Harris’s VP Choice: Her Options, and the Possible Home State Effects

KEY POINTS FROM THIS ARTICLE

— Because of the unprecedented nature of the 2024 campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris, who stepped up to lead the Democratic ticket less than two weeks ago, has had an unusually abbreviated window in which to vet her own vice presidential prospects.

— The leading contenders to join Harris on the ticket are Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), although we are watching several other names.

— If Harris picks a running mate from a true swing state (like Arizona or Pennsylvania), it would be unusual, at least considering recent history, as most recent picks have not come from states at the center of the electoral map.

— Research is mixed on the home state bonus afforded by running mates; if any effect does exist, it is likely small—although just a small effect could be decisive in a key state.

Harris’s VP considerations

Four years ago, when then-former Vice President Joe Biden was the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee, we wrote that it made sense for him to take his time selecting a running mate. But now, current Vice President Kamala Harris, who is to be formally nominated in a virtual process set to start today, does not exactly have the luxury of time as she mulls her own selection. Because of Biden’s late departure from the race—though it may seem like an eternity ago to some of us, he announced his exit less than a dozen days ago—the Harris campaign has had to condense the standard VP vetting period, which usually takes several months, into just a couple of weeks. Democrats want to get this wrapped up by Wednesday, Aug. 7, and recent reporting suggests Harris’s pick will come before that date.

On Tuesday, Harris is set to kick off a swing state tour along with her running mate in Philadelphia. Though the tour’s city of origin may suggest she’ll add a Pennsylvanian to the ticket, the Keystone State will be a critical electoral prize no matter who she selects. As Republican strategist Kevin Madden points out, while presidential nominees have frequently gone back to their home states to introduce their VP choice, in more recent elections, it has become more common for the pair to make their debut in a swing state.

At this point, it would be a major shock if Harris doesn’t end up replacing Biden on the ticket with another white man. Our thinking here partially has to do with the idea of having a “balanced” ticket, and is also probably due to the fact that Harris’s most prominent prospect who is a woman, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), has removed herself from consideration.

We would also stress that over the past few days, following the veepstakes has been sort of like following a roller coaster: there have been some abrupt twists and turns. Almost as soon as Biden announced his exit from the race, for instance, Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC) emerged as a leading VP choice—aside from the fact that Cooper himself has a strong resume for the position, Harris made several campaign appearances alongside him in North Carolina just within the past year. But on Monday, Cooper ruled out the possibility of joining the ticket, and it was also reported that he had never been interested in the vetting process. If Cooper leaves the state (for campaign purposes or otherwise), far-right Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson gets to temporarily serve as governor—Robinson is also the Republican nominee in the open-seat race to replace Cooper on a full-time basis. This is something that could have well factored into Cooper’s thinking.

But with Harris’s VP announcement seeming imminent, we thought we’d look at some of her top options, or at least the names that we’ve seen mentioned most frequently. In what follows, we’ll go through the pros and cons of several names that are listed in descending order based on, as far as we can tell, their rough likelihood of being selected.

Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA)

Pros: Three impressive statewide wins since 2016 on purple terrain; dynamic speaker; served as a state attorney general, like Harris, so could reinforce her credibility on issues of law and order; remains popular in a state that is very likely a must-win for Harris.

Cons: Has been governor for less than two years; progressives may be suspicious of his support for items like school vouchers and tax cuts, among other things; perhaps too transparent a play for a swing state; sexual harassment scandal involving former aide.

A quick aside on Shapiro: Upsetting the left by picking Shapiro could also be a positive for Harris, who is trying to move to the middle herself. Some far-left criticism of Shapiro, who is Jewish, seems unfortunately tinged with antisemitism, as the Atlantic’s Yair Rosenberg noted yesterday.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ)

Pros: His 2022 showing (against a J.D. Vance-like opponent) was the best result for a federal Democrat in Arizona since 1988; his wife, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D, AZ-8), would likely be an asset on the campaign trail; career as an astronaut; potentially helpful on border issues.

Cons: Though his seat would not immediately fall into jeopardy, it would be up in a 2026 special election, where the political environment could be tougher for Democrats; a bit of an unknown in the Midwest; Republicans will likely point to a business venture with China.

Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN)

Pros: Would give the ticket a modicum of Midwestern credibility; could provide some appeal to both the center and left; his background as a teacher may compliment Harris’s as a prosecutor.

Cons: Harris likely won’t be aching to carry Minnesota; occasionally took some more conservative stances, especially on guns, while in Congress; not the most charismatic orator on this list.

Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY)

Pros: Proven appeal to Trump voters; background as state attorney general would reinforce Harris’s resume; seems to relish the idea of debating J.D. Vance; UVA graduate (something that we like, at least!).

Cons: Relatively unknown on the national stage; may be trying too hard to get the VP nod; the national ticket will still lose Kentucky in a landslide.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg

Pros: Considered an effective communicator for the party; would not jeopardize Democrats’ hold on any elected offices; connections to the Midwest.

Cons: Doesn’t seem poised to provide any obvious state-specific boost to Harris; would potentially make it easier for Republicans to tie the ticket back to Biden’s unpopularity; no legislative or statewide executive experience.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL)

Pros: Very deep pockets; laundry list of progressive legislation; has worked to bring the historically red Chicago suburbs into the state Democratic coalition.

Cons: Harris is already set to carry Illinois easily; Republicans would likely bring up the state’s notoriously corrupt reputation (although ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who probably personifies that image to most Americans, strongly backs Trump); may not help Harris get to the center.

The electoral value of running mates

If Harris picks a running mate from a bona fide swing state, like Arizona or Pennsylvania, it may be the first time in awhile that a running mate came from a state that was truly at the heart of the competitive electoral map.

One recent pick, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), may qualify as a running mate from a key swing state, but the Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine ticket carried Virginia by a little over 5 points, and Virginia was not regarded as crucial to the outcome of that election. The same thing is probably true of then-Rep. Paul Ryan (R, WI-1), who was Mitt Romney’s running mate in 2012. Wisconsin was decided by a little less than 7 points, and it again was not really at the heart of 2012’s battleground map (although it did receive considerable time and attention from the candidates). We also don’t think that Clinton’s pick of Kaine or Romney’s pick of Ryan were selections that were driven primarily by the idea of turning in a better performance in their running mate’s home state—and even if Harris picks a swing-state running mate, we suspect that fact would be just one of several factors that informed her choice. Other first-time 21st century selections came from safe states: Dick Cheney of Wyoming/Texas and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut in 2000; John Edwards of North Carolina in 2004; Joe Biden of Delaware and Sarah Palin of Alaska in 2008; Mike Pence of Indiana in 2016; and Harris of California in 2020.

Al Gore, a senator from Tennessee when Bill Clinton tapped him as his running mate in 1992, did come from a state that was more competitive: The Clinton-Gore ticket won Tennessee by about 4.5 points in 1992 and about 2.5 in 1996. Whether Gore made the difference is ultimately impossible to know, and Gore himself lost his home state in his own 2000 presidential bid—but that loss has to be interpreted within the broader context of Democratic decline in the Greater South, as the Clinton-Gore ticket carried several other states in the region (Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia) in both 1992 and 1996  that Democrats have not come close to winning since.

Research varies on the impact of vice presidential picks in their home states, although it seems clear that if indeed there is an effect, it’s generally only small.

Political scientists Boris Heersink and Brenton Peterson found an average home state boost of about 2.5 points in their analysis of running mates selected during the 1884-2012 time period. Meanwhile, political scientists Christopher Devine and Kyle Kopko argued in their own analysis of that same timeframe that the home state vice presidential electoral advantage is largely a myth. Writing in 2012, elections analyst Nate Silver found that from 1920 to 2008, a running mate appeared to be worth, on average, about 2 points in their home state. His forecasting model for this year includes an estimated VP home state effect that is smaller the bigger a state is. So a Pennsylvania running mate is worth an estimated half a point in his model; an Arizona one is worth more like three-quarters of a point.

One key question if Harris picks, for instance, Shapiro of Pennsylvania or Kelly of Arizona, is how those states perform relative to the nation, and to other states. For instance, the Biden-Harris ticket won Pennsylvania by 1.2 points in 2020 while winning nationally by 4.5 points. Let’s say a Harris-Shapiro ticket wins Pennsylvania by 1.2 points, but the national margin is just 2 points. Even though Pennsylvania’s margin didn’t change, the Democrats held firm there while they lost ground nationally—so maybe Shapiro helped keep Democrats ahead in Pennsylvania even if the statewide margin didn’t change at all from 2020. One other way one could look at it is that Michigan (Biden by 2.8 points) usually votes slightly more Democratic for president than Pennsylvania does. But is Pennsylvania bluer than Michigan in 2024 with Shapiro on the ticket? That might also point to a Shapiro effect, although there may be other factors.

Though it is not a swing state, one recent example of this type of movement could have been Alaska. In 2012, as Obama’s national margin was cut nearly in half, he gained ground in 6 states—his largest improvement was in Alaska, which swung almost 8 percentage points towards him. While it is possible Democrats could have just done a better job turning out their votes in 2012 (the Democratic-leaning parts of the state saw the heaviest blue swings), Alaska’s swing suggests then-Gov. Sarah Palin had some home state pull in 2008. This also is a good example of a small-state running mate potentially being more helpful electorally at home, which makes some sense, as Silver writes: “in a smaller state, a politician is more likely to feel as though he’s from your proverbial backyard.” Devine and Kopko, cited above as being skeptical of the home-state VP effect, agree that small state running mates can be an exception.

A possible example of a home state effect coming in a larger state was North Carolina in 2004: It was the only formerly Confederate state that swung against George W. Bush from 2000 to 2004, although just barely (it was about half a point more Democratic in 2004). This came as Bush’s national popular vote margin improved by about 3 points from 2000 to 2004. Could that have been because of then-Sen. John Edwards’s (D) position on the national ticket? Possibly, although some of Bush’s most pronounced slippage came in areas like the Research Triangle and Charlotte’s Mecklenburg County—given the general trajectories of those places since then, they strike us as areas that could have moved blue regardless of Edwards.

As these examples show, there are many complications in trying to analyze the “VP effect.” But either a Shapiro or Kelly pick would provide an interesting test case in a state that is likely to be hotly contested.

Ratings-wise, we are unsure whether a running mate pick will prompt us to make a rating change in the VP’s home state. Shapiro in Pennsylvania may be the most enticing in that regard, as we did have Pennsylvania in Leans Democratic earlier this cycle and Shapiro is a popular governor. But we would want to see the choice and the reaction to it before doing that.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), does not come from a state that was all that competitive in 2016 or 2020. So there’s less to say about his electoral impact, and his early rollout has been fairly rocky, so he doesn’t seem like a great candidate to demonstrate a home state VP impact.

That said, the Trump-Vance ticket’s relative performance in Ohio is worth watching, and it hypothetically could have a down-ballot effect. Let’s say we see a national popular vote shift along the lines of what’s described in the Pennsylvania hypothetical—the Trump-Vance ticket loses the national popular vote by 2 points, or a 2.5-point Republican improvement from 2020. Meanwhile, Trump won Ohio by about 8 points in 2020. Let’s say he wins it by 12 in 2024, a bigger improvement than he made nationally. Down the ticket, let’s say Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) loses by half a point to businessman Bernie Moreno (R) in the Senate race. Did picking Vance contribute to Brown losing? Possibly, although you would have to look at what happened in the context of other results, too.

(For the record, the Vance selection did not cause us to change our analysis of the Ohio Senate race, which we continue to rate as a Toss-up. We’re just thinking out loud—something Vance himself seems to have done a lot in interviews, to his detriment now.)

Kyle Kondik is a Political Analyst at the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia and the Managing Editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball.

J. Miles Coleman is an elections analyst for Decision Desk HQ and a political cartographer. Follow him on Twitter @jmilescoleman.

See Other Political Commentary by Kyle Kondik.

See Other Political Commentary by J. Miles Coleman.

See Other Political Commentary.

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.