last night at drinking liberally there was a bit of veep talk. at one point we talked about the possibility of jim webb being obama's VP, a guy i don't think should be veep. others thought he was more plausible because "he comes with a state." that is, webb is from virginia, a formerly solid red state that seems to be trending blue (or at least trending "swing"). the theory seemed to be that whatever negatives might come with webb, they are made up for by the fact that he will get obama a win in virginia and thus deliver 13 electoral votes.
i still don't buy it. i just don't think that there are that many people who change their votes when the downticket name is from their home state. i realize prevailing political wisdom runs the other direction. and maybe in the past there was more of a home state advantage. but gore lost tennessee in 2000 and edwards didn't deliver the carolinas to kerry in 2004. the coverage of the race is nationalized, with the same cable news channels reaching everywhere and local newspapers being gobbled up by transnational media conglomerates, the positive "our local guy" coverage a candidate might expect in his or her home state probably doesn't happen that much anymore.
but the real reason that i don't buy it is that i can't imagine ever changing my vote because of where someone is from. nor can i imagine anyone i know doing it. my gut feeling is based on nothing but useless anecdotal evidence, not even "anecdotal evidence" as an imagined thought experiments doesn't count as an anecdote. i realize that people sometimes vote for or against candidates for all kinds of crazy reasons that don't always make complete sense. but i still can't believe that geography really delivers the punch is it supposed to have.
