“Bush didn’t gain any extra support from women or middle-class blacks because of Condi (or Powell, for that matter) this time around, so what makes you think it’ll be any different in 2004?”
Um I should have thought it would be obvious; neither of them was on the ticket. There is a whole lot of difference in tersm of public exposure between being a background adviser and being a VP candidate.
“And middle-class blacks still vote overwhelmingly Democrat.”
Well that’s not set in stone. A black VP could be just the catalyst for a change. Bush and the Hispanic vote in Texas is a good example of a candidate successfully reaching out beyond traditional ethnic categories.
Besides as I have repeatedly said I am not talking about a complete reversal but something like a 30% black vote and maybe a 5-10% boost with women, both easily within the realms of possibility.
I’d go with Sam Stone. Bush could fail to win due to
– illness or death
– some unexpectedly great Democratic campaigner, like Bill Clinton
– some 3rd party candidate splitting off conservative votes (McCain?)
– some economic or military setback that makes Bush appear inept
– an enormous scandal
I consider each of these unlikely, but their combined probability could be 20%.
December: Rice does have management experience. She was Provost at Stanford University, and turned around a big deficit into a surplus, as I recall.
And she may not have direct campaign experience, but she’s been in and out of government since the 1980’s, at the highest levels. She’s been around plenty of campaigns, and she’s had to be involved in plenty as a spokesperson. She’s very good at it. She speaks authoritatively and seemingly without having to carefully formulate her words (a skill Bush could stand to learn), and yet she almost never makes any gaffes or blunders.
Consider how often she is put out in front of the media compared to other administration officials. I’ve seen her on more talk shows and interview programs than probably anyone else. And yet, I can’t recall her making a SINGLE error big enough to make the news. She doesn’t let slip her disagreements with the administration, she doesn’t say stupid things, she doesn’t do the kinds of embarassing things that are constantly getting people like Paul O’Niell or John Ashcroft in trouble. In short, her political savvy is impeccable.
It remains to be seen if she can withstand the scrutiny of a real hardball campaign. For example, not only is she unmarried, but from what I’ve heard she’s never even had a steady relationship with a man. How will that play out electorally? On the other hand, one reason why it’s easier for the Republicans to elect a woman than Democrats is that the Democrats would have a much harder time going after her on the basis of sexual preference without being seen as hypocrites and/or antagonizing THEIR base. If Condi were a Democrat and ran, I’d expect the ‘family values’ Republicans to be all over her. But the Democrats can’t play that game.
Most educated voters don’t simply look at who’s name is literally on the ticket when they make their decisions. They also look at the folks in the Administration. And Condi was trumped out so much prior to elections that she may have well been running on the ticket.
Lord knows I saw and heard more of Condelezza Rice than Dick Cheney prior to November 2000. I believe it was done on purpose.
Why? Condi is black–yes–but she’s still Republican. Unless her political views and the platform she runs on changes dramatically, she’s not going to be a catalyst for anything.
Why anyone would think black people who vote Republican just because of one person is puzzling to me.
(Personally, I wouldn’t want people voting for a person just because of their race or gender. This isn’t a good thing.)
“Most educated voters don’t simply look at who’s name is literally on the ticket when they make their decisions”
So what is your estimate of the percentage of voters who are “educated” in your opinion? I would be surprised if a majority of voters even knew who Rice was by election day.
“Unless her political views and the platform she runs on changes dramatically, she’s not going to be a catalyst for anything.”
Well you seem awfully sure of this; have you seen some kind of poll?
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for the importance of ethnicity in American politics; for instance Dukakis when he ran received a lot of financial support from the Greek-American community even those who didn’t agree with his politics. Something similar also happened with Nader and the Arab-American community even though he had no chance of winning.There is a lot of talk of a Hispanic nominee for the Supreme Court. If SC nominees are perceived to influence voters, why not VP candidates?
Of course Rice alone may not do the trick; there would have to be a bigger strategy on the part of the GOP to woo middle-class blacks but like I said she could be a crucial catalyst.
By your logic, CyberPundit, Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes should both be more popular in the black community than they really are.
Condolezza–in many people’s views–is not that different ideologically from those two. The negative reputation of her party outweighs the cool points from being black and a woman.
I’m just speculating like everyone else on this thread, including you. To turn the tables, have you seen any poll that shows a great special love for Condolezza Rice by middle class blacks? I’m interested in this because from my personal experience, it seems that “middle class blacks” respect Condi as much as they do Baby Bush. In other words, not that much.
Talking about Clarence Thomas, IIRC his nomination divided the black community and there was a fair amount of support from him as a black SC justice initially. And Rice is actually quite a bit more moderate than either he or Keyes. Which of her positions antagonize middle-class blacks so much?
In any case it is pointless arguing too much about this,since it is a largely a matter of conjecture and opinion.
The fact that she calls herself a Republican, for starters…
If she were a Democrat or even a member of a third party, I think she would stand a better chance with black people. Her Republican-ness may impress white conservatives and a handful of black conservatives, but I don’t think she would be able to win over the constiutent base she would need–those people who still hold civil rights fighters like John Lewis or Jesse Jackson up on a pedastal. And these people are almost always Democrats. Most black voters have lived and witnessed–if not fought in–the civil rights struggle. As far as politicians go, if they haven’t fought the fight, then they get few props. Witness the recent elections in predominately black cities like Newark and D.C.
She’s also tainted by being associated with the Bush Crime Family. And unless she can disassociate herself like Colin Powell seems to be doing, she will always be.
This hardline conservative voter would love to see Rice as the VP choice in 2004. I’ve been very happy with Cheney, but I think Cheney leaves the Republican party in a weak position in 2008.
Unfortunately, I don’t think there is any way that Rice is getting the nomination. I think the Republican party will continue it’s sick fascination with the Dole/Bush legacy.
If Elizabeth Dole wins this November, I would place her as the odds-on favorite for the 2004 VP candidate.
The Curse:
1976 Bob Dole Vice Presidential Nominee
1980 George Bush Vice Presidential Nominee
1984 George Bush Vice Presidential Nominee
1988 George Bush Presidential Nominee
1992 George Bush Presidential Nominee
1996 Bob Dole Presidential Nominee
2000 George W. Bush Presidential Nominee
The big wild card is McCain. I think his last campaign made it clear that he could run as an independant, and probably get at least 10% of the vote. Mostly from usually Repub voters. If he did decide to join a third party it would almost certainly give Dems the Presendency, which gives him a lot of power. I’d imagine he could walk in and demand the VP nomination, or he’ll cost them the election. Now I don’t think that’s what he’ll do, because I doubt he would want to be Dubya’s VP , but it doesn’t make me wonder if the Rep power structure will do something to appease him.
Ms Rice won’t be the selection, unless Bush thinks he’s way behind and must do the extraordinary or wants to make a statement while way ahead.
VIPs have almost always faced the voters at least once and the last thing a president or presidential nominee wants is a selection that brings attention TO the nominee rather than the person who did the selection. Bush might choose to ignore the first, but not the second.
I think she would gain a few votes by being a woman, and MAYBE a few for being black (though I’m not convinced that she wouldn’t lose just as many). The problem is that she’s pro-choice, and there are a lot of single-issue voters out there when it comes to that issue. If a viable third-party candidate were available–say, Pat Buchanan–I think this issue alone would make Condi a net loss for the ticket.
She also strikes me as very intellectual, and I’m not sure how well that will play. Intellectual is often interpreted as either “uppity” or “egghead”. At best, she’d make Bush look bad.
Thanks December for introducing some numbers into the discussion.
In the light of your numbers I don’t think it’s at all implausible that Rice on the ticket would induce about 25-30% of African-American voters to go GOP, especially if the GOP makes serious efforst to woo black moderates. Your numbers also indicate that Rice was unlikely to have played since much of a role in the 2000 election since even in 2001 when she was already NSA she was relatively unknown among black voters.
I should add that I don’t support Bush and don’t want him to win in 2004. (though if the Dems nominate some paleo-liberal like Gephardt it would be awfully hard to choose). Still I don’t think it is good for either the black community or the country as a whole if blacks are ignored by the GOP and taken for granted by the Democrats.
