Second Banana

So the “veep”portion of this horse race has begun — and other than the talking bobbleheads in the media does anyone really care? Or rather does anyone really care for more than a few days? Has ANYONE ever gone into the voting booth and pulled the lever for President based on whom the choice for running mate was? Did I vote for Al Gore because of Joe Lieberman – are you kidding? That would be a reason NOT to vote for GORE. Did anyone think Cheney would make Bush a better president? I would bet there is a big chunk of the voting population that doesn’t know who the running mate is! If people have voted for VP – I can guarantee it is few and far between. After the initial choice and the one debate – the Vice-Presidential candidate generally fades quickly from focus in the campaign and truly becomes the second banana in a bad vaudeville act.

But the media loves theatre, or rather they NEED something to generate debate (and ratings) — and what better theatre is there than another round of “Mystery Date” (if you are old enough you will remember that game from the ’60s). open the door — to your mystery running mate? The three main questions the idiots pundits will talk about are:

Can the running make bring _____ credentials? (foreign policy, economic, social, etc.)
Does the running mate have the experience where the top of the ticket is lacking?
Will the running mate help bring in a state for electoral votes?

And they will blather on and on about how critical those things. This one will bring foreign policy credentials, that one has military expericence, but the one over there is from such an important state. Like any of that matters in the end. It doesn’t.

First of all, the Vice-President (other than Dick Cheney, who in reality is the shadow President) doesn’t make policy, doesn’t sell policy and doesn’t enact policy. Everything starts/ends and emanates from the President. The Vice-President has exactly TWO constitutional roles — take over when the President dies/becomes incapacitated and break a tie in the Senate. Other than that it is a lot of funerals and ribbon-cutting.

There is no doubt the President will lean on the Veep for advice and expertise. But he also hires a huge staff to do the same thing — you do not need a Vice-President to be your NSA, Budget Director or Chief of Staff. Yes, the Veep is the proverbial “heartbeat” away from the top — but as long as that heart is beating, the Vice-President’s job can be mostly ceremonial — and the country is no different for it. (Then again we would be a MUCH better country if Dick Cheney’s job was only as ambassador to funerals and coronations).

So the game of Veep picking is nothing more than another marketing ploy for the parties – and something to talk about for the media.

Let’s take a look at some of the Vice Presidential running mates over history and see how they have helped or hurt the top of the ticket. I looked a the past 20 Presidential elections, since 1928.

First the Democrats.
In the past 20 Presidential elections, the Democrats have won 10 (4 by FDR, 2 by Clinton, 1-each for Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter) – 17 different VP candidates.

3 were sitting VPs, 13 were senators, 1 woman, Truman and Johnson moved to the Oval Office upon the death of the President. In 14 of the 20 elections – the Democratic ticket won the state the Vice President hailed from. The losing VP/states were H. Wallace ’40, Kefauver ’56, Shriver ’72, Ferraro ’84, Bentsen ’88 and Edwards ’04

The Contests
In 1932, anyone, including Ghengis Khan would have beaten Hoover, so Garner wasn’t as asset. 1936, 40, 44 were easy FDR wins – post depression and the war — so the Veep choices were irrelevant. Truman’s win in 1948 was an upset – but do you think anyone voted for Truman because of Alben Barkley? No one was beating General Eisenhower in 1952 or 1956 (times were good), especially an intellect like Adlai Stevenson — so even tho Sparkman brought him his state in ’52, it was irrelevant (but probably a good choice). Johnson won in a landslide in 1964 — so I don’t think Humphrey mattered that much. Muskie did bring in Maine in ’68 — but that year was such a disaster and Maine was too small too matter. For McGovern, Shriver was second choice behind Thomas Eagleton and didn’t deliver anyway — it was over before it started. McGovern lost 49 states in a landslide. Carter’s ’76 win had a lot to do with Watergate, and little to do with Mondale. Carter’s loss in 1980 had nothing to do with Mondale — and everything to do with Carter.

The only place I think the running mate actually helped with a win was in 1960 (Johnson definitely helped Kennedy) – Johnson was the ultimate crafty politician, delivered Texas and really knew Washington. Kennedy needed Texas to win. To a smaller extent Clinton was boosted in both 1992-96 with Gore (tho Clinton would have won without Tennessee in both cases). Bentsen helped Dukakis in 1988 from a political angle, but didn’t deliver Texas. There is NO doubt in my mind Lieberman hurt Gore in 2000 and contributed to his loss.

Now the Republicans
10 Presidential wins (2-each for Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, GW Bush, 1 for Hoover, GHW Bush). 14 different VP candidates.

6 were sitting VPs (Curtis, Nixon, Agnew, HW Bush, Quayle, Cheney), 5 senators, 3 Governors. In 12 of the 20 elections, the home state of the Vice President went into the “win” column for the Republicans – 2 less than the Democrats. The losing VP/states were Curtis ’32, Knox, ’36, McNary ’40, Warren ’48, Lodge ’60, Miller ’64, Agnew ’68, Kemp ’96.

The Wins
In 1928 Hoover was up against the first Catholic candidate – Al Smith of New York. Religion was the issue, Curtis surely didn’t matter. After the depression, the Republican party was poison for 16 years – Jimmy Stewart couldn’t haved saved the party. In 1952-56 Eisenhower was the hero general from WWII – Nixon if anything hurt him (see the Checkers speech). in 1960, Lodge from Massachusetts was negated by Kennedy from Massachusetts. 64- landslide, the GOP wasn’t read for Goldwater. For Nixon’s comeback in 1968 – the Democratic party was torn apart by the riots at the Chicago Convention and the 3rd party candidacy of George Wallace – Agnew was not an asset to Nixon. After the Nixon landslide in 1972, Agnew was forced to resign in disgrace in 1973 when he was found to have accepted bribes as governor of Maryland. Nixon appointed Ford. Reagan won in a landslide in both 1980 and 1984 – Mickey Mouse could have been his running mate and he would have won. HW Bush was brought in to balance Reagan with foreign policy and what happened? — at the first crisis – when Reagan was shot, Haig initially shoves Bush aside. In 1988, HW Bush won despite picking a joke like Dan Quayle (if anything it hurt him – he was the first elected official to actually get into a fight with a fictional character, Murphy Brown) — but won more due to the fact Dukakis was such a weak candidate. As for Bush ’00-’04 — need I say anything. Cheney didn’t bring him the presidency, Sandra Day O’Connor did. I still cannot figure 2004.

Probably the only running mate that helped the Presidential candidate for the Republicans was Earl Warren, Governor of California. But Dewey was supposed to win and didn’t, and Warren did not bring in California – so I guess he really didn’t help. Lodge didn’t help Nixon in ’60, Dole surely didn’t help Ford in ’76, and Kemp ’96 was a non-starter for Dole. If anything, Quayle hurt HW Bush in ’92 – but HW’s loss was probably more due to “read my lips, no new taxes” and Ross Perot.

Again — the VP candidate was practically irrelevant in the outcome.

Of 20 elections — the Vice Presidential candidate actually made a difference – ONCE – to the Democrats in 1960. And to a lesser extent in 1992-96. So we are going to spend the next 3 months handicapping, predicting and spewing lots of hot air — talking about a person that in the end means practically nothing to the election outcome.

Welcome to the USA – land of buried heads in the sand