What WERE They Thinking? VP Choices...

[JSojourner]

Hey gang...I'm going to list all the VP choices in the two major parties (and a couple Indie runs) since I have been alive.  Some were elected, some were not.  But what I want you to do is tell me -- why were these candidates chosen?  What was the party (or the guy on the top of the ticket) thinking when he picked this person?  Some are more obvious than others, but mainly -- I just wanted to take your pulse on this.  Feel free to discuss names who might have been better choices.

2004

Kerry chooses Edwards

2000

Gore chooses Lieberman
Bush "chooses" Cheney

1996

Dole chooses Kemp

1992

Clinton chooses Gore
Perot chooses Stockdale

1988

Bush chooses Quayle
Dukakis chooses Bentsen

1984

Mondale chooses Ferarro

1980

Reagan chooses Bush
Anderson chooses Lucey

1976

Ford chooses Dole
Carter chooses Mondale

1972

McGovern chooses Eagleton Shriver

1968

Nixon chooses Agnew
Humphrey chooses Muskie
Wallace chooses LeMay

1964

Johnson keeps Humphrey
Goldwater chooses Miller

[JSojourner]

I agree with most of  your list, but who do you think Wallace could have picked that would have helped him more than LeMay?

LeMay may have been the perfect pick for Wallace.  I am just asking, with each of these, what you guys think was in the mind of the Presidential nominee.  Perhaps I should have stated the question more clearly.

What was Reagan thinking when he chose Bush?  Was it party unification, regional balance, add a foreign policy wonk to the ticket, etc?

I don't know if any of these picks were right or wrong.  I'm just trying to get at the rationale behind each pick.  So sorry, everyone, if I are confuzing!  :-)  Thanks, Dead!

[JSojourner]

2004

Kerry chooses Edwards

Opponent in primary, party unity, supposed populist with appeal to smaller towns and the South. C

2000

Gore chooses Lieberman

Appeal to the Jewish vote, especially in FL, distanced himself from Lewinsky scandal, balanced ticket ideologically.  A-

Bush "chooses" Cheney.  Experience in foreign policy. C-

1996

Dole chooses Kemp.  Age difference, solid Kemp reputation.  D-

1992

Clinton chooses Gore.  Ideological similar, increased inroads in the South. A

Perot chooses Stockdale.  Filler, but experienced in military.  B+

1988

Bush chooses Quayle.  Generational difference; appeal to the right.  In that race, C-.

Dukakis chooses Bentsen. 

National experience, attempt to pull TX.  F

1984

Mondale chooses Ferarro. 

Woman on the ticket.  D-



1980

Reagan chooses Bush

Primary Opponent, geographical and ideological base.  A+

Anderson chooses Lucey.  Experience, was willing to do it. A+

1976

Ford chooses Dole.  Ideological appeal. C-

Carter chooses Mondale.  Ideological appeal; geographic appeal.  B

1972

McGovern chooses Eagleton Shriver

Filler, known name. D-

1968

Nixon chooses Agnew

Georgraphic appeal.  B

Humphrey chooses Muskie

Geographic and ethnic appeal.  B

Wallace chooses LeMay.  Military experience,  C-

1964

Johnson keeps Humphrey.  Geographic, very similar dynamic to the Clinton Choice of Gore.  A

Goldwater chooses Miller

Catholic, geographic difference.  B

I agree JJ -- excellent analysis.  I think you were a bit too generous to Kerry.  Edwards was a bad pick and Kerry would have been better served with Gephardt.

[JSojourner]

I agree JJ -- excellent analysis.  I think you were a bit too generous to Kerry.  Edwards was a bad pick and Kerry would have been better served with Gephardt.

I only gave the Edwards choice a C.  Bayh or Gephradt would have been better.  Edwards didn't hurt, but didn't help.

And Johnson didn't "keep" Humphrey, because there was no VP after Kennedy was assassinated.  He chose Humphrey

DUH!  Thanks JJ -- my mistake.  Right, you are!

[JSojourner]

I agree with most of  your list, but who do you think Wallace could have picked that would have helped him more than LeMay?

LeMay may have been the perfect pick for Wallace.  I am just asking, with each of these, what you guys think was in the mind of the Presidential nominee.  Perhaps I should have stated the question more clearly.

What was Reagan thinking when he chose Bush?  Was it party unification, regional balance, add a foreign policy wonk to the ticket, etc?

I don't know if any of these picks were right or wrong.  I'm just trying to get at the rationale behind each pick.  So sorry, everyone, if I are confuzing!  :-)  Thanks, Dead!

I always got the impression that the LeMay pick substantially hurt Wallace.  Yes, it had the potential to give him some gravitas and give the Wallace campaign some more appeal than pure segregation...but I thought that LeMay was horrible on the campaign trail and managed to lose Wallace a good third of his support by advocating nuking North Vietnam...


As for some of the others...I can't really agree with J.J. on the Lucey pick.  Of what he could get, it wasn't bad...but he was hardly prominent.  His failure to get anyone better than Lucey said something about his campaign.

Bush in '80 may have been little more than a last-ditch fallback option after the proposed deal with Ford fell through.  The fact that it worked out so well is rather incredible.

Aside from Ford, I don't think any Republican had a better resume than George H.W. Bush.  It's disappointing that he gave in to Reagan on abortion and "had a change of heart".  But that's hardly new.  Gore was pretty much anti-choice until his 1988 bid for the Presidency.  And Kemp discovered some pretty sudden changes of heart to get on the ticket with Dole.

I really think Dole could have chosen a much better running mate.

[JSojourner]

I really think Dole could have chosen a much better running mate.

I think Dole could have chosen a much better running mate too. However, I believe Dole's selection of Kemp was the only one acceptable to both moderates and conservatives in the GOP.

Now say, if Dole had selected somebody pro-choice like William Weld, Buchanan would have gone apesh**t and ran under the US Taxpayers Party banner taking a significant share of the vote away from the GOP. But saying this, it was unlikely that the Republicans were going to win with Dole in 1996, with or without Buchanan's support.

Oh exactly.  I just wonder if there wasn't a conservative like Kemp, only substantially smarter.  Kemp always struck me as Dan Quayle, except basically a nice guy. 

Maybe a Dole-Alexander, Dole-Bennett, Dole-Engler or Dole-Campbell ticket?  I don't know that any of them are/were particularly smarter than Kemp, but might than have campaigned more effectively?  Hard to say, I guess. 

I suppose Kemp made sense because he had previously endorsed Forbes and this, theoretically, brought the two largest GOP primary camps together. I remember there being so much talk about Carroll Campbell, both as a Presidential and a VP candidate.  It still breaks me up to think about him dying so young, and of Alzheimer's to boot.