In that case I'd have to repeat my question from post #15, if you were McCain's advisor in 2008 which potential running mate do you think would have been the best choice?
Remembering back during that time, I'm really not sure of someone that would've been better. Its easy to play a bit of arm chair quarterback and grab some names that are bigger now that weren't even on the radar in 2008, like Paul Ryan, but that's really not productive nor realistic.
I think the senator "moderates"/liberals that were rumored such as Lieberman or Graham would've been disasterous. I think the executive "moderates" and stereotypical Republicans like Guilliani or Romney wouldn't have really helped him much at all. I think your outliers would've been iffy...for example Huckabee may've helped with the base and may've not hurt independents quite as much as Palin, but didn't have the potential Palin had for countering the Obama grasp on message. Paul would've energized a small portion of the base while keeping the other side unhappy, gained him some independents, but would've likely been worse off than Palin.
As I said, my issue wasn't with the pick...but with how the pick was done, and how the campaign was handled after said pick.
If I was McCain's advisor back in 2008, from a completely political science strategy mindset, the moment it looked like the Primaries were locked up (and during the long wait for Obama/Hillary to be done) I would've suggested to start looking around the governor ranks for a minority, preferably young and charismatic, with a good conservative pedigree. I would like one from a state who either dealt with some kind of issues that we could translate to a national stage or has some decent handle on national issues, or at least make a selection early enough to let them study up on those things.
Executive...you want to hammer Obama's inexperience, which in part is his lack of executive experience. McCain doesn't have any himself, though at least has military experience which is part of what the President's job is (Commander in Chief). By getting an executive you have the potential to push that issue a bit.
Minority...this removes or at least reduces the "historic" notion of the campaign. Strategically speaking, it reasonable to suggest people who are previously not interested in voting might do so if they feel it will be a "historic" event or a part of "history". By allowing your ticke to fall in that same fashion you reduce the appeal of this.
Age...this, along with the above, allows for a better image for the campaigned. We'd want to push his inexperience, at the same time we don't want to look old, crusty, and out of touch. This would allow McCain to look Presidential and wise while having someone who interjects energy and a fresh perspective onto the ticket.
Conservative credentials...McCain would not win over the conservative base. Especially after the method of his primary win. From the moment the Primaries ended I would have realized where he stands with the conservative base and start planning to get a bonified conservative VP while pushing McCain to stay the course with regards to his true moderate stances and tendencies. This way he wouldn't have appeared phony by putting on an act that wouldn't fool conservatives and would just annoy independents.
Issue....with an issue that could be made to expand into a national thing, then we have a basis to jump off of. Be it getting a states budget back on track, dealing with health care or education, energy production, etc. This would give them something we could use as the initial focal point for them to talk on as they get their legs under them more fully with talking about all national things.
Now, I don't know who all the governors were during 2008, but my guess is few really fit that mold any better than Palin did. Which is why I don't have a huge problem with Palin's pick from a strategic stand point but in a procedural one.
