Obama-Hagel

There was some media chatter about the idea of Chuck Hagel being Obama's running mate in 2008. Hagel himself said that if asked by Obama he'd have at least considered it (although he doubted Obama would ask).

What if Senator Obama had picked Chuck Hagel as his running mate?

There's an issue of liberal enthusiasm being dampened, but Obama already energized people on his own (surplus of enthusiasm and whatnot) and increased crossover appeal would be its own boon.

I could see him picking up Missouri and Montana here at least.
 
I don't think anything would change that much in terms of the administration.

In the general election, I can see Obama doing better in the West. Missouri is more than likely to go to Obama with a difference of 4,000 votes OTL. Montana as well and possibly South Dakota would go to Obama.


A few more pick ups in the House of Representatives for the Dems with Nebraska 2 being won by Democrat Jim Esch. Kansas 2 stays blue, Washington 8 Missouri 9, and Minnesota 6 go blue, among other close western races.
 
Why would Hagel say yes? If they won, he'd get frozen out of the Administration to appease the left. If they lost, he'd be finished with his own party for collaborating with the other side. Seems like a no-win situation for him.
 
There was some media chatter about the idea of Chuck Hagel being Obama's running mate in 2008. Hagel himself said that if asked by Obama he'd have at least considered it (although he doubted Obama would ask).

What if Senator Obama had picked Chuck Hagel as his running mate?

There's an issue of liberal enthusiasm being dampened, but Obama already energized people on his own (surplus of enthusiasm and whatnot) and increased crossover appeal would be its own boon.

I could see him picking up Missouri and Montana here at least.

Hagel's record on abortion https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/chuck-hagel-abortion-women-military/ and many other domestic issues did not rule him out of consideration for Secretary of Defense but would have been absolutely fatal to putting him on the Democratic national ticket.
 
Why would Hagel say yes? If they won, he'd get frozen out of the Administration to appease the left. If they lost, he'd be finished with his own party for collaborating with the other side. Seems like a no-win situation for him.

OTL he said he'd go for it if asked I think.

I don't think anything would change that much in terms of the administration.

In the general election, I can see Obama doing better in the West. Missouri is more than likely to go to Obama with a difference of 4,000 votes OTL. Montana as well and possibly South Dakota would go to Obama.


A few more pick ups in the House of Representatives for the Dems with Nebraska 2 being won by Democrat Jim Esch. Kansas 2 stays blue, Washington 8 Missouri 9, and Minnesota 6 go blue, among other close western races.

Why South Dakota in particular? Just because it's next to Nebraska?

Hagel's record on abortion https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/chuck-hagel-abortion-women-military/ and many other domestic issues did not rule him out of consideration for Secretary of Defense but would have been absolutely fatal to putting him on the Democratic national ticket.

They don't call it a unity ticket for nothing!

More seriously, I think if Obama wanted Hagel, Obama could get him through convention. Obama's personal charisma, the historicity of his candidacy, the mobilized energy of the left from 2006 to 2008, and how Hagel was against the Iraq War make me think it wouldn't be much of an issue.

Obama-Hagel vs McCain-Lieberman. That'd be an interesting race.
 
More seriously, I think if Obama wanted Hagel, Obama could get him through convention. Obama's personal charisma, the historicity of his candidacy, the mobilized energy of the left from 2006 to 2008, and how Hagel was against the Iraq War make me think it wouldn't be much of an issue.

Obama-Hagel vs McCain-Lieberman. That'd be an interesting race.

Hagel may have turned against the war by 2008, but he had voted for it. Considering Obama got his chance against Hillary largely by running against her Iraq vote, that's not a minor problem. Throw in the abortion stuff, plus opposing McCain-Feingold, and generally being a standard Republican on all economic issues, well, it would raise the question of why Obama's fighting so hard to get a Republican VP.

Also, the last time we had a unity ticket, the guy at the top got shot, and we were saddled with a member of the party we'd voted against. This seems like it would only further inflate Obama's "post-partisan" egotism as opposed to being something that would satisfy any actual voters.
 
More seriously, I think if Obama wanted Hagel, Obama could get him through convention. Obama's personal charisma, the historicity of his candidacy, the mobilized energy of the left from 2006 to 2008, and how Hagel was against the Iraq War make me think it wouldn't be much of an issue.

Please remember that there were a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters at the convention who were still somewhat bitter about Obama winning the nomination. They would seize on this as a proof of Obama not being a real Democrat--nominating a running mate (one accident or assassination away from the presidency) with an 85 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union! The notion that because Obama was charismatic and had (just barely!) won the nomination, he could do anything he wanted and the whole party would applaud is nonsense. There were heavy pressures against him even choosing Evan Bayh as his running mate, even though Bayh's voting record was far to the left of Hagel's https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/5/27/523729/- and even though it was widely (though mistakenly) thought that only Bayh could make Obama competitive in Indiana, whereas nobody thought Hagel could bring Obama Nebraska.

It's one thing to cheer on a member of the opposite party who annoys that party by being a maverick on one issue. It is something totally different to have him on your national ticket.
 
Obama certainly could have gotten any VP he wanted. Having Hagel on the ticket would be contingent on Hagel having come-to-Jesus moments on several key policies, with at least a very specific and nuanced acceptance of legal abortion, if not an outright endorsement of it. And of course he's going to have to become a Democrat. If he's willing to compromise on policy positions (which he might not be) then he's on board.

As many people are fond of noting, the VP isn't going to be that important a choice in the election outcome, though i'll grant that a few very close contests are up in the air in the presence of almost any kind of butterfly a couple months out.

And anyone saying his support for the Iraq War would disqualify him seems to be forgetting that Biden voted for it.

Considering Clinton had a deal on the table to be Secretary of State, I'd imagine she would heartily approve the choice of Hagel and signal her people to do the same.

I posit that the particular nature of enthusiasm Obama engendered insulates him from turning off his base, at least during the campaign season. The long history of Democrats reaching across the aisle for defense and foreign policy advice isn't going to ruffle many feathers in the party establishment.
 
If Obama can't pick Hagel, what other Republican could he have plausibly chosen?

Alternatively, which Democrat could he have picked that would have been the most "unifying" in terms of pulling in Republican voters? Perhaps he picks a General?
 
If Obama can't pick Hagel, what other Republican could he have plausibly chosen?

Alternatively, which Democrat could he have picked that would have been the most "unifying" in terms of pulling in Republican voters? Perhaps he picks a General?

Arlen Specter maybe, but let's be real here. Obama may have bought into his own hype enough to think that a Republican VP would be a good thing, but nobody else would agree. The differences between the two parties are not just petty squabbling, they're defined by class, geography, race, religion, and other factors that are hard to bridge. And attempting to feign a connection where none exists will only offend people.
 
If Obama can't pick Hagel, what other Republican could he have plausibly chosen?

Alternatively, which Democrat could he have picked that would have been the most "unifying" in terms of pulling in Republican voters? Perhaps he picks a General?
Jim Webb,might be a good comprise to Hagel though he is Democratic at this point.

Chafee :p but he doesn't really ad anything to the ticket
 
Arlen Specter maybe, but let's be real here. Obama may have bought into his own hype enough to think that a Republican VP would be a good thing, but nobody else would agree. The differences between the two parties are not just petty squabbling, they're defined by class, geography, race, religion, and other factors that are hard to bridge. And attempting to feign a connection where none exists will only offend people.

Then why not pick someone a-partisan like a general as a VP? Wesley Clarke and James Jones were considered historically.

What's wrong with Specter as a pick? He seems close enough.

Jim Webb,might be a good comprise to Hagel though he is Democratic at this point.

Chafee :p but he doesn't really ad anything to the ticket

Chafee voted more like a Democrat than a Republican while in the Senate and Webb said he wasn't interested in being Obama's running mate.

Sebellius, Schweitzer, and Bayh are all from red states but I'm not sure how much crossover appeal they'd really bring.
 
I would reiterate that if we're talking the convention here with Clinton already having declined VP in favor of State, I don't think there'd be any serious obstacles to Hagel. Obama's base would spin it as "our man can even convert a guy like Hagel, look at that!" while the Clinton faction would be happy because there's no way Hagel can run in 2016, and he's likely to help push a Clinton-favorable line in foreign policy.

Fox would call it cheap and likely go out and find a few voices in the wilderness on the left who abandon Obama because of it, but the rest of the media would eat up this show of bipartisanship with a spoon.

A small fraction of people are going to base their vote on this, but it could have significant effects on the *degree* of dislike the other side holds for Obama. In practical terms, fewer non-Obama voters tick the STRONGLY DISLIKE box in the opinion polls and more click DISLIKE. There's also a migration of non-Obama voters from DISLIKE to NEUTRAL (if that's an option). A much smaller number of Obama voters are going to go from STRONGLY LIKE to LIKE, and so on, simply because he's like a golden god going into that convention.
 
Then why not pick someone a-partisan like a general as a VP? Wesley Clarke and James Jones were considered historically.

Wesley Clark ran for President as a Democrat, so he was seen as a Democrat. He'd probably be accepted, but I wouldn't expect him to net any Republican voters for being there. Jones might not have been much better either, for the reasons below.

What's wrong with Specter as a pick? He seems close enough.

He certainly was a Republican at the time, but that wouldn't be enough to convince Republicans to vote for a Democratic President. I mean, why would it? Like I said, the two parties are very, very different, so people get that having a few Republicans in a mostly Democratic Administration won't make it a Republican Administration. If they want that, they'll simply vote for a Republican. And Specter nearly got primaried in 2004 for not being conservative enough, which is the only reason I imagine he might have been receptive to the idea of serving under a Democratic President. His plausibility as an Obama running mate is entirely premised on his not having much credibility with Republican voters at that point, so adding him to appeal to the electorate that nearly threw him out is inherently self-defeating.
 
Considering Clinton had a deal on the table to be Secretary of State, I'd imagine she would heartily approve the choice of Hagel and signal her people to do the same.

I posit that the particular nature of enthusiasm Obama engendered insulates him from turning off his base, at least during the campaign season. The long history of Democrats reaching across the aisle for defense and foreign policy advice isn't going to ruffle many feathers in the party establishment.

(1) HRC can't necessarily control the reactions of her supporters. And for that matter there will be some Obama-supporters-in-the-primaries who will be upset. (They had after all in many cases voted for him under the assumption that he was to the left of HRC.) The question isn't whether Obama could push the choice through the convention but whether choosing a vice-president who on practically every issue other than Iraq is a conservative Republican is going to win the necessary enthusiasm from Democrats in what looked like a close race. In the elections held since Roe v. Wade no Democratic presidential candidate has even dared to choose as a running mate a Democrat who wasn't pro-choice on abortion--even though there were quite a few potentially available. (Just as no Republican presidential candidate has ever dared to choose a Republican running mate who was pro-choice.)

(2) "The long history of Democrats reaching across the aisle for defense and foreign policy advice isn't going to ruffle many feathers in the party establishment." Uh, there is a slight difference between the vice-president and someone who merely advises the president on defense or foreign policy. THE VICE-PRESIDENT IS ONE ASSASSINATION OR HELICOPTER ACCIDENT AWAY FROM BECOMING PRESIDENT. (Sorry for the shouting, but some people don't seem to get it...) Even if voters are mostly indifferent to this possibility, I don't think Obama himself would be. Four US presidents have been assassinated, and some (including Ford and Reagan) have had very close calls--and that's even leaving disease and accidents out of the question...

(3) In any event, what advantage would choosing Hagel have for Obama? Evan Bayh (whose rumored possibility drew a lot of protests from liberals even though his voting record was fairly liberal) could at least conceivably make a difference in Indiana (though as it turned out, he wasn't needed for Obama to carry the state in 2008 and he almost certainly wouldn't have been enough to enable Obama to carry it in 2012.) There is no way Hagel could have enabled Obama to carry heavily Republican Nebraska, which in any event had only five electoral votes at most to deliver to a presidential candidate. (I say "at most" because it has three electoral votes chosen by congressional district as well as two at large.)

Nor would Hagel make much of an impression on Republicans in general. They were sufficiently angry at him over his criticism of Bush's Iraq policies--which we should remember were still quite popular with Republicans in 2008, who were arguing that "the surge worked"--that his generally conservative voting record did not much impress them. One issue can be enough to make someone a pariah in his own party--and when that happens, the other party cheers the pariah on. But it never puts him on its national ticket! There is a good reason that for all the talk of bipartisan tickets they never happen unless you count the very unusual circumstances of 1864--and Andrew Johnson's record as president is hardly much of an argument for bipartisan tickets.

(4) There is always talk about some very unlikely people being nominated as vice-president, so the fact that there was talk about an Obama-Hagel ticket means very little. And what little talk there was about such a ticket (compared to other possibilities) was largely negative:

***

Let's start with the Democrats.

"Rule K" of the Democratic National Committee's own "Delegate Selection Rules" clearly states that "all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall … have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate in the Convention in good faith."

National Chair Howard Dean would be hard-pressed to convince his Party faithful that Hagel, who was a co-chair of McCain's presidential campaign, has demonstrated that required commitment. Though he has sided with Obama on the Iraq War, the senator from Big Red country hasn't exactly turned blue.

Hagel as a Democratic VP candidate "won't fly," said one Democratic senator who asked not to be identified. "He's way too conservative on social issues."

Hagel voted with the Republicans 79.4 percent of the time, according to a Washington Post analysis of 311 votes between January and September of last year. Both Americans for Tax Reform and the National Right to Life Committee rate Hagel with a 94 percent lifetime voting record. The American Conservative Union rates Hagel at 87 percent.

Hagel also took contrary positions to Obama on Supreme Court nominations, voting in favor of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. And he was, according to some speculation in 2000, on George W. Bush's own short list for VP.

As for Hagel himself, a Democratic senator said that one of the most ardent floaters of the notion of Chuck Hagel as a running mate for Obama seems to be Hagel himself.

The Democrat added that Hagel is joining Obama on his upcoming trip to Iraq and Afghanistan because "no other Republican [senator] would go."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5390306&page=1
 
(1) HRC can't necessarily control the reactions of her supporters. And for that matter there will be some Obama-supporters-in-the-primaries who will be upset. (They had after all in many cases voted for him under the assumption that he was to the left of HRC.) The question isn't whether Obama could push the choice through the convention but whether choosing a vice-president who on practically every issue other than Iraq is a conservative Republican is going to win the necessary enthusiasm from Democrats in what looked like a close race. In the elections held since Roe v. Wade no Democratic presidential candidate has even dared to choose as a running mate a Democrat who wasn't pro-choice on abortion--even though there were quite a few potentially available. (Just as no Republican presidential candidate has ever dared to choose a Republican running mate who was pro-choice.)

(2) "The long history of Democrats reaching across the aisle for defense and foreign policy advice isn't going to ruffle many feathers in the party establishment." Uh, there is a slight difference between the vice-president and someone who merely advises the president on defense or foreign policy. THE VICE-PRESIDENT IS ONE ASSASSINATION OR HELICOPTER ACCIDENT AWAY FROM BECOMING PRESIDENT. (Sorry for the shouting, but some people don't seem to get it...) Even if voters are mostly indifferent to this possibility, I don't think Obama himself would be. Four US presidents have been assassinated, and some (including Ford and Reagan) have had very close calls--and that's even leaving disease and accidents out of the question...

(3) In any event, what advantage would choosing Hagel have for Obama? Evan Bayh (whose rumored possibility drew a lot of protests from liberals even though his voting record was fairly liberal) could at least conceivably make a difference in Indiana (though as it turned out, he wasn't needed for Obama to carry the state in 2008 and he almost certainly wouldn't have been enough to enable Obama to carry it in 2012.) There is no way Hagel could have enabled Obama to carry heavily Republican Nebraska, which in any event had only five electoral votes at most to deliver to a presidential candidate. (I say "at most" because it has three electoral votes chosen by congressional district as well as two at large.)

Nor would Hagel make much of an impression on Republicans in general. They were sufficiently angry at him over his criticism of Bush's Iraq policies--which we should remember were still quite popular with Republicans in 2008, who were arguing that "the surge worked"--that his generally conservative voting record did not much impress them. One issue can be enough to make someone a pariah in his own party--and when that happens, the other party cheers the pariah on. But it never puts him on its national ticket! There is a good reason that for all the talk of bipartisan tickets they never happen unless you count the very unusual circumstances of 1864--and Andrew Johnson's record as president is hardly much of an argument for bipartisan tickets.

(4) There is always talk about some very unlikely people being nominated as vice-president, so the fact that there was talk about an Obama-Hagel ticket means very little. And what little talk there was about such a ticket (compared to other possibilities) was largely negative:

***

Let's start with the Democrats.

"Rule K" of the Democratic National Committee's own "Delegate Selection Rules" clearly states that "all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall … have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate in the Convention in good faith."

National Chair Howard Dean would be hard-pressed to convince his Party faithful that Hagel, who was a co-chair of McCain's presidential campaign, has demonstrated that required commitment. Though he has sided with Obama on the Iraq War, the senator from Big Red country hasn't exactly turned blue.

Hagel as a Democratic VP candidate "won't fly," said one Democratic senator who asked not to be identified. "He's way too conservative on social issues."

Hagel voted with the Republicans 79.4 percent of the time, according to a Washington Post analysis of 311 votes between January and September of last year. Both Americans for Tax Reform and the National Right to Life Committee rate Hagel with a 94 percent lifetime voting record. The American Conservative Union rates Hagel at 87 percent.

Hagel also took contrary positions to Obama on Supreme Court nominations, voting in favor of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. And he was, according to some speculation in 2000, on George W. Bush's own short list for VP.

As for Hagel himself, a Democratic senator said that one of the most ardent floaters of the notion of Chuck Hagel as a running mate for Obama seems to be Hagel himself.

The Democrat added that Hagel is joining Obama on his upcoming trip to Iraq and Afghanistan because "no other Republican [senator] would go."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5390306&page=1

It's funny because I feel like very recently you were debating somewhere else about how little VPs matter?
 
It's funny because I feel like very recently you were debating somewhere else about how little VPs matter?

They matter very little in adding votes to a ticket. But as Eagleton proved, they can take away quite a few if they're bad. Otherwise, they've become progressively more involved in governing and high-level negotiations. Also, as he says, they can become President without anyone's input if something happens. Again, not only is this possible, but it happened the very last time we had a running mate of a different party from the presidential nominee.
 
It's funny because I feel like very recently you were debating somewhere else about how little VPs matter?

I agree that they don't change very many votes. But if anything that would be a reason for Obama not to choose someone who disagreed with him about almost every issue except Iraq.

In any event, I have never said that the vice-president might not make a difference in a very close race. What I have done is mostly to ridicule the idea that, say, Willkie could have overcome his ten point deficit in 1940 with a better running mate than McNary. After the financial collapse, Obama could probably have won with any running mate--but I still don't see the point of an Obama-Hagel ticket. As others have pointed out, for all Obama's talk about reaching across the aisles, etc., he was not naïve enough to think that the partisanship of most voters could be overcome by a gesture like this.
 
One important thing to remember is that by the summer of 2008, Iraq--which is virtually the only issue Hagel had in common with the Democrats--was somewhat fading as an issue compared to the economy, which most voters (if not economists) recognized was in a state of recession even before the fall of Lehman Brothers. Hagel--with his 87% rating from the Chamber of Commerce http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Chuck_Hagel_Corporations.htm and his 8% rating from the AFL-CIO http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Chuck_Hagel_Corporations.htm hardly seems to be the man to press the Democrats' economic message.
 
Top