(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)
Philip Klinkner, Hamilton College
(THE CONVERSATION) Vice presidential picks can’t help a presidential candidate, but they can hurt one, according to political scientists. Presidential campaigns still spend a fair amount of time thinking about running mates and the ways in which they might boost the ticket – or at least not hurt it.
Who will Vice President Kamala Harris pick as her running mate, now that she appears set to be the Democratic nominee?
During the 19th and through much of the 20th century, parties picked vice president candidates who would provide the ticket with some geographic or factional balance. In many cases, those amounted to the same thing.
That approach has shifted in more recent years to selections based on experience and ideology. Those shifts have mirrored changes in U.S. politics over the decades and centuries.
Here’s a run-through of vice presidential picks since 1960 and what considerations were prominent in the choice of these running mates. As a scholar who studies American politics as well as parties and elections, my aim is to shed light on how political considerations have changed over the years, which choices may have contributed to a winning campaign – and which didn’t.
Geographic and factional balancing rises – and falls
The classic example of a geographic and factional choice for vice president was Democrat John F. Kennedy’s...
