“The Veepstakes”: The Role of the Running Mate

January 6th, 2021 is now a date that is well known for the bad and the ugly – a large crowd of supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the certification process of the 2020 election results. But it also highlighted the good, and the occasional importance of the Vice President. Facing mounting pressure from President Trump and his supporters to not certify the election results, Vice President Mike Pence stood firm, even rewriting the traditional script to specify that in no way would the Trump campaign’s “false electors” and games be tolerated, when certifying the results of the 2020 election. Now, Pence was simply doing his job and what is expected of the “Veep”, but nonetheless in a high-stakes and unprecedented situation, he stood up for the Constitution and democracy. The Vice President may not always get much attention or credit, but in some cases they have been absolutely crucial to the function of the Union, both in actual governing and taking over should the President be incapacitated. The Vice President also serves as President of the Senate and is thus able to cast tie-breaking votes, and in that role Kamala Harris has cast more such votes (33) than any other Vice President in history – breaking a record held by John C. Calhoun since 1832. On top of this, the Veep can also take on more profiled political roles in formulating policy and projects, such as Harris’ controversial supposed role as “Border Czar”. While often overlooked in the functions of government, the Vice President does have demonstrable importance, but what role and effect does the running mate have in the election campaign? 

Photo by Library of Congress on Unsplash

Historical Wisdom, Consensus, and Vice Presidential Picks

There is much discussion on whether vice presidential picks matter and to what extent they play a role in the election. Often the belief has been that the running mate has a minimal, if any effect at all on election outcome, but is that really the case? John F. Kennedy famously recalled in 1960 that ‘there hasn’t been a single case in which the running mate has delivered an electoral vote’ but later admitted that he wouldn’t have won the South without his Texan running-mate Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson, a political strongman and former Senate Majority Leader, was also crucial in clubbing through legislation and the eventual Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 after he became President. There have been several such instances in which the picks have both provided boons and losses for their respective campaigns. 

The general consensus has often been the “do no harm” pick, and a running mate that complements the Presidential nominee and balances the ticket – for example when it comes to experience, demographics (like age and identity), ideology and perhaps someone that can help in crucial swing states or geographic regions. Barack Obama selecting Joe Biden comes to mind for the former, and Lyndon B. Johnson for the latter in addition to his political experience. 

The ‘safe choice’ is commonly the go-to move for any campaign. However, there are times when a campaign dares to take a risk, as in the case of the John McCain candidacy in 2008, by picking Alaska governor, Sarah Palin as his running mate. Initially, the surprise pick worked, she appeared to balance the ticket alongside McCain’s more maverick tendencies. Both donations and poll numbers soared, but as the campaign progressed, Palin’s inexperience and often gaffe-prone nature quickly backfired and as a result she may have cost the campaign millions of votes and thus the election. Doubling down is also an option, which worked out well for Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1992 (although perhaps much thanks to Ross Perot’s independent/third party run) – but that is not always advisable, which brings us to the current elections.

Photo by Jainam Sheth on Unsplash

The ‘Veepstakes’ and the 2024 Election

There was a lot of noise surrounding this year’s so-called “Veepstakes” for both parties. Donald Trump, who had ample time to mull his choices, picked JD Vance, Senator from Ohio over the reported finalists of North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Kamala Harris however, thrust into becoming the Democratic nominee after President Biden announced he would not seek re-election, faced a historically short timeframe for selecting her running mate. A very intense few weeks of reporting and speculation ended with her selection of Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz over candidates like Pennsylvania Governor, Josh Shapiro and Arizona Senator, Mark Kelly, among others. Harris reportedly favored chemistry and someone who could be a good governing partner through the selection process above perceived electoral advantages. While that is a perfectly reasonable outlook, the result was that both candidates “doubled down” on their bases with their Vice Presidential picks.

Trump doubled down with Vance being much of the same as the “MAGA” crowd (despite having been a so-called “Never Trumper” back in 2016). Harris and Walz share similar platforms and both can be described as ‘progressive’ Democrats. At a time when the country is deeply polarized this is not necessarily an ideal situation, especially for the moderate or independent voter. Both Trump and Harris aren’t popular candidates, and had they selected more moderate running mates capable of reaching across the aisle could have garnered even more momentum. That’s not to say either pick is terrible and will backfire, but there probably were more politically savvy choices especially in what is shaping up to be an extremely close election. The running mates do matter, but perhaps who Trump and Harris didn’t pick might be more telling and may end up being significant in the aftermath.

While it was never going to happen -Trump might just be too vindictive for that- Trump’s best choice strategically was probably Nikki Haley. Picking her would have offered an olive branch to her supporters and the ‘anti-Trump’ segments of the Republican Party, but also made the ticket more palatable for moderate and independent voters. While not popular with the MAGA branch, it probably would not have been a dealbreaker for most Trump supporters. There are other more moderate Republican choices too, but margins matter. While Trump dominated the primaries, Haley still managed to pick up a decent amount of votes even after suspending her campaign, including in swing states. 

As for Harris, she could have also benefited from a pick more grounded in electoral strategy. While possibly a ‘high risk-high reward’ candidate, would the very popular moderate incumbent Governor of the largest swing state not be the glaringly obvious pick? Harris likely has the popular vote locked down, but the election is going to come down to a relative handful of votes in key swing states. This has to be a consideration when making a choice for running mate. Doubling down with Walz from Minnesota, a state that hasn’t voted Republican since 1972, might work out, but should Harris end up losing Pennsylvania and thus the election, not selecting Josh Shapiro (PA) will probably be something she and her campaign would come to sorely regret. 

On a final note, running mates may also offer a glimpse into the future of politics and both parties. The Vice Presidential debate on October 1st provided a refreshing and promising outlook for political discourse in what was a much more civil debate than previous Presidential ones. Immediate CBS flash polling suggested a fairly even matchup in which Vance narrowly emerged as the winner (42% to 41%). Recent national polling since then may also signal a potential momentum shift, with Trump narrowing in on Harris’ lead. Regardless, the final month ahead of the election on November 5th will be crucial for both campaigns, and effectively utilizing their respective running mates can potentially provide a much needed advantage.