Just for fun, I often think about various combinations for the Dems’ 2004 ticket. (I know, I need to get out more.)
Usually, I, like a lot of other people, end up thinking about tickets featuring two of the nine (10 if you include Gen. Clark) Dems already running for president. I know we’re about a year away from knowing who’ll be on the Dem ticket, and my predictions at this point will be long forgotten by the time it actually happens, but I’m thinking that the eventual combination of Dems won’t come from within the current field of candidates. Why? Because it almost never does.
Speculation about these tickets is part of every election cycle. In 2000, there was frequent talk that Bush would tap one-time rival Liddy Dole as his running mate, but in the end, she wasn’t seriously considered. In ’92, many thought Clinton might turn to Bob Kerrey or Tom Harkin, both competitors for the nomination that year, though neither ended up on the short list.
Since the McGovern-Fraser Commission, formed after the 1968 race, there have been eight presidential elections and, obviously, 16 tickets. In that time, only one party nominee selected a campaign rival as a running mate — Reagan chose Bush (the first one) in 1980.
I think there are probably a few good reasons for this, but the most important one is that competitive campaigns can generate a whole lot of hostility. In 2000, Al Gore and Bill Bradley grew to genuinely dislike one another. At the same time, Bush and John McCain grew to become intense enemies and the resulting bitterness continues to this day. This year, I think it’s safe to say that you won’t find Dean on the Christmas Card List for John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, or John Edwards.
The natural byproduct of a campaign is a simple message: I’m better than the other guy, so vote for me instead of him. When that happens in the primaries, even candidates of the same party with similar ideologies can find themselves in tense, sometimes hostile, rivalries.
When a candidate is successful in beating a disliked rival, why in the world would he or she turn back to that person when selecting a running mate? Most of the time, they don’t.
With this in mind, I’m thinking that the eventual running mate will probably not come from the current crop of presidential candidates. Who should be on the list? I have a few ideas.
First of all, if Wesley Clark doesn’t run, he’s obviously going to be a top VP choice, no matter who wins the nomination. If Dean gets the nomination, Clark offers the foreign policy and national security credibility that Dean lacks. If Kerry gets it, the Dems have two war heroes on the ticket. If Edwards wins, we’ve got two smart southerners on the ticket against a Bush incumbent — just like in ’92.
Of course, if Clark does run — and I certainly hope that’s the case — who else would the Dem nominee look to? Some of it will depend on the strengths and weaknesses of the person who wins the nomination. If a New England candidate wins (Dean, Kerry, Lieberman), I’d expect him to look to the South or the Midwest for a running mate. If someone with little Washington experience gets the nomination (Dean, Clark), they might want someone in the Senate with close ties to the Capitol Hill machine.
Here’s my ridiculously premature Top 10 short list:
1. Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) — Richardson has it all. A popular governor, former member of Congress, and former cabinet secretary, who has extensive foreign policy experience as President Clinton’s U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Oh, and did I mention that he’s a Hispanic-American?
2. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — Every election, her name gets circulated for a spot on the ticket. Considering she’s the most popular politician in the nation’s biggest state, that’s not a big surprise.
3. Gov. Mark Warner (D-Va.) — Warner ran a heck of a campaign in Virginia in 2001, even winning a majority in the state’s rural southwest corner, effectively showing Dems how to win a statewide race in the south. And it doesn’t hurt that he’s got a lot of money in the bank.
4. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) — A very popular politician from a key Midwestern state, Durbin has never been afraid to be an aggressive opponent of Republicans. If the nominee is looking for a running mate who isn’t afraid to attack Bush-Cheney, Durbin’s the guy.
5. Gov. Frank O’Bannon (D-Ind.) — Soon to be the longest serving Dem governor in America, O’Bannon is a popular figure in a state that nearly always votes for Republican presidential candidates. Putting Indiana’s 11 electoral votes in play could be incredibly helpful and O’Bannon could help make that happen.
6. Gov. Thomas Vilsack (D-Iowa) — Another popular governor in a competitive Midwestern state.
7. Gov. Michael Easley (D-N.C.) — Though obviously ineligible if Edwards got the nomination, Easley has a solid record on education and health care in North Carolina.
8. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) — Dodd probably would have run for president in ’04 if Lieberman hadn’t. If the top of the ticket wanted someone with strong Capitol Hill bona fides, Dodd would be perfect.
9. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) — Almost a textbook example of a Democratic moderate, as evidenced by his leadership of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Like O’Bannon, Bayh would help put Indiana in play.
10. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D – La.) — Landrieu deserves a lot of credit for being one of a very small number of vulnerable incumbents to beat the Bush machine in 2002. If the nominee was looking for balance to the ticket, Landrieu is a Catholic woman from a southern state that voted for Bush in 2000. Her chances of making the ticket were, however, probably hurt by her support for Bush’s 2001 tax cut.
Honorable mention has to go to Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who would be my top choice were it not for the fact that she was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible.