Replies

democrats always pick a weak VP to reduce the likelihood of impeachment or worse. Biden, Gore, Kaine, Humphrey, Mondale, Johnson, I could go on but nobody recalls them.

Biden, Gore, Kaine, Humphrey, Mondale, Johnson, I could go on but nobody recalls them.

I respectfully disagree. Each election is different, but most VP picks were for the traditional reason of political/geographic balance. In some cases, it would be to heal/prevent party ruptures (driving force behind Reagan/Bush on the Rep. side).

In the case of Kennedy/Johnson, Johnson was not a weak man, and some think he falls under "or worse" regarding impeachment.

Again, Johnson/Humphrey, powerful senator from a different part of the country with a different constituency.

Either McGovern/Eagleton or McGovern/Shriver ... same pattern, as McGovern was hard-left and Eagleton and Shriver were perceived as being at least Pro-Life. Shriver also had the Kennedy connection, so that was the case of looking for lightning in a bottle to motivate voters, especially (I am ashamed to say) Catholics to come out. If you notice the plethora of Senators, keep in mind that during the Cold War, Senators, with their federal experience were thought of as more presidential than governors. That changed with Reagan, and confirmed by Clinton.

Carter/Mondale: Again, geographical balance, and Carter was considered a "moderate" in 1976, and ran as one. Mondale was a union lefty, the kind that the Dem base supported but was not suspected of being unpatriotic. That is why a big name like Frank Church or Jerry Brown would not be considered.

Mondale/Ferraro: Like Shriver, but more so, a sign of more catering to identity politics than anything, to try to get out the feminist vote. It wasn't so much that Ferraro was weak (she was), but more that Mondale knew a conventional campaign wasn't going to beat a popular sitting president. So they go with the gimmick.

Dukakis/Bentsen: Geographical balance, and Bentsen was considered more conventional than Massachusetts lefty Dukakis. Maybe a recovery from Ferraro, too. He may also have been considered the anti-Quayle, being more experienced and statesmanlike. Allowing for the media to get at George the Elder by attacking Quayle (successfully). Bentsen sas also more than a back-bencher, and ran for the top spot in 1976 (and got NOwhere).

Clinton/Gore: Broke the mold. First time in either party in a LONG time with no geographical balance. Gore was considered centrist at the time, and ran as one in '88. Family has a LONG political history, and would not be considered a weak choice.

Gore/Lieberman: Again, trying for both geographical and political balance. Lieberman was a leader in the Senate, but barely tolerated as the Dems and had to run as an independent in a subsequent election.

Kerry/Edwards: Finding a southerner who the Dem base could stomach was hard, and the Sen./Sen. combination is not a common one. Edwards was a pretty weak candidate, and a bit of a lightweight. But if you look at available Dems at the time, the bench was pretty light. The Clintons already sucked a lot of air out of the room. Edwards also did pretty well in the primaries, so picking him could have been part of the effort to unite the party.

Obama/Biden: Biden provided geographical balance, and was at this point considered at centrist in Dem party circles. The perception (don't laugh) of his being mature, seasoned, and a conventional white male helped. Clintons continue to draw O2 out the room.

Mrs. Clinton/Kaine: Mrs. C had no executive experience and a governor has more latitude than a Senator with a federal voting record in tailoring positions to match the candidate. In her case, she also would not someone who would be unconventional or would draw attention from her. Needed white male, experience, but not too old. The Dem. bench was extremely weak by this point, especially among conventional governors. The fact that Kaine was a very weak candidate says more about the modern Democratic Party as a national force than anything.