David Frum thinks that Bobby Jindal would be a better vice presidential candidate than Marco Rubio. So do I, but I can’t endorse Frum’s reasoning. Frum writes that Republicans are better off going after Asian-American voters with Jindal as VP than going after Latino voters with Rubio as VP. I think that Jindal and Rubio are better contrasted based on who is better prepared to be President, who has more political accomplishments and who would be better at helping Romney sell his message. I think Jindal wins on all of those counts (though I can see grounds for reasonable disagreement on the last one.)
I also think Frum’s analysis of the ethnic politics of Jindal and Rubio is mistaken and overstated. Take a look at the 2004 and 2008 exit polls. The results for Latinos and Asians look very similar. The Republicans won over 40% of both groups in 2004 and between 31%-35% of both groups in 2008. The first conclusion to be drawn is that circumstances and the candidate at the top of the ticket (probably in that order) matter most and that Republicans could reasonably hope to somewhat improve over their 2008 performance with both groups – though probably not win a plurality with either group without some kind of huge disaster between now and November.
May 3rd, 2012 | 8:48 am
[...] bedfellows. First Things contributor Pete Spiliakos echoes Frum, while also questioning his premises. David Frum thinks that Bobby Jindal would be a better vice presidential candidate than Marco [...]
May 5th, 2012 | 2:04 pm
Jindal is an admirable man, but not yet qualified for the Presidency. One whose qualities are neon-like on a dark night is Robert Gates. Secretary of Defense, head of the CIA, President of two respected universities. A Republican Party establishment that was not cowed by the yahoos would be beating a path to his door to solicit his acceptance of the Vice-Presidential nomination. Hell, a Republican Party establishment (and surely such a thing exists in some form or another) would have solicited his acceptance of the Presidential nomination! Sixty years ago they did it for Eisenhower, and one can argue that we have not had a better President since. But such an effort would require the acknowledgement that expertise in foreign affairs is a) not easily or quickly obtained, and is b) of overriding importance to our national interests. And as many tell me: nobody cares about foreign policy; it’s the economy, stupid.
May 5th, 2012 | 8:22 pm
Henry, Gates seems like a quite prudent and competent guy. I don’t know where he stands on any domestic policy issues. I guess I could say the same thing about Romney (heh, heh. You are right that it worked out with Eisenhower, but I’d like to know what Gates thinks about what kinds of candidates should be nominated to the Supreme Court, his opinions on health care policy, abortion, etc. He would no doubt make for a wise choice for Secretary of State.
I wish Jindal had more private sector and/or military experience. That is one reason why I’m leaning at least equally in the direction of say Bob McDonnell. But Jindal has more (and better) experience as a political executive than Romney and more experience as a federal legislator than Rubio and quite extensive experience in public administration before he ever ran for office.
May 14th, 2012 | 12:50 am
Frum is on point. Latinos is a very ambiguous term. Most Latinos could not relate to Rubio’s story, no matter how you try to spin it. It’s analogous to how blacks regard Herman Cain.
All indicators show that Jindal will be in Louisiana for 4 more years, so any talk about him ending up on a 2012 ticket is moot. But since this is being discussed anyway, I will add my 2 cents. He might add some Asian vote, but the fact of the matter is that the Asian demographic is small in respect to the Latino/black populations, and Asians lean Democrat about as much as Latino group does, but less than black. Mind you, the Asian demographic is relatively well off, so Frum’s analysis that Latinos don’t vote Republican simply because conservative policy doesn’t embrace the poor is misguided. Look at how Asians vote Democrat despite having success anyway(the last time Republicans won an Asian majority was in 1996). I’m going to be really blunt here. Republicans have trouble getting non-white votes. That’s the only conclusion I can come up with, based on numbers and logic. The media could be to blame here, and the party simply putting a minority on the ticket will be another failed attempt, kinda like Palin was in ’08.
However Pete, one thing you touched upon was that Jindal has a solid resume. (On a side note, it is a great distraction in politics, when personal abilities are taking backseat to ethnicity- when it should be the other way around). This means that even if he doesn’t miraculously turn over Asian voters, he’d still be a good VP pick regardless. This is also the problem- it’s the cursed VP spot. Jindal, like Christie, has an insatiable appetite for power. If he ends up on the ticket, it would jeopardize his shot at actually running for presidency in ’16 or ’20, clearly not a gamble he’s willing to take. This goes back to the statement I prefaced my comment with. He will cling on to Louisiana, simply for the sake of not having to say “I will not take a VP spot under any circumstance”. I agree that military experience could have made Jindal a more attractive candidate- but keep in mind he’s only 40, and he’s already squeezed in an entire lifetime’s worth of leadership experience.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact