Winning the Veepstakes: Exploring the Criteria of Running Mate Selection

Below is an essay I published in the Summer/Fall 2008 edition of Northeast Ohio Municipal Leader Magazine. Although almost four years old, it is still very relevant today.

Winning the Veepstakes: Exploring the Criteria of Running Mate Selection

“Don’t any of you realize that there’s only one life between that madman and the White House?”

--Ohio Senator Mark Hanna imploring his Republican colleagues not to place New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt on the ticket as President William McKinley’s running mate in 1900.
The Importance of the Running Mate Choice

The selection of a running mate is perhaps the biggest decision a presidential candidate will make during their candidacy. Though most pundits are obsessed with the decision from a purely horse-race driven perspective, it is a decision that could have monumental consequences given the fact that eight of the 42 individuals who have served in that office died—four by assassination and four due to natural causes. Add in the fact that one president, Richard Nixon, resigned before his second term was complete, and the historical track record shows that slightly over one in five U.S. presidents did not complete the term they were elected to. This doesn’t even reflect those presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower that were incapacitated during their term.

Such statistics would not be cause for alarm if party nominees chose their running mates based on qualification alone. However, they don’t and rarely have. Instead, the intricacies of the Electoral College and two party system dictate that strategic candidates consider other factors beyond mere qualification. Beyond that, many running mates have been picked with little care or vetting. This is the case even in the modern presidency leading to some deficient running mates, and worse yet, vice presidents.

For example, in 1968 and again in 1972, Richard Nixon tapped Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew as his running mate. A moderate from a Democratic-leaning border state, Agnew had a meteoric rise to the vice presidency having made the jump from Baltimore County Executive to Governor in 1966. His turbulent tenure as vice president ended abruptly when he resigned in October 1973 as part of a plea agreement to avoid federal prison time for money laundering and tax evasion during his time as governor.

In 1972, South Dakota Senator George McGovern picked first-term Missouri Senator Tom Eagleton, someone who shared his opposition to the Vietnam War, as his running mate. Even a shoddy background check would have quickly revealed what the newspapers uncovered almost immediately—that Eagleton had undergone electroconvulsive therapy in the early 1960s for mental illness. Eagleton’s stay on the Democratic ticket was short—he was replaced after 18 days by Sargent Shriver, brother-in-law to President John Kennedy and first-director of the Peace Corps.

In 1988 and with little consultation, Vice President George H.W. Bush shocked the political world by picking Indiana Senator Dan Quayle as his running mate. Never known as an intellectual-heavyweight, the fresh-faced conservative was just two years into his second term when he was tapped by Bush. Many political observers expressed shock that someone with so little political experience would be picked to be one heartbeat away from the presidency, despite the fact that Quayle protested he had as much Congressional experience as John Kennedy when he ran for president. Quayle’s tenure as vice president was a rocky one and provided ample fodder for late night comics. When images of President George H.W. Bush momentarily collapsing from intestinal flu at a 1992 state dinner in Japan aired in the United States, most Americans realized that an unqualified vice president, even one who can’t spell potato, wasn’t a laughing matter.

Criteria Considered

Many factors come into play other than sheer competence when a running mate is chosen. This has always been the case throughout American history—from Elbridge Gerry to Joe Lieberman. It may be even truer in the modern era.

Perhaps the most obvious factor that a presidential campaign considers is geography. The electoral math dictates that running mates should be able to carry (or at least make competitive) an important swing state for the ticket or at least solidify a region in the party’s base. Nearly all modern running mates have fulfilled this criterion and many pre-modern running mates have as well.

Senator John Kennedy’s selection of Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Majority Leader, was based on the calculus that Kennedy needed to carry Texas. Kennedy, an Irish Catholic from Massachusetts, carried LBJ’s home state—barely—just 46,000 votes separated Kennedy and Nixon, the Republican nominee. Former California Governor Ronald Reagan’s selection of primary rival George H.W. Bush in 1980 was based in part on geography. As the son of a U.S. Senator from Connecticut, Bush moved his family to West Texas following World War II to enter the booming oil business. Bush helped broaden Reagan’s appeal beyond the West to the Northeast, South, and beyond. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton’s selection of fellow Southerner Al Gore was an unconventional yet successful attempt to break the GOP’s lock on the South. The Senator helped Clinton win a number of border states including Gore’s home state of Tennessee, the first time a Democrat had won there since 1976. Most recently in 2000, Al Gore’s selection of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was an attempt to carry the battleground state of Florida. Lieberman, who is Jewish, appealed to the many transplanted Jews from the Northeast residing in the Sunshine State.

In order to make the ticket more palatable to a broad spectrum of the country, another important running mate criterion is that of ideological counterbalancing. If a presidential candidate is a staunch liberal or conservative, a moderate is often chosen to counterbalance their “extremeness.” Conversely, if the party nominee is perceived as a moderate, a running mate who better represents the party’s base might be in order.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter, the conservative former governor of Georgia, chose liberal Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale as a way to appeal to progressive Midwestern and Northeastern Democrats. Reagan’s selection of moderate George H.W. Bush helped Reagan broaden his appeal beyond Goldwater Republicans. Bush’s ill-fated choice of Dan Quayle was a nod to the conservative base which never trusted the elder Bush. Finally, Gore’s selection of Lieberman, a conservative Democrat willing to criticize President Clinton’s conduct during the Monica Lewinski scandal, appealed to mainstream voters uneasy about Clinton’s transgressions and Gore’s environmental activism.

Though geography and ideology are important factors, a prospective candidate’s resume is also important, despite examples in American history where the resume has been discounted. As a former member of Congress, Ambassador to China and the United Nations, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George H.W. Bush was very qualified to be president in his own right. The eight year apprenticeship he served as Reagan’s Vice President only strengthened his strong resume. Many other running mates in the modern era from Kansas Senator Bob Dole (Gerald Ford’s running mate in 1976) to Joe Lieberman had enough experience in national public office that they could have indeed assumed the duties of president should that have been necessary.

Occasionally, for various reasons, the presidential candidate will need to choose someone that not only meets some or all of the criteria previously discussed, but also is viewed by the American public as having presidential credentials beyond reproach—in other words, an individual who is viewed as a viable presidential candidate in their own right, even if they have chosen not to run themselves. Such an individual is said to possess gravitas—a murky concept connoting a mythical combination of wisdom, experience, and intelligence that would allow the individual to flourish in the presidential role if called upon.

Many pundits spoke of General Colin Powell in this manner, particularly as Republicans increasingly called upon George Bush to dump Dan Quayle from the ticket in 1992 as his campaign fortunes sagged. In 1988, Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis’ running mate, Lloyd Bentsen, was similarly viewed in this light. This perhaps explains why one Democratic elector chose to cast his vote for the Texas Senator instead of Dukakis. Finally, what else can explain Texas Governor George W. Bush’s selection of fellow Texan Richard Cheney in 2000? The selection of Cheney had nothing to do with geography since both men were from Texas (though Cheney later registered to vote in his native state of Wyoming). Nor did ideology factor in since both Bush and Cheney had genuine conservative credentials. Rather, the selection of Cheney was an attempt to calm the fears of those who thought Bush’s qualifications, both in terms of previous political experience and intelligence, did not rise to the presidential level. As a former chief of staff to President Ford, a member of the House of Representatives from 1979 to 1989, and as Secretary of Defense for President George H.W. Bush, Cheney had a resume fit for a president and the respect of most of the political establishment. Despite his controversial tenure as vice president, no one can dispute that he had, and has, gravitas.

The 2008 Veepstakes

As of this writing, neither party nominee in the 2008 election has yet chosen a running mate. However, given the obvious challenges of a post-9/11 world and sinking economy, and given some glaring shortcomings of each party’s nominee, this year’s selection of vice presidential running mates is of crucial importance, not only to the horse race aspects of the campaign but the public policy aspects of governing.

Arizona Senator John McCain will have to contend with the fact that at age 72, he would be the oldest U.S. president ever elected to a first term. Ronald Reagan, elected at 69 and sworn-in at 70, was previously the most aged president. Reagan suffered memory lapses throughout his presidency and was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease five years after he left office which will serve as a stark reminder that presidential illness and disability are always a possibility, particular for a septuagenarian president. Beyond the challenge of advanced age, McCain is also distrusted by the conservative base of his own Republican Party. This distrust is the result of his embracing the maverick role in the U.S. Congress for decades and earning a reputation for bucking his own party, even when politically inexpedient to do so.

Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the presumed nominee for the Democratic Party, has the opposite problem. At age 47 and just three years removed from being a state senator in Springfield, it is relatively easy to portray Obama as too inexperienced for the job. Also, with one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, opponents can paint Obama as out of touch with mainstream America.

The challenge for both candidates will be to select individuals that simultaneously boost their chances of winning the election but are also viewed as presidential in their own right. As career legislators, both men lack executive experience so helpful in the White House, thus a running mate with executive experience is logical and perhaps essential. McCain, often viewed as a moderate will likely want to bolster his credentials among the GOP base, perhaps by selecting a conservative Southern governor. Obama will need to increase his allure among moderate and independent voters, particularly since McCain has a built-in advantage there. Perhaps a moderate governor from a battleground state would help Obama broaden his appeal.

Given the fact that a number of presidents have not survived their term, and several have been unable to perform their duties at some point during their presidency, a running mate should be chosen based on qualification first. In a post-9/11 world, the office of vice president is too important to select an individual solely based on electoral or political expediency.

The Ohio Presidential Connection

Below is an essay I published in the Winter 2008 edition of Northeast Ohio Municipal Leader Magazine. Although it is four years old, it is still very relevant today.

The Ohio Presidential Connection

“There’s nothing like an early morning rally in the great state of Ohio. I can’t think of a better place to kick off the last day of this campaign.”

--President George W. Bush, November 1, 2004, in Wilmington, Ohio.

Ohio has always played an important role in the presidential election system since achieving statehood in 1803. Because of its size and diversity, both in terms of geography and population, Ohio has been, and will continue to be, a microcosm of the rest of the country. In recent elections, Ohio has been a key electoral battlefield—a must win state for those seeking the presidential office. It’s possible to win the presidency without winning Ohio’s electoral votes; it’s just not likely. Since 1964, no individual seeking the presidency has won the office without winning the Buckeye State and only twice since 1896 has that happened. In fact, no Republican has ever become president without winning Ohio. It is also no accident that eight presidents can trace part of their lineage to Ohio.

The Buckeye Eight

Ohio has a long rich history of playing a vital role in American presidential elections. This is most keenly embodied in the number of presidents and presidential contenders who have had connections to the Buckeye State, earning Ohio the moniker, “mother of presidents.” In 1836, William Henry Harrison became the first Ohioan to win electoral votes in a presidential election and in 1840 was elected as the nation’s first Whig president. Though born in Virginia, Harrison had served in the Ohio State Legislature as well as represented Ohio in both the U.S. House and Senate. Harrison also became the first president to die in office, expiring after only 30 days from pneumonia, likely the result of giving the longest inauguration speech in history without a hat or overcoat during inclement weather.

Union Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant was born in Point Pleasant, Ohio, in 1822. He was elected president in 1868, and reelected four years later, beginning a succession of Gilded Age Republican presidents with Ohio ties. Fremont’s Rutherford B. Hayes and Mentor’s James A. Garfield followed in 1876 and 1880 respectively. Hayes, winner of perhaps the most controversial election in American history, became president despite losing the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden of New York. A corrupt Electoral Commission reversed the contested electoral votes of three Southern states (Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina), thus handing the election to Hayes with an electoral vote margin of one. Hayes pledged to serve only one term—a term most notable for his ending Reconstruction of the South and ushering in a new era of discrimination that would last well into the latter part of the Twentieth Century. James Garfield, only 49 years old, became the second American president felled by an assassin’s bullet when he was shot by a frustrated office-seeker just shy of four months after his inauguration. Garfield’s murder cut short a promising presidency—the former president of Hiram College, Union General, and U.S. Representative was perhaps the most prepared and most intelligent of all the individuals elected in the Gilded Age. After a four-year respite, North Bend-born Benjamin Harrison, the grandson of William Henry Harrison, defeated incumbent President Grover Cleveland in an exceedingly close election. Harrison lost the popular vote by 90,000 votes but won the electoral vote. In 1892, Cleveland exacted his revenge on Harrison by defeating him in a rematch, becoming the first and only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.

In 1896, William McKinley of Canton became the sixth president with Ohio connections, and four years later became only the second Ohioan to win a second term. McKinley continued the streak of bad-luck for Ohio presidents becoming the third U.S. president to be assassinated, this time by an anarchist in Buffalo at the Pan-American Exposition in 1901. Eight years later, Cincinnati’s William Howard Taft succeeded the iconic Theodore Roosevelt only to have his predecessor challenge him in 1912, thus ensuring his defeat. Warren G. Harding of Marion was elected eight years later and during his term appointed his Republican predecessor, Taft, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Ohioans couldn’t lose in 1920—Ohio Governor James M. Cox was the Democratic nominee who lost to Harding that year. Harding became another Ohio president who failed to survive his entire elected term, serving just over two years before his death from an embolism while in San Francisco.

Not all of the eight presidents with Ohio connections were the best and the brightest. In fact, some such as the intellectually-challenged Harding were much less than that. However, they all had one thing in common—a lineage traced to electoral vote-rich, yet often up-for-grabs Ohio. In the pre-modern era of brokered conventions and backroom deals, sacrifices were made regarding the qualifications of individuals—instead, strategic considerations based on geography ruled the day.

Though U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft, the son of the 27th president and another in the long line of Ohio Tafts, nearly wrested the GOP nomination away from General Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, Ohio’s grip on the White House ended with Harding’s death. A large reason for this is that as the era of the post-1968 primary system was ushered in by both major parties, Ohio’s power during the nomination stage decreased dramatically. This is due to the fact that Ohio’s primary usually occurs later on the calendar when the results are all but official, at least in the recent era of rampant frontloading. Thus in the primary season, Ohio is largely ignored by the campaigns in favor of states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina that are much less representative of the nation as a whole, but are important simply because they are at the head of the line.

This situation is particularly exacerbated in 2008 as the Iowa Caucus will occur January 3, and a scant five days later the New Hampshire primary will take place, both contests occurring far earlier than at any point in history. Ohio lawmakers have not given into temptation and followed the great rush by other states to move Ohio’s primary date to the beginning of the calendar. Because of this, Ohio’s March 4 primary will hold little interest as both party nominees will have likely been chosen long before. However, both campaigns will have all but taken up residence in the Buckeye State as the general election phase will have begun, and few states will equal the attention Ohio will garner.

The Presidential Connection and 2008: An Ohioan as VP?

The 2008 election has brought rampant speculation as to whether or not Ohio’s popular Governor, Ted Strickland, will be chosen as a runningmate by the eventual Democratic nominee. Strickland’s endorsement in November 2007 of Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party favorite, has fanned the flames of speculation. The choice of Strickland as a runningmate makes all kinds of tactical sense. The Lucasville-born Strickland is exceedingly popular with the Ohio electorate with approval ratings consistently hovering between 60% and 70% in his first year. As a moderate Democrat and Methodist minister whose base is Southern Ohio, Strickland appeals more to crucial border and Southern states than any potential Democratic nominee. Strickland has cross-over appeal as evidenced by the support of large numbers of Republicans and independents in his 2006 gubernatorial election, as well as in his easy reelection victories as a U.S. Representative from the 6th Congressional district in Southeast, Ohio. Strickland’s support of Second Amendment rights and his good working relationship with the NRA, who endorsed him in 2006, further increases his across-the-aisle appeal.

And let’s not forget Ohio’s electoral vote bonanza of 20—a total sure to bring victory to any Democrat able to capture it. And this more than anything means Strickland is at or near the top of any short list of potential runningmates. Strickland may well turn down a future offer for the VP slot and has publicly and repeatedly stated that he is “not interested.” However, that won’t quell the speculation. No serious Democratic Party nominee could fail to consider the popular Ohio Governor as a vice presidential runningmate.

Perhaps no election demonstrates the importance of Ohio in the electoral milieu as does 2004. No state was visited more by the major candidates in the nine months leading up to the election. An immense amount of money was spent by both campaigns in Ohio as well as their surrogates. Ohio voters were repeatedly inundated with political advertising, including the infamous Swift Boat ads, throughout 2004. The 2008 election will be no different. In a state carried by President George W. Bush by only 119,000 votes, a mere 2% of the popular vote total, Strickland’s name as part of the Democratic ticket could be just the elixir to make Ohio a blue state for the first time since 1996.

No Better Nor Worse

Politico Arena Topic: Should Obama Donors Get Plum Government Jobs?

The Obama administration is no better nor worse than preceding administrations when it comes to offering plum governmental posts to big money donors. The problem is the campaign finance system itself. It is broken. The amount of money needed to get elected to any national office is staggering. Even local offices such as school board and city council require oodles of money. At no time in American history has money been more important to running a successful campaign — especially for the White House.
Once elected, officeholders feel beholden to the donors they needed to get there. And with good reason — without them they don’t get elected. Obama and McCain combined to raise more than $1.1 billion in 2008. The two general election candidates may surpass $2 billion in 2012. And much of that money will come from big money donors and bundlers, not every day folk writing $25 checks. Until the system is fixed — really fixed — big donors will continue reap the benefits of their fundraising prowess. It’s just the way it is.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

John Edwards: Beyond the Pale

The Daily Show - On Topic: Scandal-List - John Edwards
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Politico Arena Topic: John Edwards Indicted: Can His Legacy be Rehabbed?

Americans are a very forgiving lot, but not in this instance. John Edwards’s political career is toast as the gory details make Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Ensign look like choir boys.

Having an affair and a love child when your spouse is battling terminal cancer is beyond the pale. Compounding the heinousness of this act is the fact that he allegedly misused campaign funds to conceal the affair and child ... all while running for president. It is hard to comprehend the incredible selfishness of an individual who not only engages in infidelity while his wife is dying, but chooses to run for president knowing full well that his behavior may be exposed, putting the country and his political party at great risk, not to mention his family.

It simply boggles the mind.

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

Fool Me Once...Boehner Likely to Hang on as Minority Leader

You know the saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Well, somehow, some way, John Boehner (R-OH) looks like he will remain atop the House Republican Party, this despite the fact that the GOP lost at least 20 seats in the 2008 election (with some yet to be determined). Let's not forget that Boehner was the House Majority Leader that helped steer the GOP ship into the glacier in 2006 where the GOP lost control of the House for the first time in 12 years. Roy Blunt, the Minority Whip, is stepping down.

I'm not sure what the thinking here is. Party leaders are often held accountable by the membership after an election, especially one with disastrous results for the party. House Speaker Newt Gingrich resigned from Congress amid threats of his ouster as Speaker following the 1998 midterms because the GOP lost 5 seats. In two elections as a leader of his party, Boehner has overseen a 50+ net seat loss to the Democrats. How in the world is he managing to hang on to his leadership position? Seriously, somebody please tell me.

First Dog Shows Frustration Over Election Result--Barney Bites Messenger

Though President Bush seems at peace with the 2008 election result (see previous post), First Dog Barney hasn't taken it so well. Barney took out his frustration on Reuters television White House correspondent Jon Decker, biting him on his right index finger, breaking the skin, and causing the White House physician to administer antibiotics.

There is no truth to the rumor that Decker was wearing a "Yes We Can" sticker on his lapel. Barney could not be reached for comment.

The Face of Change

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, liberal, moderate, or conservative, Black or White, Asian or Hispanic, Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc., you have to admit that the face of American politics has changed forever. Any African American who grew up in the days of segregation and overt racism and biggotry, were turned away from the polling booth, lived through the struggles of the civil rights movement, witnessed the killings of MLK, Medgar Evers, and others, has to be filled with such surprise and pride today. 143 years after the end of slavery, 53 years after Rosa Parks refused to yield her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, America has elected an African American to the highest office in the land. A truly historic election indeed.

UPDATE: President Bush weighed in on the historic nature of the 2008 election: "No matter how they cast their ballots, all Americans can be proud of the history that was made yesterday. Across the country, citizens voted in large numbers. They showed a watching world the vitality of America's democracy, and the strides we have made toward a more perfect union. They chose a President whose journey represents a triumph of the American story -- a testament to hard work, optimism, and faith in the enduring promise of our nation. Many of our citizens thought they would never live to see that day. This moment is especially uplifting for a generation of Americans who witnessed the struggle for civil rights with their own eyes -- and four decades later see a dream fulfilled....It will be a stirring sight to watch President Obama, his wife, Michelle, and their beautiful girls step through the doors of the White House. I know millions of Americans will be overcome with pride at this inspiring moment that so many have awaited so long."

An Historic Election, Regardless of Outcome

The 2008 presidential election is an historic election--providing lots of "firsts" no matter who would win. Here's a few, though this is not an exhaustive list.

If McCain/Palin Win

• John McCain would be the first septagenarian (72) and oldest to be elected.


• McCain would be the first Vietnam vet elected to either to the presidency or vice presidency.


• McCain would be the first Arizonan to win the presidency or vice presidency.


• Sarah Palin would be the first female vice president.


• Palin would be the first Alaskan to win the presidency or vice presidency.
  

If Obama/Biden Win

• Barack Obama would be the first African-American to be elected.


• Obama would be the first President born in Hawaii.


• Joe Biden would be the first Roman Catholic vice president.


• Biden would be the first president or VP from Delaware.

2008 Bellwether States to Watch When the Polls Close

Two sets of states will tell the story early on for the 2008 presidential election. This is not an exhaustive list, just a focus on those critical early states.

Early Bellwethers

These early bellwether states include: Indiana, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. If Obama wins any of these, particularly one or more of the first three, it will be a blowout. Even if Obama is close in a place like Georgia, that is a good sign for him. If McCain can hold Obama off and sweep those states, it will likely be a much closer election than most pundits think.

The Triad

You've heard of them before: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. If Obama wins two of three of these states, check mate. McCain needs a victory in all three, but a win in Ohio and Florida is a must. If he wins all three, throw all the conventional wisdom out the window.

U.S. Senate Races to Watch

The presidential election is not the only thing happening November 4. There are a number of races at all levels of government happening throughout the country. Of particular interest are U.S. Senate races as Democrats try and gain nine seats--enough to claim a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority. What follows is a run-down of those toss-up senate seats with my prediction of what the Senate will look like when the smoke clears.

Alaska (Republican Seat)
Matchup: Ted Stevens (R) vs. Mark Begich (D)
Predicted winner: Begich
Observation: Stevens is likely headed for prison. Hard to cast votes from a jail cell. 'Nuff said.

Colorado (Open Republican Seat)
Matchup: Bob Schaffer (R) vs. Rep. Mark Udall (D)
Predicted winner: Udall
Observation: Colorado is trending blue all the way. Udall is a well-respected name in the West

Kentucky (Republican Seat)
Matchup: Mitch McConnell (R) vs. Bruce Lunsford (D)
Predicted winner: McConnell
Observation: Senate Minority Leader in serious trouble. Hangs on by a finger nail; Kentuckians like the earmarks.

Georgia (Republican Seat)
Matchup: Saxby Chambliss (R incumbent) vs. Jim Martin (D)
Predicted winner: Chambliss
Observation: Incumbent hangs on in surprisingly close race. If Chambliss loses, it will signify a rout for Obama and Dems.

Louisiana (Democratic Seat)
Matchup: Mary L. Landrieu (D) vs. John Kennedy (R)
Predicted winner: Landrieu
Observation: Only Democratic seat in jeopardy no longer in jeopardy.

Minnesota (Republican Seat)
Matchup: Norm Coleman (R) vs. Al Franken (D) vs. Dean Barkley (I)
Predicted winner: Coleman
Observation: 3-way race makes prediction difficult. Coleman hangs on in nail-biter.

Mississippi (Republican Seat)
Matchup: Roger Wicker (R) vs. Ronnie Musgrove (D)
Predicted winner: Wicker
Observation: Mississippi is still deep red. Musgrove will come close though.

New Hampshire (Republican Seat)
Matchup: John E. Sununu (R) vs. Jeanne Shaheen (D)
Predicted winner: Shaheen
Observation: In a normal year, Sununu hangs on. 2008 is not a normal year.

New Mexico (Open Republican Seat)
Matchup: Steve Pearce (R) vs. Tom Udall (D)
Predicted winner: Udall
Observation: Sibling tandem in U.S. Senate? Yep.

North Carolina (Republican Seat)
Matchup: Elizabeth Dole (R) vs. Kay Hagan (D)
Predicted winner: Hagan
Observation: "Godless" ad will backfire on Dole.

Oregon (Republican Seat)
Matchup: Gordon H. Smith (R) vs. Jeff Merkley (D)
Predicted winner: Merkley
Observation: Incumbent GOP Senator running ads touting ties to Obama, Biden and Dems? Not a good sign.

Virginia (Open Republican Seat)
Matchup: James S. Gilmore (R) vs. Mark Warner (D)
Predicted winner: Warner
Observation: Virginia electes a different Warner, different party.

Final predicted tally: Dems +7. With Lieberman possibly forced out of Democratic Caucus, he switches to GOP or at least caucuses with them.

Final predicted composition of Senate (currently 51-49 Dem control): Dems 57-GOP 43

The 269-269 Nightmare Scenario

Of all the silly quirks of the Electoral College, the fact that it can result in a tie is a most absurd, but very real scenario. This is due to the fact that the total number of electoral votes is an even number (538). Above is the electoral map from 2004. Here were the results:

• George W. Bush: 286
• John Kerry: 252

Now, most all of the current polls are showing Barack Obama comfortably ahead in the 2008 electoral vote race. However, it is very possible that with the polls tightening, as they usually do in the final days before an election, 2008 may not be the blowout some people expect.

Could Tuesday night end in a electoral vote tie?

Yes, and here's one path to that nightmare scenario. The map stays the same in 2008 from 2004 except:

• Obama wins Iowa, Colorado, & New Mexico.
• McCain wins New Hampshire.

What would happen next?

The election would be thrown into the Congress. The 111th House would vote on a one vote per state basis for president; the U.S. Senate, one vote per senator, would vote for VP.

The Nightmare Scenario

In 1796, due to a quirk in the electoral voting process, electors were mandated to vote for president and vice president without a separate ballot for VP. Though this was later fixed by passage of the 12th Amendment, John Adams (F-MA) and Thomas Jefferson (D-R VA) became president and vice president despite representing opposing parties and philosophies of the young republic. Four years of acrimony ensued.

Could this happen again? Although Democrats will doubtless have a clear majority of individual House members in the 111th Congress, the breakdown of party control of each state delegation is much harder to pinpoint. Take the current Ohio U.S. House delegation: GOP 11-Dem 7. If Dems take two GOP seats in 2008, which is very possible for OH-15 and OH-16, the delegation would be split 9-9. How would Ohio and other states that have evenly split delegations vote in the case of an electoral vote tie? And, what would be the national breakdown of party control of House delegations be following the 2008 election? If Republicans had a majority of state delegations and Dems had a majority of Senate seats (likely 5-9 after Tuesday), the country could be looking at a McCain-Biden presidency.

Northeast Ohio is Shaping up to be the Bullseye of 2008

As Rubber City Radio and Akron News Now's Ed Esposito points out, Northeast Ohio will be inundated with candidates over the next 48 hours: "The big push of presidential politics surrounds Akron today with Obama's in Cleveland and Palin in Canton; tomorrow McCain/Palin include Lakewood, Cleveland and Columbus while Joe and Jill Biden hit Copley High School for a Monday night quickie."

Anyone that lived in Ohio in 2004 who wasn't in a cave with soundproofed walls and no TV knows the routine. The fact that all four candidates and their spouses will be in Northeast Ohio for much of their last-minute Ohio push demonstrates that this part of the state, a Democratic stronghold, will be a key to winning Ohio.

For Obama it will be about GOTV in the urban areas and activating voter groups that are harder to activate typically: African-Americans, young people and college students, and first time voters. Obama needs to overperform in Northeast Ohio to offset losses in red Western Ohio. McCain needs to perform well in places like the Mahoning Valley and rural, suburban, and exurban parts of Northeast Ohio that surroung the urban centers. we'll find out Wednesday which campaign had a better plan to win the Buckeye State.

Recent Ohio Polls Give Obama Edge in Buckeye State

Two new polls give Obama the edge in the Buckeye State. Both the Ohio Newspaper Poll and the Bliss Institute Akron Buckeye Fall Poll gives Obama about a 3-4 point advantage in Ohio, corroborating many other recent polls.

McCain has to win Ohio to have a chance in this election; for Obama it's a luxury. Its been said a million times already--no Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio. The way the electoral math works, this election is no exception. If McCain can't win Pennsylvania, which is almost a certainty at this point, he has to carry Ohio. Even by carrying Ohio though, with Obama looking like he will win Colorado, New Mexico, & Iowa, McCain has to add a Kerry state to his column and that looks really hard at this point.