COMMENTARY
In the latest twist of the “unprecedented” (I’m sick of hearing that word, BTW…I want to live in precedented times) 2024 election saga, Vice President Kamala Harris, who wasn’t even her party’s nominee for president a month ago, has chosen Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, officially ending the veepstakes—at least for now. Currently, Tim Walz of Minnesota and JD Vance of Ohio stand as the Democratic and Republican contenders for Vice President this fall. In the build-up to the selection of both VP nominees, there were a lot of questions about the elements influencing VP selections and the real impact of VPs on electoral outcomes. Everybody seemingly had a thought about who the picks should be and a strategy behind their thinking! Political science has a bit to say on these questions, so let’s see what we can learn from the field.
Historically, the selection of a vice-presidential candidate was predominantly the domain of party leaders, especially before the 1960 U.S. Presidential election. This period saw different criteria at play, with party strategists focusing heavily on the candidate's home state size and electoral value, hoping to secure crucial electoral votes due to the belief that a VP could deliver their state for the ticket. However, this approach has evolved as the parties gave up control over the VP selection process to the presidential nominee.
But what about the question of whether VPs actually do deliver their home state? Research indicates a clear edge for presidential candidates in their home states, with an average gain of about four percentage points. However, for vice-presidential candidates, this advantage is significantly less pronounced, often hovering around a single percentage point. Although this marginal increase rarely sways the overall electoral outcome, it isn't entirely insignificant. This work finds that in about 25% of elections, the presidential candidate mattered for winning their home state.
In comparison, according to this work, a mere 7% of VP candidates have delivered their home state in cases where their party otherwise wouldn't have won, suggesting a less frequent impact for VP candidates. Other work goes further though and argues that VP selection has not mattered except maybe for Mike Pence in 2016. Contrary to this dominant view, some work finds that VPs could influence outcomes in their home state by up to three percentage points and frequently sway elections.
My takeaway on this literature for you is this: 7% isn’t never, and one to three percentage points aren’t nothing when some states will be decided by less than that. So, maybe Senator Vance will matter in Ohio and Tim Walz in Minnesota. I guess we will find out in November.
However, if delivering electoral votes from their home state isn’t a game-changer, what other roles do VPs play? The VP selection is often seen as a reflection of the presidential nominee's decision-making prowess. A well-chosen running mate signals sound judgment and reflects a candidate’s priorities, potentially shaping voter perceptions and indirectly boosting electoral chances. One of the VP selections that has gotten the most case study attention in this area has been the selection of Sarah Palin by John McCain as his VP nominee. Most research suggests the selection of Gov. Palin actually hurt Sen. McCain, particularly with independents and moderate Republicans. Relatedly to this discussion, voters seemingly place an electoral value on VP picks with extensive experience, particularly in statewide or federal offices, and this experience may influence voter decision-making.
Beyond how VPs might influence electoral results, what other factors might matter in selecting someone to be a VP candidate? Readiness for "primetime," including national (and maybe statewide) political experience and media exposure, is crucial. This fits with the above idea that voters seemingly care about VP experience. Demographics such as age, race/ethnicity, regional diversity, military experience, and religion also play significant roles, particularly if they are different than the presidential candidate. Furthermore, party dynamics, including factionalism and prior rivalries within the presidential candidate, can shape the selection process. However, importantly, this research is about why people get picked to be VP, not whether VP demographics matter to voters. Research suggests there’s not much evidence of VP demographics impacting election results.
How do Senator Vance and Governor Walz stack up according to the poli sci literature?
Senator Vance's selection by President Trump reflects a number of the selection factors political scientists have identified. His national media presence, stemming from his successful book and controversial statements, aligns with the need for national exposure. At half President Trump's age, with roots in Ohio rather than the East Coast, military experience, and a Catholic faith, Vance brings demographic diversity. However, his relative inexperience, with only 18 months in the Senate and no other public service experience, and his complex relationship with Trump—initially a critic turned supporter—highlighting what factors presidential candidates use to make VPs is complex. Notably, though, President Trump seems to believe that the Vice Presidential nominee does not matter for electoral outcomes, which may explain why he chose the more inexperienced candidate over his other finalist, the more experienced North Dakota Governor Doug Bergum.
In comparison to President Trump, VP Harris seemingly does buy into the importance of experience as her finalists were all experienced government officials. Vice President Harris’ selection of Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota as her running mate underscores several key factors typically considered in vice-presidential picks. Walz, a white politician from Minnesota, brings military experience and a solid legislative background, having served six terms in Congress. He has also demonstrated his electoral strength with two successful statewide campaigns for Governor. Although his national profile has grown in recent weeks, his visibility began to rise during his initial gubernatorial campaign. Also, Walz’s extensive experience across the federal house and Minnesota Governorship has cultivated a broad network of supporters, including elected officials from Minnesota, members of Congress, and labor unions which appeared to help drive his selection. Notably, he has never been a political rival to Harris, which perhaps creates fewer opportunities for awkwardness compared to the Trump/Vance campaign. Funny enough, when I started looking at the literature on VP selection, I told people that the literature suggested Walz or Buttigieg had the highest likelihood of being nominated based off the poli sci measures outlined above. So, score one for poli sci research!
As the nation stands at a crossroads, the vice-presidential selections remind us that the presidential election is not just about who occupies the highest office, but also about those poised to step in to serve as president at a moment’s notice. In an election defined by a whole lot of uncertainty and division, the running mates may matter more than maybe research has found previously. I mean, we had a national political party actually behave like one this year, so I guess anything is possible. Further, considering everything that has happened so far in this race, I wouldn’t be shocked if there were to be some other completely “unprecedented” (yuck) development in this race before election day. If that happens, well…I guess we will see what political science research can tell us about that one. Personally, my fingers are crossed for extraterrestrials.
P.S. Considering what the political science research above says, if you, exactly as you are now, woke up tomorrow with the presidential nomination of your preferred party who would you take as your VP pick? I’m thinking about politicians, but if you got a wild card celeb, or your favorite Aunt that you think would bring something to your ticket, have at it!
