President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 08, 2008 02:49 AM UTC
16 Comments
Loading ...
though his advocates make a compelling argument for Schweitzer, I think he works much better hitting the Western states on the stump and leaving the real prize (Rust Belt and Upper Midwest) to the running mate.
Though he lacks foreign policy experience, Strickland brings everything else to the table. Washington experience (six terms in the House), but he’s an outsider now (governor of Ohio); early and enthusiastic Hillary backer; Midwestern white guy; goes toe-to-toe with Republicans over religion (Strickland is an ordained Methodist minister); younger than McCain, though not by so much he doesn’t calm voters concerned about Obama’s youth.
I don’t see anyone west of the Mississippi who brings that much to the ticket, though it’ll be a rich source of cabinet appointments.
Picking a person to fill out weaknesses is always a bad idea–it emphasizes them.
Sometimes a party needs to “balance” a ticket to create unity and that used to be regional balance–LBJ wasn’t balancing the party per se, he was an attempt to unite the regional divides within the party.
Though region still means something, its more about Urban/rural than region strictly speaking. Because there are maybe only 3 major cities in the west, almost all succesful politicians that run for statewide office have to be able to connect to rural voters (hence the cowboy boots and emphasis on rural or outdoor roots).
Obama’s percieved weakness is that he doesn’t have foriegn policy experience–very few presidents in the history of the presidency have foriegn policy experience other than Nixon and GHWB (and Ike if you assume that generals are political figures (different debate)). I don’t think foriegn policy experience is as important as an understanding of the motives and cultures of our friends and enemies.
Obama has three options
1. Hillary she represents half the party and much like LBJ was necessary to balance the ticket, Hillary might be necessary.
2. Strickland (or someone else to lockdown a key state)-the reason is obvious, but it doesn’t help reinforce the message
3. a “change” candidate, someone who reinforces the message. This almost by definition means someone with limited foriegn policy experience.
I thought Webb was a good choice because he was in a swing state and understood apalachia(in addition opposed Iraq, populist, washington “newcomer” but actually insider, former republican, has international understanding), but his sexist comments from the past would send part of Hillary’s army over the edge.
I like Schweitzer not because he’s from the west, but rather he understands the rural voter. But his real ad is that he reinforces the change argument, he understands water and energy, speaks arabic and understands the culture. He could help reframe the issues of the middle east in a different way.
We need to frame the military conflict aspect of our relationship with the middle east as part of a broader policy, which we won’t be able to do if we insist on playing by McCain’s rules.
Strickland is ok as a regional play.
Hillary is good if she can be a team player.
but a Guy like Schweitzer could reframe the argument.
Picking an old experienced guy would be a mistake, it would just emphasize a percieved weakness.
Clinton was tempted to make that same error when he was elected and instead he went the other way and picked Gore who reinforced his argument of change. And remember Bill Clinton was younger than Obama when he was inagurated.
Schweitzer is very attractive and Obama seems to like him a great deal. But the pluses you point out work as well coming from a surrogate on the campaign trail, and later as Secretary of State or the like.
An understanding of Western water issues and fluency in Arabic get you maybe a couple thousand votes.
Obama is already out on a limb, I just don’t see him going further in his running mate selection. Frankly, I think he uses his VP pick to reassure the country rather than challenge it.
Since the VP doesn’t affect the race much (if at all), why would he want to put Schweitzer on the shelf rather than use him to help solve the multitude of problems he’ll inherit once he takes office?
Its not just western water its middle east water
It would be great if we could reframe the argument about the middle east religion is part of it, but resources like oil and water matter a lot more. Religion is just an easy way of picking teams. A guy who’s lived there helps that argument and also helps redirect it to the economic part of the foriegn policy argument where McCain is out of his element.
During the conflict in Northern Ireland you never heard any arguments about papal infallability or the transubstantiation of the Eucharist.
I don’t think Obama is out on a limb that far.
If you want a continuation of the last 7 years to their logical conclusion or do you want to try something different: most people know we are in trouble and a different approach is necessary.
I don’t think the argument is that a western governor would put western states in play (at the very least that wasn’t my argument), but rather that two of the leading contenders for VP are western governors (Sebelius and Napolitano) and that Schweitzer should be considered instead because of what he brings to the ticket, which I won’t rehash here.
As far as your particular analysis is concerned (and I can count the number of people on one hand who call my Kretzy, so, I have a feeling we’ve argued this point in person before), I think there are a few mistakes. I agree with Poblano’s analysis that both Colorado and New Mexico will go to Obama unless something goes horribly awry. Nevada is a tossup that leans to Obama. You are right about Montana though…I’m doubtful.
Schweitzer shouldn’t be on the ticket because he’s a westerner, it’s just an added convenience. Yes, there are more states east of the Mississippi, but being from the west doesn’t hurt a VP candidate there. Danny beat me to it-Obama needs to reinforce rather than overcompensate. Pick someone who is a “change”, who’s off the cuff, and who sounds good on the stump. Schweitzer is optimal.
Obama will probably carry N.M. and Nevada without much effort, Colo. with some effort, but the other Rky. Mtn. states (except maybe Montana) are hopelessly Republican this election cycle. (Az. would probably have been competitive if the GOP nominee were anyone other than the state’s favorite son.)
With Brian Schweitzer, Obama might carry Montana (with three, count ’em, three electoral votes), but he’d be better off giving up Montana and making a serious play for Va. (w/ Webb as his running mate) or Ohio (w/ Strickland).
I love Webb in the Senate, but he’s actually not all that popular in VA. He’s at about a -5 net approval rating:
If we’re looking at a state by state strategy, neither Strickland nor Webb is smart. Webb’s not popular, and 70% of Ohioans don’t think Strickland is qualified to be VP.
If we’re only thinking about carrying ONE state, and a swing state at that, there is actually only one candidate I can think of who should be VP: former Florida Senator Bob Graham.
but I think there is something that keeps him from getting through vetting
He has some kind of psych problem and his doc has him write down everything he does every day, even some of the most mundane stuff (i.e., what he ate for breakfast, etc.). These sound like the diaries on an anal-retentive, obsessive neurotic.
When his name came up as a possible running mate for John Kerry, some in the media speculated about how much fun it could be going through these notebooks spanning decades.
IIRC, the psych problem was not that serious but nobody knows what’s in the notebooks. Obama is not going to want the entire campaign to be spent on questions about what’s in them.
he had to keep the notebooks, beyond a week or so? I mean, once he’s written down the number of times he brushed his teeth, or whatever, you’d assume he’d already accomplished whatever he needed to.
But your point is valid. You would think that every year when doing spring cleaning, they’d go in the fireplace.
or, even, once he finishes one and starts another, the full one goes in the shredder. Who needs years of incriminating breakfast menus lying around?
The current senator (and former astronaut) from Florida. Is he V.P. material?
However, Strickland is quite popular
.
I don’t see where you previously point out my mistakes, outside of our fundamental disagreement between reinforcement or compensation.
I just don’t see how popularity as governor and fitness to ascend to another office are mutually reinforcing.
Strickland is quite popular as Governor. This does not mean that the people of Ohio automatically want to see him as VP. They are simply not the same thing.
It’s interesting that Obama made Virginia his first post-primary campaign stop with Senator Jim Webb by his side. For all the “appalachia voter” talk we’ve been hearing about, this would be a great pick-up to make the Democrats more competitive in that region.
Not to mention Webb is a solid badass. Did anyone see him when he came to town for the Democratic Party’s annual dinner? I heard he gave a few shout outs to our very own Dick Wadhams. I would be more than happy to have Webb campaigning in Colorado against that clown.