The current hot topic in politics-land is who Kamala Harris will choose as her VP. And that's fine. It's good, clean fun.
But it's odd that the discourse is all so thoroughly conventional, focused almost entirely on demographic considerations. She needs a white man to balance the fact that she's a Black woman. She needs a moderate to balance the fact that she's a liberal. She needs a Midwesterner to balance the fact that she's from the coast. She needs someone from a swing state who will help capture crucial votes.
But help me out here, political scientists. Is there any evidence that VPs affect the vote even slightly? The last one who comes to mind is LBJ, who probably helped Kennedy win Texas in 1960. That was two-thirds of a century ago. Since then, though? Maybe John McCain's choice of the plainly unqualified Sarah Palin hurt him in an election he was going to lose anyway, but aside from that there's bupkis.
What nobody ever seems to mention is that Harris should pick someone who (a) she already knows and likes, and (b) would make a plausibly good president if she got run over by a bus. That's what I'd do. Since it doesn't really affect the election one way or the other, why not just choose someone whose advice she genuinely values?
Think getting a normie Republican willing to sign on to his ticket was a big boost for Trump in 2020.
When did trump decide to go with pence instead?
I think Tim Kaine was a crappy choice for Hillary in 2016. A pal is a cool concept but I think someone like Tim Walz or Pete Buttegeig who are attack dogs, who can campaign effectively, and shoot down the gas lighting and point out how weird the GOP is, is someone that will go far. but I don't have a dog in the fight, I think VP Harris is in great shape all in her own
Choice of VP never helps win an election, but it can hurt if you pick someone who reflects poorly on your judgement. Tim Kaine didn't help Hillary, but no one would have. He did not hurt her, and therefore was a perfectly fine choice.
You mean when he lost?
You mean 2016?
You consider Vance a normie? He's a faux normie to go along with Trumps faux populism. If you mean Pence in 2016, normie also doesn't come to my mind when describing Mike Pence. His best attribute was he was establishment GOP back when they thought they could control Trump.
Interesting; it worked* for Clinton-Gore in '92.
*Or at least, didn't hurt. ("Didn't hurt" is the Prime Directive of choosing VPs. For purposes of election, it doesn't matter at all if you get it right (LBJ in '60 is the *possible* exception that proves the rule), but it can hurt slightly if you get it wrong.
I tell you mr. Drum The more I see of Josh Shapiro, the more I like him . But I admit I don’t know enough about all of them.
Shapiro has some negatives--vouchers, not very popular with unions.
Shapiro also is excessively pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian.
Specifically, how is he "excessively" anti-Palestinian? Yes, he supports Israel's right to exist, but so do the vast majority of Americans. Shapiro has also been critical of Netanyahu and called out the death toll in Gaza, but he also believes the hostages should be returned and Hamas should surrender. Again, those are positions held by the vast majority of American voters. Moreover, nearly all polling of voters shows Gaza at the very bottom of their concerns. I think there are other choices that might be better than Shapiro, but I don't think Gaza is a reason to push anyone out of the running.
I like that advice Kevin.
But I did hear a commentator on the news, who follows elections closely, say that it can boost the percentage points, only by around 3% or so, in the VP Elect's home state. So even then, it could mater only in a swing state, where a small bump could help make the difference.
And PA is a critical swing state. It's very difficult to see a path to 270 without the Quaker State.
Some other people, podcast types I've heard, have also mentioned that it should be somebody she gets along with, and that does make sense, for her own ease with the person and for what people pick up from seeing them both together. It also happens that when she was AG she met and got to know a whole passel of other state AGs so that alone gives her a big group to pick from.
But let me push back just a little on what a pick brings to a campaign. Probably it doesn't matter so much for voters, true, but I'd propose that it can make a difference for campaign staff and volunteers down the lines and out into localities. If it's somebody they like too (based on what they know at that point, which often isn't very much) and who makes sense to them for demographic or whatever other reasons, they'll be that little bit more enthusiastic about contacting people and getting them registered and to the polls than if it's somebody they've never heard of or who's tepid, or even an outright off-putting jerk like one of the current VP candidates we could name.
I don't think that necessarily points to anyone in particular among the names floated and really is mainly a caution against going for the bland, the tired, the insipid, the objectionable, etc etc even if that might be someone she likes. But she's showing some chops these days and probably has all this internalized already.
Being an "off-putting jerk" is part of the Min Quals for a Republican VP nominee.
My sense is that picking "just the right" VP candidate doesn't help that much, but picking a polarizing figure like Palin was can definitely hurt. Vance already seems to be attracting all kinds of negative attention for his profoundly weird and out-of-the mainstream RWNJ opinions. He was supposed to be the younger, hipper, cooler face of MAGA but has turned out to be really something of a weirdo. Only people with children should vote? Really?
ETA: *naturally conceived* children, natch. Roger that, asshole.
Picking a VP is the first executive decision for a nominee. Palin didn't just embarrass herself, she showed that McCain f*cked up at a critical time.
That's what's happening with Trump right now with the Vance pick. His lead in polls has evaporated and part of that is his own screw-up.
The McCain campaign knew they were losing, and needed a Hail Mary Pass. Right play call, wrong receiver.
Sarah Palin was a big boost for Tina Fey's career!
+1000
Obama's pick of Biden?
That made a difference.
And even if you want to say he would have won anyway--then consider the re-election.
Concur, and this I think is the closest parallel. Kamala Harris is a BLACK WOMAN. There are -- very unfortunately -- a lot of people in this country who are GETTABLE VOTERS, even regular Democratic voters, whom that ... gives pause. A nice "safe" pick can assuage their ... concerns.
In other words, it's not about gaining advantage in this case; it's about avoiding (net) harm.
As noted elsewhere, I hate catering to soft / latent bigotry. But I would hate FAR more LOSING to the OVERT bigotry that dominates the Republican Party today. And we need every damn vote.
Concur.
Obama's pick of Biden?
That made a difference.
No it didn't. Biden proved himself an able running mate and an excellent vice president, but there was no way the Republicans were holding onto the White House for a third consecutive term given the unpopularity of the GOP brand after the disaster of the Bush years AND the literal collapse of the economy in the fall of 2008.
2008 was one of those elections like 64 or 72 or 80 or 84 or 96: the outcome, while not literally guaranteed, overwhelmingly favored one side.
(In a previous era 2020 would also have fallen into that category; indeed, so, too, would 2024.)
I agree with all of Kevin's arguments except that in this case someone with swing state appeal, or some kind of other demographic appeal, may help because Trump's response to losing will be to try anything he can to provoke marginal voters who might feel motivated to vote against her, and they'll feel less motivated if they see a guy who can speak right at them.
But, given that, she may easily pick someone with just the opposite vibe to motivate another body of marginal voters, because by election day Trump is really going to be flailing like a complete psycho and turning off a lot of people.
...because by election day Trump is really going to be flailing like a complete psycho and turning off a lot of people.
Ya think?
Problem being, of course, that he already is, and the circus-hungry media polish it all up nice so very few people ever even see it, much less understand how steep and thorough the decline has been.
I think there are two things:
1. Can bring a swing state needed to win
2. Is a plausible replacement if Harris gets run over by a bus
I think the VP pick needs to bring both of those.
There is a vein of political science research on this. The effect of running mates on their home state's votes is minimal. See Gurian et al. 2016, Devine & Kopko 2016. There may be an indirect effect of a running mate's personal characteristics on evaluation of the presidential candidate.
I think Kevin is mostly correct in that a VP pick is not likely to win the election or affect the vote too much. I think, though, that there is considerable downside risk. A bad choice can definitely hurt a candidacy by casting doubt on their judgement. Additionally, who you pick is a general signal as to which way a candidate wants to lean and wants to present themselves. And Ms. Harris is vulnerable on being more to the Left than the general electorate and in being seen as a "DEI" pick.
Her best bet in getting any voter who is still sort of on the fence is to present herself as a sane, reasonable, alternative to the chaos that is Trump, with little controversial baggage. Which is why it behooves Kamala to pick a normal somewhat moderate white guy. Any qualified one (i.e. a Senator or Governor) would do. And yes, at that point, pick the one who she likes working with the most.
In and of itself it will not win her the election, but who she picks is potentially a part of a general winning strategy.
...it behooves Kamala to pick a normal somewhat moderate white guy.
Kamala is not really "on the left," but for some reason (hmmm...) that is how she is often perceived. Pete Buttigieg is not really "a right-leaning Dem," but for some reason that is how he is often perceived.
Since perceptions (often) matter more than reality, the two of them on the ticket offers (perceived) ideological balance. That's good.
Secretary Pete and Momala certainly share an ability to destroy someone completely while smiling and getting in a couple of jokes.
I want Secretary Pete to be her Chief of Staff.
I agree. Pete seems an enormously capable man who might very well make a helluva Chief of Staff (I am not sure about his bureaucratic organizational skills). He is not a good choice for Harris' Veep because de facto Dems can only afford electorally one (for want of a better word) "unpopular" minority on the ticket at the time and Ms. Harris has that spot taken. Dems kinda have to demographically say "we want to help minorities/oppressed, but that is not ALL that we are about..."
The biggest deficit that Democrats have is messaging and communications. The biggest asset that Pete brings is messaging and communications. You want him in front of microphones and cameras every chance you get. That's not what a Chief of Staff does. I see him more valuable elsewhere. First of all, on the campaign trail helping the Dem ticket get elected.
When was the last time a (winning) D nominee picked a swing state pol for veep? JFK/LBJ? That line of thinking hasn't been operative for a long time.
When was the last time a (winning) D nominee picked a governor for veep? Thomas Marshall (best remembered for saying "What this country needs is a really good five-cent cigar"), whom Woodrow Wilson couldn't stand and moved his office out of the White House. Guys used to being top dog don't make a natural fit for being #2. (Pence and Agnew were the only ex-guvs elected veep in my lifetime; Rockefeller was appointed for two years but didn't run in '76).
It's a short enough campaign with some voters still just getting to know Harris. I don't think it's good to pick someone who's a relative unknown and untested with national media. Beshear, Pritzker, Cooper, Moore. People might love them at home but there's no telling what the rest of us might think. (Look what's happening with Trump's pick.) Shapiro is guv in a key state but I thought he was so-so in a couple of tv appearances this week; plus, he almost guarantees Palestine becomes an issue in ways that probably won't help Harris. Mark Kelly brings some stature but really brings less excitement than you want. Whitmer and Newsom can't be on a ticket.
So I agree with Kevin. Harris should pick someone she gets along with as long as his name is Pete Buttigieg.
The running mate choice is usually characterized in the media as 'the first presidential decision', an indication of the character they will bring to greater decisions over the next four years. That's why Sarah Palin was such a pratfall for McCain, and why Mike Pence, a guy who seemed like a face drawn on an onion, did nothing to either help or hinder Trump last time. But this time he goes with J.D. Vance, a guy who seems like a gerbil who goes to Klan rallies because he thinks it will help him get elected to the school board.
All Kamala has to do by contrast is to pick someone most people would see as someone who could seriously be a presidential candidate in a few years.
Just said something similar up-thread and you beat me to it.
The couch meme has taken off and it's a perfect example how crap can stick even if it's not true. I think every newspaper and network should do a fact-check and tell everyone there's really no evidence behind it.
Not necessarily false, it's just not in his book.
The story works because, well, imagine doing it with J.D. Vance. The best possible way that could go would be that it would be like banging a couch.
cld
"All Kamala has to do by contrast is to pick someone most people would see as someone who could seriously be a presidential candidate in a few years."
Exactly.
Joe Biden, prior to becoming Obama's VP, was relatively unknown to everyone prior to that. Sure, he was a long term US Senator, but, how many people in Texas, or Michigan or North Carolina know about Joe Biden or - more importantly - gave a damn about him? The same goes for the current group of Governors being considered. I know Roy Cooper, he's my governor. The rest are just names.
I DO KNOW Mark Kelly. Caring man, taking care of his wife while she recovered from gun shot wounds - astronaut etc.
But think about the republican party and what they are good at. Messaging and image - Trump is all about that. He's fat, but wears clothes that make him look thinner, but more importantly make him look wealthy and important. He wants this look. He also wants to appear smart so he picks really stupid people to surround himself with.
The game here is competence, and blunting the GOP message. Kelly is for strong immigration laws and comes FROM a border state. He's ex-military. Thats 2 of THE most important GOP imaging requirements - be pro military and anti immigration.
I think Joe Biden won because of one instance in particular that come up during the Obama administration and we are all familiar with it. The night that OBL was killed who was in the situation room with Obama? Prominently featured in the photographs from that night? Yep Joe Biden (also HRC) It added a lot of gravitas to Joe's reputation as a serious politician.
Imaging and messaging, and at the same time blunting the imaging and messaging from the opposing party. All those governors are good people but Kelly does FAR MORE in the imaging and messaging departments.
Yes, in the past there have definitely been regional effects. This has been present in the Presidential vote as well. In the 1980 election Georgia went for Carter while all other Southern states went for Reagan. The Southern-Southern Clinton/Gore ticket probably did much better in the South than some other combination. Whether this geographic loyalty could outweigh MAGA loyalty may be doubtful, but probably should be considered among other factors.
Can a VP swing an election, probably not, but it says here that if Gore had selected Bob Graham he wins. In other words, in a close election everything matters, so, for example, a contrast between both VP candidates would probably add gravitas to a campaign, and while perhaps not affecting the election in a measurable way, it would surely have an impact. Let’s put it this way: debates don’t matter, until they do. So yes a good VP pick is indeed important in several ways. If Shapiro can add 10,000 votes in PA, well then, that has to be considered. Ditto, Kelly in Arizona.
That's right, Lieberman is another example of a monumentally tone deaf VP decision.
God, Lieberman was the worst! In every possible way.
The only good thing he ever did was to die so Third Way was devoid of it's biggest promoter and had to fold. If that hadn't happened I guarantee Third Way would have fielded a third party candidate for President. He was that committed to fvcking the Democratic Party.
Mayor Pete. Not going to cost you any votes, 'cause the anti gay voters are anti black and anti women voters, too. And he will fillet both TFG and JD in debates and interviews.
Agree entirely.
I would disagree there, with all respect to Mayor Pete. Adding him at the VP level gives a lot of credence to GOP claims that the Dems are running a DEI ticket. Yes, the haters will be hating no matter what, there are lots of people in the center are a little tired of DEI even if they are onboard with it. Keep it focused on the economy and don't allow them the luxury of using social issues as a way to look reasonable.
It might be a surprise, but following Kevin's advice could yield the white male conventional wisdom says she should pick anyway. Since both were attorneys general of their respective states at the same time, Harris seems particularly chummy with NC Gov. Roy Cooper. As VP, she has made 14 trips to North Carolina and if you watch videos of them appearing together she and Cooper seem to have a very easy relationship with lots of affectionate banter. Getting North Carolina back in the Dem column, as it was in 2008, would dramatically reshape the Electoral College landscape and open the possibility of not just a win, but a decisive win, which is the only thing that might finally push Trump off the stage for good. (Who am I kidding, given his ego?)
I know Cooper seems a generic southern white male, and Harris has a lot of good choices who each bring different strengths, but Cooper is particularly adept at landing brutally effective punches on Trump and Vance and all with a big smile on a jovial face. Given Kamala seems to be a joyful campaigner, it gives the campaign an identity that could win over people tired of just how depressingly awful politics has become.
I heard on a podcast that Cooper is unlikely. Something about the Lieutenant Governor taking over. Apparently, he is a Magat.
Yes the idiot running for governor now is currently the Lt. Gov so you cannot go with Cooper. Also he is older, I think Kamala Harris needs to choose somebody her age or younger. Gov. Waltz or Sec Pete would fit the bill, also Gov Andy Bashear and Gov Shapiro.
Walz. Gov. Walz. No "T".
Honestly, when picking a VP one should simply ask oneself, "If I could choose the next president who would it be?" and *go with that person*, conditional on that person being constitutionally eligible. VP picks never have much impact on the campaign unless they hurt you by being stupid, but VPs almost always run for president after the president they served under has left, almost always have an edge in the primary as a result of having been VP, and often win.
Obviously, she should pick someone she likes and gets along with. But you don't want to suffer from an affinity bias that drags you down because you overlooked their flaws that other people could plainly see.
IDK why these lists of potential picks contains Baby Boomers, though. Of all the choices in the entire world of Democratic politicians, at a time when the conversation is about age, why point to a Baby Boomer who would invalidate any potential age-related argument you'd like to make against Trump?
But if you're going to select among Baby Boomers, why limit yourself to a pol? You already know Trump has a vanity-driven ego, so why not pick a virtuous celeb?
Time capsule: Richard Pryor as the first black President (1977):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFWhoDdnb2k
Biden vs Palin--SNL version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iyIbbxVzrU
I could have sworn there was an SNL sketch with the first black President picking Dan Quayle as his VP, like his predecessors, to avoid assassination. But I can't find it.
Both So good. Thanks for that.
Harris’ VP pick should be Nikki Haley. That would move the needle.
The last one who comes to mind is LBJ, who probably helped Kennedy win Texas in 1960.
And Kennedy wins that election without Texas's electoral votes. Look it up.
I think the case for ticket-balancing is a bit more compelling if we look at lost races that might have been won with a different running mate—one chosen with an eye toward winning a particular seat. I've heard people suggest Al Gore would have won Florida by putting Bob Graham on the ticket. And I also think Hillary Clinton likely beats Trump with Bernie as her running mate.
Do Running Mates Matter?
Authors Christopher J. Devine and Kyle C. Kopko have focused their careers on studying the Vice Presidency, and have published the first detailed study on what, if any, impact a running mate has in a Presidential election. With Joe Biden set to announce his running mate, we’re happy to share the introduction to Devine and Kopko’s Do Running Mates Matter: The Influence of Vice Presidential Candidates in Presidential Elections.
https://kansaspress.ku.edu/blog/2020/08/10/do-running-mates-matter/