Should a presidential candidate go safe or pick a unconventional choice for VP?

[Suburbia]

When a presidential candidate chooses his or her potential choices for a running mate during the vetting process:
-should they pick the safest; most un-charismatic; conventional choice available, or:
-someone who would be unconventional, risky and change the presidential election; or:
-someone in between who is neither a safe or a risky choice.
-someone who could be "President on day One"
-someone who would not deliver a state; no fundraising support; a base; or a geographical region, but just droll and dull
-Do VP picks make a difference?
-What would be the upsides and downsides to a very safe choice or a risky choice
Do you see potential presidential candidates going safe or risky in the future?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Well....look at what happened to John McCain....

[Del Tachi]

The point of a VP candidate is to provide balance to a ticket.

Historically, presidential nominees have selected running mates who are basically the opposite of whatever they are.  Biden is a foil to Obama just like how Palin was a foil to McCain.

The only glaring exceptions to this rule I can think of may be Bush/Cheney or Clinton/Gore, but even those running mates brought things to the table that the head of the ticket did not possess.     

[IceSpear]

If you're ahead, you want a safe pick. If you need a game changer, you make a risky pick.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Why is it that safe and charismatic/beneficial have to be mutually exclusive?

[Mordecai]

When a presidential candidate chooses his or her potential choices for a running mate during the vetting process:
-should they pick the safest; most un-charismatic; conventional choice available, or:

This is probably ok so long as the presidential candidate is someone like Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama and not George H. W. Bush or Al Gore.

-someone who would be unconventional, risky and change the presidential election; or:

This is probably never a good idea because the risk outweighs the reward and they might end up overshadowing the top of the ticket. These people are the John Edwardses and Sarah Palins, they just aren't worth the trouble.

-someone in between who is neither a safe or a risky choice.

This is probably ok.

-someone who could be "President on day One"

This is really important for older candidates like Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, but not so important for much younger candidates like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

-someone who would not deliver a state; no fundraising support; a base; or a geographical region, but just droll and dull

This would probably be one of the worst types of running mates to pick, even if you want a running mate with a bland personality you still want someone who brings something to the table like foreign policy experience, being from a swing state or additional fundraising.

-Do VP picks make a difference?

Yes, I think they do.

-What would be the upsides and downsides to a very safe choice or a risky choice

Very safe: Bolsters the credibility of the ticket but might be underwhelming.
Very risky: Brings the wow factor and a boost of enthusiasm from the base but that quickly dries up and they could undermine the credibility of the ticket, like with Palin.

Do you see potential presidential candidates going safe or risky in the future?

In 2016? I see Hillary going safe (so no female running mate, no gay running mate, no one older than her and definitely not Julian Castro) and I'm not so sure about the Republicans because it depends on who the nominee is.

[history nerd]

The point of a VP candidate is to provide balance to a ticket.

Historically, presidential nominees have selected running mates who are basically the opposite of whatever they are.  Biden is a foil to Obama just like how Palin was a foil to McCain.

The only glaring exceptions to this rule I can think of may be Bush/Cheney or Clinton/Gore, but even those running mates brought things to the table that the head of the ticket did not possess.     

Yes on Biden and Palin... BUT only because in both cases their nomination caused a rift in the party and they needed to shore up their credentials. McCain was too moderate as the party was trending right, he needed someone conservative and different who could alleviate concerns about his age and nullify the Obama is black thing. Biden because Obama and Clinton had been slugging it out and he needed someone with experience and whitemanness.

In the case of Gore he was a good choice because Clinton was focusing on winning the south and did not need to worry about the north, also because he represented the party base almost perfectly at the time. But without the Perot factor I coud see the lack of regional ballance hurting Clinton/Gore it certainly helped that Bush was fighting a two way battle out west.

Cheney was a poor choice. Bush should have been able to win not only the electoral vote but also the popular vote.

[buritobr]

Bill Clinton and Al Gore were white, male, young, moderate and both came from the Upper South. And that ticket won twice.

Were there any important difference between them in order to make the ticket more complete?

[Del Tachi]

Bill Clinton and Al Gore were white, male, young, moderate and both came from the Upper South. And that ticket won twice.

Were there any important difference between them in order to make the ticket more complete?

Gore had an impressive legislative career to complement Clinton's executive experience.

[Mordecai]

Bill Clinton and Al Gore were white, male, young, moderate and both came from the Upper South. And that ticket won twice.

Were there any important difference between them in order to make the ticket more complete?

Gore brought the foreign policy and congressional experience, he was the attack dog in the debates and his boring personality was the perfect complement to Clinton's charismatic personality. Gore didn't undermine the credibility of the ticket with inexperience or stupidity like Palin did and he didn't overshadow Clinton in the way that Palin overshadowed McCain.

It's true that they were both Southerners but they were both quite culturally liberal so that helped a great deal.

[Orser67]

On the spectrum of safe to risky, I think you definitely want to lean towards the safe side. That's because the upside of a good VP candidate isn't nearly as high as the riskiness of a poor VP candidate. Even if you're losing, you don't want any potential comeback bid sidetracked by VP controversies (although I do agree that you lean more towards a risky choice if you are losing).

With that said, I think if you go too far towards the safe side you can confuse safe with boring. I think the Biden pick was good because he was a safe choice but at the same time wasn't dull.

[Mister Mets]

It's usually better to go with the safe pick, since a running mate's top obligation is not to harm the ticket. An unconventional pick will be held to higher scrutiny, as media figures try to determine if someone who lacks the typical qualifications is ready to be President. Any mistake made by a mayor, businessman, or newly elected statewide officeholder will be magnified.

It is worth noting that unconventional picks sometimes come with numerous strengths. Sarah Palin appeased conservatives while emphasizing McCain's independent credentials and adding diversity and expertise on a key issue (energy) to the ticket. Al Gore might have been President if Jeanne Shaheen had been willing to be his running mate simply due to how important New Hampshire ended up being to the 2000 election.

[Suburbia]

I guess the safest pick would be good, but a downside to the safest pick is it may be unexciting and may be a charisma drain on a ticket.  The only way I go with a high-stakes, high-reward choice is if I'm down by 4-8% points. But I like safe. Play it the safest!

[Meursault]

I don't understand the rationale behind the idea that a charismatic nominee (Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, whoever) should never select another charismatic politician for Vice-President, for fear of "overshadowing the ticket". It's one thing if the charismatic Veep-to-be is an empty suit like many of the recent charismatic nominees have been (Palin, to a much lesser extent Edwards), but what's the harm of a ticket doubling-down on charisma if both nominees are talented? For that matter, have we ever had a ticket with two charismatic nominees by the standards of their day? I think Biden's a decent speaker, but too old and folksy to truly be charismatic.

[Meursault]

Oh, maybe Roosevelt/Truman? Granting that Truman was nowhere near what Roosevelt was in his prime (by my watch the most charismatic President we've had), he was probably the equal of the sickly Roosevelt of 1944.

[OnlyAlb]

If you're ahead, you want a safe pick. If you need a game changer, you make a risky pick.

I disagree somewhat. Lets say Hypothetically that Clinton's positions in the polls hold. She could make the safe choice and pick someone non-controversial/boring in someone like Mark Warner. Or she could make a risky pick and choose a minority like the Castro Twins or woman on the ticket. That risky pick/unconventional choice would add more excitement into her campaign like it did to McCain's. The problem is Palin crashed and burned. In this scenario, Clinton is already ahead, and can go for that unconventional choice. 

[Indy Texas]

-should they pick the safest; most un-charismatic; conventional choice available, or:
-someone who would be unconventional, risky and change the presidential election; or:
-someone in between who is neither a safe or a risky choice.
-someone who could be "President on day One"
-someone who would not deliver a state; no fundraising support; a base; or a geographical region, but just droll and dull
-Do VP picks make a difference?
-What would be the upsides and downsides to a very safe choice or a risky choice
Do you see potential presidential candidates going safe or risky in the future?

1. The VP nominee should always be someone who could be POTUS at some point, because that is literally in the job description for being the vice president. The people who fail that test should be the first to go when narrowing down a shortlist.

2. The VP nominee should be a net positive contributor to the ticket. Positives should outweigh negatives. If they represent a small state or a state that's very safe for the party, do they sit on an important committee? Is their name on a bill that gets mentioned on the news? If they're not well-connected to the party "base" do they at least have strong fundraising connections?

3. The VP nominee "makes a difference" in the sense that they are part of setting the tone for the ticket and the campaign. I don't think they matter that much in terms of how specific states and regions vote or don't vote. That's something a lot of people on this forum tend to overestimate. There was no "Paul Ryan effect" in Wisconsin or the Great Lakes. John Edwards was never going to do John Kerry any good in North Carolina.

4. The VP nominee shouldn't be a "foil" but should complement the candidate. Sarah Palin's problem was that she highlighted John McCain's shortcomings rather than the reasons people liked him. She brought to mind his impulsive, mercurial nature (both in the way she was chosen and her general behavior during the campaign), when he should have been trying to emphasize his military service, his desire for a "cleaner" approach to politics, and his willingness to hold views independent of his party. He should have picked someone with a significant record of non-political public service (not necessarily military; someone who had served in the Peace Corps or taught in poor schools or something like that would have worked) and someone with a relatively clean political record (Palin was too much of an unknown quantity to guarantee that).

[Skill and Chance]

Those who don't pick based on geography tend to do better.  It's more important for them both to have similar ideological positions/backgrounds in the party.  If anything, a VP from a large state from your party's base seems to be best. 

[Mister Mets]

If you're ahead, you want a safe pick. If you need a game changer, you make a risky pick.

I disagree somewhat. Lets say Hypothetically that Clinton's positions in the polls hold. She could make the safe choice and pick someone non-controversial/boring in someone like Mark Warner. Or she could make a risky pick and choose a minority like the Castro Twins or woman on the ticket. That risky pick/unconventional choice would add more excitement into her campaign like it did to McCain's. The problem is Palin crashed and burned. In this scenario, Clinton is already ahead, and can go for that unconventional choice. 

With a risky pick, there's always the concern that it backfires. Although things are so partisan that it may not matter to 95% of the electorate if the veep nominee is as inarticulate as Rick Perry.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Personally, I'd rather go for a safe choice that helps solidify the party's base.