The significance of high-profile endorsements in a presidential race is certainly debatable, but I’m certain that the Obama campaign was thrilled to pick up Sen. Bob Casey’s (D) support yesterday in Pennsylvania. Casey’s a major player in a key state; he may help Obama connect with white, working-class voters who’ve been skeptical about his candidacy; and the timing of the announcement helps feed the impression that Obama is surging ahead.
But I nevertheless think talk about Casey as a potential running mate for Obama is misplaced. Noam Scheiber makes the case for the pairing.
[Casey] may not be a star in the Senate, as Eve points out. But he’s popular with the people Obama is weakest among, and who, if Obama were the nominee, would be at greatest risk of defecting to McCain. (Also, don’t confuse inside-the-beltway reviews with home-state appeal.)
Pennsylvania defections are a real concern for Obama given how close the state’s been in recent elections. It’s a state that, under any conventional electoral map, the Democratic nominee has to carry. I’d bet the idea of putting Casey on the ticket has come up in Obamaland in recent days. […]
Which brings me to the next point: I’m guessing the audience for this endorsement is Casey’s fellow superdelegates as much as it’s voters in Pennsylvania. It says to the supers: “Don’t worry about white working-class defections. Bob Casey is going to help me lock down that demographic, and we’re not going to have trouble holding this state.” That may or may not be true, but it does send a powerful message. (Not as powerful as Obama actually doing well among white working-class voters in the primary, but still pretty powerful.)
Andrew Sullivan, independent of Scheiber’s argument, also touted Casey as “another interesting one to put on the veep list,” in part because Casey is a “pro-life Catholic from Pennsylvania.”
It’s not a ridiculous pitch, but I’m having trouble going for it.
First, Casey, as Sullivan notes, opposes abortion rights. Pro-life politicians can go very far in Democratic politics — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a good example — but just as Republicans would balk at a pro-choice candidate on the party’s national ticket, it’s very hard to imagine Dems putting a pro-life pol on their ticket. This is especially true given the fact that the Supreme Court will be on Dems’ minds in this election.
Second, Casey would likely help lock down Pennsylvania, but I think there’s ample evidence that either Obama or Clinton would win the state anyway.
Third, Scheiber argues that Casey could help Obama win over white working-class voters. Maybe, but how well known is Casey outside of Pennsylvania? If the goal is to look to the Rust Belt for candidates who could help with this demographic, I’d much prefer Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
And fourth, this is kind of awkward to say about a senator I like, but Casey really isn’t a terrific politician. He’s kind of bland, and he cruised to an easy victory in 2006 because of very high name recognition (Caseys are a big deal in Pennsylvania) and because Rick Santorum had become something of a laughing stock. Isaac Chotiner reminds us:
Political junkies may remember that in 2006 Casey destroyed Rick Santorum in a Pennsylvania senate race noteable for its nastiness. While there may be no denying the fact that Casey’s 17-point margin of victory was unprecedented for a contested campaign in a purple state, Casey’s win can still be explained in large part by his name ID and the unpopularity of his opponent.
Moreover, watching the televised debates between Santorum and Casey was extremely disturbing–and not because they reminded the viewer that a bullying moralist was elected to two senate terms. Rather, I cannot think of any debate that I have ever seen at the Congressional level or higher where one of the candidates (Casey, alas) appeared so completely inexperienced and even confused. Some people found Santorum’s hysterical anger inappropriate–but I actually felt bad for the Republican incumbent. Here he was–a hardworking, knowledgeable senator–facing the fight of his life against a state treasurer who rarely showed up for work and had absolutely no command of the issues.
I am willing to believe that Casey has “grown” in office, but the man who debated Rick Santorum less than two years ago is in no way qualified to be vice president. And for that reason alone, it’s unlikely Obama will actually choose him.
Agreed. A welcome endorsement at a key time is one thing, but considering Casey for the VP slot seems like a pretty bad idea.