What would you do for a Klondike . . .I mean, the Vice Presidency?

The Hill - one of our Capitol's newspapers - recently did a fun-piece based on 97 interviews with Senators"

"The Hill asked all 97 senators who are not running for president the same question: “If you were asked, would you accept an offer to be the VP nominee?”"

First Read was kind enough to pick out some of the more fun responses for your enjoyment, they are printed here for my vast readership:

-- Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.): “No. I don’t like going to funerals.”
-- Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.): “Absolutely. Absolutely. I think I would be great. First of all, I know how to behave at weddings and funerals. And I know how to be commander in chief. I’d bring a lot of fun to the job. We would rock the Naval Observatory.”
-- Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho): “I would say ‘No, Hillary.’ ”
-- Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.): “Yes. Sign me up. I’ve been kidding people for years: The hours are better, the wages are just as good -- whoever heard of a vice president getting shot at? -- and it’s a great opportunity to travel... The chances are slim to none. But I promise you, I would deliver all three of Delaware’s electoral votes.”
-- Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.): “If I were asked I’d probably have to get a divorce, so the answer would probably be no. But I won’t be asked if he [McCain] wants to win.”
-- Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.): “When I was much younger I would have probably said, ‘Sure, I’ll be glad to accept it,’ but I’m 70 years [old] and they need a younger person for the job.
-- Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “I’m too old to be vice president. But I am young enough to be reelected to the Senate.”
-- Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.): “Never say no. You always have to give it some thought. It depends who asks you, too.”
-- Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.): “I’m not really interested. That’s all I want to say.”
-- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): “Are you kidding? Every senator would accept that offer. My guess is that almost every senator looks at themselves in the mirror in the morning and sees either a future president or vice president.”
-- Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.): “Of course. I think anybody would.”
-- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): “I don’t get into hypotheticals. No, I haven’t considered it. I don’t have a clue, honestly.”
-- Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.): “Once is enough. I already have the T-shirt and I’m proud of it.
-- Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.): “I’d say, ‘Please read the Constitution.’ I wasn’t born in America; I can’t be VP.”
-- Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.): “If Hillary’s the nominee, Barack will be the running mate. If Barack’s the nominee, Hillary will be the running mate. That’s my answer.”

- Wyatt Schroeder

Overcoming the Democracy Gap: Reforming our nominating process

The tumultuous 1968 Democratic nominating convention left more questions than answers. While the party elected Vice President Hubert Humphrey as their nominee, the Democrats were largely dissatisfied, more so with the process than the result. Humphrey, who did not participate in any elected primaries, there were only thirteen binding primaries at the time, won the nomination on the back of non-primary delegates (read as superdelegates). Seeing this result as undemocratic, the national party created the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, popularly known as the McGovern-Fraser Commission. Forty years later, the Democrats are again making a case for a revamp of the nomination process.

The measure of success in the pre-1968 nominating process was accruing the support of the “party elite” or the “party bosses”, as Humphrey accomplished nominally through the support of Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley and President Lyndon B. Johnson. The McGovern-Fraser reforms made the contested primary the means for delegate apportionment, but still granted a large portion of delegates to non-primary personnel, now known as superdelegates. The post-1968 system did not completely reject the role of the party elite in the nominating process, but simply limited their influence by developing a 50-state contested primary election that developed the primacy of the ‘pledged delegate.’ The Republican Party followed suit in implementing most of the McGovern-Fraser reforms; however, they retained the use of the “unit rule” where the winner of state’s popular vote is awarded one-hundred percent of the delegates, colloquially known as a “winner-take-all” election. Democrats allocate pledge delegates based on the proportion of ones popular vote. The existence of superdelegates in the Democratic Party and the unit rule in the Republican Party has given rise to a “Democracy Gap” in our nominating process whereby the vote of the people is not reflected in the delegate vote. Each factor creating the Democracy Gap will be hereby examined with recommendations for improvement.

The 2008 Democratic nomination will be thoroughly examined by scholars for years to come; akin to the treatment 1968’s election has received. While it remains in doubt, the role of the superdelegates in this process has been a cause for controversy. The original idea of the superdelegate, officially called an unpledged Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegate, was one of institutional memory or of the party elite holding a steady hand over the direction of the party. They served this role in 1984, by putting Vice President Walter Mondale over the top against the “New Ideas” of Senator Gary Hart and ending a contentious primary. However, this cycle the superdelegates’ role has been an amorphous one; the goal post keeps changing. With no definitive lead in delegates for either Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton, many are suggesting different deciding factors for superdelegate support. It has been suggested that superdelegates should support whoever has the pledged delegate lead, or whoever has the popular vote lead. Others have, radically, offered that the superdelegates should vote for whoever wins the most electoral votes out of the primary contests. While the goal posts keep moving, one sentiment remains clear: the role of the superdelegates is becoming fluid and contentious. Envisioned to provide stability to the party, superdelegates are, instead, providing ambiguity. If any superdelegates are willing to overrule the vote of the people in the form of pledged delegates or popular vote then the Democracy Gap may be unserviceable. However, the remedy is clear. The Democratic National Committee must abolition to use of superdelegates. Only then will the Democratic Party begin to fill the Democracy Gap that it has created for itself.

The Republican Party deserves similar credit for nurturing the Democracy Gap to maturity. The unit rule gives credence to the adage spoken by many disheartened Americas, “my vote doesn’t matter.” In the Florida primary, Senator John McCain outpaced former-Governor Mitt Romney by five percent of the popular vote, 36-31. This margin is not wide, and demonstrates considerable support in Florida for Governor Romney. However, this margin allowed Senator McCain to take 100% of the delegates, severely damaging Governor Romney’s viability as a candidate. In terms of delegate allocation, the 598,188 votes for Governor Romney did not count or matter they only added drama to the horse race. The Republican mentality is different from that of Democrats. As the saying goes, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.” The unit rule allows for a quicker nomination process, but hurts the viability of non-frontrunner candidates. Each vote must matter and must be reflected in the apportionment of the delegates. While the Democrat’s system of delegate allocation is complicated, it is an improvement upon the Republican use of the unit rule. The Republican Party, in order to overcome the Democracy Gap, must review their national party rules on delegate selection so as to allow the vote of the people to be reflected properly in the delegate process.

Another incarnation of the Democracy Gap comes in the form of the closed primary – the practice of only allowing those registered with a major party to participate in primaries or caucuses. The closed primary disenfranchises all those who chose to register independent. This type of primary exists currently in 20 states, including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. The argument against opening up the process to include independents has always been a concern for the sustainability of the two-party system. The two-party system is not, and never will it be, in doubt. Recent critics believed that the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 would dismantle the strength of the national parties, giving a pliable chance for the emergence of another party. This proved to be premature. Opening up the process to independents will allow more participants in our democratic process and, hence, reduce the Democracy Gap inherent in our system. However, this author does not advocate for open primaries, which allow registered voters to vote in either party regardless of affiliation. Instead, states should employ semi-closed primaries, which require party affiliation to vote in that party’s primary, but allows the option for independent voters to choose at the polls in which party they would wish to vote. This allows the participation of a large majority of America without risking the two-party system’s viability.

The Democracy Gap damages the credibility of the nominating process. These improvements, abolishing superdelegates, discontinuing the unit rule and allowing for semi-closed primaries, would allow more voters to participate in the process and provide greater strength to each vote. Change will not come easily, as it took nationally publicized riots at the Democratic National Convention to instigate the McGovern-Fraser reforms. But the contention of the 2008 Democratic primary may be enough to spur a review of the process, and cause the Republican Party to follow suit. The Democracy Gap cannot be taken for granted, and if the parties are serious about preserving our democracy and our republic they will turn a discerning eye to their nominating processes.

- Wyatt Schroeder

Here comes the Liberitarian Army

Former Representative (and former Republican) Bob Barr has announced that he will seek the presidency - likely on the Libertarian ticket. The Libertarian convention to nominate such a candidate is on May 22nd, but Barr is not foreseen to have too much difficulty gaining the nomination. Who is Bob Barr and what will the effect of a Barr candidacy be on the 2008 general election?

BOB BARR IN SHORT:
Barr first entered Congress in 1994 on the back of the 'Republican Revolution' by upsetting six-term Democrat Congressman Buddy Darden. Barr served until 2003 where he simultaneously left Congress and the Republican Party in order to become a Libertarian. Barr was considered one of the most conservative members of the Republican caucus, and was seen as a leader on Clinton's impeachment trials (that's how you build up conservative street cred); however, he differed with the Bush administration on civil liberties and privacy issues (that's how you build libertarian street cred). He has even been a prominent member of the ACLU in recent years. He has decided this year to pursue the libertarian nomination, and official announced his candidacy on May 12th.

EFFECT ON MCCAIN:
McCain stands the most to lose from Barr entering the race. This effect will be minimal on the popular vote as a whole (Nader only received 2.7% in 2000), but could cause some wrinkles in the state-to-state projections (as Nader had some effect in 2000) and the "Ron Paul effect" could hurt his Republican image.

"Ron Paul Effect"
The media has turned all of its attention to the (still?) contested Democratic primary, but lets remember that the Republicans are still holding primary elections. And Ron Paul is still performing well without even actively campaigning. For instance, the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd was a gut-retching contest for Democrats, but what happened on the Republican side? Well, without campaigning at all Ron Paul earned 16% of the vote - that is 128,483 votes! McCain may have won the Republican nomination, but he still has yet to win the heart of the whole party. The Ron Paul phenomenon has given rise to a devout underground of libertarian-style Republicans who are more ideological than they are party faithful. If Bob Barr sees the same kind of numbers across the country as Ron Paul has for the primary then McCain has a serious problem on his hands.

If there is not a problem with actual voting, the Ron Paul effect may manufacture a public relations problem for the McCain campaign. There are whispers of a push by Ron Paulians to hijack the party platform formation process at the Republican National Convention. Libertarian minded Republicans could push for a more libertarian view on social issues (abortion), push for a withdrawal from Iraq (tough on security?), and embracing privacy issues (no more wiretapping). I do not believe that they will be successful in this attempt, but that is not the point. The attempt itself may severely damage the McCain and produce those libertarian-minded Republicans to do the same as Bob Barr and jump ship.

"Georgia on my Mind"
Just so you know, you are going to see the Hoagy Carmichael reference a lot in the coming months. Because, with Barack Obama as the nominee the Democrats have a chance to compete in largely Republican states, namely Georgia. Let's just look at some numbers, first.

2004 Election: Georgia (15 electoral votes)

Bush: 1,914,254

Kerry: 1,366,149

Badnarik (Libertarian Party):

18,387

What do these numbers tell you? Honestly, not much, but they are fun to look at. What they MAY tell you is that Badnarik, who is from Indiana, received 18,000 votes, which will be a low figure compared to what Bob Barr (who represented the GA 7th for 9 years) could receive. Honestly, if Obama is going to win Georgia he is going to have to do it on his own without the help of Bob Barr. But, Barr represented 629,706 Georgians and could make the feat a little easier for Obama.

The effect of a Barr candidacy on McCain will mostly be image-oriented, but in a year where the Republicans have deep-seated image problems, this does not come as good news to the McCain campaign.

EFFECT ON OBAMA:
The effect on the Obama campaign is hard to read without psycho-analyzing the typical libertarian voter, but it will be minimal. Obama continually talks about his appeal to "disillusioned Republicans". That pitch may be harder to make if Bob Barr finds himself actually making headway with the press. Disillusioned Republicans who are against the Iraq War and oppose Bush's imperialistic mentality, may find a home in Barr's camp over Obama's.


In short, we should wait to see what the Republican National Convention comes to show us about the libertarian force within the Republican party. If McCain is able to avoid the story, then he will be in a good position to neutralize any threat from the Barr candidacy. However, everyone figured that Nader would have no effect in 2000.

- Wyatt Schroeder

Override Bush and voters won't override you

President Bush, today, vetoed the expansion of the State Children Health Insurance Program (known as SCHIP) saying that the funding went too far, it was step towards socialized medicine, it was expanded beyond the original intent of the program; you know, the Republican's greatest lines when it comes to insuring Americans. However, plenty of Republicans supported this bill. Democrats had 68 votes in the Senate, well over the number of votes needed to override. However, Democrats are about 12 votes short of the override level.

This is Bush's fourth veto, a small amount in the modern era, but the product of divided government. However, Bush picked a politically potent bill to veto. By vetoing this bill, Bush has added another issue to the list that Republicans are charged as "obstructing." The Republicans would do well to break from Bush on this issue.

Politically speaking, Republicans in Congress do not earn anything from supporting Bush policies, as a principle. Obviously, child health insurance is more important than labeling it as either a Bush or anti-Bush issue, but, this post concerns the perceptions of support. By upholding the veto, the issue can be painted simply as "Supporting the Bush policy of denying more children health coverage." Is it that simple? Of course not, but that is the perception painted by a 'nay' vote. Bush's approval rating continues to hover at low 30 % with the occasional dip to 28% (counterpoint: the Democratic controlled Congress has lower approval ratings then Bush). Bush's fundraising potential is neutralized by his negative potency. Also, as shown by the presidential primary, there is record amount of money being provided to political support right now and congressional candidates will not likely be left out in the cold. In conclusion, there is more benefit to breaking from Bush then supporting him. Unless, of course, you're in a solidly Republican district, but those members are not likely to support a veto override under any circumstances. The perception of supporting Bush and opposing children insurance could be deadly.

Secondly, Republicans over the last six and a half years have shown no restraint in spending money and expanding government. Especially in terms of national security, which is considered an essential priority, Republicans have shown a capacity for big government principles. Should not insuring our children be considered an essential priority? The Republican's chief complaint about this bill is that it does too much. It would be a good day for Congress when the detractor's only complaint is that Congress is doing too much and insuring too many. So, Republicans are without an ideological leg to stand on because of their actions in the past six and half years. Without that leg, Republicans are simply arguing semantics instead of deciding to help as many children as they can.

In what is being called another Democratic year, Republicans seeking re-election in 2008 (which is the entire House, by the way) would do well to break from Bush and support a politically potent bill. In the seminal work on Congress, David Mayhew tells us in The Electoral Connection that in order to achieve re-election members must focus on credit-claiming. Republicans could claim all the credit if they override Bush's veto, because without them this would have been another Democratic exercise instead of a bi-partisan effort. Republicans could claim they have no problem telling Bush when he's wrong and bettering the future of America's children. But, if they do not override Bush's veto then what will they claim then?

- Wyatt Schroeder

Senate 2008 Update: Virginia (Senator John Warner)

CQ Politics, in January 2007, labeled this seat as Favored Republican. Think so now?

Senator John Warner announced his retirement, as was speculated, and a ripple was sent through the Republican Party. Warner’s retirement has offered up the chance that “reliably red” Virginia may go blue. Former Secretary of the Navy, Jim Webb in 2006, defeated Incumbent Senator George Allen and now the other Republican Senator is leaving open the chance of another Democratic victory.

Two high-profile Virginia Republicans are seeking to keep the seat in Republican hands: Representative Tom Davis and former Governor Jim Gilmore. Davis, representing moderate northern Virginia, is expected to get the support of Senator John Warner. Governor Jim Gilmore was an early candidate for president but was one of the first to drop out of the race. Gilmore will attract more conservative, southern Virginia voters and likely split the Republican party for the primary. But, whomever the Republican nominee is will have an uphill battle for them in the general election.

Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner has announced his intentions to run much to pleasure of all Democratic voters. Mark Warner was thought to compete with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president, but announced that he would not run. His name is still on everyone’s short list for vice-presidential candidates. A popular governor, Warner represents the centrist wing of the Democratic party that has found its home in Virginia. Warner is the clear favorite for the Democratic nomination and, also, the favorite for the general election.

Rasmussen, a known polling group, did an early survey in September on a general election between the top-two Republican contenders and Warner. Warner defeated Tom Davis 57-30 and defeated Gilmore 54-34. This early polling, while ultimately irrelevant, shows the race is in Mark Warner’s hands.

CQPolitics’ designation is grossly outdated now and should be moved to Leans Democratic. Mark Warner’s popularity in Virginia should not be overestimated, especially in conjunction with the Democratic trend in Virginia at-large. The last two Governors were Democrats and now half of the U.S. Senators are Democrats. Just last week CQPolitics, following Senator Warner’s retirement, changed its designation of this race from Republican Favored to Leans Democratic.

- Wyatt Earp

Senate 2008 Update: Nebraska (Senator Chuck Hagel)

CQ Politics, in January 2007, labeled this seat as Safe Republican. Let's see how it looks now.

Two weeks ago, Senator Hagel announced that he would retire from the Senate after the expiration of his term, ending speculation that he would run for re-election and/or run for president in 2008. Hagel’s announcement adds another area of concern for the Republicans senatorial chances.

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning has been campaigning since last spring when he announced that he would challenge Hagel in the primary. Hagel’s opposition to the war in Iraq and his maverick approach to politics have angered many in GOP circles. With Hagel’s announcement, Bruning is the only Republican actively campaigning; however, he is still not the favorite. Former Nebraska governor and current U.S. Agriculture Secretary, Mike Johanns intends to run for the open Senate seat. The Bruning campaign released a poll that showed a competitive primary is ahead. In the poll, 39% of those surveyed voiced support for Johanns while 30% supported Bruning.

The Democratic hopes of turning this seat blue lie in the hands of Bob Kerrey. Kerrey was governor of Nebraska for four years in the 80s and served as Nebraska’s Senator for two terms from 1988-2000. He was also an unsuccessful presidential candidate in 1992. He has extremely high name recognition and is viewed as a maverick-type much akin to his friend, Chuck Hagel; however, one problem exists: Kerrey has not yet declared that he will run. Speculation runs ramped as Kerrey has often alluded to an interest and even told board members at The New School in NYC, where he is president that he is considering a return to public life. If Kerrey enters the race then the Democrats hold the advantage. Kerrey is a former chairman of the DSCC and understands the importance of this race.

Hagel’s retirement has to move this race to Leans Republican, because it will be a highly targeted race. However, if Kerrey announces then the seat may move quickly to No Clear Favorite. Republicans hold the advantage in Nebraska at large, but they will be dealing with a seasoned, popular figure in Kerrey, if, and only if, he runs.

- Wyatt Earp

Senate 2008 Update: Oregon (Senator Gordon Smith)

CQ Politics, in January 2007, designated this race as leaning Republican, which, for incumbents, is tantamount to saying “targeted seat.” The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, led by New York Senator, Chuck Schumer, believes that with the right recruitment they can defeat incumbent Senator, Gordon Smith.

Oregon has been progressively becoming a strong Democratic seat and made more gains in the 2006 cycle. In 2006, the Democrats gained control of the state House by wrestling four seats from the Republicans. The Democratic Senate, in 2006, also increased its majority from 18-12 to 18-11 with one seat now being held by an independent. And after November 2006, the Democrats maintained control of the governorship and four of the five congressional seats.

The state may not be favorable to Republicans, but it has been to Gordon Smith who has won re-election easily in 2002 with 56% of the vote over his Democratic challenger’s 40%. Senator Smith has also gone out of his way to appear moderate by opposing President Bush’s Iraq policies and becoming only one of a handful of Republicans to vote in favor of a timetable for withdrawal. However, despite this moderate appeal, Smith has seen his approval ratings drop substantially: in December 2006, Smith had a 56-33 approve-disapprove rating but has seen that fall to a 46-44 approve-disapprove rating by August 2007. Statistically, just as many Oregonians approve of Smith’s job performance as do disapprove, which is a major concern for the two-term incumbent.

As 2006 showed, recruitment is the best hope for Democrats to defeat incumbents. The DSCC went out and asked some notable Oregon names to run against Smith, such as Rep. Peter DeFazio, former governor John Kitzhaber, and Rep. Earl Blumanauer. Senator Schumer was finally successful when Speaker of the Oregon House Jeff Merkley announced his candidacy. This led Republicans to call Merkley the “best of the B-list of candidates.”

Also entering the race is independent John Frohnmayer, former chairman of the National Endowment of the Arts and member of the well-known Frohnmayer. Being a Frohnmayer and brother of David Frohnmayer, former President of University of Oregon and former Attorney General, gives John unusually high name-recognition for an independent candidate. The ten-dollar question in Oregon now is who will Frohnmayer take votes from? Traditionally, independent candidates do not win elections but merely “spoil” the election for another one of the parties.

Frohnmayer’s appeal to “fiscal conservatives” or, what he calls, “traditional Republican values” will hurt Smith with moderate-right voters. Smith supported the Iraq War until recently, some say until he realized his seat was vulnerable. Frohnmayer, who opposed the Iraq War since the beginning, may persuade moderate Republicans by making Smith look like his positions are dictated by electoral prospects. This will hurt Smith, but the Democrats are not immune to Frohnmayer’s candidacy. Frohnmayer, a former Democrat, is running on the same “culture of corruption” platform that most Democrats ran on in 2006; however, he is blaming Democrats as well for Washington’s ethics problems. “Clean-it up” progressive may be persuaded by Frohnmayer and hurt the Democrat’s chances.

In an August 20^th Riley Research poll, 38% of voters said they would vote for Smith, 19% for Merkley, the early Democratic favorite, and 7% for Frohnmayer. However, 35% said that they were undecided.

This seat is well classified at Leans Republican, because Smith still holds the advantage as an incumbent but he is now looking at being hit from two sides with Frohnmayer entering the race. This will be a competitive race.

- Wyatt Earp