Shadow Strategizing: Picking McCain's VP

What should a vice presidential candidate be? In no particular order, VPs can do any and all of the following:

1. Serve as a boost in a critical state or two;
2. Balance a ticket geographically;
3. Signify a ticket's concern for a particular issue;
4. Heal the wounds of a bitter primary fight;
5. Serve as an attack dog for a less combative politician;
6. Signify the "progressiveness" of a campaign;
7. Move to balance a ticket's issue expertise;
8. Bring buzz to a campaign.
9. Please the base.

And, most importantly, a VP can:

10. Reassure voters that the country will be secure if something were to happen to POTUS.

All of these things are POSITIVES about a good pick. What about the negatives of a bad pick?

1. Prove that a presidential candidate is not a good decision-maker.
2. Dominate news cycles with bad news.
3. Signify a lack of excitement for a candidate.
4. Snubs a segment of base/party.

Even with only a few bad things, the bad things are far worse than the good things are beneficial. Thus the VP pick should have a bit of a "do no harm" feel to it.

Unless, of course, you're the underdog. Many people are risk-avoiding in these situations; McCain can't be, at this stage. Tightening polls aside, McCain is losing. It's a year where Republicans are demoralized, Democrats are energized, and moderates hate the Republican brand. So, the "do no harm" aspect will be minimized, a bit.

Most of all, McCain is still thought of as "old." "Old" has to become "grizzled" and "experienced" and "tough," more than old. Picking a young VP (like a Jindal) tends to run against the idea of being grizzled.

So, if I'm prioritizing, here's what I'm looking for:

- economic expertise;
- someone not obviously affiliated with the Bush administration (most Republican options, in some way, have some affiliation with Bush);
- political skill;
- someone who will intrigue the Republican base;

and, most critically,

- someone who can take over for McCain if something were to happen.

Those are the basics. What about more specific benefits?

- swing state, preferably an Ohio or PA guy;
- woman, to appeal to some disaffected Clinton supporters.

Sadly, no one fits all of these criteria. It leaves a classic trade-off. Here's what InTrade is saying (as of Tuesday, 8/26, at 7 PM EDT):

Mitt Romney - 66.1
Tim Pawlenty - 21.0
Tom Ridge - 11.0
Joe Lieberman - 10.0
Eric Cantor - 8.4
Charlie Crist - 7.0
Meg Whitman - 6.0
Sarah Palin - 5.0
Rudy Giuliani - 4.3
Carly Fiorina - 4.2

Well then! The investors have spoken. Romney has become the clear frontrunner for the spot. I made a bit of a matrix to deal with my "criteria." This is something akin to the Keltner List: there's no scoring system, but it's worth looking at to see how the candidates stack up:

	Critical State	Geo. Balance	Wounds	Issue Focus	Attack Dog
Mitt Romney	X	X	X		X
Tim Pawlenty		X			X
Tom Ridge	X	X		X
Joe Lieberman		X		X
Eric Cantor		X			X
Charlie Crist	X	X
Meg Whitman
Sarah Palin				X
Rudy Giuliani		X		X
Carly Fiorina

	Progressive?	Expertise	Buzz	Base	Reassure
Mitt Romney		X		X	X
Tim Pawlenty				X
Tom Ridge					X
Joe Lieberman			X		X
Eric Cantor
Charlie Crist
Meg Whitman	X	X	X
Sarah Palin	X		X
Rudy Giuliani
Carly Fiorina	X	X	X

Down the line, why did I mark who I marked?

- Critical State: Mitt Romney in Michigan, Charlie Crist in Florida, and Tom Ridge in Pennsylvania all help. With that said, I think that PA is pretty much out of the picture, and Florida looks strong for the GOP this year.
- Geographic Balance: None of these candidates are Southwesterners, really, but the corporate choices don't get picked b/c they're not really associated with particular states, and Sarah Palin in Alaska doesn't help anything geographically. (I think geography is overstated, for what it's worth.)
- Primary Wounds: Mitt Romney and John McCain seem to be on much better terms now, but there's the added benefit of accentuating Obama's snub of Hillary. "McCain was big enough to turn his rival into his running mate. Obama: not ready to lead." Mitt and McCain did have a pretty intense primary fight (remember when the GOP race was a mess?)
- Issue Focus: Tom Ridge and Rudy Giulinai both represent "homeland security": Giuliani was "America's mayor" before becoming a bit of a punch line, and Ridge was the first Director of Homeland Security. Palin would signify a firmer commitment to drilling. And Joe Lieberman would quite clearly signify that McCain was doubling down yet again on the Iraq War.
- Attack Dog: Romney was described by Chris Clizza as the "smiling assassin," for the effectiveness of his attacks. Pawlenty and Eric Cantor have both been attacking Obama during the Dog Days.
- Progressive: Any of the three women would count (Palin, Whitman, Fiorina). There are no minorities in this list.
- Expertise: The two CEOs bring obvious economic credibility to the ticket. Romney helps on the economy, too.
- Buzz: The women, again, bring buzz. Joe Lieberman brings buzz in his own way: a bipartisan ticket can feed the media's obsession with non-partisan things.
- Base: On this list, the only two candidates who really would please the base are Mitt Romney (circa primary season) and Tim Pawlenty, a prototypical "Sam's Club Republican," as he terms it.
- Reassure: On this list, Romney looks presidential, though I'm not sure if he will be thought to have a ton of experience. Ridge and Lieberman both have the experience necessary to placate voter fears.

My thoughts on this matrix:

1. Why is Pawlenty an option? He seems to bring very little to the ticket at all, and he has no name recognition outside of his pretty clearly blue state.
2. Mitt Romney looks pretty good, here.
3. Fiorina and Whitman would be better choices if someone could assure me that the Republican base would like them. Whitman is pro-choice, apparently.
4. Tom Ridge would have been a much, much better choice if he were in the public eye a bit more. I get the feeling that he's largely forgotten.
5. Palin is too inexperienced, I think. You can't run the "ready to lead" argument as forcefully with a really young VP. I would watch out for Palin in 2012.

And, my picks:

If my campaign is feeling cautious: Mitt Romney. He comes across as a bit fake sometimes, but he'll campaign his guts out to be the 2012 or 2016 odds-on favorite. He's a good attack dog, and he may help in Michigan, which is a critical battleground in this cycle (Michigan is 4th among Nate Silver's Tipping Point States).
If my campaign is feeling very audacious: Carly Fiorina. She's pro-life, so the base won't hate her, and she's a non-politician in an era where people seem to be opposed to politicians on principle.

So, the best bet would be someone in the middle of those two. A bit bold, but with the benefits of a Romney.... but that candidate doesn't exist, as far as I can tell. There's also been very little "rollout hype," and the Republicans don't have much time to introduce their veep and get the campaign going full-force for the fall.

This time, I think the conventional wisdom is acceptable. I'd go with Romney.