Neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris selected as good a running mate for Vice President as possible. Neither Trump nor Harris has chosen a running mate likely to add philosophical diversity to his or her ticket. Rather, Trump and Harris have both made themselves more vulnerable to charges of extremism. For one of them, the choice of running mate could help lose the election.
Normally a party’s presidential nominee will try to broaden his appeal to the general election voters by selecting a running mate who will bring to the ticket certain strengths or traits the presidential nominee otherwise lacks. Consider:
- John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts selected Lyndon Johnson of Texas to win more votes in the South in 1960.
- Ronald Reagan, widely perceived in 1980 as possibly too conservative to be elected president, selected the more moderate George H. W. Bush to run with him.
- In 1988, Bush, widely perceived as too moderate for many Republicans, selected the more conservative Dan Quayle to run with him.
- George W. Bush and Barack Obama, widely seen as too inexperienced for the White House, selected more experienced insiders—Dick Cheney and Joe Biden, respectively–as their vice presidential nominees. And “Scranton Joe” Biden, at least, was able to also appeal to white working-class voters in a way Obama could not.
- Donald Trump in 2016, having no previous record of either piety or conservatism, selected the very pious and mainstream conservative Mike Pence, who with his experience in Congress and as Governor of Indiana also supplemented Trump’s lack of governmental experience.
- And of course Joe Biden, wanting the black female vote in 2020 and being neither black nor female himself, selected a running mate who was both (as well as an Asian-American—a bonus).
But neither Trump nor Harris has selected a running mates who add much to his or her respective. Vance’s Ohio would almost certainly go for Trump with or without Vance as his running mate. Tim Walz’s Minnesota last voted Republican in 1972. Harris needs no help from Walz to extend the Democrats’ winning streak by another four years.
Particularly noteworthy is the fact that neither Trump nor Harris wanted to broaden the philosophical appeal of his or her respective ticket. To the contrary, both presidential nominees selected running mates who are practically philosophical clones of their respective ticket heads.
This would not necessarily be a problem if Trump, Vance, Harris, and Walz were all credibly seen as political moderates—moderately conservative Republicans running against moderately liberal Democrats. But that’s not the case. Trump and Vance are both MAGA Republicans and Harris and Walz are both Progressives. And therein lies a problem that may well spell defeat for one of the tickets.
Given their choice between electing an extremist or a moderate to the White House, general election voters will invariably select the more seemingly moderate candidate. Indeed, a time-honored strategy in presidential campaigns is for each candidate to try to paint his or her rival as an extremist. The candidate most successful in doing so wins the election. For example, in 1964 President Lyndon Johnson won his bid for a full White House term in a landslide after portraying his opponent, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, as a right-wing radical bomb thrower. Richard Nixon in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1984 and George H. W. Bush in 1988, also won their respective campaigns after convincing the voters that their respective opponents, were too liberal.
Of course, the tactic doesn’t always work. In 1980 Jimmy Carter tried and failed to convince the voters that Ronald Reagan was an extremist. And sometimes, the issue of who’s the nut simply doesn’t come up at all. Its been absent in most of the elections since 1992.
But this year, Harris’s progressivism and Trump’s MAGA Republicanism can each be cited as evidence of extremism, and neither candidate has selected as a running mate someone who can credibly refute charges of extremism from the other side. Apparently neither presidential candidate saw the need for balance on his or her ticket. Harris saw no need to have her progressivism balanced by the relatively more moderate Arizona Senator Mark Kelly or Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro (or in Shapiro’s case she may have been concerned that his nomination would have strengthened the pro-Hamas anti-Semitic forces within the Democratic Party who have already threatened to demonstrate at the Democratic National Convention meeting next week). And Trump saw no need to extend his appeal in the GOP by selecting Nicki Haley, Marco Rubio, or Tim Scott to run with him.
In essence, therefore, each presidential nominee has chosen to wage a campaign by appealing to his or her respective base, with no significant effort to reach out to the great number of voters who are non-MAGA Republicans or moderately liberal rather than Progressive Democrats. The candidate most successful in winning the election may be the candidate most successful in arguing that his or her opponent is an extremist. But each candidate has weakened his or her respective chances of success by refusing to try to broaden his or her appeal to the center.
Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville since 1987 and taught politics and government at Tarleton for 36 years, retiring in 2023. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990-2024). He was Mayor pro-tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Stephenville
Economic Development Authority since 2018 and as chair of the Erath County Appraisal District’s Appraisal Review Board since 2015. He is also a member of the Stephenville Rotary Club, the Board of Vestry of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, and the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts’ Pecan Valley District. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.
Be the first to comment