Republican Veepstakes: I Like Mike, But McCain Should Pick Mitt

I confess up front that I really like Mike Huckabee and enjoyed watching him campaign during the primaries.  Huckabee has a lot of support to be McCain's vice-presidential pick and I assume he's on the short list.  But if Senator McCain were calling to ask my advice, I would recommend the guy who wasn't my favorite - - Mitt Romney.  As I project the race with McCain-Romney and Obama-Anyonebuthillary, this will be a killer combination for the Republicans. 

Here are some factors to consider when vetting a veep:

1.  Can he carry his neighborhood?   This can be an important factor (or it can be a non-starter; depends; if John Edwards had carried North Carolina in 2004, the Kerry-Edwards combination still would have lost).  Mike Huckabee sure can carry his neighborhood, against anyone but Hillary Clinton, and I assume she will not be Obama's VP choice; however, Arkansas is highly likely to go Republican even without a native son on the ticket.  So the question is, "Can Mitt Romney carry Massachusetts for the Republican Party?"   Yes, I do believe he can.  Obama did not poll well there, even with Ted Kennedy's endorsement, and Romney gets "favorite son" status.  In addition, Romney would be likely to tip the balance to the Republicans in Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island as well.  So in this category Huckabee adds no electoral votes, Romney adds at least 12 and probably more.

2.  Can he help in the midwestern "swing states?"  Romney has the clear advantage here.  He would help carry Michigan, and perhaps Ohio as well.  Not having Huckabee on the ticket may cost the Republicans the Iowa electoral votes, but the trade is uneven.  One more state:  Pennsylvania.  Romney on the ticket would be more likely to win there than Huckabee.

3.  How will the South react?  Romney didn't poll as well in the South, and Huckabee won several primaries there.  Nevertheless, the South in general will stay solidly in the Republican column, even with Romney as the Republican VP nominee.  This is going to be an ethnocentric-and-value-based election in the South - - please note, I do not say or mean "racist."  But the simple fact of the matter is this:  there are some voters who will vote for Barack Obama because he is black; there are some voters who will vote against Obama because he is black.  The "value-based" factor must also be taken into account - - Southerners are strongly conservative or traditionalist, and Barack Obama is anything but.  Liberals of any description do not run well in the South.  This is why I say the vote will be "ethnocentric" - - white, conservative and moderate-traditionalist voters will not vote for Obama, even though black voters will support him overwhelmingly.  Nationwide, those voters probably balance out to no net effect.  In the South, the white "no" voters will outweigh the black "yes" voters to a sufficient degree that McCain will win all of the southern states except Maryland; if Obama puts a Virginian in the VP slot, the vote will be close but even that may not be enough (Virginians are notorious ticket-splitters and tend to vote conservative/Republican in national elections, even while voting moderate/Democratic in statewide elections).   So while it may matter in the South who the Republicans nominate for VP, the choice of Romney over Huckabee probably will not hurt.

4.  Who will help more in the intermountain West?  Romney, hands down.  Again, the ethnocentric analysis:  some will vote for Romney because he is a Mormon; some will vote against him because he is a Mormon.  Nationwide, those voters probably balance each other out, but they are not randomly distributed.  The Mormon community predominates in Utah, of course, which Romney won overwhelmingly in the primary election; but there are substantial numbers of that faith in other intermoutain West states, such as Idaho and Nevada.   The advantage here is cearly for Romney.

5.  In general, who helps or hurts the ticket more?  This is a general-impression factor, but here goes:  both help, but Romney helps more, because he is less like McCain than Huckabee.  A McCain-Huckabee ticket features two candidates with a more-or-less "maverick" background.  Romney provides a different dimension, specifically, the dimension of a more conventional, conservative Republican with a strong business background.

So, on the whole, it appears that Romney is the better choice.  For a McCain-Romney ticket, my best-case projection is 346 Republican electoral votes to 192 for the Democrats; worst case is 293-245.  Of course, I must state the usual disclaimers - - it's still early, anything can happen, yadda yadda.  But that's how I see it now.

Comments

[nrobyar]

People across the country (except Utah and Mich) are turned off by Romney, his lack of substance, lack of character, unethical presidential run and the way he has sucked up to a man he viciously attacked as soon as he conceded the race (even that shows lack of substance, conviction). McCain needs a running mate who is like him in ideology, can work well with him and can form a cohesive team. One other think you left off, we need someone who can motivate, inspire and give hope to the party and make us believe in ourselves, believe we can win. That man is Mike Huckabee. You had only to attend one of the conventions where Huckabee spoke (I did) and you would know what I mean.....

[Anonymous]

There are several other reasons to choose Huckabee:

1. The South is not solid anymore for the Republicans. Just look at a few recent polls in NC (http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008/pollsa.php?action=indpoll&id=3720080715019) and GA (http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008/pollsa.php?action=indpoll&id=1320080702034)-- McCain is only up by single digits in these states (and the GA case is a statistical tie!). To secure the South, McCain needs Huckabee.

2. Choosing Huckabee would cut into Obama's "target demographics," namely people under 30 and African-Americans. For proof, look at the exit poll data for his re-election as governor of Arkansas back in 1998: he won 48% of the Black vote and 78% of the youth vote. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/AR/G/exit.poll.html) Few other Republicans (if any) have achieved this.

3. McCain needs to reconfirm his "maverick" status to have a chance. Picking Romney simply because of pressure from the GOP leadership would result in a loss of credibility (and thus the election).

4. If anything, historical examples from China and Vietnam shows that the "bad guys" can win through grassroots movements. Well, I have new for you: while Obama isn't communist as in the historical examples, his campaign happens to be a grassroots movement. To counter that, McCain needs another 50-state strategy of his own. The easiest way to do so is to pick Huckabee as VP and thereby absorb his fervent supporters, some of whom are going as far as saving for a potential 2012 bid.

5. Huckabee remained on good terms with McCain throughout most of the primary. The same cannot be said of Romney. Also, remember that Huckabee himself asked for McCain to pick him as the VP. McCain might as well grant his wish when no one else is applying for the job ;-)

6. Finally, there's the evangelical vote. As things now stand, they'll either stay home or vote 3rd party in protest... or even defect to Obama because of "social justice" issues.

Remember, it doesn't matter that picking Huckabee as VP might alienate moderates or fiscal conservatives-- the goal is to get 270 electoral votes, NOT to win the popular vote. If McCain ends up winning 50.001% of the votes in enough states to give him 270 EV's while 0% of the votes in others, so be it. The end justifies the means here.

[Nate]

I'm not going to copy and paste a form letter here, but I do have to agree with Jay's assessment in general. I think the key states Romney brings are swing states: Colorado, Nevada, Michigan, New Hampshire. 1 swing state is worth 5 red states.