At RealClearPolling Sean Trende doubles down on his complaints about the vice presidential picks of both parties:
When the election is over, one side will claim that the selection was obviously correct, given that the candidate won. Someone has to win, though, so let’s do a little pre-mortem.
Let’s recall that there are a handful of things that a pick can do. It can shore up a wavering portion of the party base, as Mike Pence did for Donald Trump in 2016. It can reinforce a message, as Al Gore did for Bill Clinton in 1992. Or it can help deliver a state, as LBJ likely did for JFK in 1960.
Walz still doesn’t seem to have delivered any of this. The polling in Minnesota is roughly where it was prior to the Walz pick. This means that Harris-Walz will carry the state, but Democrats were already poised to do that. Republicans haven’t won Minnesota since 1972. If they win it this cycle, the election is already over.
Moreover, there’s an opportunity cost here. Pennsylvania has continued to be the state with the closest polling. There is a charismatic, popular governor of the state who was passed over for the nod. Vice-presidential picks can’t do much, but they can move a state a point or so. In Pennsylvania, that difference appears to be meaningful.
What about Vance? He seems to have done his job, debating Walz skillfully and carrying the MAGA flag. But he also doesn’t seem to have energized voters beyond the party faithful.
I think that Sean is missing what has, sadly, become an additional distinctively contemporary motive for picking a vice presidential candidate: impeachment insurance. Don’t like the president? Would you like the vice president better? No—impeachment may not be a good choice.
I don’t think that’s the only reason that Joe Biden picked Kamala Harris for his vice president. He had promised to pick a “woman of color”. But Kamala Harris was not the only possible pick. However, she was clearly the most assertively progressive candidate he could pick. She didn’t help Biden carry a state or “shore up” a wavering part of the base. To the extent that she “reinforced a message” that message was clearly identity politics. Did that need reinforcement? I don’t think so.
However, she did discourage Republicans from pursuing impeachment proceedings against President Biden. It’s hard not to think that the choice was deliberate.
Now consider the vice presidential picks in that light. Republicans, would you prefer Tim Walz as president over Kamala Harris? I don’t so. Democrats, would you prefer J. D. Vance over Donald Trump. I doubt that even more.