future president.
3. The selection should therefore be assessed primarily in light of #2, not #1. (It will not be.)
* You could tell a story where Obama's VP could help prevent defections from white working-class voters who would otherwise have voted Democratic (a possibility that was obviously not relevant in past elections). However, this idea is purely speculative and would be difficult to test even after the fact.
I think you're probably right about all these comments, but that's just an opinion, not based on quantitative analysis or rigorous proof. The tone of your footnote does give me pause, because it reminds me so much of what Daniel Yankelovich called the McNamara fallacy:
Posted by: Rob | August 22, 2008 at 12:54 AM
This post was funny, although I think there's merit in the analysis of point one. While, historically, the VP has pick has had a marginal elctoral role, it does give us a glimpse into what the campaign machine is thinking at any given time.
We can afford to assume that Tim Kaine won't help in VA, or that Joe Biden isn't going to tighten up Obama's experience cred. However, the campaigns don't get that luxury, and I thin they'd rather operate under the assumption that THIS race will defy historical odds than do otherwise.
So, if Obama picks Biden it may have little or no substantive impact on the race, but it tells us that Obama's team is worried about the way Georgia made their guy look. If it's Kaine, well, you could assume a number of things--he has "executive experience," he can help you in VA, etc.
Posted by: Kevin | August 22, 2008 at 09:33 AM
Only one area of disagreement; if he picked Hilary Clinton, if she wants it, I think he'd get 5% more votes (enough to win) ... and he knows it. Tough call for him.
TOH
Posted by: The Objective Historian | August 22, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I agree with Brendan here. I might suggest the addition of:
2(c) how the VP helps or hurts the people he serves during his time in office.
Posted by: David | August 22, 2008 at 01:10 PM
3. The selection should therefore be assessed primarily in light of #2, not #1. (It will not be.)
I don't agree. I think a pretty strong case can be made that both Al Gore and Dick Cheney were picked because they were a good match to Bill Clinton and George Bush (and that's why the vice presidency has gained power over the last 16 years). Neither fell into the traditional math for a VP pick.
Maybe, before jumping to the conclusion that Obama (or McCain) is trying to fill a gap in their own resume, we should spend some time asking whether we feel that they would be compatible working with the running mate they ultimately choose.
Who do you think they'd pick if they didn't have any political concerns at all?
Posted by: Jinchi | August 23, 2008 at 12:59 AM
To be clear - I don't agree with Brendan's footnote (it will not be).
I do agree that the VP choice should be based on how that person will help the president in office and afterwards.
Posted by: Jinchi | August 23, 2008 at 01:08 AM