and at least the district with Lincoln looks to be competitive and the one with Omaha might also be

of the white, competitive states it is hard to imagine TX as being reachable, but if McCain has to defend there then he will lose some other states because he will not have enough resources.

Sam Nunn is the perfect VP. Elder statesman. Well known and liked in Southern Red states. Master politician. National Security expert. etc. etc. He won't be a candidate for POTUS in the future so no threat to HRC. No one will doubt that he can step into The Office if necessary.

http://tinyurl.com/5hr7es

Nunn Watch -- from TNR

In case I'm not the only one who missed this July 3 Insider Advantage poll in Georgia, check it out:

(7/4/08) An InsiderAdvantage/ PollPosition survey conducted with our research partner Majority Opinion Research shows John McCain and Barack Obama locked in a tight race in Georgia, the ninth largest electoral prize in the nation.

The poll also indicates that should Obama choose former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia as his running mate, Obama's chances improve of winning Georgia in November.

The poll was conducted statewide on Tuesday among 502 registered Georgia voters like to vote in November. It was weighted for age, race, gender and political affiliation. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.3 percent.

Q. 1 Georgia Presidential ballot:

McCain: 46%
Obama: 44%
Barr: 4%
Undecided: 6%

Q. 2 "If Barack Obama selected Georgia's former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn as his Vice Presidential running mate, would you be more or less likely to vote for Barack Obama?"

More likely: 51%
Less likely: 11%
No difference/Undecided: 38%

Tom Schaller is persuasively skeptical about Obama's chances at tipping Southern states into his column. But he doesn't reckon with the weird  and unique convergence of Barr plus Nunn, and that's the key here....

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Monday, July 07, 2008 8:46 PM with 13 comment(s)

He would seriously piss off many, many of the Democratic parties base constituencies (esp. liberal, pro-choice women and gays/lesbians). He may have merit as a National Security Advisor or SecDef, but can't see such a divisive choice for VP.

And I would not vote for a Republican if my life depended on it.

Good comment. Not saying it's an awful idea, but just imo that I can't see Obama sticking his finger in the eye of the far left so soon after the recent contretemps.

I've been wrong before and will be wrong again, but I'm sticking with my original pick in this parlor game from back in January/February: Kathleen Sebelius.

He's actually older than McCain and has zero constituency. The guy has been completely out of action in public life for the last decade. Nobody knows who he is anymore.

Webb, Richardson, Edwards and even Clinton all made the short list because, in part, they each have some kind of very real constituency that would be brought to the polls.

Resumes in electoral politics mean NOTHING. There's a reason why Tommy Thompson's campaign got nowhere despite a stellar resume.  He had no constituency of any kind.  In 90% of elections, the chief question that each voter is really asking is this: 'is this person like me?' That is the fount of constituency and the root of political victory.

Sam Nunn's constituency consists of a handful of tired old men in nursing homes. His resume will not attract a single vote more than Tommy Thompson's did, or Rudy Giuliani, or Chris Dodd or any of the other unchosen Presidents who threw their hats in the ring without any sort of following behind them.        

The question you have to ask is: what did Edwards add to the ticket with Kerry in 2004?  Did he add a single state to the Democrats' column?  He certainly didn't seem to make a difference in the Carolinas or, for that matter, Virginia.

So, considering this very recent history, what's the basis for believing that 2008 would be different?

top of the ticket, different opponent, demoralized Republicans, energized Democrats, increased African American turnout, Bob Barr, etc., etc.

Those are all global advantages for whichever Democrats run.  

The question is, what's the basis for assuming that Edwards adds more this time than he did last time?

the polling numbers, to the extent you believe them.

regardless of who is chosen as VP. Obama will slowly but surely and continuously pull away from McCain, no matter whom he chooses for the ticket. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy with Edwards, but I agree with Kindler's comment above.

Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Utah, and NE-03 are really all McCain has a rock-solid base. Louisiana and West Virginia still seem uphill for Obama, and Idaho, Wyoming, and South Dakota are very unlikely (but I think one of those states might surprise; heck, polls have shown Obama w/in 10-15% in both ID and WY in recent months). But, really, everything else (including Arizona and Texas) could legitimately be in play by October/November, especially once the two of them get on stage together and have to debate face to face. The many contradictions of McCain 2008 versus McCain 2000-2001 will be too much for him to bear, and he may crash and burn (rhetorically).

McCain is just an awful candidate now. The video of him today was just as garish as that brutal green screen episode from the final night of the primaries.

The one candidate that could REALLY lock everything down would be Gore, but I don't think he has any intention of doing politics any more. Either Clark (although unlikely), Edwards, or Sebelius would make a fine second and will strengthen the ticket.  

Edwards didn't draw in too many voters the first time under Kerry. He's a nice guy and all but consider how angry North Carolina is about voting him into Senate to just turn around and disregard duties to run for VP. Plenty of people think Edwards is something great but everyone tends to forget that he ignored working for his constituents except his constituents (who are still bitter as hell).

I could never see Al Gore running for any office but President and even that has a slim to none chance. Clark is sort of in the doghouse right now even though he made great VP-style attack dog recently. Everyone also points to Sebelius but I doubt she would actually get the votes we talk about.

Personally, I'd rather take Janet Napolitano and attack McCain in his home state of Arizona. Secure the southwest votes. Playing with the www.270towin.com map, I would wager that taking those states is an easier win that fighting for Virginia even.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island. He has an amazing résumé, including Army service and a professorship at West Point. He has, so far, been an effective leader in the Senate on the issue of the ongoing housing crisis, and is one of the 23 distinguished US Senators who cast their votes against the original Iraq War resolution. Take time to further examine his political positions and public service record, and you'll find that the case for Reed as Obama's running mate really does make itself.

Is he going to appeal to independents?

I don't understand exactly what the source data is. What dates was it gathered?

I remember seeing head to head polls with Edwards as a potential VP right after the end of the primary that showed Edwards getting Obama HUGE bumps in a lot of states, including Virginia.

However, note that those were taken back before Obama had united the party. He was polling with something like 68% of Democrats supporting him, and I suspect that adding Edwards at the time was just getting the percentage of Dems up into the high 80s or better.  It was, in effect, a harbinger of what would happen once Obama united the party. Which he has already managed to do on his own steam.

So, is this based on data that is current?

Bizarrely, I have come to believe that with Webb out, Edwards is actually on the top of the list. This despite having zero foreign policy experience. He's absolutely, positively fully vetted (having been through Kerry's vetting process), has won a tough Senate race in a red state, been through 2 Presidential campaigns and a third as a candidate for Vice President, doesn't make any gaffes or mis-steps, knows how to stay on message, is a tough campaigner, can raise good money and brings a real and sizable constituency with him.

Plus he's the proverbial Southerner that one wants on a winning ticket, and with Webb now out, I don't believe that there is another Southerner in serious contention.

Obama/Edwards. Weird, but I think it will win.

I think this would be a good thing.  Ideally, I think Webb should be VP and Edwards AG.  Since that doesn't look likely, the next obvious choice is Edwards.

IMHO, and this is entirely from a political perspective not what is right or wrong, the strongest VP choice would be white, male, populist, and have military/foreign policy experience.  Edwards gets a 75% on that criteria.

I'm also a fan of Jon Tester and Dick Durbin.  Of course, I also like them in the Senate.  Since Edwards is no longer in the Senate, it wouldn't hurt to make him VP.  Also, both of those Senators have the same problem that Edwards has - no foreign policy experience.

Do you know any white, male, populists with foreign policy experience and also in the Democratic party that would be good choices for VP (no skeletons in the closet)?

Bill Richardson has a great resume (so he says ;-).  I don't think ambasador is the kind of foreign policy experience people are looking for though.  They want someone who has shot an M-16 and been shot back at - someone who prefers beer over wine.  Also, he doesn't meet my (admittedly) rediculous "white male" criteria.  But, I think he would be a good VP it were a winning ticket.