Citizen Kaine
Virginia guv Tom Kaine is high on Obama's Veep list. I think he'd be a good choice.
Virginia, usually a solid Republican state, is a swing state this time around. Obama will no doubt take a large portion of its 20% African-American population, and he may figure the governor can put him over the top.
It's questionable if vice presidential candidates make any difference--if he can give you a state, especially a big one, you can't ask for much more. (Some think you should pick a candidate who will do a good job if he ever takes office, but I don't see why the guy at the top of the ticket would worry about that.)
posted by LAGuy @ 12:31 AM
9 Comments:
Kaine is a potentially good choice for Obama for the reasons you ascribe. However the downside is also in your post- he 's really unknown which brings the risk that A) he will stay unknown and have no effect (as evidence I note his name is "Tim" not "Tom" which I too only realized after clicking through) and B) who knows what will come out (or be deemed important by the media/bloggers/public) in an initial public vetting public vetting after he's announced which would be for most voters, their first impression.
I tend to think think Obama would be advised to pick someone reasonably well known but dullish and not a lightning rod- maybe Richardson (although he apparently has, whether fairly or unfairly, a "touchiness" perception according to NM newspapers and Obama is already ahead with Latinos thanks to McCain's variations on immigration) or Biden (but you never know when he's just going run at the mouth and come out with something stupid). Dodd has mortgage issues. Edwards just sealed his fate. Hillary is unthinkable (and according to reports, unthought of)
Maybe Sam Nunn though that doesn't seem like a good fit but there is the Kennedy-Johnson and Dukakis-Bentsen were
What is your evidence that McCain is having trouble with Latinos (I could stop right there) because of his variations on immigration?
I willingly admit I extrapolated the reasoning (McCain was for amnesty before he was against it and now may be for it again) but I got the idea from this poll released last Thursday
" Poll: Latinos favor Obama by big margin"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/
ap_on_el_pr/hispanics_poll
(someone teach me how to do links in comments)
Yes, I'm aware that Latinos favor Obama by a big margin. They always favor the Dems by a big margin (except for the Cubans--as has been noted, this is the one minority group the Dems don't seem to like that much) and it certainly may be that the superstar minority appeal of Obama has only led to further support, though we'll see.
Whether they care about McCain, care about his immigration stance, know about his immigration stance, care about his alleged flip flops, care about anyone's immigration stance, etc, has nothing to do with all this--or at least, I was asking if you have any evidence that it does.
I took your "I could stop right there" seriously. Gee- McCain's polling at about half of what Bush polled among Latinos in 2004(who also promoted comprehensive reform), he supported an issue that had a great deal of support in the Latino community and had been identified with the issue and then he backtracked before the primaries when the issue got hot with the party base. And now with a demographic that he hoped to better with, he is now losing by better than 3 to 1 to an opponent who lost the Latino vote by a 2-1 margin in the Democratic primaries. I don't have evidence, I have reasoning and observation.
Therefore, my original point, Obama, who had seemed weak among Latinos now no longer seems so due to McCain's even greater weakness hence Richardson is probably not as necessary as might have been presumed earlier (and I don't think he helps with Cubans). (caveat: Things change, polls have been crap this year, etc...)
I took your "I could stop right there" seriously.
Just cause he's not as popular now among Latinos as Bush was when they voted doesn't mean they don't like him, or have trouble with him.
Gee- McCain's polling at about half of what Bush polled among Latinos in 2004(who also promoted comprehensive reform), he supported an issue that had a great deal of support in the Latino community and had been identified with the issue and then he backtracked before the primaries when the issue got hot with the party base. And now with a demographic that he hoped to better with, he is now losing by better than 3 to 1 to an opponent who lost the Latino vote by a 2-1 margin in the Democratic primaries. I don't have evidence, I have reasoning and observation.
You need more. It's a common but unproven claim that immigration stances (much less being in general supportive but ucnearly so on reform) are what moves the Latinos more than other factors. (I even question if the reform we're talking about is that popular in general among Latinos if you poll it properly.)
Therefore, my original point, Obama, who had seemed weak among Latinos now no longer seems so due to McCain's even greater weakness
Once again, this is my question--do you have evidence underlying this assumption.
The reason I brought this up in the first place is you didn't guess, or try to argue that McCain is unpopular with Latinos because of immigration (something I think is wrong, even though others disagree), you simply stated it as fact: "Obama is already ahead with Latinos thanks to McCain's variations on immigration."
Re Democrats and Cubans, I'd say the lack of love is mutual -- Cubans don't like Dems, because the Cubans who emigrated were are those who are intensely anti-leftist, and their children have been raised with those views. In my personal experience Cuban-Americans are, by and large, strongly conservative on domestic issues (abortion, social welfare programs) and single-issue voters on foreign policy (continue the embargo). The Dems would have to do a whole lot of moving on some key issues before the majority of the Cuban community found them appealing, and vice versa.
L.A. Guy wrote: Some think you should pick a candidate who will do a good job if he ever takes office, but I don't see why the guy at the top of the ticket would worry about that.
Which is why we need to return to the practice, nearly universal before the 1970s, of having the party -- not the candidate -- pick the second man on the ticket.
Post a Comment
<< Home