Elections were the running mate made the difference?

[President Johnson]

The impact of a running mate is very old and controversal discussion. In which election did the VP really make a difference? I think we can all agree that only close elections fall into this category. LBJ would have won 1964 with any VP as did the Gipper in 1984.

My suggestions:

1848: Without Fillmore, Taylor couldn't win New York, the biggest prize at the time and therefore not the White House.

1960: Without LBJ, JFK would have done not so well in the south and Texas. He may have lost with another running mate.

1976: Mondale helped Carter a lot, especially in the region around the great lakes. With Ford winning Ohio and Wisconsin, he would have been in power for another four years.

[Xing]

I have to wonder what would have happened if Gore had picked a younger, more "exciting" running mate in 2000.

[Miles]

There was a piece in Politico a while ago saying that 1) Shaheen would be the only recent VP change that would flip the election by giving Gore NH and 2) in 1960, JFK had higher favorables in TX than LBJ.

[President Johnson]

There was a piece in Politico a while ago saying that 1) Shaheen would be the only recent VP change that would flip the election by giving Gore NH and 2) in 1960, JFK had higher favorables in TX than LBJ.

I doubt it. Although the Republicans nominated a strong candidate in 1960 for senate (John Tower), LBJ defeated him easily with 58% of the votes (he was running for reelection to the senate as well in 1960). With LBJ as the Democratic nominee, Texas wouldn't have been as close as it was.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2004 Gephardt would have helped Kerry slot more than Edwards with Union voters and Black voters in Ohio

[Skye]

Probably 1960?

[Miles]

There was a piece in Politico a while ago saying that 1) Shaheen would be the only recent VP change that would flip the election by giving Gore NH and 2) in 1960, JFK had higher favorables in TX than LBJ.

I doubt it. Although the Republicans nominated a strong candidate in 1960 for senate (John Tower), LBJ defeated him easily with 58% of the votes (he was running for reelection to the senate as well in 1960). With LBJ as the Democratic nominee, Texas wouldn't have been as close as it was.

Here we go:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ag]

According to internal polls conducted during the 1960 campaign, in Texas, Johnson was no more popular than Kennedy in terms of job approval, and in Louisiana Johnson was less popular than Kennedy.[/b])

[/quote]

Two observations. First, the "favorables" there would be an outcome of Kennedy/Johnson being part of a package, in which, of course, the presidential candidate dominates. Liberal carpetbaggers would be expressing their admiration for Kennedy without feeling the need to say the same about Johnson. In contrast, many conservative southerners would express their approval of Kennedy because he chose Johnson. And those who hated Kennedy enough to still hate him as part of this package would consider Johnson a trator. So, the fact that Kennedy had higher favorables does not mean that Johnson did not gain him supporters.

Second, of course, Johnson, whatever his popularity in the electorate, was pretty good at marshalling local resources.  He held a lot of IOUs. A lot of the local politicians and machine leaders felt obliged to do their best for Johnson. They would not have moved a finger for Kennedy.

[Sumner 1868]

Levi P. Morton in 1888?

[Buffalo Bill]

Not too many lately.  Keep in mind that half of the country doesn't know who the VP is even after 4 years in office. Not even a top 25 issue.  However, carrying a home state is one way to make a difference like Tim Kaine.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2000- Picking Liberman over Gephardt or Graham was a mistake for gore and cost him the election

1976- If Rockefeller was on the gop ticket I would say Ford would win that election as Dole really didnt help Ford win any states
 

[President Johnson]

2000- Picking Liberman over Gephardt or Graham was a mistake for gore and cost him the election

1976- If Rockefeller was on the gop ticket I would say Ford would win that election as Dole really didnt help Ford win any states
 

Agreed.

As much as I respect Bob Dole as a person, he didn't help Ford (unfortunately). Rocky could have delivered NY and with it the presidency. I think that even the Gipper would have been a better choice. He may have helped Ford in the south.

[Blair]

eh it's more the perceptions- people don't vote because they like having LBJ as Vice President but rather the media shape the narrative of the ticket being balanced etc.

This is why Clinton/Gore worked in 1992, and likewise why Clinton/Kaine will be seen to have worked (hopefully)

[Kingpoleon]

LBJ caused Kennedy's numbers in Texas to go down. Democrats like Allan Shivers and Coke Stevenson would have been more popular choices.

[Sir Mohamed]

I’d say Johnson helped Kennedy in 1960 in TX and other southern states like GA.

In 1976, Reagan could have saved Ford with a stronger performance in the south.

In 2000, Jeanne Shaheen could have put Gore over the top with NH’s four electoral votes.

[LLR]

Lieberman could've screwed it up for Gore

[ag]

eh it's more the perceptions- people don't vote because they like having LBJ as Vice President

It was not the matter of people liking LBJ as VP. It was LBJ bringing in the full force of his political machine: something that he would, probably, not have done if he were not on the ticket.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

2008 is the first example that comes to my mind.  If McCain wanted to solidify the conservative base, then he should've chosen someone who could do it without turning off moderates like Palin did.

[Mr. Smith]

2000: Gore should've picked Shaheen

1968: Humphrey should've tried harder for Sanford.

1984: Mondale could've won a few more states with someone besides Ferraro.

[Hilldog]

1960- Johnson
1992- Gore
2008- Palin (for the good at first, but not after a few weeks)

[HisGrace]

2008 is the first example that comes to my mind.  If McCain wanted to solidify the conservative base, then he should've chosen someone who could do it without turning off moderates like Palin did.

McCain was never going to win anyway, though, so it didn't make "the" difference.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Lieberman could've screwed it up for Gore

I was thinking of this. Nader spoiled him in more than Florida, after all, and he only needed one more state to win.

[The Arizonan]

I remember reading about how Richard Nixon picked Spiro Agnew because he was southern enough to attract the southern vote, but not too southern to turn off northerners.