High Information Nonsense

This is something I've talked about quite a lot on this blog, but I found a great example yesterday.

First off, Voters are stupid, well-informed voters are more stupid. Ezra's understanding of how people actually make decisions seems pretty spot on*:

The Rationalizing Voter: "There are basically three theories of how voters think about issues when casting their ballot for a candidate. The first is 'policy-oriented voting,' in which a voter examines the various candidates on offer and votes for the one whose policy proposals most closely match the voter's own preferences. The second is 'persuasion,' in which the voter alters their own opinions to more closely conform with those of the candidate or party they favor. And the last is 'projection,' in which voters convince themselves that the candidate or party they favor really does possess the same beliefs that they do.

Sadly, persuasion and projection are much more common than policy voting. Voters aren't stupid. They're just much more committed to political parties and candidates than they are to issues. And we're not talking about the faceless rubes in the hinterlands. The effects of partisan bias actually become stronger as a voter's level of political information rises. High information voters, then, are actually more likely to warp their opinions based on their political allegiances"

So, how are we to interpret an Obama Organizer making this argument:

Joe Biden is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I trust him to keep us safe.

A. Policy — a fervent Obama backer (since the primaries) likes a VP who voted for the Iraq war, supported sending ground troops to Kosovo, and has 35 years of Washington Experience on pure policy grounds.

B. Persuasion — the Obama backer has become persuaded that Joe Biden's qualities (Washington experience, working-class roots) are the qualities needed in a VP because Obama picked him.

C. Projection — the Obama backer is unfamiliar with Biden's Hawkish record and is projecting his own views onto a trusted party leader.

I supported Biden because I hoped he'd be a bigger dick than Obama (a hope that has not yet born fruit, I might add), and I saw his foreign policy history as a necessary compromise, given that much of the party's leadership is similarly tainted. But to take it as a reason, nay the MAIN reason, to support Biden, well, that requires some major rationalizing and psychological sorting mechanisms.**



*It is, of course, possible for people to have even stupider reasons for voting the way they do.

**Of course, there's always option D. Cynicism — the Obama backer is willing to say and do anything to win the election, and was making an argument that his audience would accept...

I did not know that

From The Prospect's interview with Janet Napolitano:

DG: A lot of people don't remember, or never knew, that you represented Anita Hill when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Seventeen years later, what do you take away from the Clarence Thomas episode, which still remains a touchstone when people discuss issues of women in the workplace and women in politics?

JN: Well, I'd always been interested in public service before then, but it really did bring home how issues of women really didn't have an avenue to be heard at that time. And it was my first experience dealing with the media and appreciating how complicated that can be in terms of just the pressure of it, the constant…leaving a hearing room and having a lot of cameras and lights in your face; I had never experienced that before. I think that from Professor Hill's standpoint, that experience cost her a lot personally. But I think she should have a satisfaction in knowing but for that experience, the fact that women need to be treated fairly and are entitled to go to work without being harassed, when they're in the workplace trying to earn a living, would never have gained the prominence it did, and all the protections we now have.

Her term as Governor is up in 2010, the same year as a Senate seat currently held by a really fucking old Republican currently running for President comes up for election again. If she's not ensconced at Old Executive Office Building, that is.

Black Lincoln

One would certainly expect any Senator from Illinois running for President to be a fan of Abraham Lincoln, but Barack Obama seems to be particularly fond of him. At first I thought this was strategic — Obama's way of embracing his blackness and black history while rejecting black nationalism. But Obama's affection for Lincoln appears to be completely genuine, and of an intensity usually reserved for nerd Presidents obsessing over Jefferson (JFK, WJC).

To wit: He launched his campaign in Springfield, Lincoln's city, rather than Chicago, his own. He's often cited Lincoln's relative level of experience in comparison with his own. He mentioned he had read the book "Team of Rivals", which describes Lincoln's cabinet. And then, through the googles, I find out that he was in the habit of writing essays like this before he ran for President. Obama has compared himself to the biblical Joshua on more than one occasion, and I always thought he meant for MLK to be Moses in the analogy. Now I'm not so sure. But whatever the case, it's clear that Obama is a major Lincoln groupie.

Now, this has probably occured to Obama before me, but Lincoln's greatest avoidable error was in 1864, when he chose Andrew Johnson (the only Southern Democratic Senator who remained loyal to the union) to be his second term Vice President. After Lincoln was killed, Johnson completely screwed up Reconstruction for three years (and was impeached for his troubles). How much better off would we as a country have been after the Civil War if Lincoln had chosen a better successor?

I'll bet this question, more than any electoral calculations, is weighing heavily on Barack Obama's mind these days.

McCaskill?

Cross her off the list:

Obama hangs out in StL without me: "While lauding her as 'such a terrific advocate on my behalf,' Obama sought to tamp down any speculation that McCaskill — a first-term senator like himself — might be chosen as his running mate or for a possible Cabinet post if he's elected.

'My sense is that Claire really enjoys being the senator of Missouri. We haven't had any discussion about other roles,' Obama said."

That seems pretty definitive to me. If he were seriously considering her, he would have at least said "maybe" when in her home town.

Fun Fact: One of my many right-wing uncles is a Priest, and McCaskill belongs to his parish.

Pick Biden, because he's a dick!

There are quite a few Veep choices that Obama has that I approve of. Biden is one of them. And Ezra Klein neatly summarizes the case:

VEEPSTAKES: THE CASE FOR BIDEN: "EJ Dionne's column arguing that Joe Biden should be considered for Obama's VP slot makes a lot of sense. Biden is, arguably, the most effective voice Democrats have on foreign policy. And here's why: Joe Biden is an incredibly arrogant jerk. And that's exactly what Democrats need."

Recent VP History

The thing about the veepstakes to remember is that the act of choosing a running mate is so rare, and almost everyone who does it has never done it before, that there really aren't any hard guidelines, just a spotty history to abstract out theories from. But why the abstraction? There really haven't been many vice-presidential nominees. Why not just analyze every single post-war nominee and see who the modern equivalent would be? So here's a different look at who Barack Obama could choose as his running mate (note, some older picks are ignored because I have no idea what the thinking was):

1960: Lyndon Johnson – Hillary Clinton

Kennedy, against the wishes of his inner circle (RFK was pissed), offered his strongest primary opponent the spot on the ticket. And to everyone's shock and horror, he accepted. Johnson at least brought Texas along. Hillary only brings Bill.

1964: Hubert Humphrey – Janet Napolitano

In 1964 Johnson picked Humphrey, an ideological ally with two associations he didn't have personally (a northerner with heavy union ties) to run with him for balance. Two key constituency groups that Obama has had trouble with during the primary season are women and Hispanics, Napolitano, as the female governor of Arizona, has an attraction for both groups.

1968: Spiro Agnew – Wes Clark

Nixon let Rockefeller, his closest competitor in the 1968 race, pick his VP for him in exchange for his support. If Obama were to let the Clintons pick his running mate, they'd probably choose Clark, one of the few true Clinton loyalists who isn't just a campaign hack.

1972: Thomas Eagleton/Seargent Shriver – Jim McGreevy/Cindy Sheehan

Dan Quayle was not the worst VP choice in the twentieth century. If Obama wants to fuck up on a McGovernesque scale, he should pick a closet case, then fire him from the ticket and replace him with a rabid anti-war activist.

1976: Walter Mondale – Diane Feinstein

Another regional/union balancing ticket, very similar to 1964. If Obama passes over Napolitano but still feels a need to “unite the party” he might pick another gal from the Southwest. If not Feinstein then maybe Boxer, although I suspect a President Obama would much prefer to have Boxer in the Senate. It’s important to note that while appeasing Hillary Clinton is a mug’s game (she wants to be President, nothing else will appease fully) reaching out to her groups of voters could be a smart political ploy.

1976: Bob Dole – Joe Biden

Ticket balancing isn’t the only political concern. Nice guys like Barack Obama (and Gerald Ford) have some trouble mussing up their image by getting into political brawls. While Obama’s promise to not be a dick this year is nice, sometimes you need to rough up the other side. Joe Biden, who is naturally more of an asshole than Obama could ever pretend to be, would be a pit-bull for the Democrats this fall.

1980: George Bush – Joe Lieberman

Unlike the Democrats today, who have a conflict of personality, the Republicans of 1980 had conflicts of ideology. Bush ran far to Reagan’s left in the primaries, pro-choice and opposed to “supply-side” economics. The only parallel I can think of in the Democratic Party now is the last pro-war nominally Democratic Senator. But this scenario is absurd – there currently are no major ideological disagreements in the Democratic Party. Maybe if Obama wants to reach out to a “pre-Clintonian” Democratic party and appeal to Democratic Hawks skeptical of his appeal, he could bring Dick Gephardt out of storage or something.

1984: Geraldine Ferraro – Jack Murtha

Ferraro was a token appeal, a Hail Mary pass on Mondale’s behalf, actually chosen by the Speaker of the House. If Obama plans an ill-considered appeal to the hard-working white (RACIST) voters that snubbed him in the primaries, and he wants to let Nancy Pelosi pick it, she’d probably pick Jack Murtha.

1988: Dan Quayle – George McGovern

In 1988 the Republicans realized they had a problem with women. Having become the Pro-life party, opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, and following the 1984 nomination of a woman on the Democratic ticket, the Republicans feared a sharp movement of half the population towards the Democrats. In order to forestall this, Bush I did something very stupid and picked Dan Quayle, an ultra-conservative Senator, dumber than a bag of hammers, for his looks – with the tactical argument that women would vote for him because he was “cute”. Needless to say, this did not work, and might have even had the opposite effect for massively insulting women’s collective intelligence. Bush was heavily lobbied to drop Quayle in 1992, but refused, saying he thought of him like his own son. Eight years later we would learn just what he meant.

If Obama’s team wants to be as stupid as Bush’s in ’88, they need to analyze their electoral problems as being amongst older men with military backgrounds (McCain’s key demographic) and then put McGovern, an elderly WWII vet, on the ticket.

1988: Lloyd Bentsen – Bob Graham

Aping JFK, Massachusetts Governor Dukakis picked an older Texan to balance his ticket. And it would’ve been a good idea, if Bentsen had actually carried the south with him. Alas, it was not to be. Former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham is a different case, however, as he can probably carry his home state. And if Obama wins Florida, he’s the President. If Obama is worried about raw electability concerns, he could do worse than Graham.

1992: Al Gore – Claire McCaskill

After living through eight pretty good years of Clinton/Gore, we tend to forget what an odd choice it was for Clinton to choose Gore. Not that Gore’s an oddball, but most tickets strive for some sort of balance. Clinton, in effect, was doubling down on himself, a young moderate Southerner, in an attempt to win back the Democrat’s old power base. And, with the help of Ross Perot, they did it.

Just as Clinton pursued a Southern strategy with Gore, it appears that Obama is pursuing a Midwestern strategy. His first non-primary trip was to Iowa, and he clinched the nomination in Minnesota. He’ll be in St. Louis this week. If Kerry had won Iowa and Missouri last time, he’d be President now. Claire McCaskill is not really considered veep material because she’s inexperienced (on the federal level), a non-traditional candidate (female instead of black), and from a neighboring state to Illinois, so she provides no regional balance. These seem like bugs to most, but they might be features to Obama.

Also note that McCaskill delivered Missouri to Obama in the primaries, a feat that neither Ted Kennedy nor Tom Daschle managed with their states.

1996: Jack Kemp – Bill Bradley

Jack Kemp, former football star, conservative intellectual, and former candidate for President himself has a pretty eerie parallel with Bill Bradley, former basketball star, liberal intellectual, and Gore’s only challenger in 2000. This means, of course, that John McCain, the second coming of Bob Dole, should pick him.

2000: Dick Cheney – Tom Daschle

Dick Cheney was a pretty weird pick, Bush just picked the old Republican guy whose advice had let him win the nomination to help him run the country. If Obama has similar thoughts (picking a partner, rather than a warm body designed to win an election), Daschle has been his go-to guy since the race began.

2000: Joe Lieberman – Jim Webb

A short-sighted, stupid, superficial analysis of Gore’s campaign in 2000 would’ve indicated that his biggest problem was Bill Clinton’s sex life, so Gore picked the Senate Democrat who has most vehemently condemned Clinton. If he’d have picked Bob Graham, he’d have won Florida easily, and be ending his second term now.

A short-sighted, stupid, superficial analysis of Obama’s campaign right now would indicate that his biggest problem is white voters in Appalachia, aka “rednecks”. As Jim Webb is the only authentic Democratic redneck, he’s the obvious choice.

And just as the choice of Lieberman served as a reminder of Clinton’s indiscretions, the choice of Webb will serve as a constant reminder of Obama’s deficiencies.

2004: John Edwards – Bill Richardson

John Edwards pulled a neat trick in 2004 – he successfully ran for Vice President. Many people talk about running for VP, but as you can see from above, it rarely happens. Defeated major rivals are usually pissed about not getting the big prize and take veep grudgingly, and lesser rivals are usually too insignificant to merit the choice.

Edwards threaded this needle by not attacking anyone in 2004, in fact sucking up a lot in the debates, refusing to attack Kerry even when it was down to the two of them, and then dropping out after winning one Southern primary, before Kerry’s momentum effect showed that he could beat Edwards in the South, too.

Richardson followed the script pretty well, even dropping out just before the Nevada caucuses showed that he has no particular appeal to Hispanics. Now he can reasonably claim that he probably will appeal to Hispanics, and can swing a couple of crucial states Obama’s way.

Unfortunately for Richardson, Obama seems to be a bit smarter than Kerry. But he may pick him anyway, as he seems to like the fellow.