On Running Mates & Other Election Matters

| Bernard Weiner |

As we get deeper into primary season, here are a number of issues -- including even more disquieting election anomalies from New Hampshire -- that are worth considering.

For all intents and purposes, the Democratic Party might well know in a few weeks, after Super Duper Tuesday February 5, who its presidential nominee will be. The Republicans, despite wide divisions among its various party factions, may also have their nominee chosen.

However, the situation is so fluid in both parties -- the Democrats' top two contenders running neck-and-neck, the Republicans top three shifting state by state -- that it's possible, though unlikely, that we won't know who the nominees will be until the Summer.

THE DEMOCRATS' CHOICES

It seems fairly certain that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will carry the Democratic Party's banner into the November campaign. The more populist John Edwards -- largely marginalized these past months by the party and the mass media, both afraid of the economic populism he represents -- still lags far behind in third, though he still has a good shot at some of the Super Tuesday states.

I've just sent another check to Edwards' campaign, as it's important to have that more progressive voice out there, forcing Clinton and Obama -- who are both in the centrist middle -- to respond to economic and other issues Edwards raises so passionately.

The assumption here is that the Republicans will choose either Romney or McCain, with Huckabee trailing in third place, and that Michael Bloomberg will be a non-starter even if he decides to mount a third-party run, which I don't think he'd be foolish enough to do.

THE REPUBLICANS' CHOICES

It's safe to say that the GOP nominee, whoever he is, will be a pro-war, Bush-lite candidate who will feel obliged to cater to the party's fundamentalist/authoritarian base, but also one able to make connections with Independent voters who will help decide the November election.

Which leads me to suspect that the Republican ticket might well turn out to be McCain/Huckabee or Romney/Huckabee, all of whom, even with their considerable political baggage, seem able to connect with ordinary voters.

On the other hand, this is such a wacky election season that the Republican nominee, for balancing purposes, might well decide to name Condi Rice as his running mate. Or Dick Cheney. Or Attilla the Hun. But I repeat myself.

COMPLETING THE TICKETS

But what might the Democratic ticket look like? I'm open to your input here.

So here are my guesses as to the possible Democratic running mate; see what you think of these vice-presidential choices, which are presented in no particular order of preference.

If Hillary takes the prize:

Clinton/Edwards
Clinton/Obama
Clinton/Dodd
Clinton/Richardson
Clinton/Feingold

If Barack wins it:

Obama/Clinton
Obama/Edwards
Obama/Biden
Obama/Dodd
Obama/Napolitano
Obama/Richardson

DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENT

So let's parse out this ticket-building:

Let's suppose here that Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Given her ultra-high negatives -- roughly 35-40% of the population has indicated they probably could never vote for her -- it seems that her choice of vice-presidential running mate is much more important than such a choice has been for other Dem candidates in years past. She needs someone popular, more liberal than she is, and probably a geographical/gender difference. I'm assuming that neither Edwards nor Obama would accept a place on her ticket, even if she were to offer it. That brings us to the Westerners Feingold and Richardson.

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico brings administrative expertise, wide experience in foreign policy, and, even though he's something of a lovable flake, exudes a certain gravitas. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin unfortunately decided to pass on making a presidential run this year, but his dedication to the rule of law, his passionate defense of the Constitution, and his knowledge of intelligence matters would add solid weight to Clinton's ticket. (One could point to some of the same strengths in Chris Dodd, but the Connecticut senator wouldn't balance the ticket geographically -- two "Eastern liberals" and all that.)

Obama would need to balance his ticket in other ways. Again, assuming Clinton and Edwards were to turn him down, were he to offer them the veep slot, I should think he'd need someone with lots of experience, especially in foreign affairs, which would make Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Gov. Richardson attractive. But he might want to balance geographically and gender-wise as well, and thus Gov. Napolitano of Arizona might have a good shot. And Chris Dodd might be on his short list as well.

REFORMING THE DEBATE PROCESS

Moving on to other election issues, it seems clear that the current system of primary debates is deficient and needs a thorough overhaul.

For one thing, the parties, not outside groups, should sponsor the debates, and the parties should decide the rules for inclusion (leaning toward being inclusive, not elitist) and on who should moderate the debates.

The questioners should be bona fide political reporters, not blowhard talk-show hosts; this time out, Russert and Matthews and the Fox crew were embarrassments, seemingly with political axes to grind, and their trivial comments and "gotcha"-type questions dumbed-down the entire proceedings.

The contenders should be permitted more time for their answers, so that we get more than sound-bites and more sense of their underlying philosophies. Roundtable discussions works better in this regard than behind-the-podium stump speeches.

ADDRESSING THE REAL ISSUES

One of the reasons why we need better moderators is that, on the whole, the questioners shied away from some of the biggest issues of the day. Among them:

The overall direction of American foreign policy; the ongoing occupation of Iraq and how to get U.S. troops out of there; the great damage done to the Constitution in terms of civil liberties, habeas corpus, privacy, domestic spying; the need for immediate action on global warming; corruption and morality in government; the denigration of science; the role of the administration in keeping the economy stable and growing; the growing desire of Cheney and Bush to attack Iran; the Israeli/Palestinian conflict; the "war on terror"; media conglomeration; impeachment; etc., etc.

We need to know where the would-be presidents stand, and why, on these great issues of the day. By and large, the questions in past debates tended toward the already understood and the trivial.

SHORTER ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

The long, drawn-out primary schedule derives from a much earlier, pre-radio/TV, pre-Internet era in American political history, when it was was necessary for candidates to travel widely by horse or train to get around the country.

There is no good reason to stretch out the primary and campaigning for more than a year and a half. Communication these days is so widespread and rapid that we simply don't need all that hop-scotching around the country for a year.

Why not emulate campaigns elsewhere in the world by drastically shortening the primaries to, say, two or three months -- perhaps in four regional primaries spread out over that period? And the actual campaigning time could be confined to, say, three months?

MAJOR REFORM OF VOTING SYSTEM

To obviate all the technological glitches in the current fascination with touch-screen and op-scanner voting machines -- which are easily hackable and manipulatable -- why not go the Canadian and French route: paper ballots counted by hand, with party observers in the rooms as the tabulating goes on? True, the TV networks might not be able to announce the full results by the evening of the elections, but isn't it more important to get the totals right, free of suspicion of tampering, than to get a quick, potentially false report?

MORE NEW HAMPSHIRE ANOMALIES

My essay last week on America's deficient election system ("New Hampshire: U.S. Election System Still in SNAFU Mode") yielded a number of trenchant comments from readers, especially about things that went wrong in the Granite State primary.

I had mentioned how odd it was that the 39%-36% Clinton-Obama vote totals never varied during the entire ballot-counting process, which hardly ever happens in politics. Several readers noted that essentially the same was true for John Edwards' total (17%) and for Ron Paul. It was as if the final vote percentages were somehow locked into place at the beginning.

I noted that in one town, Sutton, an entire family voted for Ron Paul but that Paul received no votes in that precinct's official tally. Now we get an even more outrageous anomaly: Kucinich had votes disappear after they'd been announced!

A reader sent in screen shots from ABC's primary coverage. (For full text and images, see the email at our Letters page) Here's what those screen shots showed me: At 8:52 p.m., with 23% of Democratic ballots counted in New Hampshire, Kucinich had 1789 votes, or 3% of the total. At 9:31 p.m., just a little more than a half-hour later, with 43% of the ballots counted, Kucinich now had 1638 votes, or 2% of Democratic votes cast. One hundred and fifty-one votes had vanished! No wonder Kucinich was upset enough to pay for an official recount!

One can well imagine that the ongoing recount, whenever the final results are announced, will reveal even more such disaparities and anomalies, for other candidates as well. For some preliminary examples, go to bradblog.com, which is replete with them. For example, here, here, here, and here.

In short, New Hampshire (and similar stories from other states across the country) demonstrate how untrustworthy and insecure our current voting procedures are -- and have been in state and national elections from at least 2000 on. November 2008 may turn out to be yet another electoral disaster, with technical glitches, human errors, deliberate manipulations of vote totals, etc.

Reform of the system should be mandatory before another botched or rigged election takes place in this country. We've been warned.

-- BW

with reasonably sized precincts.  Sure, a polling place with hundreds or thousands of voters would be ponderously slow.  Why not have smaller neighborhood-centric polling that could be counted quickly, then reported on a secure web site or even via automated text messaging?  If American Idol can receive/process 50M votes in 2 hours, surely our election system could do it as well.  Also, if there are problems, we'll have the full paper trail needed to get it right. Such a setup would have the added advantage of convenience for the voters and possibly increase turnout. Imagine being able to stroll in and cast your vote within a few minutes instead of waiting in line for hours for the limited number of machines that are usually provided in the large urban locations now.

Also, have thought for quite a while that Richardson is the obvious VP choice for the reasons you've cited as well as his Western geography and Hispanic ethnicity. 

running mate. He is brilliant and has been on the front lines of the international escapade!

Indeed, she would almost have to, if she's going to be up against McCain. Hillary/Wes would most likely win.

The question is whether General Clark would want the VP slot. He didn't seem that interested in it in 2004

Any Democratic nominee (other than Kucinich) might want to consider Ohioans Sherrod Brown (U.S. Senator) or Ted Strickland (Governor). Each was elected only in 2006, but each served several terms in the House before that, and so has a decent level of experience for the national audience. The key, however, is their popularity at home. A Democratic ticket that could take Ohio would automatically put the Republicans in trouble.

I'm not familiar with their records in detail. I'd be interested in hearing what Ohio DUers think about those possible VP candidates.

... he carried her water the first half of the primary season, ostensibly trying to align himself for - at least - another Cabinet position.

:puke:

I can't see Edwards accepting another VP slot after the disaster that Kerry led him into in '04.