Four Questions with the ‘Man of the Hour’ (Every Four Years)
Joel K. Goldstein, J.D., is the Vincent C. Immel Professor of Law at Saint Louis University. He also happens to be the nation’s leading scholar on the vice-presidency, and every four years, political journalists from around the world turn to him for his insights.
Once dubbed "Every Four Years, the Man of the Hour" by The New York Times, Goldstein answers four key questions that shed light on the vice-presidential selection process.
How has the selection of a vice presidential candidate changed over the last few elections?
The vice-presidential selection process has changed so much in modern times that historical analogies, though often drawn, are of little value. The first significant change began in 1940 when the presidential candidate began to control the choice which previously had been made by party leaders. That development made the presidential candidate responsible for the choice of the running mate and increased the likelihood that the two would be politically and personally compatible.
The second major change occurred in 1976 when the modern process was created. The
move to presidential primaries and caucuses in both parties meant that the presidential
nomination was, with few exceptions, decided much earlier. Rather than the vice-presidential
process beginning on the third night of the convention and ending a few hours later
the following day, the new calendar stretched it over a period of several months.
That focused attention on the choice, allowed for extensive vetting under favorable
conditions and increased the stakes for the presidential candidate in the choice.
It's one thing to make a bad choice when you're rushed but if you bungle it after
having three or four months, that's more unsettling.
Since 1976, presidential candidates have refined the process. Some, mostly Democrats, interview prospective running mates, whereas Republicans tend not to interview much, although Donald Trump did this time since he had little prior experience with most of his options. Additional vetting questions are added based on issues which arise in prior years. And since 1984 on the Democratic side and 1988 on the Republican side, the selection is announced before the presidential balloting and increasingly, before the convention begins.
How can a presidential candidate's choice of running mate swing an election, either positively or negatively?
One of the myths of presidential politics is that the vice-presidential selection does not affect the outcome. To the extent that oft-stated view is true, it is because generally presidential candidates choose running mates who would be plausible running mates. Although most people vote based on their assessments of the competing presidential candidates, the vice-presidential choice provides important information about the presidential candidate-how he or she makes decisions and what he or she values. Thus, Ronald Reagan's choice of George H.W. Bush suggested that he was open to the more moderate wing of the Republican Party. Bill Clinton's choice of Al Gore, a fellow southern Democratic centrist from the baby boomer generation, reinforced some of the characteristics Clinton sought to emphasize. George W. Bush's selection of Dick Cheney suggested he would choose experienced people with national security credibility.
And in a close election, the vice-presidential choice may swing voters who are relatively indifferent between the presidential candidates. Walter Mondale's presence on the Democratic ticket in 1976 was crucial to Jimmy Carter's victory. Conversely, Sarah Palin's presence hurt John McCain. Her selection may have helped him with the Republican base but it impeached his claim to "Put America First" and the overwhelming public perception that she was unprepared to be president hurt him with independent voters although her selection is not the reason he lost. The choice between Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle heavily favored the Democrats in 1988 but didn't translate to a decisive electoral impact since voters had misgivings about Michael Dukakis as well as regarding Quayle. Finally, a vice-presidential candidate’s campaign performance, his or her ability to articulate themes, may make a difference. John F. Kennedy clearly would not have been elected in 1960 without the help Lyndon B. Johnson provided in the South generally including in Texas. Cheney won both of his debates which probably helped Bush in 2000 and 2004. Joe Biden’s 2012 debate performance helped right the Democratic campaign after President Barack Obama had a shaky performance in his first debate. Vice presidents may help at the margins but some elections—1960, 1976, 2000, 2004—were won at the margins.
What is the most important quality in a successful vice presidential candidate?
In modern times, the most important quality is that the vice-presidential candidate be a plausible president. It is impossible to hide a vice-presidential candidate in a time when technology allows for the immediate dissemination of a candidate's comments and when every campaign but one since 1976 has included a vice-presidential debate. Although some political scientists and pundits continue to act as if vice-presidential candidates are chosen to carry large, swing states, they almost never are, and on the rare occasions when a running mate is now chosen from such a state the choice is usually due to other considerations.
The Republicans learned that lesson regarding the need to choose a plausible president as the running mate in 2008 when Palin embarrassed the ticket by her inability to handle basic questions that an informed high school student would have nailed. Most presidential nominees since 1976 have chosen highly qualified running mates. Surely Mondale, Bush, Lloyd Bentsen, Gore, Jack Kemp, Cheney, Joe Lieberman, Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker Paul Ryan are among the ablest political figures of their generations. And I believe people like Geraldine Ferraro and Dan Quayle were much more substantial than has sometimes been recognized. In fact, the tendency to choose able running mates dates back at least a quarter century. Richard Nixon, Estes Kefauver, Lyndon Johnson, Henry Cabot Lodge, Hubert Humphrey and Ed Muskie were widely viewed as presidential figures when chosen. Tom Eagleton's brief time on George McGovern's ticket ended unhappily but Eagleton's career showed him, too, to have been an enormously talented and principled public figure.
Does a vice presidential pick need to be more energizing to the party base or the undecided voters?
It depends on the needs of the presidential nominee and the context of the times. The Republican base loved Ronald Reagan but he needed to send a reassuring message to swing voters. Choosing Bush sent that message. By contrast, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976 both needed help with their respective bases.
Republican presidential candidates other than Reagan tend to choose running mates to appeal to the base. Witness Ford's choice of Bob Dole, Bush's choice of Quayle, Dole's choice of Kemp, McCain's of Palin, Mitt Romney’s choice of Ryan and Donald Trump’s choice of Mike Pence. Democratic choices have been less standardized. A liberal like Michael Dukakis sought to appeal to swing voters by choosing Lloyd Bentsen whereas Mondale chose Ferraro. A more moderate figure like Bill Clinton chose another moderate in Gore.
It’s important to remember that presidential candidates are always choosing among a finite set of options. The candidate who might most resonate with the base or with independent voters may be passed over for other reasons. And the ultimate choice might resonate with the base or with independent voters but might be chosen for other reasons.
Joel K. Goldstein is the author of numerous works on the vice presidency. His latest book, “The White House Vice Presidency: The Path to Significance, Mondale to Biden,” was published in March, 2016.