By nature, most politicians are risk-takers. One cannot enter the political arena without being willing to risk his name, family privacy, and, sometimes, fortune on the winds of political lady luck. As with most gamblers, however, most politicians fail to recognize the warning signs and either hold ‘em or fold ‘em. Senator Barack Obama’s selection of Senator Joe Biden as his vice presidential candidate is the latest example.

Because Vice President Dick Cheney decided not to run for the presidency, the 2008 race is the first “open” election since the 1952 election when General Dwight D. Eisenhower defeated Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson. Both candidates came from outside the Beltway. In 1956, they faced each other again and the outcome remained the same.

Since the 1956 election, only five presidential races have involved at least one candidate who came from a career outside the Beltway. All five races involved sitting or former governors. Those races were: 1976 President Gerald Ford v. Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter; 1980 President Jimmy Carter v. former California Governor Ronald Reagan; 1988 Vice President George H.W. Bush v. Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis; 1996 President Bush v. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton; and 2000 Vice President Al Gore v. Texas Governor George W. Bush. Of the five races, the Washington outsider won four out of five races, or 80%. Many attribute the lone loss (Dukakis to Bush) to the popularity of President Reagan (as in Bush won (re)election to Reagan’s third term).

The first history lesson, therefore, is that voters for the presidency prefer candidates from outside the Beltway. In the 2008 race, neither presidential candidate comes from outside the Beltway.

In the fourteen presidential elections from 1952 to 2004, only five elections included at least one candidate that was a sitting U.S. senator. Those races were: 1960 Vice President Richard M. Nixon v. Senator John F. Kennedy; 1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson v. Senator Barry Goldwater; 1972 President Nixon v. Senator George McGovern; 1996 President Clinton v. Senator Bob Dole; and 2004 President Bush v. Senator John Kerry. Of those five races, the sitting senator lost four out of five races, or 20%. Many attribute the lone win (Kennedy over Nixon) to the involvement of fraud (as in 9,000 votes to Mayor Richard Daley’s Chicago Machine and 46,000 votes to Johnson’s Texas Machine).

The second history lesson, therefore, is that American voters for the presidency do not prefer sitting U.S. senators. In the 2008 race, both presidential candidates are sitting U.S. senators.

So, the 2008 race gives American voters their least preferred candidates: two inside the Beltway candidates who are sitting U.S. senators. As a result of this rarity, the selection of vice presidential candidates, while typically negligible on the outcome of the election, becomes potentially game changing. Each candidate has the chance to address history’s lessons by selecting an outside the Beltway vice presidential candidate.

With the selection of Senator Biden, Senator Obama decided to totally ignore history’s lessons. Given that his campaign is based entirely on change, his selection of Senator Biden creates even more dissonance with voters, as the U.S. Senate isn’t known as a place where change occurs.

Even more problematic, Senators Obama and Biden are both lawyers. Among voters, lawyers rank among the least respected and liked professions. Typically, lawyers are slightly more popular than politicians. Senators Obama and Biden have a total of seven years of private sector experience. Of the seven years, six years involve practicing law. In contrast, between them, they have spent 49 years as elected politicians. According to the National Journal, Senators Obama and Biden possess the first and third most liberal voting records in the U.S. Senate.

John McCain has spent 26 years as a politician. Before politics, he spent 27 years as a member of the military, which included five and a half years spent as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam. While the democrats will try to portray McCain as a Washington insider, most voters across the United States see McCain as a maverick who has fought the ways of Washington. Given the nastiness of the 2000 primary with President Bush, it will be hard for democrats to stick McCain with the “Friend of Bush” tag. According to the National Journal, McCain has a middle of the road voting record.

In a battle of biographies, the democrats’ biographies don’t sound like winning ones. With them, the democrats have a problem.

The problem is the Electoral College and a little more history.

It is a safe assumption that both candidates will hold the states that their party won by 5% or more in 2000 and 2004, except possibly Colorado, Virginia, and Missouri (more on those three states later). With those status quo holds, McCain would lead Obama with 216 to 183 electoral votes. There is little evidence that any of those states will break with recent history.

Next, despite Republican talk that it can win the big five, history indicates that Obama will maintain the democrat’s winning streaks in Michigan (Bush 1988), Minnesota (Nixon 1972), Oregon (Reagan 1984), Pennsylvania (Bush 1988), and Wisconsin (Reagan 1984). If President Bush (41) couldn’t win Oregon in 1988 following two successful Reagan terms and President Bush (43) couldn’t win Michigan (John Engler), Pennsylvania (Tom Ridge), and Wisconsin (Tommy Thompson) in 2000 with republican governors, no republican is going to win those states in 2008 with democrat governors (Jennifer Granholm; Ted Kulongoski; Ed Rendell; Jim Doyle) and a tough Bush economy.

As for Minnesota, non-Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party candidates don’t win major statewide office unless a strong third party challenger is in the race (Jesse Ventura won with 37% in 1998; Tim Pawlenty won with 44% in 2002; Pawlenty barely won reelection with 47% (by less than 1%) in 2006) or democrats politicize a funeral (the Paul Wellstone election where Norm Coleman won by 2% over last minute replacement former Vice President Mondale), which isn’t the case in the 2008 election. With those states, Obama would lead McCain with 248 to 216 electoral votes.

That leaves the five toss-up states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Ohio, as well as the three exception states from above. Those eight states are worth 74 electoral votes. Of those states, given the sheer enthusiasm for and primary turnout differential between the parties, it seems like a safe bet that Obama will win Iowa and New Hampshire, which would give him 259 electoral votes – only 11 shy of the presidency. Continued...