The vice-presidential nomination

Looking back over the last 60 years or so I think that

1. It goes at least 90 percent of the time to a long-time Washington insider relatively acceptable to the opposing party.

2. About 75 percent of the time the nominee subsequently runs for President.

3. When he runs, about 80 percent of the time he gets knocked out in the primaries or the general, typically losing to a relative outsider.

Interesting to compare a process where the public is not involved with the Presidential nomination process, where the public is involved.

16 thoughts on “The vice-presidential nomination

  1. The first point surprises me. I understand the “Washington insider” part but the strategy behind “relatively acceptable to the opposing party” eludes me.

    • You play back to the center with the VP choice most of the time, and often to win a states you might not otherwise win.

      • That may have been the norm before about 1980, when the parties moved to the extremes. But at least Bush, Quayle, Cheney, and Pence (and arguably Biden) seem to me to have been chosen for just the opposite reason — they were candidates perceived by the opposing party as even more extreme and/or stupid than the presidential candidate, thus discouraging those who most hate the new president (if he wins) from trying to remove him from office, whether by impeachment or assassination.

        • George H.W. Bush, a former CIA director, was perceived as a moderate/establishment type compared to Ronald Reagan in 1980 – which he was (during the primary, Bush had accused Reagan of peddling “voodoo economics,” i.e., supply-side economics). Also, Bush was not rumored to be a moron, which Reagan (unfairly) was. I’m guessing you’re not old enough to remember that election.

          • Also:
            Quayle: Nice guy from the midwest.
            Cheney: considered moderate and had a very good reputation for working across the aisle, until he was nominated and instantly was recognized as Darth Vader.
            Pence: likeable adn to appease the religious right.
            (and arguably Biden): insider who was fairly well liked on both sides

  2. Sarah Palin was the exception that proves the insider-VP rule, but McCain was already such a Washington establishment insider that he probably figured he could gamble by playing a wild card.

  3. Veeps are chosen to not upstage the top of the ticket, which probably explains why they have a horrid history of winning presidential primaries and/or general elections themselves unless they have taken the office on the death of a president (T. Roosevelt, Truman, and LBJ).

  4. “About 75 percent of the time the nominee subsequently runs for President” applies only to the VP of the winning party. Looking at this list the only candidate I see who I know tried again is Bob Dole. Hard to argue that public feedback is ignored here.

  5. Interestingly, choosing a VP is often the very first act of a nominee after securing the party’s nomination, a time when arguably the nominee is closest to the voters that just chose him or her. So, it appears that the Choice of the People’s Choice is not necessarily what the People would choose themselves. It makes one wonder just how much of a mandate can be inferred from an election. Perhaps, rather than viewing elections as conferring mandates — in this case a mandate to choose one’s future successor — it may be better to view elections as vetoes, in this case a veto of the previous President’s choice.

  6. My understanding is that you should pick someone from a swing state, the larger the better. The VP candidate should then deliver that swing state for you, thus enhancing your chances of winning. The VP candidate should also not offend a large segment of voters.
    I can’t think of too many cases where this was done. Palin is from Alaska. Biden is from Delaware, neither of which fits.
    LBJ probably made it possible for a lot of Southerners to vote for a yankee’ yankee, so he was a good choice for JFK.

    • It seems to me that a single heuristic covers all of these strategies: choose a VP that fills your perceived shortcomings. Old/young, male/female, senator/governor, blah/not-blah.

    • My understanding is that you should pick someone from a swing state, the larger the better.

      There are two elections that the V

      Most of the past VP the last 20 years have been chosen to cover the nominees Presidential resume weakpoints and where the President does not play well with voters. And there are two choices since WW2, that might have swung the election.

      Pence was not a good swing state but it did go a LONG way ensure the white Christian conservatives would support Trump. This was accomplished and without this support Trump does not win the election.

      Lyndon Johnson protected the old Solid South (whom voted for Eisenhower) and was important to one of the closest elections since WW2.

      Otherwise, most President choose someone reasonable, say Reagan/Bush Obama/Biden, Clinton/Gore, etc. but it probably had little to do with the victory.

  7. At the heart of all this is there are simply not enough VP nominations to draw too many conclusions from the data much like stating sweeping opinions on Primaries.

    1) Being nominated for VP is a step-stone for the Presidency. True most of the them don’t become President but think opportunity cost here. Name another government position where ~20% of position becomes President!

    2) Primaries are still a lot about name recognition and that goes a long way of explaining why Sanders and Biden the leading the candidates.

    3) VP is great position! If the Presidents die (7 of them have!) you become President!

  8. Far too little data to make big generalizations – each of the 15 elections is pretty unique in history, voter circumstances, and personal characteristics and popularity of the candidates.

    Could JFK, with his womanizing ways, get elected today, with racist LBJ? Probably, but unknowable, because “we” are so different.

    The VP rightfully deserves to be the Party front runner — but party-fatigue, and the HUGE democratic power to “throw the bums out” after 8, or 12. or 4 years, has been helping the USA. Tho both VP Nixon in ’60 and VP Humphrey in ’68 were close to winning, as well as very close VP Gore in 2000, only VP Bush in ’88 actually became Pres. in last 60 years.

    Not sure getting knocked out in primaries or general 80% is very useful.

Comments are closed.