View this post on the web at [link removed]

Political scientist Clinton Rossiter once said of the vice presidency that it is “a hollow shell of an office, an uncomfortable heir apparency sought by practically no one we should like to see as President.” John Nance Garner, who served two terms as vice president under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was even more blunt about it, allegedly saying that “the office is not worth a warm bucket of piss.”
Despite these inauspicious comments, perhaps it is John Adams, the country’s first vice president, whose take best captures the complexity of the vice presidency: “I am possessed of two separate powers, the one in esse and the other in posse. I am the Vice-President. In this I am nothing, but I may be everything.” It is indeed an office in a quandary—as an office of few direct responsibilities (presiding over the Senate and breaking tie votes in that chamber being arguably the only official mandates of the job), the vice presidency is frequently the source of jokes or dismissed as irrelevant. Although in recent decades many scholars have charted the apparent rise of the vice presidency with George H.W. Bush, Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Joe Biden all taking on more responsibilities within the administrations they worked for, the office is dogged by the notion that it is a position in search of a justification. 
In 2024, however, we face a perhaps a greater-than-usual chance that the person who is elected vice president this November will soon hold the nation’s highest office. With 81-year-old Joe Biden again facing off against 77-year-old Donald Trump, this year’s election offers us the oldest presidential nominees we’ve ever seen in America.
The possibility that whoever wins the 2024 election dies or leaves office before 2028 is rather significant, and in turn, the choice of who our next vice president will be also takes on great consequence.
Even though we’ll be seeing a Biden-Trump rematch, Trump will be choosing a new running mate this time around—thanks to Mike Pence doing his constitutional duty of holding up the 2020 election results. Normally, we would expect such a decision to be made close to the convention in the mid-summer. However, it is quite possible that Trump may make the decision rather soon; he’s already indicated who’s on his short list.
A presidential candidate’s choice of who his or her running mate will be is truly a balancing act, a complex calculation of varying interests and concerns. Furthermore, this calculus is far from set in stone—and to be sure, it’s been changing in recent years.
The Vice Presidency Matters
Despite the verbal barbs many have lofted toward the office, there are two major reasons we should take the vice presidency very seriously. First, in recent years vice presidents have taken on a growing scope of responsibilities. For much of American history, vice presidents did remarkably little. But starting with the vice presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, presidents started to give vice presidents official tasks. Nixon attended cabinet and National Security Council meetings. (Nixon even chaired them in the president’s absence.) President Kennedy gave Johnson a general advisory role on national security matters and appointed him chairman of the National Aeronautics and Space Council.
The other reason why we ought to value the vice presidency is that vice presidents have a pretty good chance of ultimately ascending to the nation’s highest office. To date, only 43 individuals have been president, and that rather small number includes 14 former vice presidents. Nine unexpectedly assumed the presidency while serving as vice president (John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford), while five more came to the presidency through their own elections and not the death or resignation of the president (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush). 
We can also point to several “close calls” that could have easily expanded this list.  Grover Cleveland had cancer and underwent a very risky surgery—one kept secret from the public for decades—that, given the state of medical care in the 19th century, could have easily resulted in death. Woodrow Wilson suffered a severe stroke that left the office effectively empty for long stretches of time. Ronald Reagan survived being hit by an assassin’s bullet, was treated for cancer and may have developed the beginnings of Alzheimer’s disease before his second term ended. Bill Clinton engaged in a lurid sex life that, for a time, made his resignation a very real possibility in the minds of many.
And these are just the cases we know about. The trope about the vice president being a heartbeat away from the presidency happens to be true—and we should respect it as such.         
A Balancing Act
Once we recognize the importance of the vice presidency, the choice of a vice presidency candidate also becomes significant—as do the reasons that factor into selecting the person who would fill that role. Of course, the way such men (and two women, so far) have been chosen has varied immensely over time; indeed, one could make the case that the 58 vice presidents have been selected for 58 unique reasons. While there is some truth to that statement, running mates have largely been selected (1) to help the top of the ticket’s chances to win the presidency, and (2) to a lesser extent, to help the president achieve his policy goals.
To meet these dual aims, presidential candidates have traditionally considered a range of characteristics in choosing their running mates, meant to deliver balance to the ticket.
Geographical balance: For many years—although somewhat less so lately—one of the main considerations was the home state of the potential vice-presidential nominee. The working assumption is that a prominent politician from a populous swing state might be able to deliver his state, and in a close election, this might be crucial. In 1960, for example, Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy battled for the Democratic nomination, and when Kennedy finally triumphed, he asked Johnson to join the ticket as his running mate. It’s well established that Kennedy—a favorite son of Massachusetts—wanted Johnson’s help in winning Texas in particular, and to bolster his support in the South more generally.
This line of thinking seems to have declined in recent years—mainly because it’s simply a less effective strategy than it used to be. In the 19th century, when the United States was much less centralized—and our politics was more resolutely localized—it was quite likely that a strong vice-presidential candidate would win his home state. This seems much less certain today: Paul Ryan didn’t help Mitt Romney win Wisconsin, John Edwards didn’t deliver North Carolina for John Kerry and Lloyd Bentsen didn’t move Texas toward Michael Dukakis. (The Democrats’ second attempt at a “Boston to Austin” ticket was much less successful than the 1960 version.)
However, geographical balance as a VP consideration is not completely obsolete. In 2008, some Republicans wanted presidential nominee John McCain to choose Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty as his running mate in part because he might be able to bring his home state over to the Republican side. Barack Obama tapped Joe Biden as his vice-presidential choice that same year, partially on the belief that Biden’s appeal would help Obama win support in Biden’s state of birth—the populous swing state of Pennsylvania. The Obama-Biden ticket ended up winning the Keystone State by 10 points.
Ideological balance: Another consideration for the vice-presidential nod is the ideological perspective that person would bring to the ticket: To broaden the appeal of the ticket nationally, presidential nominees frequently look to select vice presidents with ideological perspectives that differ somewhat from their own. 
Sometimes this is done to add to the ticket a person who’s closer to the ideological middle and, thus, who might appeal to independent voters or even moderates from the opposite party. Let’s return to 1960: John Kennedy was considered fairly liberal, and so his choice of the more moderate Lyndon Johnson as his running mate helped to expand Kennedy’s somewhat limited ideological appeal. In the end, the Kennedy-Johnson ticket was an ideal one in that it strengthened the Democratic party both regionally and ideologically, while bringing in a legendary figure of Texas politics.
At other times, the goal is to heal party rifts. In 1976, the moderate sitting president Gerald Ford beat back a challenge from a much more conservative Ronald Reagan to win the Republican nomination. However, the battle between Ford and Reagan had been an intense one that seesawed back and forth as each man won primaries and delegates. When Reagan finally lost that battle, Ford was under a great deal of pressure to offer the vice-presidential nomination to someone perceived as a clear conservative. For many conservative Republicans, Reagan was their true champion, and Ford was simply not pure enough ideologically to warrant their full-fledged support.
In the end, Ford offered the spot to Kansas Senator Bob Dole. Dole was not likely to appeal to moderate or independent voters, but Ford needed to reassure conservative Republicans, and Dole was an acceptable candidate to those who supported Reagan.  Ford needed to unify and motivate Republicans, and to do this, he had to placate others within his party.
But when factoring in ideological balance, there’s always a challenge: If the vice-presidential candidate is too ideologically different from his running mate, there will inevitably be questions—how can the future president work with a vice president who is so different in his thinking? What does such a choice say about the values and beliefs of the nominees? A too-naked attempt to broaden a candidate’s appeal may backfire as charges of insincerity and inauthenticity will dog his every move. Indeed, in 1976, in a rather blatant attempt to wrest the Republican nomination from Gerald Ford, Reagan said if he won the nomination he would tap Pennsylvania senator Richard Schweiker to be his running mate. Senator Schweiker was a fairly moderate—at times, even liberal—Republican. This obvious attempt to woo moderate delegates over to Reagan was derided by the press and embarrassed Reagan’s conservative supporters.
Identity balance: Identity factors have been a growing consideration in the vice-presidential choice—religion, gender, race and ethnicity increasingly matter in the running mate selection. And given the rise of identity politics, this is not likely to diminish. 
Gender was certainly a factor when Democratic nominee Walter Mondale chose little-known congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate in 1984. More recently, Sarah Palin’s gender was clearly one of the factors that led John McCain to select her.  While neither helped Mondale or McCain win the office, the logic behind their choices was quite traditional—their selection was about bringing balance to their respective tickets.
While geography, ideology and, now, identity balance are among the top factors in the vice-presidential choice, there are certainly examples where the vice president was chosen for other reasons. Sometimes, it is the case that the presidential nominee believes he can work well with his running mate and trusts the other’s judgment. Or perhaps the vice-presidential nominee can offer valued experience and expertise that the potential president lacks. In 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush was clearly aware that he lacked Washington experience and would need help particularly in national security and foreign policy matters. Thus, Bush chose Dick Cheney of Wyoming. Geography clearly didn’t factor into the selection: Wyoming has a small and overwhelmingly Republican population. Nor did ideological balance: Bush’s credentials among conservatives were quite solid, and Cheney clearly would not appeal to moderates or independents. But Cheney had vast Washington experience, having served as Gerald Ford’s deputy chief of staff, a member of Congress from Wyoming and later as secretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. Few men had a more impressive governmental resume. (We should note for the more Machiavellian-minded, Gov. Bush had asked Cheney to head a committee that reviewed potential vice-presidential candidates, and Cheney basically ended up recommending himself for the job.) Thus, expertise and the ability to make a good working team sometimes trump electoral concerns. 
What Might Trump Be Thinking Today?
This year, Donald Trump could follow tradition and choose a running mate who would expand his appeal. However, in his own actions and speeches, Trump seems to have little interest in doing that. Indeed, the calculus of Trump’s vice-presidential choice this time around is particularly puzzling and unclear for us political watchers.
A big reason for this is that Trump’s ideology is remarkably flexible (or nonexistent, depending on how you look at things). For the Republican base, the party’s ideology has become belief in whatever Trump says. He is like the pope speaking ex cathedra. But since figuring out exactly what Trump’s ideology is is akin to nailing Jell-O to the wall, it makes determining a vice-presidential choice who would balance him out ideologically next to impossible.
In 2016, Trump selected Mike Pence as his running mate to reinforce connections with traditional conservatives. He may factor that into his pick again this year: With the Dobbs decision, abortion is a major political consideration in 2024, and Republicans are feeling pressure to navigate the new political terrain created by that decision. Trump is a relatively recent convert to the pro-life position, and in general, he continues to be to the left of his party on social issues. However, he has also solidified his support among the religious right, and in so doing he must continue to shore up their support by backing abortion restrictions.
So what factors do matter most to Trump in his upcoming VP selection? With Trump, the real issue isn’t expanding the base or swing states—though he may consider those aspects. The real factors are twofold—first, loyalty. After being “burned” by Pence, he is bound to want someone with unwavering devotion. In recent weeks, Senator Tim Scott has seemingly begun to audition for the job with over-the-top praise of Trump [ [link removed] ]. Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio [ [link removed] ], a strong Trump defender, is also in that group. But in these cases, Trump will be on the lookout for anyone who could upstage him. One thing Pence succeeded at until almost the end of his vice presidency was never upstaging Trump. He was, indeed, mocked at times for his seemingly slavish devotion. People who like the limelight too much may be suspect in Trump’s eyes. He demands loyalty, even sycophancy, but if potential VPs are too aggressive in auditioning for the job, it may appear as though they like the camera too much.
The second factor is, Trump may very well want someone who is a “splashy,” news-generating choice. He might well choose a nonpolitician to run with. This suggests we can’t rule out someone like Tucker Carlson. It would be on message and consistent for Trump to eschew any traditional political choice. If anything, he probably views his term in office as frustrating, as too many appointees with more traditional political and policy backgrounds tried to restrain him from doing what he wanted to do. Trump could very well use his selection of VP as a chance to emphatically say that he will no longer be constrained by traditional politics. Furthermore, it would help bolster his argument that even though he’s already been president, he’s still a political outsider. While this still seems unlikely, a wildly unorthodox pick is not out of the question.
Finally, there will be likely some pressure for Trump to choose a woman this year. Trump’s legal troubles have arisen, in part, based on how he has treated women in his past. He may very well want to reassure voters that he is a more sympathetic figure than his E. Jean Carroll and Stormy Daniels cases suggest. In that case, a figure like South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem may be a leading candidate [ [link removed] ].
This all leads to consider something important about Trump—namely, how much he has changed our system in fundamental ways versus how much he is simply an outlier. Will the post-Trump era, whenever it ends, create lasting effects for our politics? Trump’s choice of VP this round could be telling. The first time around, Trump was quite conventional in selecting Pence. Pence served a purpose in cementing Trump’s connection to the religious right, and Pence had a “normal” résumé of offices that one would assume for the VP spot—he’d been both a governor and a congressman. But if Trump goes in a new direction—say, by selecting a more unorthodox running mate—will that mean future nominees do so as well? Much of this hinges on whether he wins back the presidency or not: A loss might reinforce the notion that Trump and his ways of thinking were a mistake for Republicans. A win, however, would almost certainly confirm that Trump is the future and Republicans (and maybe Democrats) will need to look to celebrity and nontraditional choices for president and vice president. If Trump wins, even if he picks a traditional type of vice president, he himself held no elected office before the presidency. I suspect his triumph would mean nonpolitical figures will be part of the selection process going forward.
Probably the most important thing to remember when we think about VP picks is that no matter what calculations, electoral or otherwise, presidential nominees make in choosing their running mates, we are still talking about people. Trump’s personal inclinations, whether he “clicks” with the potential VP, matter a great deal. It is almost certainly the case that Trump will interview possible VPs very soon, if he isn’t already doing so. The way those meetings go, and even the mood Trump is in at those meetings, may ultimately override any other factors before he says, “You’re hired.”
Like much in this political era, the old ways of thinking seem less than secure, and the political landscape is in upheaval. The vice presidency has already changed much in recent decades, but it may be set for even bigger changes. Trump may ultimately pick someone with traditional credentials for traditional reasons. But that looks less certain than in years past. Particularly if Trump wins in 2024, whom he selects as a running mate and why could put the vice presidency on a trajectory yet to be seen.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?