Someone other than Biden for Obama's VP

So, on Wikipedia there is a great big list of people who had been speculated as Obama's running mate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democr...s,_2008#Fellow_contenders_for_2008_nomination
Now, obviously many of these people are more likely than others, but surprise picks have been made before, so I suppose anyone is possible.

Here are various ways I think the election could have been affected, assuming that McCain keeps Palin as VP:

Chris Dodd and Jack Reed I can't see affecting the election much. Two old northeastern Senators, they seem like they would have the same appeal as Biden.

Hillary Clinton could rally her supporters, but she could also overshadow Obama somewhat, and she has plenty of detractors. In the end, I don't see much of an electoral difference just from her presence.

Ed Rendell would probably just lose Obama votes. I can't see him gaining anything that Biden wouldn't have, and his connections with Norman Hsu will hurt him. Finally, his claims that there was some media conspiracy in support of Obama and his praise of Fox News would turn off many liberals.

Kathleen Sebelius and Brian Schweitzer might be able to gain Obama votes out west, but not a whole lot I fear.

Sam Nunn, Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, Chet Edwards, and Jim Webb could help Obama in the South. Saxby Chambliss and Mitch McConnell could be in danger of being defeated for reelection.

John Edwards could help Obama in the South if he remains scandal-free. If he has a scandal like OTL though, he'd damage the ticket and probably have to be replaced.

Bill Richardson had those pay to play allegations which doomed his OTL Secretary of Commerce nomination, they could hurt him here as well. If he doesn't get brought down by scandal, Richardson could help Obama among Hispanics and the Southwest in general.

Ted Stickland and Evan Bayh could both help Obama in the midwest, but considering he swept that region OTL, wouldn't accomplish much.

Al Gore, Wesley Clark, and James Jones, I don't know.
 
Other than John Edwards, I think Chris Dodd would have been just about the worst choice for Obama's VP. He was a creature of the financial services industry (not surprising given that a good portion of such entities are incorporated in Connecticut) to the extent that they funded his entire presidential campaign that year. Then as Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure, Dodd, at that time the chair of the Senate Banking Committee, is would be undergoing an ethics investigation for his ties to Countrywide Financial and the suspicious refinancing of his home mortgages. Finally, Dodd was on record in the summer of '08 telling people that Fannie and Freddie were not failing. By September Fannie and Freddie's lap-dog Dodd is going to look like ever the fool when the Feds have to bail out those firms. Meanwhile, Obama's campaign isn't going to be able to run on Change because they'll be too busy putting out the fires caused by their flop of a VP choice.

I'm not sure that Obama loses the election, but it's going to be a lot closer than it has to be.

On another note, I remember reading that the reason they didn't choose Bayh was that he came off as too stiff and rehearsed during his interview. If you can make him more personable (good luck) then he probably gets the job over Biden.
 
I thought current thought had Tim Kaine as the main runner-up to Biden as running mate. He would be a lot less combative than Biden, but he might win more support in the South. Maybe a few polls bring Obama to within the margin of error in Georgia or Tennessee, causing a brief panic in the McCain campaign? I don't think it adds up to enough to swing anything that wasn't swung OTL. Come 2012, Kaine might do worse in the VP debates, but he might also help Obama hold on to North Carolina.

John Edwards had already committed the relevant parts of his scandals OTL, so unless you have a POD well before the campaign season, he's going to be a poison pill. Plus, he's essentially a white, less charismatic version of Obama; he's not going to appeal to anyone new or add any balance, and wouldn't be considered for those reasons alone.

Now, you know who would be really interesting? Brian Schweitzer. He adds all of the blue-collar appeal Obama will ever need, plus a lot of charisma once he gets out on the national stage, and a lack of gaffe potential that Biden brings. The only problem is his lack of experience in general and his lack of foreign policy experience in particular. Given that in the early days the Iraq War was the number one issue, and Obama's main weakness was his lack of experience, that's a major problem. If the economy is more of an issue early on I can see Schweitzer as a serious possibility. Maybe have the economy collapse earlier?
 
Last edited:
On another note, I remember reading that the reason they didn't choose Bayh was that he came off as too stiff and rehearsed during his interview. If you can make him more personable (good luck) then he probably gets the job over Biden.

According to David Plouffe's book, it was close to a coin toss between Bayh and Biden, but Bayh's interview came right after Biden's, and that apparently sealed it for Biden (The thought was that Biden had both the potential for more upside and more disaster, while Bayh was neutral on both accounts).

Bayh would have been interesting on a couple of levels: He was a Hillary supporter in the primaries, so if the Obama campaign hadn't wanted to give Hillary herself the spot, Bayh would have been a good choice. He had executive experience that Obama at the time didn't, more moderate at a time when the Obama campaign was perceived as quite liberal. Also, the media angle would have been good:Two youngish politicians with attractive families from the same region, reminiscent of Clinton and Gore (the personalities even play out, Obama as the more charismatic, Bayh as the more wonkish) in '92.

(Also those were excellent points on Chris Dodd).
 
I liked Sebelius, but that was not going to happen. Obama wasn't going to pick a female candidate unless it was Hillary - it would've been a huge slap in the face to her supporters and probably caused a bit more conflict down the road.

Evan Bayh probably gives Obama a stronger win in Indiana, so, maybe that state is called on election night instead of the next day - giving him a more impressive election night victory. But outside that, I don't see him adding much in other states.

I don't see Tim Kaine really bringing that much more into play outside what Obama won in the south. Maybe North Carolina, like Indiana with Bayh, is called a bit earlier ... say, on election night. But I doubt he's got enough clout to bring in solid south support - and that goes for Jim Webb.

Sam Nunn could've won Georgia for Obama, which would've given Obama an even more impressive victory (and potentially put the state in play in 2012, which would really muck up the Romney campaign considering there is no election scenario where they win without Georgia...and Obama only lost the state by eight points).

Brian Schweitzer would certainly deliver Montana for Obama, and maybe one of the Dakotas, but that's like a combined three electoral votes and I don't think he has much play in the south, not as veep.

At the end of the day, Nunn probably stretches the electoral map the most - as he could put Georgia in play, which would've been 15 electoral votes.
 
I was thinking Kaine for a TL of mine, and I think Nunn might get SecState in that TL too. (Biden will get shut out after some comments he made before his selection.)
 
When asking the "who else?" question, it becomes apparent how good a choice Biden was.

Despite people who see him as a caricature, Biden has been an extremely effective VP and assisted somewhat(any little bit helps) in calming certain swaths of Reagan Democrats.

He can’t go liberal and as previously mention, he cannot go with a woman because of the ‘slap’ to the Clinton supporters.

Bayh and Kaine maybe fulfill the 'Reagan Democrat' role. Tom Vilsack or Mark Warner seem possible.

Bill Richardson is interesting because of the Latino appeal, but he has some minor skeletons floating around his closet and his influence is slipping.

If you want to go the ‘pitbull’ route – Schweitzer is a wild card but may face the same questions Palin did, as a new Governor of a sparse state (but he’ll definitely answer the questions better). Another wild card is Howard Dean, if going this route.
 
When asking the "who else?" question, it becomes apparent how good a choice Biden was.

I absolutely agree. Biden isn't my favorite politician by any means, but he hit as many, if not more, of the "must-haves" Obama required for a Vice-President in 2008. Then over the past two years, he was the most effective member of the Obama administration (arguably second to Hillary). That's why I was shocked to hear people making speculation about him being dumped. He really was an excellent choice, even if the choice confused a lot of people in 2008.

According to David Plouffe's book, it was close to a coin toss between Bayh and Biden, but Bayh's interview came right after Biden's, and that apparently sealed it for Biden (The thought was that Biden had both the potential for more upside and more disaster, while Bayh was neutral on both accounts).

Bayh would have been interesting on a couple of levels: He was a Hillary supporter in the primaries, so if the Obama campaign hadn't wanted to give Hillary herself the spot, Bayh would have been a good choice. He had executive experience that Obama at the time didn't, more moderate at a time when the Obama campaign was perceived as quite liberal. Also, the media angle would have been good:Two youngish politicians with attractive families from the same region, reminiscent of Clinton and Gore (the personalities even play out, Obama as the more charismatic, Bayh as the more wonkish) in '92.

That's why I was certain Obama would choose Bayh. He'd reunite the party, he wouldn't overshadow Obama, he was young and had experience (legislative and executive), and he had foreign policy chops from having served on the Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. Another interesting point is the contrast between him and Biden in regards to Palin. Whereas Biden's personality precluded him from being too harsh towards her in the debate, Bayh's nerdy, wonkish demeanor would have allowed him to excoriate her without coming off as overly harsh.

That said, in retrospect Biden was the better choice.

(Also those were excellent points on Chris Dodd).
Thanks. :)

I've always found it odd that the only way people could think to derail an Obama presidency is by using Edwards. Dodd was, in many ways, a more realistic and disastrous choice.

By the way, if we're mentioning Ted Strickland then I think Sherrod Brown should get a serious look. He's younger, more charismatic, and more experienced (two more years in the house) than Strickland. He's fairly liberal while still able to appeal to blue-collar workers in the midwest.
 
Maybe Jack Reed?

Westpoint and Ivy league grad, surly he would have bring more respect from the military to the Administration.
 
Bayh was the runner-up. The big butterfly here is that Bayh's removal from the Senate means his Senate seat goes GOP two years earlier, as Gov. Mitch Daniels would have appointed a Republican to Bayh's seat.

That means there is no 60-seat Democratic supermajority for any stretch of time. Which likely means no ACA, unless somehow Olympia Snowe could be peeled off to support it. That's a fairly big change.

As far as Bayh's vice presidency is concerned, I don't see him being as influential as Biden, who has an outsize say on foreign policy issues. And insofar as Bayh does have influence, he probably pushes Obama in an even more centrist direction.
 
I remember reading that 16 percent of McCain voters were Hillary supporters. I have assumed that choosing her would bring over maybe half of them. Which would have given Obama a 55 percent share of the popular vote. tThat would be sure to bring Obama Missouri maybe Montana, the Dakotas and Georgia.
 
I remember reading that 16 percent of McCain voters were Hillary supporters. I have assumed that choosing her would bring over maybe half of them. Which would have given Obama a 55 percent share of the popular vote. tThat would be sure to bring Obama Missouri maybe Montana, the Dakotas and Georgia.
Assuming that there wouldn't also be some people who disliked Hillary who would be opposed to her. Also, McCain might have chosen a different running mate since he wouldn't think he could swing the woman vote with Palin, so that could help him if he chose someone more competent.
 
I want to kind of reverse a lot of the comments so far, about alternative choices not really adding that much because Obama won in their states/areas anyway - what if such an alternative instead garnered the credit for that win? So if it's Kaine (or Warner), what if he gets the credit for the victories in Virginia and North Carolina? Or Bayh gets credit for the victories in the mid-West. Does that influence the general perception of Obama, the GOP response to his Presidency (incouding the 2012 primaries), and his prospects for re-election?
 
I want to kind of reverse a lot of the comments so far, about alternative choices not really adding that much because Obama won in their states/areas anyway - what if such an alternative instead garnered the credit for that win? So if it's Kaine (or Warner), what if he gets the credit for the victories in Virginia and North Carolina? Or Bayh gets credit for the victories in the mid-West. Does that influence the general perception of Obama, the GOP response to his Presidency (incouding the 2012 primaries), and his prospects for re-election?

It's a good point and why I think Obama decided not to select Hillary Clinton in 2008. I think he didn't want his win tainted by the idea he only got there on someone else's coattails and that really didn't happen with Biden. Biden might have helped in Ohio and Pennsylvania - but he wasn't the reason Obama did well out west and in the south.
 
Bayh was the runner-up. The big butterfly here is that Bayh's removal from the Senate means his Senate seat goes GOP two years earlier, as Gov. Mitch Daniels would have appointed a Republican to Bayh's seat.

Hmm...if he doesn't appoint a place holder at this point it's likely he'll appoint Representative Mike Pence, who many thought would challenge Bayh in 2010. Even if he does appoint a place holder Pence will probably run for the senate seat in 2010 seeing as he won't be worried about squaring off against Bayh. This probably butterflies the return of Dan Coats (thank god). There would be immediate butterflies within the Republican House leadership, then.

That means there is no 60-seat Democratic supermajority for any stretch of time. Which likely means no ACA, unless somehow Olympia Snowe could be peeled off to support it. That's a fairly big change.

That would be a big change, especially going into the midterms. Without the ACA, the Republicans aren't going to have much to run on. Of course that's ignoring other butterflies. Consider that Bruce Lunsford made huge strides against Mitch McConnell in the closing weeks of the Kentucky Senate race that year. Maybe Bayh, being from neighboring Indiana, is a strong enough force to swing another 3.5% away from McConnell. Now you've got a supermajority again. But that would be, I think, the only way you could do that with Bayh.

As far as Bayh's vice presidency is concerned, I don't see him being as influential as Biden, who has an outsize say on foreign policy issues. And insofar as Bayh does have influence, he probably pushes Obama in an even more centrist direction.

I'm not sure how Bayh is going to work with the Obama Administration. I think he'd be a major force pulling them toward the center, he'd also be their main guy for outreach to Blue-Dogs in the ACA debate. Bayh would be able to provide cover for other moderate Democrats to support the president's agenda and would lend more credence to his claims of pragmatic centrism. Of course, that's a very optimistic assessment.

I think that heading into 2012 you'd hear a lot of talk about dumping Bayh from the ticket in favor of someone more on board with the administration's goals (like Hillary). The talk is going to be a lot more serious on the left, but I doubt anything would ever actually happen to him.
 
I'm with Whanztastic on this one. Biden was Obama's only real choice.

A black man and a woman on the same ticket would have broken the mould too much too quickly. THus, no Clinton, and no Sebelius

Evan Bayh would remind everyone of how young both men are.

Sam Nunn is too old and not relevant enough.

Wesley Clark would not work either, because Obama was already running as a Washington outsider, and the ticket loses if both are outsiders or if both are insiders. For this reason, Schweitzer and Strickland are also out.

Dodd did not build enough on Obama's weak points even though Dodd was an experienced federal legislator like Biden.

Edwards was a failed nominee for VP. He would not have been renominated.

Rendell is Jewish and a Washington outsider. Both would work against the Democratic presidential ticket that year. Too many broken moulds, and two outsiders.
 
Top