I hate to break it to this board, but VP picks largely don't matter.

They do matter, though they don't always show up in winning a state.

The Pence pick wasn't about winning Indiana - it was forging a political bond with the evangelical base. Trump had no relationship or history with the evangelical base, and had weakness with that part of the GOP heading out of the primary. The Pence pick was key to shoring that up. The Harris pick similarly wasn't about winning California - it was about strengthening the bond with the black base of the party.

Once the choice is made, the past record and campaign skills of the VP largely don't matter much - though there are exceptions (hi, Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle). The choice of the VP is important, but after that it doesn't matter too much. The VP is often just Surrogate #1 for campaigning and fundraising, which is certainly valuable but not all that much more so than other top-ranking surrogates.

Honestly, as U.S. political parties become more sorted on ideology and less on other more regional interests, geographic VP selections have become far less relevant than other factors.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.