the interesting thing about the democratic veepstakes is that liberal bloggers seem to have ruled out all of the possible contenders, at least all of the contenders that keep floating around by the media. who knows if they're actually what obama has in mind. the candidate himself has kept his thoughts on the issue a closely-guarded secret. even the campaign aids interviewed by the NYT admitted that they were "not sure" if obama was actually considering them.
meanwhile, aside from the few that i have a particular beef with (e.g. nunn, biden, and webb, in particular), i really don't feel like the race is as important as it is built up to be. i remain doubtful that the VP choice makes much difference at all in the long-term. for the last 8 years, we've been living in the cheney era, the era with perhaps the most influential vice president in the history of the country. but that's really a product of the extreme disinterest president bush seems to display in actual issues or policy making. it's unlikely to happen again under the next president. instead, obama or mccain's veep is likely to be a figurehead, presiding over the senate, but otherwise just waiting for the president to delegate something for him/her to do. you can argue that mccain's choice would be more important because he's older than dirt and could die in office, but when it comes to obama, i'm really not worried about him not surviving the term.
i've also long doubted the theory that a vice presidential choice can deliver a state to a ticket. if someone preferred mccain over obama, can you actually imagine that person switching to obama because his vice presidential nominee happens to come from the same state? likewise, i'm for obama even if mccain picked rick santorum or arlen spector as his running mate. it's hard to see how the home state could actually get me, or anyone i know, to switch. maybe i'm not typical. but is there any statistical study showing that the veep choice gives an advantage in the VP's home state?
anyway, in an attempt to nail down the possible electoral effects of a VP choice nate compares the contenders using their home state approval ratings as a benchmark (and then factoring in partisan ID for the state). it's an interesting idea, presuming that once people from other states get to know the candidate, their opinions will roughly match the people in the home state.
but i'm not sure if it's valid. there are still regional differences in this country. a personality that plays well in kansas might not do as well elsewhere. and it's not like the american public will be educated about the unknown VP nominee in any fair objective way. instead, the coverage will be filtered through the same crappy media we have for everything else. legislative and political accomplishments will take a back seat to stories about their family, their speaking style, what they wear (or don't wear), or something stupid they once said on camera.
but putting my objections to nate's assumptions aside, it is interesting that according to his ranking the strongest candidates for both parties are women. also the cross-party veep nomination that the media loves so much (hagel for obama, lieberman for mccain) turns out to be the worst choice for both candidate.
