There are many aspects of the U.S. presidential campaigns which could be importantly improved. In the last cycle of 2008, I joined with former Speaker Newt Gingrich and others in an appeal to reform the presidential debates. Although none of our reforms were accepted in the 2008 format, the debate moderator often intervened to produce more back-and-forth discussion by the candidates, something we had especially called for. I hope that, at this very early point in the planning for the 2012 debates, the producers and the candidates will consider formalizing this and other changes in the debate format.
There is another issue which I would like to raise this early in the process. It is the issue of the timing of the naming of the vice presidential candidate. In the 2012 race, of course, the Democratic side already has its vice presidential nominee, the current Vice President Joe Biden. So my suggestions would apply this time only to the Republicans, but I mean them to apply to both parties when there is not an incumbent vice president running for re-election.
The problem, as I see it, is that the nominees of each party wait until a few days before their respective conventions before announcing their vice presidential choice. More often than not in recent years, this has produced problems for both parties.
Until the television, and now internet, age, of course, this procedure seemed to work relatively well. Presidential nominees generally chose safe and often obscure candidates for reasons of geographical, ideological and other political reasons, but the vice presidential office itself seemed less important than it does today, and vice presidents traditionally suffered silently in the shadow of the president who selected them. After World War II, and the death of four-term President Roosevelt, however, the public and the media took increasing interest in the office. President Harry Truman had become vice president when Roosevelt made a last-minute change in 1944, replacing incumbent Vice President Henry Wallace. Two months after the 1945 inauguration, Roosevelt died and the “unknown” Truman was the leader of the nation and the free world. History indicates that was a fortuitous result (especially in light of Wallace’s radical and unstable views), but subsequent choices were often problematic, either in the presidential campaign itself or later.
Truman’s choice of Alben Barkley was relatively harmless, but there was little indication that he was really prepared to assume the presidency. Dwight Eisenhower’s choice of Richard Nixon faced a scandal soon after his name was announced, but he survived it with his famous “Checkers” speech. Although Nixon later was elected president, and accomplished some important things in foreign policy, he finally had to resign his office because of Watergate. Nixon’s own vice president, Spiro Agnew, had taken bribes as an official in Maryland, but this did not come out until years later, and he, too, had to resign. 1964 GOP nominee Barry Goldwater chose Congressman William Miller for his veep, but he was unknown and little help to the GOP campaign against President Lyndon Johnson and his popular veep choice of Hubert Humphrey. In 1972, Democrat George McGovern’s vice presidential choice, Thomas Eagleton, was revealed to have had mental treatment soon after being named, and finally had to resign only days before the Democratic convention. In 1976, both nominees chose already nationally-known running mates, Bob Dole and Walter Mondale without any problems. In 1980, Ronald Reagan did the same with George H. W. Bush, but in 1984, Mondale now his party’s presidential nominee selected Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman candidate, but there were problems with her husband’s finances, and this affected the Democratic ticket adversely. In 1988, George H.W. Bush, now his party’s presidential nominee, picked an unknown Indiana senator Dan Quayle, and was immediately criticized for the choice. Although Quayle’s treatment by the media was often unfair, and he did not excel in his campaign appearances, the ticket won. But in 1992, Democratic nominee Bill Clinton chose well-known Al Gore to be his running mate and defeated Bush-Quayle. In 1996, former GOP veep nominee Bob Dole became a presidential nominee, and picked the familiar figure of Jack Kemp as his running mate. In 2000, George W. Bush selected experienced but relatively unknown former Congressman Dick Cheney for veep, and Democratic nominee selected Joe Lieberman. Since the final result was the closest in history, and the most controversial, it could be argued that, among other factors, the vice presidential choices determined the outcome (although it must be noted that Gore-Lieberman won the popular vote by more than half a million votes).
Walter Mondale had assumed a significant new role as vice president in 1980, and this continued with both Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney. Vice presidential nominees (and vice presidents) frequently become presidential nominees. Today, the candidates for vice president are rightfully examined almost as closely as the presidential candidates.
In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry chose his senate colleague and major opponent, John Edwards to be his running mate. As with Spiro Agnew, an existing scandal involving Edwards did not become known during the campaign, nor during the 2008 election when Edwards ran again for president, but the scandal did come out later and has destroyed his political career. Sarah Palin was John McCain’s choice in 2008, and like Dan Quayle was often treated unfairly by the press. She was named at the last-minute, and most of her problems in the campaign arose from her inexperience on the national stage.
My point is that naming a vice presidential choice a week or two, or a few days, before a presidential convention carries unnecessary risk. Interestingly, it was Ronald Reagan in 1976, fighting a close contest with President Gerald Ford, who came up with a better approach. He did it for short-term political reasons. Trailing Ford early in the primaries, Reagan chose Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker to be on his ticket long before the traditional time, and during the primary season. Although he ultimately lost to Ford, the strategy helped Reagan.
In short, I am suggesting that the presidential candidates for both parties name their vice presidential choices early in the campaign. This gives the public and the media plenty of time for vetting the candidate, and avoids last-minute political problems that have often plagued presidential campaigns. It has the added benefit of enabling the presidential and vice presidential nominees to get to know one another, and to find the best way the vice presidential nominee can help in the final part of the campaign against the opposing party. A third benefit is that it gives the vice presidential nominee valuable national campaign experience.There is little downside to this new procedure, even as the old way, with Google-type searches and a myriad of blogs, is increasingly fraught with the political danger.
-Barry Casselman is one of the deans of U.S. presidential campaign commentary and analysis, and has written on the subject since 1972. He contributes regularly to many U.S. political and public policy publications, and writes a syndicated column and blog for the Preludium News Service at barrycasselman.com.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Unless Palin’s the nominee, the VP will be Jindal.
Next question.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
In that case then TA, I guess Jindal is the VP. However, I don’t agree with you. I don’t know who it will be, but I do think there are several it could be, including Palin herself, if she were to get much, much better on the issues, and able to articulate them.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
The 2012 ticket is Romney/Jindal. With a Mormon and an Asian on the ticket Obama/Biden is going to look a bit unadventurous!!
November 28th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
If Daniels isn’t the nominee, he needs to be the VP candidate. He’ll help us in the Midwest, has a great resume’, and would demolish Joe Biden in a debate. Plus, there won’t be any qualifications questions (is he ready to be one heartbeat away?) like there was with Palin.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Romney / DeMint. Demint will help Romney in the South and make the far right doubters and tea party movement happy. Demint would also be in the 3rd year of his term so if he lost, he would still be a strong voice in the senate.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
If Sarah Palin does not gain the nomination the VP pick will be a woman. There are just too many females out there who would sit out an election with 4 men to vote for.
If Palin gains the nomination I predict it will be someone like Sean Parnell-steady, competent and supportive in political philosophy-somebody like Mike Pence, Jim Demint, Paul Ryan so she might go foreign affairs like John Bolton or Liz Cheney. And of course then there’s Michele Bachmann if Palin wants to focus on the economy.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“There are just too many females out there who would sit out an election with 4 men to vote for.”
What pitiful dirty rotten shame that is.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
There is no place for affirmative action in our Presidential and VP selections. Isn’t that a democratic thing?
November 28th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Palin / Huckabee
And we win by 5 points.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
In Alaska…maybe.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
#6:
Palin will need to pick an established, safe choice if she becomes the nominee. Someone like Judd Gregg would be a good pick for Palin. A Palin 2012 campaign would be similar to the 2000 campaign. In 2000, Bush needed to pick someone who had, “gravitas”, so does Palin. All those people you picked would do nothing to help Palin appeal to independent and moderate voters who we need in order to win in the general election.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Rudy. Giuliani.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
10. My friend, You underestimate the American public’s severe problems with Obama’s policies and record so far.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
A Palin / Giuliani ticket would also win by 5.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Since we are prognosticating at will, Romney/Jindal or Romney/DeMint would win by 10!
November 28th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
People underestimate Pawlenty at their own peril. A Pawlenty-Daniels or Pawlenty-Jindal pick could do some serious damage.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
*Pawlenty-Daniels or Pawlenty-Jindal ticket
November 28th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
15. No.
Huckabee / Romney would win by 5-10*.
I corrected it for ya. ; )
*If unemployment is in double digits and growing.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I like Giuliani/Palin…not Palin/Giuliani
November 28th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I think Romney will choose one of:
Jindal
DeMint
Bush (Jeb)
Cantor
Note that if Romney chooses any of these 4 besides DeMint then there will not be an Evangelical/Protestant on the ticket. I wonder how that would play with the already wary Christian right.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
20. I don’t believe Mitt will be doin’ any choosin’.
His hopes are of being chosen.
November 28th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Romney vp’s: Jindal, Thune, Bush, or Daniels
Palin vp’s: Giuliani, Thune, Gingrich, or Daniels
Thune vp’s: Bush, Daniels, Jindal, or Pawlenty
Daniels vp’s: Jindal, Giuliani, Bush, or Thune
Bush vp’s: Jindal, Daniels, Thune, or Romney
Pawlenty vp’s: Thune, Jindal, Giuliani, Daniels, or Bush
November 28th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I like the idea of jeb/jindal or jeb/daniels
November 28th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Romney would do well to look at Michelle Bachman. Conservative, Mid -west woman with Palin’s assets and none of her baggage.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Unless President Obama single-handedly comes up with the cure for cancer, his numbers aren’t going to go up. People like to say he’s Carter V2, when in reality he’s probably GHWB V2. You’ll see the economy start to get better (conveniently) by the spring of 2012, but no one will notice, and he’ll lose to whomever the Republican is by 5-7 points.
Lets assume Sarah Palin is the nominee. As has been said, she will indeed have to pick someone with “gravitas,” yet someone who won’t try to be Cheney’s twin. Luckily for her, she can afford to pick a moderate to liberal Republican as her VP. She will definitely need to make a “regional” pick, someone who will deliver her a certain constituency or state. With that said, here are my picks for her (in no particular order):
1. NH Sen. Judd Gregg
2. Former MI Gov. John Engler
3. Former MO Sen. John Danforth
4. Former NY Sen. Alfonse D’Amato
5. Former PA Gov. Tom Ridge
November 28th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
24:
Bachman’s got plenty of baggage. Nowhere near Palin’s of coure, but she’s decently well-known.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Palin Picks (depending on what she thinks she needs): Rudy Giuliani (gravitas), Judd Gregg (moderation without caving), John Bolton (forein policy), DeMint (if she picks with her gut), future Illinois Gov. Adam Andrzejewski (doubling down on wild-card outsiders)
Romney: Jindal (safe pick), Pawlenty (safe pick), Palin (“Holey moley! I’m down ten points to Obama and my base hates my guts! I hate taking any risks but my hand has been forced!”)
Huckabee: Mitch Daniels (steady hand who’s not seen as a Southern Soon), Pawlenty (doubling down on the populism while running to the middle)
November 28th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
25 – Good ideas. Not sure too many of those would fly but I kind of like the idea of a Palin-D’Amato ticket. It’s brings Northeastern big city pizzaz without creating a circus around a Giuliani-caliber nominee or breaking too hard to the left. Granted, Palin’s biggest alliansce is likely to be with Rudy Giuliani and the two New Yorkers aren’t on great terms – so I’d just pick Rudy.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Thoug on second thought – D’Amato could be a bit of a loose cannon and a liablity. He would shake up that campaign and eanr Palin a few Rogue points for going way outside the established list of picks – but it would be a matter of calculating risk over reward.
November 28th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Adam, do you seriously think that Palin would consider the number two spot on a ticket again after what happened with McCain?
Personally, I think that a Sarah/Rudy ticket would be the best.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Fox News Sunday Morning (November 29th)
Huckabee and Howard Dean square off!
(:
November 29th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Al D’amato. On any VP short list? Are you s******g me? It must be a holiday weekend. But I love the thread topic….
How about Bob McDonnell? By Sep 2012 most of what we know about his big accomplishments should be in the bag right? I mean Tim Kaine was able to get to the final 3 short list at the same time is his term.
Romney/McDonnell
But I actually think McDonnell will be the front runner in 16 if we lose 12. Maybe he can afford to wait. If he can get that new AG elected in 13 and have a successful term he will be seen as the Mark Warner/Bill Clinton centrish conservative for that cycle.
PS
I only saw one person in this thread mention Daniels possible VPs and I dropped Judd Gregg as a choice last week. Any other thoughts on his potential veeps. How about Jon Kyl?
November 29th, 2009 at 1:36 am
My posts were deleted for some reason.
But Mitt’s potential VP’s include:
Daniels
Blackburn
Rubio
Bush
Thune
Huckabee
Jindal
Barbour
November 29th, 2009 at 1:49 am
For a long time I’ve thought that either Huck or Palin will be eventually left to fight Mitt for the nomination as Mitt was left to fight Mac last time.
But now I’m not so sure. I mean Palin’s book tour has basically been a diaster in my opinion and she is not a serious contender for anything. Then you have Mike whose ratings are very good at the moment but everytime I see him on Huckabee he just looks so bland and un-presidential. Then there is always the possibility that he won’t run (especially if Palin is still popular with the ultra conservatives/religious nuts/tea partiers).
As much as I’d like Mitt to run away with it republican primaries just don’t work that way. So it’s time that we started to think outside the square (and I don’t mean no hopers T/Paw or Newt). I’m talking the likes of Daniels, Thune, Johnson, Gregg, Corker and maybe ever Kyl Pence or Perry? Things are going to start to get interesting from about late Sept 2010! Who will be Mitt’s challenger ……..
November 29th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Huckabee/Rice
The blue states will be shaking.
November 29th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Hi there GOP friends. I am a rock-hard Democrat and Obama supporter, and thought you might be interested the opinion of someone from the dark side. The primary purpose in choosing a VP candidate is to ensure that you win the election — i.e., some electoral votes you would otherwise lose (of course Obama violated this rule, but he was going to win anyway). The 2012 election will be just like the last three elections: the key states will be Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Win two of those 3 states and you win the election. Which means that whoever the GOP nominates better be looking at getting Charlie Crist or Jeb Bush on the ticket, or somebody who can win PA or OH. Choosing a VP is electoral college math, not an emotional decision. Use your head, not your heart.
November 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
AllforHuck is right.
Everyone is leaving out Condi Rice.
She could be a plus to ANY of the male contenders ticket.