When should Mac name his VP?

[Buckeye GOP]

I am interested to know when people think Mac should pick his VP and why. I am not sure that I know the right answer on this one.

[Sabio]

My thought is to hold off until the Dems get a candidate. Mac can hold his own until then. But choosing a VP before knowing whether he'll be up against Hillary or Obama would really expose him to excessive scrutiny without reciprocate scrutiny on the Dems. Of course, that could be a moot point if Obama takes Hillary's advice and subjects himself to her campaign (would really like to see Obama wipe that smug smile off her face with some good old-fashioned mud). Mac's VP's qualities will shift depending on the choice of the Dems. Does he need Southern votes more, or does he campaign funds, or does he need certain states (i.e. Florida) more? But there is no reason Mac should be divulging anything until after the Dems make their choice.

[sbm]

I'm not sure McCain has anything to lose by choosing a VP now. Once the Dems are settled there will be fewer news stories out there, so if his VP does something stupid it'll get more coverage.

And I'm not convinced he can strategize based on who the Dems nominate. Hostilities between the two camps are only going to get worse. Many of Obama's followers are likely to give up on politics if Obama doesn't get the nomination so McCain doesn't win those. And many of Clinton's followers are hard-line democrats that would never cross-over so he can't win those either. Any democrat votes that are in play, McCain brings in better than any Republican VP. His only concern is bringing in the Republican base. He doesn't need to see the Dems pick to do that.

If he nominates now, he gets two campaigners for longer. I'd suggest as soon as he can do extensive back-ground checks.

[Sabio]

Except that he can choose a candidate more like himself (i.e. Lieberman) if Hillary gets the nom. Hillary alone unites the GOP base, but Obama detracts from it. If Obama gets the nom, then Mac will need a VP candidate that brings a large state (Charlie Crist of Florida) or someone that unifies the base (a Southerner, an evangelical, etc), or steals a prominent state from Dems (think back to 2000 when Gore lost to Bush in Tennessee...although the VP didn't do it then, Gore should have had a lock on that, and Lieberman didn't deliver a constituency that added to the ticket).

[Buckeye GOP]

Good points on this one - I am inclined to go with Sabio on the timing, though I am not so sure that I couldn't be convinced otherwise. SBM is right about the Dem race getting tense. I think that while the Dem race is getting more vituperative by the day there is no reason to divert the news cycle from that by announcing the VP. Sure Mac drops a bit off the radar, but that helps him look more dignified and presidential. It would be interesting to see if there is a backlash if the super-delegates took the nomination away from the leading vote recipient or if the winner had to plunder delegates from the other candidate's earned delegates. Don't forget that Edwards still has a few delegates out there and could have a major role. I still think in the end BillAry and Obama will have to pick a compromise candidate and Gravel will be the nominee.

I thought that SBM made a further good point about rallying the base being key for the Republican VP nominee.

[Sabio]

I'd say that Mac is doing better at rallying the base as of late, but SBM definitely had it right with his point. If Obama gets the nom (looking more likely), then Mac's choice for VP is going to be one that can rally the base...that will be the primary selection criterion. If it's Hillary, then Mac's choices open up dramatically...Mitt could be selected because of his money.