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