A Stitch in Haste

I'm no good at them, but it's practically a blogospheric requirement. So here goes:

The Republicans:

Now that party elders have taken Mitt Romney out back behind the tool shed, bitch-slapped him around a bit, promised him an appointment as McCain's Commerce Secretary, and thereby convinced him to drop out quickly and endorse McCain...

...McCain will immediately strike a back-room deal with Huckabee, announcing him as running mate. One big happy party going into the convention with months to fund-raise, kiss-and-make-up, and prepare for November.

I honestly don't see how McCain can't pick Huckabee at this point. The Red State Rednecks who gave Friar Huck so many Southern victories didn't just vote for "anti-McCain" or for "the most conservative candidate." They voted for Huckabee; they want Huckabee. For McCain to pick anyone else, even the most radical social conservative around, would be a direct insult to those voters, whom he simply cannot afford to insult.

And speaking of "the most radical social conservative around," who might that be if not Huckabee? Anyone with better conservative bona fides than Huckabee would have run — and won. What other Hero of Jesusland could McCain pick? Sam Brownback? Fred Thompson? Larry Craig?

The Democrats:

I believe neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough regular delegates going into the convention; it's feasible (but unlikely) for Obama, but impossible for Clinton.

The superdelegates will give the nomination to Obama. The very reason people earn superdelegate status is because they are more loyal to the party than to any nominee. "Clinton v. McCain" is close; "Obama v. McCain" is a wipe-out, even with Huckabee on the ticket. It's that simple — and the superdelegates know it.

Meanwhile, if Clinton does somehow secure the nomination, then she will offer the VP position to Obama — who will turn it down. Better for him long-term to stay in the Senate and grow into a power broker, or to run for governor of Illinois (this is essentially George Will's thesis, and it makes sense). I have long thought her preferred choice is Wesley Clark.

If Obama secures the nomination, then he will tell Clinton to take a flying leap. I have no thoughts on his choice except that it will not be Jim Webb. Two neophyte senators in the Executive Branch would be one too many for too many voters.

Maybe Kathleen Sibelius? Woman + Executive Experience + Kansas = Ka-Ching? (My understanding, however, is that her SOTU response did not go over well — thoughts?)

So the possible outcomes on election day, with respective probabilities:

1. Obama beats McCain: 50%
2. Clinton beats McCain: 40%
3. McCain beats Clinton: 10%
4. McCain beats Obama (and all other possible combinations): 0%

One more side prediction: Whether it's Clinton or Obama, the entire month of October will consist almost exclusively of one Democratic campaign ad consisting of two words: "Maybe 100." And it will work.

Now tell me why I'm wrong.

My down-in-the-dirt political prediction skills are not particularly good. Just ask Homeland Security Secretary Giuliani. My comparative advantage lies elsewhere.

Still, here are my hasty stitches on the vice president process this go-round.

The main difference between McCain's algorithm and Obama's is that McCain needs less from his VP, but faces more constraints in whom he can select. Obama has more choices but needs more from whomever he picks.

OBAMA:

There are four benefits that a VP choice can bring to Obama. In no particular order:

1. Appeasing disgruntled Clinton supporters.
2. Executive experience.
3. Foreign policy and/or defense credentials.
4. Helping in, or creating, a "battleground state."

Note of course that no candidate brings all four qualities to the table — anyone who could would actually be the presidential nominee instead of Obama. Note also that no one I can think of — not even Clinton herself — brings any three to the table.

So the field now consists of those who offer two of the four benefits. Jim Webb? #3 & #4. Kathleen Sibelius? #2 & #4? Hillary Clinton? #1 & #3. Sam Nunn? #3 & #4.

(Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both offer only one benefit — #3 — and therefore are both highly unlikely choices. John Edwards of course brings zero out of four — and no I don't think Obama would appoint him Attorney General.)

There is one name, however, that I have left out — because I think he is the likely pick based on this analytical framework:

Bill Richardson.

Richardson is also a "two benefit" option: #2 and (especially) #4. But he also brings a bit — not much, but a bit — of #3 as U.N. ambassador. I think "defense credentials" are more important than "foreign policy credentials" in the case of Obama's choice, but U.N. ambassador is hardly inconsequential. Secretary of Energy certainly doesn't hurt either given the current circumstances. He might also have some carry-over credibility in neighboring Colorado — also widely considered a battleground state this year.

And while Richardson wouldn't do much for Obama relative to the Harriet Christian femi-racist wing of the Hillary Clinton base, he could instead help Obama with another group he's had problems with: Hispanics.

So there it is: Richardson for VP pick. Now tell me why I'm wrong.

McCAIN:

Again, I think the VP choice is much less crucial for McCain than for Obama. But the field is much narrower, because McCain faces two constraints:

1. He must pick someone at least tolerable to, if not beloved by, the Theocratic Right. He's on thin enough ice with Dobson and his gargoyles as it is. He simply cannot pick another "not one of us" personality. This is why I find predictions that he will choose Mitt Romney utterly laughable (Commerce Secretary, maybe, but not VP). He has to find someone who is at least willing to pretend to sing from the Evangelical hymnal and who has no pro-choice or pro-gay "stains" on his resume.

2. McCain cannot pick any candidate who is either too old or too young. To do either would only emphasize McCain's own geriatric situation and keep concerns about his health in the spotlight. Someone in his fifties — no younger, no older.

At the end of the day, I still think Mike Huckabee is the logical choice. He appeases the Evangelicals, alienates few if any economic conservatives (his advocacy of a national sales tax notwithstanding), and he doesn't embarrass or outshine McCain in any appreciable way. McCain was remarkably cordial toward Huckabee at the end of the primary campaign (the same apparently cannot be said for McCain and Romney — to put it mildly).

So there it is: Huckabee for VP pick. Now tell me why I'm wrong.