« Markets in everything | Main | The Case for Big Government »
Kay Bailey Hutchison on economics
Here are some of her votes. Her ACU voting lifetime record is 91 percent. She is strong on free trade and seems to be a relatively conservative and corporatist Republican on economic issues. She's way up in the betting markets for the Republican VP spot, about 30 percent last I looked. Note that she is not pro-life according to conservatives. She has been very pro-drilling and very active on energy issues. Since picking Mitt Romney would violate all known economic models of rational choice, and picking a woman would pop the Democrats' post-convention bounce, I suppose this is a rumor to be taken seriously. Here is her Wikipedia page.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 27, 2008 at 09:04 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Sorry to disagree, but it's an open secret in TX political circles that she's going to run for TX GOV in 2010. I would be very surprised if she was the Veep pick.
Posted by: Tx gal at Aug 27, 2008 11:09:07 PM
Kay Bailey Hutchinson on War and Peace
It would be a fairly hawkisb ticket.
Posted by: odograph at Aug 27, 2008 11:16:13 PM
Tx gal - if you were considering a run for Tx governor in three years, and got offered the Veep spot, would you turn it down?
If she loses, she can still run for governor, though she'll be somewhat damaged goods; if she wins, she'll have the influence to make her choice of candidate for 2010.
Posted by: Anthony at Aug 27, 2008 11:47:49 PM
It's an open secret that virtually every Senator looks in the mirror every morning and sees a future president.
It's also an open secret that being vice president gives you an edge on becoming president, and gives you an ever better chance at becoming your party's nominee.
Finally it is worth considering what would happen if a Democrat woman ran against a GOP man for president, and contrast that with a GOP woman who ran against a Democrat man for president. Which woman would have a better chance at becoming the first female president of the United States?
I'd bet on the GOP woman getting more crossover votes.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Aug 28, 2008 12:08:10 AM
Picking a woman isn't going to automatically equal votes. After a year to Hillary, I think we've gotten USED to the idea of a woman in a position of executive power.
McCain is going to need someone to add more zest to the ticket, so to speak. Not energy and change in the same way as Obama, but someone who is exciting.
I would say Huckabee fits the bill better than anyone else, or possibly an executive adviser known for experience and dignity. Powell, perhaps, though he'd never accept. Condi Rice might be a more realistic option
Posted by: Robert Olson at Aug 28, 2008 12:11:28 AM
If it's a woman, I think Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is more likely.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at Aug 28, 2008 12:12:29 AM
It's an open secret that virtually every Senator looks in the mirror every morning and sees a future president.
It's also an open secret that being vice president gives you an edge on becoming president, and gives you an ever better chance at becoming your party's nominee.
Finally it is worth considering what would happen if a Democrat woman ran against a GOP man for president, and contrast that with a GOP woman who ran against a Democrat man for president. Which woman would have a better chance at becoming the first female president of the United States?
I'd bet on the GOP woman getting more crossover votes.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Aug 28, 2008 12:12:44 AM
Damn. Tyler, please erase my duplicate post. Something went screwy with typepad. Sorry.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Aug 28, 2008 12:14:35 AM
Which betting markets is she doing well in? Does anyone have a link?
Posted by: alex at Aug 28, 2008 12:27:06 AM
How do you pop a bounce?
Posted by: Jeff H. at Aug 28, 2008 12:36:09 AM
"all known economic models of rational choice"... OK, name two!
Given what McCain has said about economics in the past, should we be at all surprised if he did pick Romney?
Indeed, McCain's lack of economic intuition is probably the reason why his form of campaign finance reform was largely a failure. (Don't we agree?)
Posted by: Macneil at Aug 28, 2008 12:36:52 AM
alex, earlier today she experienced a nice bump on Intrade after Dick Morris penned a column extolling all her virtues. She settled down to the mid-teens last I checked.
She's old, which is more salient for McCain's VP pick than Obama's. She also is known as being closely associated with gas and oil companies. On Googling her I found a site saying she was the meanest member of the Senate in some poll or another, for what little that's worth.
As far as choices to split the Democratic Party, I think McCain has better opportunities. Palin, maybe. Though on the other hand Senator Hutchison has a very muddy history on abortion (she supports Roe v Wade, but also pretty much every restriction on it. She could be painted either way depending on audience, which is a plus). All in all, though, Palin's better to go down that route.
If I were McCain, I'd aim for someone in their Fifties with experience, to leave that attack option open. I don't think toughness is actually that important, since debating skill doesn't seem to matter if you pass a bare minimum that all the candidates under consideration pass (the expectations game cancels any extra advantage out). For that reason, I'm still thinking Pawlenty.
Posted by: Zephyrus at Aug 28, 2008 12:54:12 AM
I'm tangentially interested in this topic, because, as I blogged earlier, I'm trying to understand why the Democrats picked their Vice President and had their convention first.
I think a game theoretic model would have both candidates refusing to release their vice presidential pick first, as it would allow the other candidate the edge in making a reactive pick.
Since my blog post on that topic, we seem to see Republicans doing just that (encouraging alternates to Veep frontrunner Romney that would do more to benefit McCain vs. Obama-Biden).
So, what's going on? Why the seemingly bad game? And at least as importantly, why the complete lack of commentary on whether it's bad game and why it occured?
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous at Aug 28, 2008 3:56:22 AM
McCain is the underdog here, and being on a losing Presidential ticket is a step towards becoming a political has-been. I expect McCain's options to be limited to those who are in danger of becoming political has-beens anyway. Romney fits this bill perfectly.
Posted by: Cyrus at Aug 28, 2008 4:02:40 AM
HA, It's tradition that the party out of power hold its convention first. It's a little weird that the Dems waited soooo long for theirs, as McCain is accepting federal matching funds and can continue raising primary cash until his convention. Obama OTOH has turned down federal matching funds. This could turn into a textbook strategic blunder, as he needs to raise some $300M to effectively match McCain's federal matching funds route (since they have to continue spending to raise more), and Obama has slipped off the pace.
Posted by: BoscoH at Aug 28, 2008 4:25:08 AM
Bosco, tradition seems like a weak reason, fundraising strategy seems like a strong one. This link reinforces your points:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-6028996_ITM
My question is (1) could Republican reactive vice presidential selection be a game-changer, (2) how early in advance could Democrats have predicted that, and (3) if so, were the barriers to delaying vice presidential selection greater than the benefit?
Finally, where is there even hint of deliberation about all this? It seems to me to be pretty obviously something worth deliberating about, at least since the prospect of two different types of "historic" candidates as front-runners.
I could see the Republican math: Obama wins and chooses white male veep, pick white female veep. Obama wins and picks white female veep, pick white male veep. Hilary wins and picks white male veep, pick minority veep. Hillary wins and picks Obama as veep, pick white veep. In those scenarios (which all seem to me to have been likely almost 1 year ago) Democrats would seem to have a strong incentive not to all Republicans that type of reactive, strategic pick.
So as a starting point, I'm curious where the deliberations were.
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous at Aug 28, 2008 6:04:02 AM
If McCain selects a woman VP, it'll be Meg Whitman the former Ebay CEO. She's one of his economic advisers and some insiders around McCain have been pushing Whitman for weeks.
Here's the problem with McCain choosing any woman: Hillary Clinton supporters are Hillary Clinton supporters more than they are "voting for a female." Many democratic female superdelegates warned Obama that choosing any woman other than Clinton, Kathleen Sebelius for example (made Obama's shortlist), would be consider a token choice and a major slap in the face.
If McCain were to pick a female, it would be obvious/blatant pandering and women voters would more than likely be offended, not supportive.
Lastly, consider Hillary's and Bill's strong endorsements for Obama at the DNC the last two nights, it stands to reason that Hillary supporters will consider both her wishes and their own self-interests and codify their party once again.
Simply, if McCain were to pander and select a woman VP, it'd likely be a failure and result in siphoning an insignificant number of votes.
If McCain wants to win, he needs to shore up the conservative base and energize the Evangelical voting block. He could hit a conservative homerun and select Mike Huckabee, but he won't. But he might choose Tim Pawlenty who brings some interesting things to the ticket: executive political experience, puts a key swing state in play (Minnesota), is a true conservative, is pro-life, and brings a youthful face to the ticket. Pawlenty's major flaws are, (1) It'll take 2-3 weeks just to introduce the country to his biography since he's so fresh, and more importantly, (2) In the VP debates, he'll get slaughtered by Joe Biden.
Posted by: cchjd at Aug 28, 2008 7:26:33 AM
IMO, the Republicans are not really trying to win this election. McCain himself generally doesn't even look that thrilled with running.
McCain went suddenly from dead last in the primaries to winner because the GOP powers figured he'd be a good "lose with dignity" candidate.
His VP choice will be somebody who is equally willing to take one for the team.
Posted by: Dan Tarrant at Aug 28, 2008 9:06:11 AM
"Many democratic female superdelegates warned Obama that choosing any woman other than Clinton, Kathleen Sebelius for example (made Obama's shortlist), would be consider a token choice and a major slap in the face."
It would be pandering for Obama to do so, but not really for McCain. Obama had the choice to take Hillary, but rejected her. McCain never had that choice. It's the rejection that is causing the ill will - a woman scorned.
Posted by: Tom at Aug 28, 2008 9:15:23 AM
"Many democratic female superdelegates warned Obama that choosing any woman other than Clinton, Kathleen Sebelius for example (made Obama's shortlist), would be consider a token choice and a major slap in the face."
It would be pandering for Obama to do so, but not really for McCain. Obama had the choice to take Hillary, but rejected her. McCain never had that choice. It's the rejection that is causing the ill will - a woman scorned.
Posted by: Tom at Aug 28, 2008 9:16:23 AM
That 30 percent number is starting to look like manipulation mischief in the middle of the night. She's back down below 10.
Posted by: jfalk at Aug 28, 2008 9:31:04 AM
So she's pro free trade? She's against increasing education dollars, against environmental regulations, against energy sustainability, against our soldiers, against drug law reform, against civil rights, etc., at least she wants to help out oil executives. It is shocking -- SHOCKING! that in the 21st century politicians like this aren't being marginalized by the voting public, but are actually in the majority. This really is a country of two extremes -- not democrat and republican -- but the open minded, globalized, socially conscious coasts, and the parochial, traditional, close-minded midwest & south.
Posted by: Noah at Aug 28, 2008 9:45:57 AM
Since I don't want McCain to win, I sure hope that he goes for a "conservative home run" and picks Mike Huckabee. The independent swing vote isn't looking for a super conservative ticket. McCain and Huckabee would lock up the pro-war and socially conservative voters, but would surely turn-off independents and crossovers. Ditto Romney.
Posted by: liberalarts at Aug 28, 2008 10:08:46 AM
Palin, Hutchinson, Rice, or Whitman.
I would bet on Hutchinson at the moment, but McCain has more options than Obama did.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Aug 28, 2008 10:40:58 AM
I don't know how much difference it will make, but from watching the primary debates I go the impression that McCain really dislikes Romney. Indeed, I got the impression that the other contenders felt the same.
McCain got a big laugh at one point, IIRC, when he turned to Romney and, in the context of changes of position on issues, said
"One thing's for sure, Mitt. You are definitely the candidate of change."
Whwther any of that will matter in the decision I don't know. I personally think that Romney would be a poor choice for McCain. The guy is hollow, and that will show in the campaign.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Aug 28, 2008 12:06:53 PM
