What WERE They Thinking? VP Choices...

[JSojourner]

Hey gang...I'm going to list all the VP choices in the two major parties (and a couple Indie runs) since I have been alive.  Some were elected, some were not.  But what I want you to do is tell me -- why were these candidates chosen?  What was the party (or the guy on the top of the ticket) thinking when he picked this person?  Some are more obvious than others, but mainly -- I just wanted to take your pulse on this.  Feel free to discuss names who might have been better choices.

2004

Kerry chooses Edwards

2000

Gore chooses Lieberman
Bush "chooses" Cheney

1996

Dole chooses Kemp

1992

Clinton chooses Gore
Perot chooses Stockdale

1988

Bush chooses Quayle
Dukakis chooses Bentsen

1984

Mondale chooses Ferarro

1980

Reagan chooses Bush
Anderson chooses Lucey

1976

Ford chooses Dole
Carter chooses Mondale

1972

McGovern chooses Eagleton Shriver

1968

Nixon chooses Agnew
Humphrey chooses Muskie
Wallace chooses LeMay

1964

Johnson keeps Humphrey
Goldwater chooses Miller

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'd say that on paper the dumbest pick would have to be Mondale picking Ferraro, but McGovern was the worst in practice.  Kerry, Dukakis, and Ford made sense on paper, even if they didn't work out well.  Goldwater only chose Miller to piss off LBJ, so there's not much to say on that.  I'd say the best choice here would be either Reagan picking Bush, or LBJ taking HHH.  Clinton/Gore is my favorite, because it contains two young, moderate Southerners on one ticket, which is my dream ticket.

[Meeker]

2004

Kerry chooses Edwards - Jewish conspiracy

2000

Gore chooses Lieberman - Jewish conspiracy
Bush "chooses" Cheney - Jewish conspiracy

1996

Dole chooses Kemp - Jewish conspiracy

1992

Clinton chooses Gore - Jewish conspiracy
Perot chooses Stockdale - Jewish conspiracy

1988

Bush chooses Quayle - Jewish conspiracy
Dukakis chooses Bentsen - Jewish conspiracy

1984

Mondale chooses Ferarro - Jewish conspiracy

1980

Reagan chooses Bush - Gay conspiracy
Anderson chooses Lucey - Jewish conspiracy

1976

Ford chooses Dole - Jewish conspiracy
Carter chooses Mondale - Jewish conspiracy

1972

McGovern chooses Eagleton Shriver - Jewish conspiracy

1968

Nixon chooses Agnew - Jewish conspiracy
Humphrey chooses Muskie - Jewish conspiracy
Wallace chooses LeMay - Jewish conspiracy

1964

Johnson keeps Humphrey - Jewish conspiracy
Goldwater chooses Miller - Jewish conspiracy

[Robespierre's Jaw]

The worst selection out of the pack was Walter Mondale's 1984 selection of Geraldine Ferraro. There were many other better women Mondale could have selected, such as then Mayor Dianne Feinstein. Though in all honesty, Mondale should have selected Gary Hart.

[dead0man]

I agree with most of  your list, but who do you think Wallace could have picked that would have helped him more than LeMay?

[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

[JSojourner]

I agree with most of  your list, but who do you think Wallace could have picked that would have helped him more than LeMay?

LeMay may have been the perfect pick for Wallace.  I am just asking, with each of these, what you guys think was in the mind of the Presidential nominee.  Perhaps I should have stated the question more clearly.

What was Reagan thinking when he chose Bush?  Was it party unification, regional balance, add a foreign policy wonk to the ticket, etc?

I don't know if any of these picks were right or wrong.  I'm just trying to get at the rationale behind each pick.  So sorry, everyone, if I are confuzing!  :-)  Thanks, Dead!

[JSojourner]

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

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.

[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

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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

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

[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.

[jeron]

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.

[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.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

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.

[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.

[Michael Z]

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.

Why didn't Bentsen run for President in '88 in the first place?!

[Joe Republic]

Why didn't Bentsen run for President in '88 in the first place?!

He possibly still held bitter memories of his utter failure in 1976.  But that is my own speculation.

[JSojourner]

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

DUH!  Thanks JJ -- my mistake.  Right, you are!

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Why didn't Bentsen run for President in '88 in the first place?!

He possibly still held bitter memories of his utter failure in 1976.  But that is my own speculation.

That probably is the case Joe. Boy did he screw up his campaign in '76. Now I would have easily preferred Bentsen to have been the Democrat's candidate in 1976 than that peanut farmer from Plains. If only he performed better....

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.

[Michael Z]

Why didn't Bentsen run for President in '88 in the first place?!

He possibly still held bitter memories of his utter failure in 1976.  But that is my own speculation.

That probably is the case Joe. Boy did he screw up his campaign in '76. Now I would have easily preferred Bentsen to have been the Democrat's candidate in 1976 than that peanut farmer from Plains. If only he performed better....

He was up against some heavyweights in '76 though. Udall, Jackson and, yes, Carter. By 1988 he was an elder statesman and a very respected figure in his party... surely he would have been a firm favorite for the nomination?

[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.

[Erc]

I agree with most of  your list, but who do you think Wallace could have picked that would have helped him more than LeMay?

LeMay may have been the perfect pick for Wallace.  I am just asking, with each of these, what you guys think was in the mind of the Presidential nominee.  Perhaps I should have stated the question more clearly.

What was Reagan thinking when he chose Bush?  Was it party unification, regional balance, add a foreign policy wonk to the ticket, etc?

I don't know if any of these picks were right or wrong.  I'm just trying to get at the rationale behind each pick.  So sorry, everyone, if I are confuzing!  :-)  Thanks, Dead!

I always got the impression that the LeMay pick substantially hurt Wallace.  Yes, it had the potential to give him some gravitas and give the Wallace campaign some more appeal than pure segregation...but I thought that LeMay was horrible on the campaign trail and managed to lose Wallace a good third of his support by advocating nuking North Vietnam...


As for some of the others...I can't really agree with J.J. on the Lucey pick.  Of what he could get, it wasn't bad...but he was hardly prominent.  His failure to get anyone better than Lucey said something about his campaign.

Bush in '80 may have been little more than a last-ditch fallback option after the proposed deal with Ford fell through.  The fact that it worked out so well is rather incredible.

[JSojourner]

I agree with most of  your list, but who do you think Wallace could have picked that would have helped him more than LeMay?

LeMay may have been the perfect pick for Wallace.  I am just asking, with each of these, what you guys think was in the mind of the Presidential nominee.  Perhaps I should have stated the question more clearly.

What was Reagan thinking when he chose Bush?  Was it party unification, regional balance, add a foreign policy wonk to the ticket, etc?

I don't know if any of these picks were right or wrong.  I'm just trying to get at the rationale behind each pick.  So sorry, everyone, if I are confuzing!  :-)  Thanks, Dead!

I always got the impression that the LeMay pick substantially hurt Wallace.  Yes, it had the potential to give him some gravitas and give the Wallace campaign some more appeal than pure segregation...but I thought that LeMay was horrible on the campaign trail and managed to lose Wallace a good third of his support by advocating nuking North Vietnam...


As for some of the others...I can't really agree with J.J. on the Lucey pick.  Of what he could get, it wasn't bad...but he was hardly prominent.  His failure to get anyone better than Lucey said something about his campaign.

Bush in '80 may have been little more than a last-ditch fallback option after the proposed deal with Ford fell through.  The fact that it worked out so well is rather incredible.

Aside from Ford, I don't think any Republican had a better resume than George H.W. Bush.  It's disappointing that he gave in to Reagan on abortion and "had a change of heart".  But that's hardly new.  Gore was pretty much anti-choice until his 1988 bid for the Presidency.  And Kemp discovered some pretty sudden changes of heart to get on the ticket with Dole.

I really think Dole could have chosen a much better running mate.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I really think Dole could have chosen a much better running mate.

I think Dole could have chosen a much better running mate too. However, I believe Dole's selection of Kemp was the only one acceptable to both moderates and conservatives in the GOP.

Now say, if Dole had selected somebody pro-choice like William Weld, Buchanan would have gone apesh**t and ran under the US Taxpayers Party banner taking a significant share of the vote away from the GOP. But saying this, it was unlikely that the Republicans were going to win with Dole in 1996, with or without Buchanan's support.

[JSojourner]

I really think Dole could have chosen a much better running mate.

I think Dole could have chosen a much better running mate too. However, I believe Dole's selection of Kemp was the only one acceptable to both moderates and conservatives in the GOP.

Now say, if Dole had selected somebody pro-choice like William Weld, Buchanan would have gone apesh**t and ran under the US Taxpayers Party banner taking a significant share of the vote away from the GOP. But saying this, it was unlikely that the Republicans were going to win with Dole in 1996, with or without Buchanan's support.

Oh exactly.  I just wonder if there wasn't a conservative like Kemp, only substantially smarter.  Kemp always struck me as Dan Quayle, except basically a nice guy. 

Maybe a Dole-Alexander, Dole-Bennett, Dole-Engler or Dole-Campbell ticket?  I don't know that any of them are/were particularly smarter than Kemp, but might than have campaigned more effectively?  Hard to say, I guess. 

I suppose Kemp made sense because he had previously endorsed Forbes and this, theoretically, brought the two largest GOP primary camps together. I remember there being so much talk about Carroll Campbell, both as a Presidential and a VP candidate.  It still breaks me up to think about him dying so young, and of Alzheimer's to boot.