Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Major party running mates are usually selected and publicly revealed around the time of the national conventions. And with both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions looming in July - first the Republicans from July 18 to 21, in Cleveland; then the Democrats from July 25 to 28, in Philadelphia - it looks like we're within six weeks of finding out who the two #2s will be.
So let's go back through recent history (I'll define that as 'since 1960' for the purposes of this discussion) to see where the major party nominees go to find their running mates, by current or most-recent office held.
First, the Democrats:
2008 - Joe Biden (Senator)
2004 - John Edwards (Senator)
2000 - Joe Lieberman (Senator)
1992 - Al Gore (Senator) - also, Representative
1988 - Lloyd Bentsen (Senator)
1984 - Geraldine Ferraro (Representative)
1976 - Walter Mondale (Senator)
*1972 - Sargent Shriver (Ambassador to France)
1972 - Thomas Eagleton (Senator)
1968 - Edmund Muskie (Senator) - also, Governor of Maine
1964 - Hubert Humphrey (Senator)
1960 - Lyndon Johnson (Senator) - also, Representative
* - Shriver was the second choice in 1972
With the Democratic nominees, it's simple - they go to the Senate. In 10 of the 11 times, the Democrat has selected a United States Senator to be his running mate. The one exception was Walter Mondale, who selected a Representative, and this was probably the second-worst choice from the list. The worst, of course, was Eagleton, the Senator from Missouri, who had to withdraw from the race after his history of depression became public. George McGovern would pick as his replacement would be Shriver, a non-Senator. It is no coincidence that the Mondale and McGovern campaigns were the two worst of this period.
Now, the Republicans:
2012 - Paul Ryan (Representative)
2008 - Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska)
2000 - Dick Cheney (Secretary of Defense) - also, Representative, White House Chief of Staff
1996 - Jack Kemp (HUD Secretary) - also, Representative
1988 - Dan Quayle (Senator) - also, Representative
1980 - George H.W. Bush (CIA Director) - also, liaison to China, UN Ambassador, Representative
1976 - Bob Dole (Senator) - also, Representative
1968 - Spiro Agnew (Governor of Maryland)
1964 - William Miller (Representative)
1960 - Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr (UN Ambassador) - also, Senator
For Republicans, running mates have been a much more diverse bunch in terms of offices held. There are two Senators there, along with another former Senator. There's a pair of Governors (one who was a disaster of a running mate; the other a disaster of a Vice President). There's two sitting Representatives and another five former Representatives. Interestingly, there's four executive appointees.
So what does all of this tell us about running mates in 2016? Well, to think that Clinton's running mate will be a Senator is probably a good bet. And some of the names most bandied about - Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Tim Kaine, Cory Booker, Al Franken, even Bernie Sanders - are indeed Democrats. Personally, because Republican governors would appoint two-year successors in New Jersey and Ohio, I think Booker and Brown are long shots. And other names have been mentioned, such as HUD Secretary Julian Castro (who I personally think has almost no shot at it), Labor Secretary Tom Perez (ditto), and Representative Xavier Becerra (his star is rising of late).
Republicans? As history suggests, there's no telling. New Gingrich (former Representative) and Jeff Sessions (Senators) are among current favorites, along with Chris Christie (Governor). And there are many other names. And given the - shall we say, 'unconventionality' - of this year's GOP Presidential nominee, it really is a mystery.
Conclusions:
*The Democratic running mate will be a Senator more likely than not, though the likelihood is not as great as history suggests.
*The Republican running mate will be... someone. Sorry, that's the best the vague historical data and the I'm-winging-it nature of Donald Trump allows.
*The Democratic running mate will be a Senator more likely than not, though the likelihood is not as great as history suggests.
*The Republican running mate will be... someone. Sorry, that's the best the vague historical data and the I'm-winging-it nature of Donald Trump allows.
Trump's choices are limited by the fact that there aren't that many well-known Rs who want to run with him. Now that probably doesn't bother his most anti-RNC supporters, but Trump is going to have a difficult time finding a well-known and experienced pol to shore up his obvious weaknesses. And that does matter for getting the support of the general electorate.
Trump will have NO problem finding someone to accept as VP. NO PROBLEM. He'll recruit the best and I am sure those expressing sour grapes know they wouldn't fall in that category anyway.
Hillary, with her health, it almost assures whoever is VP IF Hillary is elected will be POTUS within those 4 years, so I could see a few willing to make a deal with the devil to claim an assured POTUS position.
It looked to me like the GOP did a much better job of just not resorting to the same old, same old when making choices. Maybe they actually put some thought into the process. Maybe they didn't have as many favors to pay back.
Trump's cabinet will be awesome. We have many great citizens that are by-passed because of the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" and Trump doesn't have to play the game. He owes no politicians anything for pushing pork through Congress, etc.
For some reason, OP, CD claims I must 'spread the love around' before leaving you a kudos. Hence, I do so here.
Anyway, this is a rare example of an interesting new thread. I found the lists very helpful and informative. I had not realized that Democrats were so tied to Senators as VP. It is food for thought indeed.
A sitting Governor is an moderately unusual choice, though not unknown - especially for Republican nominees. Let's take a look at the somewhat recent history of major party nominees tabbing Governors as running mates.
2008 - Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska (Republican)
1968 - Spiro Agnew, Governor of Maryland (Republican)
1968 - Edmund Muskie, former Governor of Maine (Democrat)
That's it, since the middle of the 20th century. The last time the Democrats nominated a sitting Governor for Vice President was in 1926, when Charles Bryan - Governor of Nebraska - was the running mate of Democratic nominee John Davis.
Palin, of course, was a disastrous train wreck. Agnew served his purpose electorally, though he eventually had to resign the Vice Presidency and plead no contest to tax evasion charges. Muskie, as a former Governor (when chosen by Humphrey he was a Senator) was effective as a running mate, he still was part of a losing ticket.
Note:
I don't think this history itself has much bearing on the choice of Pence. I just think it is interesting.
For some reason, OP, CD claims I must 'spread the love around' before leaving you a kudos. Hence, I do so here.
Anyway, this is a rare example of an interesting new thread. I found the lists very helpful and informative. I had not realized that Democrats were so tied to Senators as VP. It is food for thought indeed.
Now take into account all of the promises for other positions for being supportive
like a Senator who lost a white house bid and given a Secretary of State Position
with no knowledge and left the office in shambles
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
