In Passing on a Swing State VP, Harris Makes a Pick That Fits Recent History

KEY POINTS FROM THIS ARTICLE

— Although circumstances constricted Vice President Harris’s Veepstakes, she appears to have conducted a careful and thoughtful process that produced a good choice.

— Harris’s process was unique in its focus on Democratic governors and the selection of Gov. Tim Walz will be the first sitting governor as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 100 years.

— Although Harris vetted candidates from competitive states, like other recent presidential candidates she chose a running mate who was not from a true swing state, demonstrating again that vice presidential candidates are chosen for reasons other than their ability to carry a competitive state.

— Harris’s focus on candidates who had demonstrated political and governmental success in competitive and even red states suggests an emphasis on candidates who can appeal to centrist voters including those beyond the Democratic base.

— The rollout tour will be important in defining Walz in the public’s eye, elevating Harris from the role of vice president to presidential candidate, and demonstrating the themes of and dynamic between the Democratic ticket.

Introduction

Vice President Kamala Harris has selected her running mate, and her choice of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has illustrated some familiar patterns of prudent vice presidential selection even while breaking some new ground. And the pick provides insights into Harris even as it elevates Walz as a new voice on the national stage.

Walz is the first sitting governor to run for vice president on a Democratic ticket in 100 years and the third Minnesotan, following Hubert H. Humphrey and Walter F. Mondale, both of whom were elected to the second office, and the latter who transformed the office. Humphrey and Mondale had been presidential prospects before they became vice presidential candidates and each later ran unsuccessfully for the presidency, whereas Walz apparently disclaimed presidential ambitions during his vetting interviews.

In choosing Walz over Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, both from competitive states that were narrowly-decided and important pieces of the 306 electoral votes Democrats won in 2020, Harris demonstrated yet again that vice presidential selection turns on matters other than the over-hyped criterion of home-state advantage. Walz also had the most experience (17.5 years) in traditional vice presidential feeder positions (senator, governor, member of the House of Representatives, and holder of high federal executive office) of her options, which contrasts with the very limited experience (1.5 years) of his Republican counterpart, Ohio Sen. JD Vance.

Walz also had a diversity of experience. His success in flipping and holding for 6 terms what had been (and, after his departure, was again) a Republican congressional district and in enacting popular progressive measures as Minnesota’s governor as well as his performance in recent weeks on the national stage suggest a high level of political skill that could prove to be a political and governing asset to Harris. And his small-town origins and background as a high school teacher and coach and National Guardsman contribute to his ability to communicate with some voters who have been drifting from the Democratic side. The apparent compatibility between Harris and Walz and their mutual interest in issues, including economic mobility, suggest the possibility of a consequential vice presidency.

Harris’s confined, but effective, selection process

Circumstances allowed Vice President Harris the most circumscribed vice presidential selection process in the last half-century. The reliance on primaries and caucuses to choose presidential candidates beginning in the 1970s had the unintended consequence of transforming vice presidential selection, too. The identification of the presidential nominee well before the party convention has given presidential candidates 6 weeks to 6 months for their vice presidential selection and vetting process to occur. President Joe Biden’s 2020 vice presidential selection process, which chose Harris, lasted roughly 3 months. Some prior presidential candidates conducted their searches in ways that inadvertently compressed their time to consider the ultimate choice, but Harris’s process was squeezed at both ends by unprecedented external events beyond her control. She only transitioned from being President Joe Biden’s running mate to a presidential candidate on July 21 when Biden withdrew, becoming the putative Democratic presidential nominee the following day, so she could not begin the Veepstakes prior to July 22, less than a month before the Democratic convention begins on Aug. 19. Yet whereas most recent nominations had been announced between 1 and 6 days before the start of the party’s convention, Democratic Party concern regarding a possible ballot-access issue in Ohio confined the choice’s conclusion at the backend, too. Harris had to identify candidates, have them vetted, interview and consider them, and decide in about 2 1/2 weeks, and she had to do so even while performing campaign tasks that presidential candidates generally do over years—honing themes and messages, developing an organization, establishing relations with donors, and so forth. As is always the case, fully assessing the process will depend in part on more information becoming public and how events play out, but Harris appears to have constructed and conducted a very thoughtful and effective process that resulted in a well-considered pick who won praise from figures as ideologically diverse as Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and united the Democratic Party.

Harris chose Walz from a shortlist that included 4 governors (Walz, Shapiro, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois), a senator (Kelly), and a high federal executive official (Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg). Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina, who Harris also wanted to consider, withdrew, citing his state’s archaic law that would have empowered Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson to act in his absence from the state, a provision Cooper said Robinson had previously used to create some mischief.

Like other vice presidential selections, Harris’s was idiosyncratic in the sense that it involved a unique selector making her first vice presidential choice from a unique pool in a unique political context. Like her modern predecessors, Harris chose from co-partisans with experience in the 4 vice presidential feeder positions mentioned above. All had previously run for some office, as had every vice presidential nominee of both major parties since 1940 except R. Sargent Shriver, George McGovern’s second running mate in 1972.

In addition to passing a rigorous vetting screen, vice presidential candidates must also be presidential, or at least be seen as such by voters the ticket hopes to attract. They must also be ready and able to perform on a national stage. Those measures invariably filter some out of the original pool or eliminate others when the long and short lists are winnowed. With good reason: Vance’s early struggles and relatively high unfavorable ratings demonstrate the risks of choosing someone who is not ready for prime time. As discussed below, Harris seems to have applied those tests in choosing Walz.

Yet vice presidential selection is also relational, and the pool of options and the ultimate selection vary depending on the selector’s attributes, needs, and outlook. Harris is the 9th sitting[1] or former[2] vice president in modern times to choose a new running mate, but only the second woman and the second person of color ever to make such a choice. Sitting vice presidents especially face the challenge of emerging from their president’s shadow, and only one prior vice president/presidential candidate chose a running mate from the administration or closely associated with the president (Richard M. Nixon chose Dwight Eisenhower’s U.N. ambassador and 1952 campaign manager Henry Cabot Lodge as his 1960 running mate). Such a consideration may have made Sen. Chris Coons, an able Democratic senator but a close ally of President Biden, less appealing as a running mate than might otherwise have been the case. Demographic factors including age, gender, race, and ethnicity have routinely impacted the pool of those considered. Although vetting focused on 6 white men, some reports indicated that Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham were also invited to be considered, and other reports suggest Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan was. Demographic factors may have made past presidential candidates (and vice presidential contenders) like Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker less natural options than they might otherwise have been.

Harris’s greater focus on Democratic governors

Vetting pools often suggest attributes selectors seek. As compared to other Democratic selection processes, Harris’s was unusual in its focus on Democratic governors, since 4 of the 6 vettees plus Cooper (and Moore and Whitmer), were sitting governors. Historically, Democratic presidential candidates have tended to choose Washington insiders as the running mate, almost always senators. From 1940 to 2020, 16 of the 19 first-time Democratic vice presidential candidates were senators, a statistic that actually understates the Democrats’ Senate preference because two of the exceptions were chosen either after many senators declined the honor (Shriver) or when no Democratic women served in the Senate (Rep. Geraldine Ferraro). The preference for insiders has not depended on whether the selector was an insider (e.g. president, vice president, or senator) or an outsider (e.g. governor). The 5 tickets headed by governors all included an insider running mate (always a senator)[3] but so did all 14 tickets D.C. insiders headed[4] (with 11 of the 14 choosing senators as running mates).[5] Since 1960, every sitting or former vice president except Nixon (in 1968) chose an insider as their running mate.

A governor had not been awarded the second spot on a Democratic ticket since Charles W. Bryan of Nebraska became John W. Davis’s 1924 running mate largely due to ticket-balancing considerations. Democratic senators so dominated vice presidential nominations that very few governors even made short lists of Democratic presidential candidates.

Of course, Walz’s governmental experience combines service at both the federal and state levels and in the executive and legislative branches. In that respect, Walz resembles prior picks like Sens. Edmund S. Muskie and Tim Kaine, both of whom were governors before going to Congress, Mike Pence (who served in the House and then as governor), and others like Thomas Eagleton, Joe Lieberman, and Harris, who held statewide offices before going to D.C. As such, Walz’s experience was longer and more diverse than Harris’s other options and also included some involvement with foreign and defense matters through his service in the House and on its Armed Services and Veterans Affairs committees. The background of choices like Walz and Pence suggests that the insider-outsider label, like many categories, is imprecise.

The focus on candidates from competitive states

Harris’s process was also unique in its focus on candidates from relatively competitive states, including Shapiro and Kelly. Notwithstanding the emphasis political scientists and journalists persistently put on prospective running mates from competitive states, modern presidential candidates have not chosen based on that criteria. Other than John F. Kennedy’s selection of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960 (really to help carry the South, including Texas) it is hard to identify another modern instance when carrying a swing state seemed a primary factor. On the contrary, many vice presidential candidates during the period came from small states, from safe or unwinnable states, or were chosen under circumstances when it was unreasonable to think they would have appeal in their home state. Presidential candidates routinely chose running mates from smaller states over alternatives from larger ones. And, as Kyle Kondik and J. Miles Coleman recently pointed out in this space, analysts have reached different conclusions regarding the existence and magnitude of any home state vice presidential electoral effect.

Ultimately, Harris, like her predecessors, chose a running mate who did not bring the most obvious potential home state bump, emphasizing other selection factors instead, such as Walz’s presidential qualities, ability as a communicator, and compatibility. This consistent pattern of passing on candidates from competitive states makes it difficult to determine whether an attractive home state vice presidential candidate who focused significant attention in his or her home state might make a difference there, especially if running with a presidential candidate otherwise competitive in the state.

Many of those Harris vetted were Democratic centrists who, like Walz, had demonstrated political success in states or districts that were competitive or, in some cases, hostile to Democrats, by winning elections under such circumstances and remaining popular. That was true of Beshear (twice elected governor of Kentucky after previously being elected attorney general), Cooper (7 years as governor of North Carolina after 16 years as attorney general), Kelly (twice elected to the U.S. Senate in Arizona), Shapiro (2022 election as governor after 6 years as attorney general and prior service in the state legislature and local government) and Walz. Politicians able to succeed repeatedly in such venues may have the skills and approach to resonate with voters in a range of competitive states. Harris’s focus on so many Democratic centrists sends a message of receptivity to such views, and her selection of Walz represents in part a judgment that he can help in multiple places.

The important vice presidential rollout

Because Walz is relatively new to the national scene, both sides will be attempting to define him in the coming weeks, with a Democratic focus on the appealing aspects of Walz’s record and biography and a Republican focus on certain aspects of Walz’s record they will portray as left-wing as part of a broader effort to argue that the Democratic ticket is ideologically extreme. Harris and Walz have embarked on a tour of swing states that will provide both of them visible exposure and will introduce Walz to voters previously unaware of him. By contrast, Trump’s strange decision to postpone his vice presidential announcement to the Republican convention de-emphasized the vice presidency and denied Vance a typical rollout, much less the sort Walz will have. That Trump decision is not the source of Vance’s difficulties, but it did not help him as he attempts to define himself in the face of arguments that he is ideologically extreme and not ready to serve as president. Nor does it suggest that Trump views the vice presidency as robustly as does Harris.

Selecting a running mate helps any vice president seeking the presidency to transition in the public perception from the principal subordinate to the leader. For 3 1/2 years, Harris’s identity has been as the junior partner in Biden-Harris, but the selection of Walz emphasizes her new stature by elevating her to the leadership role in Harris-Walz. Instead of standing behind Biden, Walz will now stand behind her. The rollout tour prior to the convention will help solidify Harris’s enhanced stature and role as well as introducing Walz and demonstrating the dynamic between them.

Endnotes 

[1] Richard M. Nixon (1960, Amb. Henry Cabot Lodge), Hubert H. Humphrey (1968, Sen. Edmund S. Muskie), George H.W. Bush (1988, Sen. Dan Quayle), Al Gore (2000, Sen. Joe Lieberman)

[2] Lyndon B. Johnson (1964, Humphrey); Nixon (1968, Gov. Spiro T. Agnew); Gerald R. Ford (1976, Sen. Bob Dole), Walter F. Mondale (1984, Rep. Geraldine Ferraro), Joe Biden (2020, Harris). President Harry S. Truman is not included in the calculation. After Justice William O. Douglas refused Truman’s overtures to join his 1948 ticket, Truman somewhat reluctantly accepted the party’s choice of Sen. Alben Barkley. Nixon, of course, made two choices but is counted only once, producing 8 before Harris.

[3] Adlai E. Stevenson (1952, 1956), Jimmy Carter (1976), Michael Dukakis (1988), and Bill Clinton (1992).

[4] Franklin Roosevelt (1940, 1944), Harry S. Truman (1948), John F. Kennedy (1960), Lyndon B. Johnson (1964), Hubert H. Humphrey (1968), George S. McGovern (1972 I and II), Walter F. Mondale (1984) Al Gore (2000), John Kerry (2004), Barack Obama (2008), Hillary Clinton (2016), Joe Biden (2020).

[5] All but Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace, Shriver, and Ferraro.

Joel K. Goldstein is the author of The White House Vice Presidency: The Path to Significance, Mondale to Biden (2016) and other works on the American vice presidency.

See Other Political Commentaries.

See Other Commentaries by Joel K. Goldstein.

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate