A friendly reminder: VPs don't win elections.

[Clarkie1]

I just get the feeling some Du'ers need a little reminding of this political truism...also let's get refocused on the senate, etc., in 06'.

[merwin]

1. On the contrary, Gore won in 2000.

Just because the Supreme Court 'chose' Bush after Gore won doesn't hide the fact that Gore won.

[Clarkie1]

2. That's not what I meant.

I meant the VP doesn't achieve victory for the ticket.

[merwin]

5. But if it was a polarizing figure like Dean, it would certainly help.

Basically, if the runningmate is the head/symbol of a group or movement, you can be pretty sure that they'll vote for them even if they don't necessarily agree with everything the presidential candidate says.

That's why I'd go for a progressive president and a moderate VP. The moderates will be much more likely to vote for the democrat, if the choices are left president, moderate vp against right president, right vp.

[Art_from_Ark]

6. Sometimes the VP pick can doom the ticket, though

Remember the Thomas Eagleton fiasco in 1972? Senator Eagleton was George McGovern's first choice for Vice Presidential running mate, but the news that Eagleton had undergone some sort of psychological counseling at one time or another set the media on a feeding frenzy and sent McGovern scrambling for a replacement. McGovern's campaign never recovered from that.

[yellowcanine]

13. McGovern wasn't going to win even with Jesus Christ as VP. And I voted

for him. My first vote and damn proud of it!

[Art_from_Ark]

15. You are probably right

However, for several weeks the damn news media was constantly harping about Eagleton's "psychiatric problems". I know that turned off a lot of potential McGovern voters in Arkansas at least.

[bowens43]

8. Johnson got the win for Kennedy.

Without him, the very close election of 1960 would have gone to Nixon.

[eallen]

10. The dead in Uvalde don't vote like they once did.

[unrepuke]

12. The dead in Chicago vote more than ever

[Toots]

14. A lot of Republicans only voted for Bush* because of Cheney

I don't think he would have gotten selected without Cheney..

[Ken Burch]

3. that's not exactly what was meant, I think

The point of the thread was that elections aren't necessarily decided by one's choice of running mate.

If they did, Nixon would've been doomed when he picked Agnew.
Same with Bush/Quayle.

(Incidentally, my current theory is that Dan Quayle was chosen because he had the same drawbacks as a candidate as young Dub, and his placement on the team was meant as a chance to test out strategies for counteracting those flaws. Seems to have given them an effective strategy, at least in electoral terms.)

[Yupster]

4. Supposedly Bush was going to pick Kemp

He was seen as a charismatic pretty face, but he was also seen as trouble and not a good follower of orders.

S Quayle was the alternative. Kemp without the troublemaking.

[Lindacooks]

7. You mean like Bush in 1988?

[many a good man]

9. Just a bucket of warm spit

In the past it was always a place to dump the nominee's chief rival. They only thing its good for politically is to nudge you over and pick up the veep's home state that you might have lost otherwise. The head of the ticket is the only that counts in presidential politics.

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. Especially if they've lost before.

This is why Richard Nixon vanished from history after 1960.