Yes, it's veepstakes time and even the pandemic and stay-at-home orders haven't changed this political game. For potential vice presidential candidates, it's about jockeying for position, pretending you don't want the job or campaigning openly for it because you have no chance to get it. (This year that might be different: Stacey Abrams is openly campaigning for it and she has a shot.).
But for all the speculation and political energy invested in the choice of a vice presidential candidate, the reality is that mostly the choice doesn't significantly affect who wins the election. Not since 1960 — when John F. Kennedy picked Lyndon Baines Johnson — has the VP pick been a determining factor in the general election. Winning Texas, which historians generally agree was due to LBJ's presence on the ticket, was key to giving Kennedy the electoral college votes for the presidency.
The VP pick does give you a sense of the presidential candidate's judgment, how he or she handles a difficult choice and weighs competing interests. (And of course, given Biden's age, the person he picks as vice president could wind up succeeding him as president, so in that sense the choice may be consequential.)
But that only goes so far. John McCain, who had a reputation as a tough and smart lawmaker, damaged it by picking an unready newcomer, Sarah Palin. But that is not why he lost. He lost because the public was looking for something new and fresh and he was neither.
President George H.W. Bush was also criticized for picking a little-known quantity, Indiana Sen. Dan Quayle. We all remember Quayle getting destroyed by Lloyd Bentsen in the debate and not being able to spell "potato" for school children. Bush won by a wide margin.
Geographic diversity, long a determining factor back when parties could reliably deliver voters to the polls, no longer is considered important. The best pairing for a presidential candidate is with a VP candidate who complements the top of the ticket in some way. Bill Clinton wanted to convey a youthful, energetic, forward-looking image. Al Gore was the perfect running mate for that, even though they were from neighboring states. Ronald Reagan was a risky candidate complemented perfectly by the safest choice in the land, the dependable George H.W. Bush. George W. Bush was an outsider, Dick Cheney the ultimate insider.
Gender diversity has been hailed as decisive in two different decades. First with Walter Mondale picking Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and again with McCain choosing Palin. They both lost, Mondale badly, but it was not the fault of their running mates. The country made a strong statement that four more years of Reagan was what it wanted in 1984. But in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis and after Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war, voters were tired of Republican rule and of DC insiders like McCain who were always on the Sunday shows. Palin was a terrible choice for a number of reasons, but McCain would have lost no matter who he chose for VP.
In fact, bold choices are generally made by campaigns that have to fundamentally change the dynamic to win the race. Palin and Ferraro were the picks of two candidates in deep trouble who felt that they needed to shake up the race. And they did, for several days, even weeks. Bob Dole's pick of onetime professional football quarterback Jack Kemp in 1996 was a bit of a Hail Mary pass, but that campaign, like the others, quickly settled back into focusing on the top of the ticket.
Ideological diversity is also much discussed before a decision is announced: For example, balancing a liberal with a moderate as a Democrat, or a moderate Republican to balance an ultra-conservative top of the ticket. But the record shows that nominees have increasingly ignored that consideration over the years.
The best combinations in my opinion are those who have political chemistry and highlight and complement the strength of the top of the ticket. People could see Clinton and Gore working together, Obama and Biden, even Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. But again, it's the nominee, not their sidekick, who decides elections. VP contenders just don't have an important say in the result.
So why all the fuss? Because as political reporters and junkies we have nothing else to do. Voters have not tuned into the race at this point, we know the conventions will likely be a snoozer, so this gives us all something to talk about, something to argue about, and something to fret about. The perfect combination for a political story.
So, we will spend the next month feverishly speculating on Biden's pick. He has at least disqualified about half the country by saying he's going to pick a woman. Will he go with someone who can excite the left wing of the party like Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts? Should it be a black woman to boost turnout in November -- Sen. Kamala Harris of California or former Georgia state House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams? Or will he go for geographic balance by picking someone from the all-important Midwest -- say Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota or Gov. Gretchen Whitmer from Michigan. This is why the game is absorbing, there are so many possibilities, but in the end, like the chant in the Bill Murray classic "Meatballs," it just doesn't matter! It just doesn't matter!
Everyone will argue that this time it is critical, we've never been in a situation like this before. We make the same argument every four years, and every four years we're wrong. But wait, Abrams is about to go on CNN, I need to watch it because this could be a critical moment in the race — see what I mean?
"choice" - Google News
May 28, 2020 at 09:43PM
https://ift.tt/3dcXDnN
The truth about Joe Biden's veep choice - CNN
"choice" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2WiOHpU
https://ift.tt/3c9nRHD
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "The truth about Joe Biden's veep choice - CNN"
Post a Comment