Newsvine Q&A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

The following is a summary of the Questions and Answers, pulled from the Newsvine comment thread below.

MSNBC is reporting Obama is meeting today with a 'wide range' of religious leaders. Knowing McCain is not a religious favorite--any predictions on how the faith vote might fall?

Will the religious become the sought after swing voter?

-njb

Lots of Republicans are very nervous that McCain isn't going to fire up evangelicals. Meanwhile, Obama, part out of political necessity, is going to go out of his way to talk about his relationship with Christianity and the combination of those two facts will allow Obama to over-perform with middle-class white evangelicals who care both about their own economic well being and their faith. McCain has never been comfortable talking about religion which is why Obama's folks sense an opening, despite the Rev. Wright mess.

What is the time-line for closing Guantanamo Bay military detention facility ?

-Barry Rutherford

I'm surprised it hasn't been shut completely yet, simply for P.R. purposes...

We've all been focused on the presidential race, but as important perhaps is the race to increase the Democratic majority in the US Senate. Due to the current leadership of Harry Reid, Republicans can effectively block any bill that can't gain 60 votes. The Democrats are widely expected to pick up at least a few Senate seats, but what do you think the likelihood is that they will gain a supermajority in the Senate? What are their best second tier pick-up opportunities (i.e. those where the Democrats are not favored, but have a real shot in November)?

-spiffie

Wow... not sure 60 is attainable, but I do think Dems could pick up 6-8 seats. They are not playing defense anywhere other than Louisiana and even in that state, Dem incumbent Landrieu looks safer than she should be. Dems feel very good about picking up VA, NM, CO and NH. The next set of seats include, MS, NC, MN (Franken's negatives are VERY high right now), OR and KY. All five of these races promise to be VERY close; History proves that one party usually ends up sweeping most of the close races; so that's 9...; and then there are long shot hopes the party is talking up like ME, ID, TX and GA; Unrealistic in my opinion but Republicans never believed they'd pick up 12 seats in the '80 Reagan landslide... Still, I see how Dems win 6-8 seats... I think getting the 9-10 they need (don't forget, their majority counts Lieberman) is a bridge too far... but when the political Earth shifts, it can shift in a big way... I think anything less than a 5 seat gain by the Dems will be seen as disappointing to them and a relief to the folks at the NRSC

Chuck:

Three words:

Who wins Missouri?

-jfxgillis

Hmmm... well, here's what I think about Missouri; it won't be decisive in the electoral battle... if the race is close and is an electoral vote contest where every state counts, then I think McCain wins it... if Obama opens up a small lead nationally then I think Missouri is part of that electoral landslide... I really think in an equal strength environment, Republicans generically have a 2-3 point advantage in Missouri.

Thanks again, Chuck.

A simple question this time around: Is California seriously in play for the Republicans?

I'd have to disagree but, you never know.

-Brandon Kiser

No... McCain campaign officially said it themselves.

Chuck,

In the last week, John McCain has denied voting against Katrina Aid when he did, twice, and denied comments he made regarding the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton. I have not seen reportage of these inconsistencies in the media, except for the latter story on Countdown (which is hardly "mainstream").

Do you have any thoughts on that? Am I overreacting?

-loosecannon

I think the media will start their candidate fact-checking in the weeks ahead... i think there just hasn't been a focus on this right now as we've had to cover the Clinton end game and the general election launch. I suspect these candidate fact checking stories to pop up a lot in July

chuck,
would it be a slam dunk for john mccain to get hillary as his v.p. ?
to me its the best of both worlds, 2 parties in the white house.
their be no one to blame if something goes south.
what do u think ?
thanks, pat

-pat cirolia

I've heard this conspiracy... it would be a slam dunk

Chuck,

I asked this before but I didn't get it in time...

I was curious if you could talk a little about the news process and how the narrative evolves. We are at the point now where pundits and hosts are complaining about the narrative, and then actively further that same narrative. Is there producer pressure or corporate pressure to do things a certain way?

The news needs to be more truthful. It needs to be more two sided when there are true issues to debate, but more one sided when the "issues" are truths and facts. I don't want to see real news get convoluted because of what looks like a necessity to have talking heads from each side talk about everything. Real news gets lost in the shuffle, and debatable abstract issues don't get enough discussion.

It seems like a lot of news people agree, but minimal action is actually being taken though I should say that shows like Countdown have the right idea- and the it shows in the ratings. Knowing that, yhy doesn't true in-depth news get more play?

-Ian Johnson

this could be an hour long lecture... there's no one answer to this...

Chuck,

I've been growing more and more concerned by the fact that though Hillary is out of the race the media seems to be talking about her and her voters more then Obama a lot of the time. I feel like this could really be a bad sign for the coming election. Do you think I might be overacting or that the stories about her will die down anytime soon?

-niafabo

Oh, I think these stories will die down... there would have been similar stories about Obama had he been on the losing end and there were similar stories about Romney/Huckabee voters after McCain secured the GOP nod.

Hi Chuck,

I look at this election as a once in a generation chance for Democrats to pad their governing majority in Congress. This would allow Democrats to pass bills while also allowing legislators to peel off when necessary to satisfy their local constituents. It also helps them get closer to a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, which will be necessary to effectively shape the courts.

I've read a number of articles criticizing the 50-state strategy, particularly for the Obama campaign (instead of the DNC, DSCC or DCCC).

To me, if the Obama campaign, DNC, DSCC, DCCC, etc coordinated their efforts in all 50 states, they'd be effectively taking advantage of this historic political climate. It would be sort of like the 1994 shift in Congress to the Republicans. It could give Democrats a true governing majority and actually make it possible for Obama to pass large parts of his agenda. It seems to me if Obama is focused on governing, rather than just getting elected, the 50 state strategy (or maybe 30-40 state strategy) makes some sense.

I look back on Bill Clinton's strategy, where he won, but had little success getting laws passed after 1994. Bill Clinton also had a lot of trouble getting his judicial choices through the Senate. If Bill had focused on not just winning the Presidency, but also on helping Democrats at the state and local level, perhaps his legacy would be more intact today. A lot of changes were in the form of executive orders and regulations, rather than laws, and they were more easily reversed.

1.Do you think it is wise for Obama to focus on gaining a true governing majority by expanding the map, or should he focus just on getting elected?

2.What are the pitfalls of trying to expand the map for him?

3.Does Obama seem to have the resources to go everywhere?

4.Wouldn't the expand the map strategy also protect Democrats in the event Obama lost to McCain, as it would be easier for Democrats to oppose McCain's agenda if they made significant gains down ticket?

-Elaine B

1.Ultimately, if he wants to govern successfully; yes, he should focus on creating a mandate.

2.The pitfalls are spending too much time trying to win Mississippi and allowing McCain to concentrate his resources on Michigan and Pennsylvania; Obama could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college, like Kerry almost pulled off in '04.

3.It appears he does have the resources to have his cake and eat it too...

4.Agree...

Bottom line, this could be for the Democrats what 1980 was for Reagan and the Republicans. You'll recall while Reagan didn't bring in a GOP house, he did find a governing majority in the House (thanks to conservative Southern Dems) and flipped the senate so he had an electoral and governing mandate; and he transformed the GOP for 20 years... this is the same opportunity Obama has. If he doesn't try it now, he'll be doomed even if he gets into the White House because his majorities won't be big enough to withstand a 2010 onslaught.

Does Obama have to win Ohio or Florida to get over the 270 electoral vote threshold? How competitive can Obama be in states like New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia and Louisiana? Does McCain really have a good shot at winning typically Blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Minnesota? What about McCain's chances in Washington? And last but not least of course, who do YOU think will be on the top of the ticket with Obama in November?

BTW: You and the rest of the political gang were great on Meet the Press this past Sunday!

-Double Demon

If Obama allows FL and OH to stay in the GOP column, then Obama must not lose a single Kerry state (and I'd be nervous about MI, NH and PA) and then add both CO and VA or also win NM, NV, IA and either CO or VA...

McCain will end up pulling out of the Northwest... my prediction but he won't compete there by Oct. 1... But I do think MI, PA and NH are real... I don't buy MN...

As for the ticket... I think Obama is going to pick someone who white male independents say, "yeah, he could be president": means my list is Biden, Nunn or someone similar

I'd like to stray from the political and ask you about your recent emergence as a pop figure with what seems to be a significant cult following as demonstrated by several Facebook fan clubs and sites like Viva Chuck Todd.

Do you find it flattering, bothersome, puzzling or all of the above?

-Kalelsd

of course it's flattering... and, yeah, I think a little bizarre; and of course VERY puzzling... but it's a fun ride; once in a lifetime election and I have a front row seat; I regularly pinch myself because I feel very lucky to be in this position.

What will be the potential impact on the presidential race when John McCain's preferences are defined with respect to judicial appointments and his pro-life record? Why has this remained the media and the Obama campaign been reluctant to engage on these important issues, especially in light of the aging Supreme Court justices?

-Patrick-317573

It's this reason why I don't believe Obama will pick a woman as his running mate because they firmly believe women will 'come home' once the conversation turns to the courts... we'll see, but the Obama camp believes this.

Hi Chuck,

Good to see you keeping this Q&A going. Two queries today, hope you have a chance to get to them.

1.) If Bush decides to attack Iran, which congress doesn't have to approve as he can essentially use the same congressional approval for going into Iraq, which way do you think the ax would fall on Obama or McCain?

2.) Why doesn't the Kucinich proposal to impeach the president get more traction as it may help us keeping Bush out of his intention to attack Iran. Apparently I'm beating a horse to death.

-Forest Browne

I'll be curious to hear Chuck's response to the Kucinich question.

I would think impeachment would backfire on Democrats in all those swing states, but I'm no pro on this stuff. Also, do we really want Dick Cheney as president? That idea really scares me. :)

-Elaine B

Right, it's difficult to be sure as there are pundits that believe that any such measure would hurt Obama's chances. I don't believe that and further I would stipulate that keeping this administrations huge failings in the spotlight would do a world of good.

However I think we'll have to wait for the professional to weigh in to find further perspective on the subject.

-Forest Browne

I think if Bush goes after Iran, it will ultimately hurt McCain; I think the country wants Bush to make any more major decisions until there's a new president. As for impeachment; to what end? The public isn't fired up about it because they know the end is near...

In your opinion, who should John McCain and Barack Obama pick as your VPs? You've already mentioned several lists, but if you were in each of their shoes... who would YOU pick? And then... who do you think WILL be picked?

-Andrew (aka Online Apps)

For Obama, I keep changing my mind... this week, I'm on the Biden bandwagon... Last week, I was on the Bayh bandwagon and the week before, I thought Nunn. I think the description should be, older white guy who reassures folks about Obama's judgment.

As for McCain, the safe pick is Romney; he's tested and could help the party financially; and he could help on the electoral map. If I were McCain, though, I'd throw the long ball and pick Meg Whitman of EBAY... go out of the box and pick a woman and create a potential suburban women problem.

Hi Chuck:

I am a fan of Sen. Jim Webb and think he'd make a great Democratic VP choice. But then this morning I had a flashback to 2000. Remember Bill Bradley? He was my U.S. Sen. from NJ. We respected his legislative work and re-elected him several times. Now I think I'm changing my mind - I think he'd be a great choice for VP.

It's terrible to be so fickle -- but hey, it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind.

From your viewpoint, what do you think Webb's and Bradley's chances are -- would either one of them be a good choice?

-Erin13

Jim Webb has a very bad track record with women. He wrote several items trashing the women at the Naval Academy and was NOT popular with women during his Virginia Senate campaign. He would not be a good choice to help bring women into the Obama camp.

-Henry H.

Bradley isn't a great campaigner but he'd pass my "would make white male independents" feel comfortable test. Webb would too though he's got a, um, rugged side that might not wear well with women.

Chuck, a lot of military people have been mentioned as potential running mates for Barack Obama. How come nobody's talking about Pennsylvania Rep. Joseph Sestak? He was a Clinton supporter in the primaries, which would show Obama can reach out to Clinton supporters. He was a Vice-Admiral of the Navy, has a Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard, and is a Roman Catholic. Granted, he doesn't have a lot of political experience, but considering how strong Obama's organization is, does that even matter? Wouldn't Sestak bring more to the ticket than, say, Wesley Clark?

-raven2017

Not sure on Sestak; I know that he's not seen as best hand-to-hand campaigner, but neither is Webb. Of all the military guys, Clark probably has the best schmoozing skills.

Hey Chuck,

I got a question about another Chuck, Sen. Hagel that is. I hear Obama is looking for people with military and foreign policy experience...What are the chances of him selecting Hagel as his Veep? I know the party base might not like this, however, I think he would be a great pick and doing so would blow the Republicans out of the water.

-domcat

I think Hagel gets semi-serious consideration but ultimately isn't picked because of his social position stances... but he'll get enough consideration that Hagel will feel compelled to endorse Obama and that's what Obama REALLY wants from him.

Chuck:

In looking at you guys' veep selections, there seem to be a lot of Senators. Given Obama's presence in the Senate, don't you think it would be wise to pick someone who has run something besides a small Hill staff? Also, don't you think foreign relations experience has to be a top priority? And also early opposition to the war.

Along those lines, why wouldn't Bob Graham or Bill Richardson be obvious top picks for Veep? I did not see either of them on the your list. Both current or former governors, huge foreign policy credentials, and both outspoken opponents of the war. Also, both key states and/or voting demographics.

-WCG

Graham should be on any short list; he's a great on paper pick... and I think the quirky stuff about the notebooks would be seen as small politics in this big election. The problem with Graham is that he's not the best stump speaker but then again, no one will look good next to Obama on that front. As for Richardson, he's another, perfect "on paper" pick but something always seems to keep folks from considering him too seriously

Chuck, when will you *finally* get your own show?

-stephenF85

I love what I do now... It's fun to be on everyone else's show

Chuck,

Two part question:

1) How much higher do you expect turnout to be this general election?

2) Is there any reason to believe the "enthusiasm gap" between the parties may mean lower turnout among base conservatives?

-kar2nen

On q1: we did a little experiment today on First Read projecting a 20% turnout increase which a lot of pros thought was too high. Maybe they're right but I remember when I thought turnout would reach 115-120M in 2004, people thought I was nuts... I was told 110-115 max... well, it was 122M. I think turnout is going to be BIG... I'll be surprised if it isn't over 135; maybe 2004 turned out the max (which is what folks on both sides right now believe) but there's definitely something different about this election...

on q2: this is the 64M question in McCain world... they are very nervous about this... it's why, frankly, they've spent more time talking about base issues (like judges) than, frankly, they should be right now.

Chuck,
Isn't Mike Huckabee really the ideal choice as McCain's VP. He will bring out the evangelical base (which is a McCain weakness) and reinforce McCain's outsider image. He will appeal to the Clinton Democrats in key states like Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. He's the perfect person to drive home the "elist", "he's not one of us" charge against Obama. He likes McCain and McCain likes him. Oh, and he's 52 years old. Do you really think McCain will listen to the economic conservatives and choose Romney instead.

-Drew Rowe

You know, I think he would be a smart pick... I don't disagree... Huckabee is an econ populist and probably could feel the pain of voters better than either Obama or McCain... But McCain doesn't seem all that smitten by him. And ultimately, McCain will make this pick; and he'll pick someone he wants in the situation room...

How much of a spoiler are Ron Paul (if he sticks around) and/or Bob Barr likely to play in the general, and will they outperform Nader?

-benfjackson

he won't be a spoiler; he'll be a protest vehicle

Chuck, Do you think pundits should reveal who they are voting for?

-Melissa in Indiana

no... I think pundits ought to reveal any perceived conflicts if they are there; something I did quite a bit in '06 when my wife was working for Jim Webb. I think what my wife does has no effect on my work but the perception could be there so if I disclose, it shows I don't have anything to hide. Full disclosure is always important to keeping credibility. I know I'm fair and I care about my credibility a lot; I want to be a trusted source for people on both sides of the aisle. I won't let my wife's career stand in the way of mine and vice versa. She never did me any favors when working on Webb's campaign.

BEST QUESTION YET!!!! Who's funnier off-camera, Matthews or Olbermann?

-smith9817

I have to side with Keith... but both are great people to chitchat with off-camera.. they have unique interests that have nothing to do with politics that makes them seem more well rounded than they are credited for.

The Obama camp seems much more aggressive in going after potential openings provided by his opponent than recent Democratic nominees have been. Do you agree?

-LESD

I definitely agree with this... the Obama echo chamber on the 'net is very powerful; reminds me of the success Bush had in '02 and '04

Chuck,

I always enjoy listening to your commentaries, and would like to thank you for being a "straight shooter"

I live in Ohio, what are your thoughts as to the direction Ohio will take in the fall?

-Anne, Ohio

I think Obama will underperform Ohio but still carry it... how's that for hedging

------ Original Post ------

I'm Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director. Please join me for another Q&A session here on Newsvine, on Wednesday, June 11 from 3:30-4:30 PM ET, where we'll be discussing U.S. Politics and the unfolding presidential election. Feel free to post your questions here in advance.

Also, due to the number of responses during my last Q&A, I'll likely only be able to answer the most popular submissions. So, please remember to vote for your favorite questions by clicking the small arrow in each comment box.

For those of you visiting us here for the first time, please know that Newsvine is an interactive web site designed for members to participate in thoughtful discussions about news-related topics. Feel free to take a look at the Newsvine Code of Honor, it's a short list of standards that existing members hold themselves to here.