I disagree strongly. I think his chief criteria for VP should be someone who can walk into the WH if something happens to Trump during his term of office. That's what the VP is for.
In the history of the United States, there have been only two sitting VPs elected to the White House. The last one was George H. W. Bush, in 1988. Before that it was Martin Van Buren, in 1836. (Source)
On the other hand, there have been 8 vice presidents who have succeeded to the presidency due to death or resignation of the president.
Too much can happen in eight years for that to be a criterion.
Correction:
That list didn’t include Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, because they weren’t of the same party. So there were 9 vice presidents who assumed office due to the death or resignation of the president.
On the other hand, the list also didn’t include John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, as they were vice president prior to the 12th Amendment.
Nine vice presidents have run for office (since the 12th Amendment) and only 2 of them won while serving as vice president. Neither of them were re-elected. Nixon ran while vice president but lost. He was elected 8 years later, and re-elected 4 years after that, but did not finish his term.
There have been 57 presidential elections, and 9 vice presidents who have assumed office due to the death or resignation of the president. That means that there is a 15.6% chance that in any given term of office, the vice president will assume the office of president.
That’s too high a chance to be thinking of eight years from now. Trump should pick someone who can assume the office “in a heartbeat.”
BTW, since 8 of the vice presidents assumed office on the death of the president (as opposed to resignation), that means that there is a 14% chance that the president will die in office, based on historical precedent. Would you take a job where there was a 14% chance you’d die within the next 4 years?
The first is a subset of the second. To be THE man to walk into the WH in eight years he should obviously have reasonable capability of doing that now if necessary.
Your argument of political precedent fails to recognize that this is an unprecedented political year as was Regan’s election in many similar ways. That is why your citing of Bush in 1988 is particularly relevant.
The one BIG mistake Reagan made was his choice of VP. One could strongly argue that Reagan’s VP mistake took us into 28 years of increasing and accelerated unconstitutional central government growth and socialism - basically tyranny.
One could also reasonably argue that if Trump has a good-to-great presidency, not unlike Reagan did, Trump’s VP, like Reagan’s VP, could walk into the WH blindfolded.
Don’t forget the dynamics behind your stats. Until the 20th Century, the central government was small and spending was less than 10% of the GDP. The central government, as designed, was not a part of people’s daily lives. The feds were not threatening to Americans.
Since that changed in the 20th century, there have been only two “conservative” (limited government) Presidents – Cool Cal and Reagan. Under that data, 50% of their VP’s were elected to the White House. Again, if Trump has a good-to-great presidency, not unlike Reagan did, Trump’s VP, like Reagan’s VP, could reasonably easily take the WH.