A Southwestern Strategy
Consider a ticket of Richardson-Napolitano: two popular governors of red states, New Mexico and Arizona, respectively, not easily vulnerable to the GOP playbook. This ticket would be hard to paint as Eastern elite latte liberals. The ticket would be experienced, competent, and moderate. If there is a train wreck in the Senate, they wouldn’t be caught up in it. Appeal to minorities, check. Appeal to women, check. Appeal to Catholics, check (but religiously balanced; Napolitano is a Methodist). The ticket would not be geographically balanced, but neither was Clinton-Gore or Bush-Cheney, the last two winning tickets. Part of the strength of the ticket would be its ability to nail down the Southwest.
Let’s do the math. Kerry was 18 electoral votes short. New Mexico has 5 electoral votes; Arizona, 10. Add the neighboring red-trending-blue states of Nevada (5 electoral votes and home of Harry Reid, their popular senator and Democratic Minority Leader), and Colorado (9 electoral votes and home to Ken Salazar, another popular Democratic senator), and we are up to 29 electoral votes. Any three of those four states would provide the missing electoral votes, and all four would seem likely. Montana (3 electoral votes) also might be possible with two Westerners on the ticket. These are all red states that Kerry didn’t win and Hillary would have a hard time winning. (Gore carried New Mexico, but barely). Now with Hispanic-American heritage at the top of the ticket, turn California an even deeper shade of blue and make Texas (34 electoral votes) a battleground state in addition to Florida (27 electoral votes). It is extremely hard to see Hillary carrying Texas, but Richardson might, and it would be very hard for the GOP to put together 270 electoral votes without Texas. Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, and other perennial battlegrounds would still be viable, since a moderate ticket should do well in the Midwest. It could be an electoral landslide with most or all of those, but even without Texas, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, and Iowa, it could still be a winning ticket.
Leo Brown | November 10, 2005 | Comment on This Post (16 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Yeah, this is all great: Richardson, Napolitano, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, .... all could win, I agree. But there's a huge obstacle standing right in the way, and its name is Hillary Clinton. Barring some unforeseen ...scandal for her I don't see how she can be stopped. And even if you could beat her for the nomination, I think it would be almost mandatory then to put her on the ticket as vice pres (maybe that would be ok though). But I think she will likely lose a national election right at a time where democrats are set up imo to score a big win, in '06 and '08. As the Oracle would say, "It is a pickle, no doubt about it ...".
Posted by: Del | Nov 10, 2005 6:35:03 PM
I couldn't agree more.
Bill Richardson/Napoliano would be a great ticket.
Posted by: Ray Suelzer | Nov 10, 2005 6:49:30 PM
Yes, Hillary has the name recognition and a strong post position. But I remember when Senator Ed Muskie looked like the inevitable nominee. At one point Howard Dean looked like he would win the early primaries. The dynamic of the race can change quickly. One danger of being the early front runner is that all the other candidates have a common target. If the polls in early 2008 show that Hillary would lose the general election but other Democrats might win, a lot of primary voters will want to avoid an instant replay of 2000 and 2004. Hillary is also vulnerable because of her support for the war. If she changes her position, she will be charged with flip flopping. If she doesn’t, then a lot of Democrats will actively oppose her.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Nov 10, 2005 7:45:51 PM
I hope that Hillary decides instead to become the next Ted Kennedy: the leader of the party, the top fundraiser, the soul of the Senate, etc.
Otherwise, we're all going to have to coalesce around an alternative VERY fast.
Personally, I favor Richardson/Schweitzer...
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 11, 2005 2:34:21 AM
Kari,
You are right that we need to coalesce sooner rather than later. 2006 will be the year of testing the waters. 2007 will be the year of raising the money. Then things will happen very quickly in 2008.
Of course, the VP is picked relatively late in the campaign process. And I definitely like Schweitzer a lot. He is moderate, smart, and charismatic. He is a rising star. Great guy in every way. So why Napolitano? Arizona has more electoral votes than Montana, of course, but there is another reason why the experienced and popular governor of Arizona would make a good vice-presidential nominee. Part of the support for Hillary comes from voters who would like to see a woman on the ticket. Janet Napolitano could satisfy those voters, and Janet’s competence would answer the charge that this is merely a token or a quota.
I am also happy to recommend the trackback post at http://billrichardsonblog.com/?p=44 on ticket reinforcement.
I don’t think Hillary will be interested in second place on the ticket, and it is obvious that she would have trouble winning red states if she were at the top of the ticket. Senator from New York seems to fit her well. But the soul of the Senate? Leader of the party? So far she has been a careful senator, but not a leader who is out in front on the issues. Barbara Boxer has been out front on the issues. So has Russ Feingold. Not to mention the venerable Robert Byrd. Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and especially our man Harry Reid have been doing the heavy lifting for us in the Senate.
The Democrats will need to define themselves clearly and skillfully on the issues. Hillary will have trouble defining herself on the war because she voted for it, and now it is an increasingly unpopular war with no exit in sight. The trouble with the Senate is that first you vote for something, then against it. Hillary will also have trouble defining herself on healthcare, because she tried that once with little to show for it.
Leader of the party? We need to look West!
Posted by: Leo Brown | Nov 11, 2005 5:58:54 PM
"Moderation" alone is not going to do it. It seems to me that it is an issue of does this particular candidate(s) truly speak to the necessities of the voters? Wedge issues are not popular right now but then doesn't make Democrats who can flout them "moderates."
Tim Kaine is not your typical moderate. What he is is someone who talks effectively about his agenda and can convince people of his convictions (namely religious ones). You can be more liberal if people know that you see what isn't working in their states and have plans that you've proposed because of the strength of your convictions.
I should add, I could not agree more that Senator Clinton would be an anemic choice. Let's drop the senator fixation once and for all.
Posted by: J-Man | Nov 12, 2005 12:01:48 PM
Richardson is the man, and is clearly going to blow people out of the water when the primary season gets underway.
Governors, Governors, Governors
NO MORE
Senators, Senators, Senators
I'd actually prefer a midwesterner attached to the bottom end of the ticket, especially to shore up the Democratic base which wants a anti-war Dem on the ticket. Richardon/Feingold could make some serious noise all over the country, especially electorally.
Don't underestimate how the base hates the war and wants anti-war represented on the ticket.
Posted by: Landon Mascarenaz | Nov 12, 2005 4:41:38 PM
I don't agree that any centrist Democrat could win. Any Senator would have a harder time than a Governor simply because voting records hurt you in opposition research land. That said, I agree 100% with Richardson at the top of the ticket. I would make a change at the bottom of the ticket, Richardson/Kitzhaber.
Of course, the bottom of the ticket has more to do with what is going on in the late winter/spring of 2008 than anything else, but a boy can dream.
Posted by: Emmett O'Connell | Nov 13, 2005 4:00:07 PM
Here's an angle I haven't seen discussed yet here -- what would the spending caps be on any southwestern states involved in an eary primary? IIRC, spending caps for matching funds are determined by # of registered voters, and in the last cycle, it was something like 1/5 m in Iowa and 2m in NH -- but rendered irrelevant since Dean, then Kerry didn't need to observe the caps and no one else could afford to go far over the caps.
If a state like say AZ were thrown into the mix as an early primary, wouldn't the cap be somewhere below Iowa's -- and wouldn't that make it hard for a candidate like Richardson to score the big win he would need for such a victory to register on the national scale? Or put another way, couldn't a candidate like Sen Clinton or Sen Kerry, both of whom are nearly certain to reject public financing and caps, keep it close just by pumping in a million dollars?
Secondly, on a larger scale, how would a candidate like Gov Richardson, without the natural fundraising base of Clinton, Kerry, Warner, or even Biden, be able to forego caps and if not, how to avoid getting wiped out by the republicans in the early spring and summer if he did win the nominaiton?
Ugly questions I agree when we should be focused on issues, but its the reality of a presidential election.
Posted by: desmoulins | Nov 13, 2005 6:01:53 PM
Arizona has 3 more electoral votes than Iowa, so I would assume it has a larger spending cap than Iowa as well.
In terms of who will raise enough money to be able to ignore the caps, this time in teh 2004 cycle nearly no one knew who Dean was and those that did never would have tabbed him as having "natural fundraising base." But, things change and the Dean campaign changed how money is raised.
Also, I noticed something about the folks you put on your list of natural money raisers, they're all east coast, and depending on where you put Virginia, they're all northeasters. Are you implying that any West-coast candidate (beyond Richardson) couldn't raise enough money to ignore the spending limits?
Posted by: Emmett O'Connell | Nov 14, 2005 7:44:08 AM
The idea of a Richardson/Napolitano ticket looks good on the surface, but I'm afraid the whispering campaign against her in Red precincts around the country would hurt. A middle aged, unmarried woman on the ticket would be inviting - unfortunately - the sort of underhanded and cowardly tactics Rove deployed so expertly against McCain in South Carolina in 2000. She's an excellent governor and would be an excellent vice president or president, but I don't see her getting past that hurdle. Richardson could turn to Kathleen Sebelius (also a Time top 5 governor) or he could look to Blanche Lincoln. Lincoln is neither a governor nor a southwesterner, but she is a moderate, articulate southerner who would put Arkansas in play. Sebelius doesn't put Kansas in play, but she could help by giving some balance to the ticket (woman, Great Plains), but like Richardson she is Catholic. And, after last week's elections Richardson/Warner is looking better and better.
Posted by: Mitch | Nov 14, 2005 1:50:16 PM
I definetly think a "Southwestern Strategy" is a very good idea. I was hoping there would be one in 2004, but maybe now this is "an idea whose time has come."
My only concern is the notion that Richardson and Napolitano will enhance Democrat's chances in Texas on account of their ethnicity. While this may be true, I am more inclined to go with their regional appeal and savoir-faire. Too often people assume voters are going to automatically side with someone of their race regardless of their views. In Maryland there is a lot of talk about Lt. Governor Steele winning over the African-American vote in next year's senate race because he is black. But he is also very right-wing, so why should anyone desert their convictions simply because of race?
Of course, the Hispanic vote leans Dem and is very much in play anyway. . . Just some thoughts on the matter.
Posted by: J-Man | Nov 15, 2005 8:38:08 AM
I definetly think a "Southwestern Strategy" is a very good idea. I was hoping there would be one in 2004, but maybe now this is "an idea whose time has come."
My only concern is the notion that Richardson and Napolitano will enhance Democrat's chances in Texas on account of their ethnicity. While this may be true, I am more inclined to go with their regional appeal and savoir-faire. Too often people assume voters are going to automatically side with someone of their race regardless of their views. In Maryland there is a lot of talk about Lt. Governor Steele winning over the African-American vote in next year's senate race because he is black. But he is also very right-wing, so why should anyone desert their convictions simply because of race?
Of course, the Hispanic vote leans Dem and is very much in play anyway. . . Just some thoughts on the matter.
Posted by: J-Man | Nov 15, 2005 8:38:32 AM
Re a whispering campaign: I think it would backfire. Also, consider the possibility of Rice on the GOP ticket.
Re Texas: Texas used to be a solidly Democratic state. The party needs to at least put Texas in play.
Re Warner: Some definite positives, but no foreign policy experience, one-term governor, no prior elected office. Contrast that with Richardson: Congressman, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary of Energy prior to becoming the Governor of New Mexico.
Re Senators: JFK was the last person to go directly from the Senate to the White House. But back then the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Senate agenda. When was the last time someone went from a minority position in the Senate to the White House? Of course, we could win the Senate in 2006. I would like to see Governor Warner unseat Senator Allen in Virginia.
Re ethnicity and gender: I agree that ethnicity and gender are not enough and to trade on ethnicity and gender alone would be a very bad idea. Fortunately, the ticket of Richardson and Napolitano would have experience, competence, intelligence, and the ability to reach out to all Americans.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Nov 16, 2005 4:18:33 AM
I don't think there is any possibility of Rice being on the GOP ticket, let alone the top of it. The Republicans aren't stupid enough to turn to an architect of the war when the war is going badly. Plus she's said she is pretty much "libertarian" on social issues (read: abortion) so she's disqualified right there. But, you may be right, it could backfire. Let's hope it does, because Maria Cantwell would make an intersting national candidate, too, but she has the same problem.
Posted by: Mitch | Nov 16, 2005 9:42:19 AM
My Favorite muckie trolling lure is a Grunt. Massive 16 inches with a wide 30 inch wobble. Pike and musky will oth hit this lure hard in summer and fall! http://www.gruntmuskielures.com
Posted by: Muskie Bucktail Man | Dec 22, 2006 5:38:37 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
