Does VP choice really matter?

Who really says:

Eh, I don't like Gore, but I do like Lieberman -- that's who I vote for!

Eh, I don't like Clinton, but I do like Gore -- that's who I vote for!

Eh, I don't like Dukakis, but I do like Bentsen -- that's who I vote for! -- we didn't even carry Texas

Eh, I don't like Mondale, but I do like Ferraro -- that's who I vote for!

Eh, I don't like Dole, but I do like Kemp -- that's who I vote for!


I think I've made my point -- does the VP choice really effect who votes for whom? I know in my own experience, back in 2000 I wasn't very politically aware and didn't really pay attention -- probably a lot like your average voter -- and I simply voted for Gore and didn't really pay attention to Lieberman. Also, don't most polls show most Americans don't even know who the VP is?

Just curious...

Matthew

I do think that some people look at a whole ticket. Having Cheney on board made up (in some peoples' "minds") for chimpy's lack of experience and intelligence.

I would think that it would matter to those that live in the VP's home state.

This is a good question.

that's the million dollar question. And nobody yet knows the answer.

I think it can help in a close swing state if a favorite son is chosen. It can HURT if the candidate isn't seen as "presidential", witness George HW Bush.

However, I think the effect either way is rather limited, but it's NOT zero.

For a few reasons. Most importantly because becomming president doesn't make people impervious to death.

The political ramifications are smaller, but still important. They set the tone more of the campaign than actually decide the final tally. Usually they are a response to an argument. "Dukakis is too much of an Norteastern muckity muck" can be responded to by "well but his VP was a Texan" for example. They also do a good deal of campaigning. For example in 2000, Lieberman was good on the stump, but far too polite in his debate with Chaney.

Clinton's choice of Gore helped him in the South, certainly. McGovern's VP choice sank him, although it's hard to imagine any winning strategy in 1972. Ferraro sank Mondale, although Mondale sank Mondale, too. (Not her fault. The media went after her husband.) LBJ definitely helped JFK.

It's usually an indirect effect. Traditionally VPs help secure the electorial votes of a borderline winnable state. Nowadays they help reinforce the popular image of a candidate. So Dean would pair well with Graham, for example, who voted against the Iraq Resolution (and who also has gubernatorial experience). Kerry-Clark would make lots of sense (both veterans).

Plus it's something for the press to write about. :-)

:P

At least for the Green Party folks. I'm not sure they'll warm up to a military general. It's a tough bet whether even Dean at the top of the ticket will be enough for the diehards. :-(

I think it matters a great deal who is the presidential running mate. In 2000 I thought it was great that Gore chose Lieberman. I found out of course that not all Tennesseans are as ecumenical as I am. I feel that is why Gore lost his own state. Plus the Republican machine was oiled very well in this state. The Gore haters were out in great numbers. I was worried before the election and called the Democratic chair in my county telling him of my misgivings. He said not to worry, Gore would win. I think another reason he didn't win was so many people thought he would win they didn't bother to vote. I know Lieberman better now. Of course there is no going back. I still can't see why he is the "frontrunner." I think a Dean/Clark ticket would be a winner.

He meant virtually nothing to electors in 2000. The PNAC crew snuck one of their own into the highest levels of power on *'s coattails and no one realized what was happening until it was too late. It would be difficult to consider Cheney a political asset to the ticket, but he is now pulling the strings.

they may impose themselves into the picture of the next election unaware that their time has passed.

It's important to pick someone who would put country/party over their own romanticized notion of themselves.

Are you listening Joe?

the most obvious example would be LBJ helping JFK carry Texas and a few other southern states in 1960. Also, Hubert Humphrey's selection of Ed Muskie in 1968 guranteed him Maine--as state which Nixon carried in 1960 handilly, and Democrats wouldn't carry again until 1992. Carter's selection of Mondale in 1976 helped him in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

But a bad selection can hurt the ticket: Quayle being selected by Bush just brought more controversy and Indiana was going to vote GOP anyway. McGovern choosing Eagleton in 1972.

it can matter with the right candidates

however some notions here(that Dean or Kerry could win a southern state with a certain veep) are wrong

governors should usually run with somebody from washington, less experienced pols should run with veteran pols

you usually need balance for both your base and independants

George the Second was lacking in gravitas so he was wrapped in Cheney and other elders before Cheney selected himself VP. Rove spun George II as being less important in a crisis than the experienced Mr. Cheney.

All possible Dem candidates have serious shortcomings so I think they should pick a complimentary VP and/or a posse ASAP.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

That's my opinion

If you can find a VP that doesn't do you harm, you've done well. If you can pick one who wins you a state or two that you wouldn't have won, then you've done great. Just my opinions of course.

Great Picks
LBJ (JFK)
Muskie (Humphrey)
Gore (Clinton)


Okay Picks
Mondale (Carter)
Bush (Reagan)
Bentsen (Dukakis)
Kemp (Dole)
Cheney (Bush)
Lieberman (Gore)

Bad Picks
Miller (Goldwater)
Agnew (Nixon)
Eagleton (McGovern)
Dole (Ford)
Ferraro (Mondale)
Quayle (Bush)

On edit - the president who picked the worst Vice-presidents was undoubtedly Lincoln.

By picking Hannibal Hamlin of Maine in 1860, he broke the long followed tradition of balancing the tickets with a northerner and a southerner which only made matters worse. In that election there were three other major candidates and each of the other three balanced their tickets. Even the Southern Democratic candidate Breckinridge found a northerner to run with him. Even the northern Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas found a southerner to run with him. Lincoln should have too.

Then in 1864, he made up for his mistake by picking Andrew Johnson of Tennessee to balance his ticket. Only problem was he was not trusted by the northerners since he was a southerner and a Democrat, and he was despised by southerners as a scaliwag, a traitor to the cause. Probably the worst pick ever and sure enough, he became president within weeks of his inauguration as VP.

LBJ helped JFK, Muskie was a great asset to Humphrey. Bentsen helped to shake people's worries about Dukakis having too little experience (ditto Cheney with Bush). Gore was an honest face in the heat of Clinton's Gennifer Flowers scandal.

Additionally, a bad VP can just cause presidents a lot of headaches. Quayle made Bush look like a fool, Ferraro wasn't qualified to be president and didn't help there, and Eagleton/Shriver were both terrible in 1972.

Face it people are sheep, if they see two guys they like, it will make them more inclined to vote for those.


Btw i think Lieberman was a really poor choice as a vp, he was way too religious, also a really religious jew wont carry the southern states that great