When narrowing down the choice for the Democratic presidential nominee, we should also ask ourselves which candidate provides the strongest “Top of the Ticket.”
Who provides the best top of the ticket candidacy when considering these targeted U.S. Senate races, or these DCCC Frontline members, or these targeted Iowa Senate races?
Can we win Senate seats in South Dakota with Barack Obama on the ticket? Can Dems pick up a seat in Mississippi or Louisiana with Hillary at the top? What about Maine with John Edwards? Can the Dems expand their majorities with Vilsack or Dodd or Biden? Who is the best person to protect and promote a Democratic majority?
Or is the whole notion of a “top of the ticket advantage” just a bunch of hogwash?
5 Comments
Edwards and Richardson would be best
It’s not hogwash–just ask people like Birch Bayh and John Culver who got killed in the 1980 Senate races.
I have serious concerns about how some of the declared candidates would play at the top of the ticket.
Edwards can make a very strong case in language that resonates with people in smaller cities and towns as well as urban areas. We have started to see some of those rural and small-town voters, who shifted heavily to the GOP in the 1990s, come back to the Democratic Party, and I think Edwards is better poised to help us continue that trend.
Also, he was thoroughly vetted during the last campaign, so we can be pretty sure the Republicans won’t find some surprise dirt on him.
Clinton at the top of the ticket would kill us in the south and the west, as well as rural areas in the midwest.
I think that once Obama is no longer the flavor of the month in the national media, he would not have coattails, although I don’t think he would be as much of a drag on the ticket as Clinton would.
I think Richardson would also have a lot going for him at the top of the ticket–experience as governor, in Congress, in the cabinet, with foreign policy–ready to be president on day 1. Also, he is Latino, which would help in several swing states.
desmoinesdem Mon 19 Feb 10:43 AM
Edwards
I agree with what you said about Edwards for now. He seems like he would be the guy to maximize moderate votes across the country.
I’m not so sure about Richardson. I think being Hispanic is a double-edged sword, with immigration being such a hot topic.
I do worry about Hillary and Obama’s ability to shore up votes for other races. Maybe it’s all in my head, or maybe it’s just living in the non-diverse Midwest, but I just can’t be certain how they would play out in other parts of the country.
snipehunter Mon 19 Feb 4:36 PM
it helps Richardson that his name sounds Anglo
I think that makes a big difference–superficial as it seems, he would turn off more people if he were named Rodriguez.
desmoinesdem Mon 19 Feb 8:45 PM
Rarely Important
Significant coattails are not that common. It might happen if there is a good cross-over candidate or if someone motivates a new group to the polls.
The 1980 example is a good one, because there were a lot of moderate to conservative Democrats that were looking to switch their votes to a Republican (Reagan), and they apparently went on down the ticket with their new home party.
Another positive coattail effect can be seen if the top of the ticket pulls new people into the voting booth. This could happen in 2008 if someone inspires a Democratic block to show up in much greater numbers.
To me the greatest potential for coattails is someone that could increase voter turnout for youth, Hispanics, or African Americans. If someone like Obama motivated young voters to go to the polls, then there should be a big benefit down ticket. Young voters are a huge potential resource for us. They are voting Democratic, but the voter turnout is very low. Turnout has increased a little of late, but it is still poor.
tom Mon 19 Feb 5:18 PM