What WERE They Thinking? VP Choices...

[J. J.]

2004

Kerry chooses Edwards

Opponent in primary, party unity, supposed populist with appeal to smaller towns and the South. C

2000

Gore chooses Lieberman

Appeal to the Jewish vote, especially in FL, distanced himself from Lewinsky scandal, balanced ticket ideologically.  A-

Bush "chooses" Cheney.  Experience in foreign policy. C-

1996

Dole chooses Kemp.  Age difference, solid Kemp reputation.  D-

1992

Clinton chooses Gore.  Ideological similar, increased inroads in the South. A

Perot chooses Stockdale.  Filler, but experienced in military.  B+

1988

Bush chooses Quayle.  Generational difference; appeal to the right.  In that race, C-.

Dukakis chooses Bentsen. 

National experience, attempt to pull TX.  F

1984

Mondale chooses Ferarro. 

Woman on the ticket.  D-



1980

Reagan chooses Bush

Primary Opponent, geographical and ideological base.  A+

Anderson chooses Lucey.  Experience, was willing to do it. A+

1976

Ford chooses Dole.  Ideological appeal. C-

Carter chooses Mondale.  Ideological appeal; geographic appeal.  B

1972

McGovern chooses Eagleton Shriver

Filler, known name. D-

1968

Nixon chooses Agnew

Georgraphic appeal.  B

Humphrey chooses Muskie

Geographic and ethnic appeal.  B

Wallace chooses LeMay.  Military experience,  C-

1964

Johnson keeps Humphrey.  Geographic, very similar dynamic to the Clinton Choice of Gore.  A

Goldwater chooses Miller

Catholic, geographic difference.  B

[J. J.]

I agree JJ -- excellent analysis.  I think you were a bit too generous to Kerry.  Edwards was a bad pick and Kerry would have been better served with Gephardt.

I only gave the Edwards choice a C.  Bayh or Gephradt would have been better.  Edwards didn't hurt, but didn't help.

And Johnson didn't "keep" Humphrey, because there was no VP after Kennedy was assassinated.  He chose Humphrey

[J. J.]

I think that Bentsen was actually a better pick for Dukakis than Ferraro was for Mondale.

The reason Bentson was put on the ticket was to hurt Bush in TX.  That failed miserably.

[J. J.]

Yes, but Dukakis was beyond helping in that election. You can't blame Bentson for Dukakis' losing of Texas, just like you can't blame Ferraro for Mondale losing New York. Fact is Ferraro was probably the worst possible VP candidate for Mondale, but then maybe he sensed he was going to lose anyway and he might as well pick any woman.

I'm just referring to the presidential nominee's decision.  No one could have saved Dukakis, but someone else could have increased his vote totals.

[J. J.]

I think that Bentsen was actually a better pick for Dukakis than Ferraro was for Mondale.

The reason Bentson was put on the ticket was to hurt Bush in TX.  That failed miserably.

Not to mention, many people thought at the time after Dukakis' decision, that Senator Bentsen should have been on top of the Democratic ticket in 1988 than Dukakis himself.

Oh, I absolutely would have voted for Bentson over Quayle or Dukakis, but as a nomination, it was exceptionally stupid.  It didn't help Dukakis win TX and Dukakis was overshadowed by him.

[J. J.]

J.J, I have some queries about giving Congressman Anderson's selection of Governor Lucey an A+. Sure Anderson's selection of Governor Lucey had the right motives, but it is my opinion that he didn't connect with potential Democratic voters with his selection of Lucey and it signaled that he wasn't able to win over any prominent Democrat, even after the four years of the Carter Administration.

Who should have Anderson selected in 1980 if he was to connect/win over prominent Democrats? Maybe Senator Teddy Kennedy but he would never have selected a running mate position.

You have to remember that very few Democrats who were willing to do it.  Lucey was an ex-governor from a moderately large state and a former Ambassador, so he was credible.  Geographically, he might have been able to knock WI into the Anderson camp, had Anderson done better.  He was probably the best option that Anderson could get.