Biggest VP pick miscalculation?

[S019]

Sarah "I can see Russia from my house in Alaska" Palin

Sarah "I read all of [the newspapers]" Palin

[SingingAnalyst]

1. Eagleton (had to be dumped from the ticket)
2. Palin (Tina Fey is a household name and a star in her own right, while Palin struggles for respect and recognition)

[Ye We Can]

1. Andrew Johnson
2. John Tyler
3. Tom Eagleton
4. Sarah Palin

[FriendlyRanger]

Historically, Richard Mentor Johnson, Andrew Johnson, Henry Wallace, Henry Cabot Lodge, William Miller, Thomas Eagleton, and Bob Dole.

Focusing on those nominees in my own life, it's mostly been the Democrats that let me down.

1984 - Geraldine Ferraro: Let's double down on the hopelessness of our campaign by nominating a fairly inexperienced Congresswoman plagued by scandals. Certainly highlighted the importance of vetting.

1988 - Lloyd Bentsen: Overshadowed Dukakis, arguably more Presidential. Quayle was terrible for sure but I don't think anybody thought the ticket- if it could have been- should have been "Quayle/Bush".

1992/1996 - Al Gore: A moderate Southern baby boomer with a shrill wife easy to criticize. A senator rather than a governor.

2000 - Joe Lieberman: For all of his faults, Bill Clinton was popular. Running away from him and nominating just about the only Democrat more boring than yourself plus a big critic of Clinton to boot was like shooting yourself in the foot. Good job, Al Gore. You had it and you blew it.

2004 - John Edwards: Ineffectual, inexperienced, far too image-driven. Didn't do nearly enough to criticize the Bush/Cheney ticket, especially Cheney. It's never good when the presidential nominee ends up resenting you by the end of the campaign.

2008 - Sarah Palin: All the cries about inexperience when it comes to Obama and the McCain camp picked her? Joking about graduating 895th out of 899 (or whatever it was) and making this pick helped to highlight just how much better the Obama/Biden ticket was (Biden's own academic follies factored in). Like Ferraro, highlighted the importance of vetting. Like Edwards, highlighted the importance of picking somebody you won't resent.

2012 - Paul Ryan: Way too far from the center to have much appeal for the much-needed undecided voter. Perhaps better suited for a second-tier cabinet post.

2016 - Tim Kaine: Too bland, too moderate when Hillary Clinton had top billing. Just about the last guy Clinton should have picked. Pence was just as conservative, if not more so, than Ryan, but that's what Trump needed. Clinton didn't need a Sanders-type or Gabbard-type but she needed somebody who could draw in the type of voter she alone could not (perhaps Merkley?). Like Edwards, didn't do enough to criticize Pence.

Was the Clinton camp worried that they might not win Virginia or something? If Hillary was like the mother/grandmother you could never please, Kaine was like your pushover stepfather/step-grandfather who was decent enough but ultimately brought nothing to the table.

[One Term Floridian]

Historically, Richard Mentor Johnson, Andrew Johnson, Henry Wallace, Henry Cabot Lodge, William Miller, Thomas Eagleton, and Bob Dole.

Focusing on those nominees in my own life, it's mostly been the Democrats that let me down.

1984 - Geraldine Ferraro: Let's double down on the hopelessness of our campaign by nominating a fairly inexperienced Congresswoman plagued by scandals. Certainly highlighted the importance of vetting.

1988 - Lloyd Bentsen: Overshadowed Dukakis, arguably more Presidential. Quayle was terrible for sure but I don't think anybody thought the ticket- if it could have been- should have been "Quayle/Bush".

1992/1996 - Al Gore: A moderate Southern baby boomer with a shrill wife easy to criticize. A senator rather than a governor.

2000 - Joe Lieberman: For all of his faults, Bill Clinton was popular. Running away from him and nominating just about the only Democrat more boring than yourself plus a big critic of Clinton to boot was like shooting yourself in the foot. Good job, Al Gore. You had it and you blew it.

2004 - John Edwards: Ineffectual, inexperienced, far too image-driven. Didn't do nearly enough to criticize the Bush/Cheney ticket, especially Cheney. It's never good when the presidential nominee ends up resenting you by the end of the campaign.

2008 - Sarah Palin: All the cries about inexperience when it comes to Obama and the McCain camp picked her? Joking about graduating 895th out of 899 (or whatever it was) and making this pick helped to highlight just how much better the Obama/Biden ticket was (Biden's own academic follies factored in). Like Ferraro, highlighted the importance of vetting. Like Edwards, highlighted the importance of picking somebody you won't resent.

2012 - Paul Ryan: Way too far from the center to have much appeal for the much-needed undecided voter. Perhaps better suited for a second-tier cabinet post.

2016 - Tim Kaine: Too bland, too moderate when Hillary Clinton had top billing. Just about the last guy Clinton should have picked. Pence was just as conservative, if not more so, than Ryan, but that's what Trump needed. Clinton didn't need a Sanders-type or Gabbard-type but she needed somebody who could draw in the type of voter she alone could not (perhaps Merkley?). Like Edwards, didn't do enough to criticize Pence.

Was the Clinton camp worried that they might not win Virginia or something? If Hillary was like the mother/grandmother you could never please, Kaine was like your pushover stepfather/step-grandfather who was decent enough but ultimately brought nothing to the table.

Agree with you on literally everything except Al Gore. He's considered a masterstroke VP nomination, who doubled down the Clinton campaign's message on younger leadership and "taking back" the South.

[FriendlyRanger]

Agree with you on literally everything except Al Gore. He's considered a masterstroke VP nomination, who doubled down the Clinton campaign's message on younger leadership and "taking back" the South.

I'll admit I am still bitter with Gore's carelessness as the presidential nominee in 2000 (it was the first election I could, and did, vote in) and it colors my personal feelings. Quayle was just as awful in 1992 as he had been in 1988. Kemp, who wasn't especially liked by and who disagreed with Dole on many issues, was far from the best pick he could have made in 1996. It's because of all of the similarities that I think Gore wasn't that great of a pick. It's because it defied standard conventions. Clinton was already youthful, from the South, moderate when compared to Mondale and Dukakis. A less charismatic youthful, Southern, moderate Democrat wasn't going to appeal to the nation the way Bill Clinton did. Clinton was unique... I think he could have made a different choice when it came to running mates (Bob Kerrey, Bob Graham, Tom Harkin) and still won in 1992 and 1996. The electoral maps might have looked a little different, though.

[darklordoftech]

Historically, Richard Mentor Johnson

Why?

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Am I the only one who thinks Palin didn't make much difference?

[FriendlyRanger]

Historically, Richard Mentor Johnson

Why?

Johnson was essentially forced on Van Buren and the party by Andrew Jackson. He was far from a unanimous choice among Democrats, he cost several votes in the South due to his personal life (he had a common law marriage with Julia Chinn, a slave he had inherited from his father, that produced two daughters), and didn't deliver the West (it was believed that his reputation as an Indian fighter and war hero would have been an asset) nor his home state of Kentucky.

23 Virginia delegates pledged to Van Buren and Johnson did support the former but refused to support Johnson, leaving him one electoral vote shy of outright victory. He remains the only Vice President elected by the Senate.

[One Term Floridian]

Agree with you on literally everything except Al Gore. He's considered a masterstroke VP nomination, who doubled down the Clinton campaign's message on younger leadership and "taking back" the South.

I'll admit I am still bitter with Gore's carelessness as the presidential nominee in 2000 (it was the first election I could, and did, vote in) and it colors my personal feelings. Quayle was just as awful in 1992 as he had been in 1988. Kemp, who wasn't especially liked by and who disagreed with Dole on many issues, was far from the best pick he could have made in 1996. It's because of all of the similarities that I think Gore wasn't that great of a pick. It's because it defied standard conventions. Clinton was already youthful, from the South, moderate when compared to Mondale and Dukakis. A less charismatic youthful, Southern, moderate Democrat wasn't going to appeal to the nation the way Bill Clinton did. Clinton was unique... I think he could have made a different choice when it came to running mates (Bob Kerrey, Bob Graham, Tom Harkin) and still won in 1992 and 1996. The electoral maps might have looked a little different, though.

Oh I can understand about 2000. I was far, far too young then to vote but I'm still bitter about how he lost such a winnable race. It's terrible how every election since then has been drummed up to be "the deciding vote of our lifetime," yet that one probably was and passed without much fanfare until Florida's close returns.

Really curious to see how the map may have looked like with those other VP nominees for Clinton. I think Bob Kerrey would have been particularly interesting as a running mate from that angle. A much, much less polarized time.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Abraham Lincoln's pick of Andrew Johnson ruined much of the post-Civil War era.

[sg0508]

Keeping Quayle in '92 didn't do Bush and the GOP any favors.

[darklordoftech]

It's terrible how every election since then has been drummed up to be "the deciding vote of our lifetime," yet that one probably was and passed without much fanfare until Florida's close returns.

I'd imagine it's a case of the media learning from 2000 and the events that happened during W's first term. 1996, 1988, 1984, and 1976 all had little fanfare.

[AN63093]

Am I the only one who thinks Palin didn't make much difference?

This.

People vastly overestimate how much effect a VP pick has on the results.  Many people can't even name the VP candidates.  Some can't name the presidential ones.  Hell, there is a non-insignificant amount of the population that doesn't even realize an election is going on when election day is coming around.  Which may be a sad commentary on the informed nature of our populace, or perhaps lack thereof, but a true one nonetheless.

VPs can help to an extent in shoring up base support, and maybe matter at the extreme margins- helping to flip a razor thin toss-up, or maybe putting a state that was 3-5% out of reach a couple points closer.

But you're not going to change the fundamentals of the game.  '08 is actually an example of that- McCain could've ran with Jesus Christ himself; he wasn't winning.  People were ready to move on from Bush and once enough white voters in places like OH had decided that Obama was acceptable, it was curtains for McCain.  The only way McCain would've won is if Obama screwed something up in spectacular fashion, but assuming he didn't drop the ball, the game was over, and it was over before McCain had even picked a VP.  For god's sake, the Dems won Indiana that cycle.  The GOP wasn't winning in '08.  End of story.

Yes, we get it.  Palin is a dunce, bla bla bla, you don't like her, and so on.  I get it; I don't particularly care for her myself.  But I like to analyze things based on stuff like, you know, data, instead of my emotions.  If someone would care to present some actual tangible data that Palin had any effect, I'll be waiting right here.

Same thing could be said for every example in this thread so far.  

So Quayle didn't do anything for Bush?  So what?  Clinton is a once in a generation politician challenging someone after a recession.  Bush wasn't winning.  If there's someone that may have had an effect that year that's worth looking at, it's Perot.

Edwards didn't help in the South in '04?  OK.  Name me someone who would've flipped a single Southern state.  Kerry didn't have the gravitas to beat an incumbent after 9/11, and I'm not sure anyone in the Dem bench that year would've.  States like VA were getting close, but weren't quite there with demographics yet, and the best VP choice in the world wouldn't make a ton of minorities just appear out of thin air in Fairfax County.

Kaine in '16?  Dems were winning VA in '16 with or without Kaine, heck, speaking of Palin, Clinton could've even picked Palin just for the LOLs and Dems still would've won VA.

I can go on all day.  Reading over the posts in this thread, almost every one is "I don't like XYZ" as opposed to "here's data supporting XYZ would've flipped state ABC."

[morgankingsley]

I think Pence kind of was. I mean, Indiana was already safe Trump. Those electoral votes made no difference at all that Pence could have given him. Plus Trump already had the jesus belt locked in. In all reality, while I am not a Kasich dude in all honesty, picking Kasich could have at least given him New Hampshire and Minnesota

[SWE]

People generally don't vote based on the bottom of the ticket, so I'm not convinced this sort of thing makes much of a difference at all. That being said, picking Lieberman didn't help Gore, and that election was close enough that a better choice could maybe make a difference.

[morgankingsley]

People generally don't vote based on the bottom of the ticket, so I'm not convinced this sort of thing makes much of a difference at all. That being said, picking Lieberman didn't help Gore, and that election was close enough that a better choice could maybe make a difference.

While I would by and large agree with you, people knew full well that a vote for Roosevelt in 1944 was actually a vote for Truman, not Roosevelt, since they knew he would die at some point in the term, just not when

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

John Edwards of 2004
Sarah Palin of 2012
 
John Edwards was supposed to be the one to bring in Ohio for John Kerry. As it turned out, he was a great presidential candidate, but a poor Veep. Gephardt, with his Union background, could have pulled over the missing 50K votes, in OH, that Kerry needed.

Sarah Palin, was supposed to lock down the female vote; however, the Recession of 2008, changed the campaign and allowed Obama to win the presidency, with a better vision. 

John Edwards and Sarah Palin were hammered by Veep Dick Cheney and Joe Biden, for not having enough foreign policy credentials.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

People generally don't vote based on the bottom of the ticket, so I'm not convinced this sort of thing makes much of a difference at all. That being said, picking Lieberman didn't help Gore, and that election was close enough that a better choice could maybe make a difference.

They do! And so did they in 2008. I mean Obama would have won anyway, but without Palin on the GOP ticket, McCain might have won Indiana and North Carolina. Plus, Alaska would have been much closer.
Consider that McCain, who would have become the oldest president ever, had already been cancer-stricken then. The realistic and menacing thought of Palin succeeding him deterred many voters from giving McCain their votes.