Crazy, Possibly Brilliant PR Idea

You have candiditates A and B in the Dem primary. A and B say that whichever one wins the primary will choose the other to be VP.

But they would both have to be very popular for them to pull it off.

I wonder, though- is there a Constitutionally mandated point in time that the VP must be chosen?

aren't often selected as VP candidates because the taint of losing looks bad for the ticket.

Also, VPs are selected because the reinforce messages the candidate is trying to make about themselves. It's not often that the person you're running against in the primary just happens to reinforce that message you're making about yourself.

It's unbeatable though. It would dominate headlines because it would be, AFAIK, unprecedented.

As for publicity, I'm not sure if the guy running for president is really worried so much about getting publicity when the VP is anounced. In PR terms, that's generally an event which all the networks report anyway. And, in PR terms, what matters is whether it makes people think the sort of thoughts about your candidacy which lead to a victory.

If there's something in the air in America in 2004 which makes Americans want to vote for someone who gives a loser a second chance, this might be a good plan.

Sorry, but you're very wrong. Publicity about anything neutral to positive, especially the VP selection, is critical. Remember the Lieberman announcement? It made a big splash because he was Jewish and it was a VERY important point in the campaign. These sorts of considerations and splashes can make a big difference in a campaign.

"If there's something in the air in America in 2004 which makes Americans want to vote for someone who gives a loser a second chance, this might be a good plan."

That's an absurd notion. It worked for Kennedy:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761568331&pn=2

"Kennedy then surprised many people, including Johnson, by offering him the vice-presidential nomination. Johnson caused even more surprise by accepting it. It was generally believed that Kennedy, although on record as having called Johnson the next-best-qualified candidate for president, had fully expected to be turned down. Johnson and his wife threw themselves into the campaign, working especially in the South to counteract the traditional Protestant suspicion of a Roman Catholic candidate for president. (Many Protestants suspected that a Roman Catholic president might listen too closely to the advice of the Pope.) The election was very close, and it may well be that Johnson�fs work saved the Carolinas for the Democratic ticket and brought Texas and Louisiana, both of which had gone Republican in 1956, back into the Democratic fold. Kennedy had reason to be grateful to Johnson, but many wondered how Johnson would settle down in such a low-pressure position as the vice presidency".

And I thought I was being original...Oh well...It's still a brilliant idea...

On edit: the original aspect would be the announcement that A would select B and vice versa for VP. That, AFAIK, would be unprecedented and would make headlines.

He picked Johnson to appease Democratic insiders. Kennedy was a one-term senator. In Mike Beschloss's books on Johnson, one thing which is very apparent is that the Washington insiders didn't like RFK (and probably JFK) because their charisma meant they didn't have to jump through the DC hoops to get things done. They had a direct connection to the public and could do what the public wanted, and if the public didn't want it yet, the Kennedys could talk the public into wanting it. Johnson hated that.

Kennedy needed to do little more to get the public more on his side. But he picked Johnson, the master of the sentate, and consumate DC insider, because he needed the Dem machinery and the DC apparatus to work for him too.

And as for my earlier point, the ACT of choosing the VP will get publicity. You could pick my grandmother, and it'll get publicity. What matters is whether the message of the selection resonates. Bill picked Al because he was sending the message that the young men like Bill from the south were right for the US. Al picked Joe to say that Al was like Joe -- moral and upstanding. You're trying to reaffirm a message about yourself when you pick a VP. What message do you send by picking a guy only because he finished second. What if you disagree on all the issues? Are you saying the issues don't matter?

Never said they didn't. Of course there would be other considerations for VP selection, but given a fairly close ideological standpoints, it would be a great PR move. That's my only point.

Johnson had run against him, but he had a base that Kennedy couldn't ignore so he became VP and then president. The fickle finger of fate.

Good point...Damn, thought I was being original! Thanks for the heads up though...

That's what would make headlines...Others have appointed other primary opponents as VP, however, they didn't say beforehand that they would do so...

I mean, individual candidates could make such an agreement on their own IF it made sense to them. But it's likely not to.

Plus, what's the payoff? None, that I can see.

A VP has to be chosen pretty carefully. Geographic considerations and electoral votes, chemistry considerations, and competence considerations. You wouldn't want to hamstring your nominee with some inappropriate veep.

Eloriel

well ideologically and there would other important factors and considerations involved in the selection. My only point is that I think it would be a great PR move and a show of unity. I think there might be some potential in the current field for something like this between several of the candidates.