Balanced ticket

                In my last post, I considered the issue of the 'big mo.' One means by which a candidate might generate momentum behind their campaign is via the choice of running mate. The incumbent usually retains the vice-president, so the focus of the media tends to shift towards the challenger. Naturally, there are times when an incumbent is not in the running. This last occurred in 2008, when both parties put forward challengers. In that election, Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden was an adroit move. Biden offered balance to the overall ticket via his skin color, relative age and by his association with the East Coast. McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin also sought to reflect a degree of balance on the Republican ticket due to her age, gender and social conservatism. However, McCain’s choice enabled the Democrats and liberal elements of the media to portray the Republicans as right-wing extremists, particularly on social issues. Her lack of verbal dexterity might have also raised doubts amongst the public. In stark contrast, Romney’s choice in 2012 was a safe one. Paul Ryan offered balance to the Republican ticket in terms of his relative youth and fiscal conservative disposition. Romney’s choice did not however energize the electorate. According to the opinion polls, Ryan’s appointment offered little to the campaign. We may have therefore reached a stage in which the choice of a running mate adds little to that candidate’s chances, but the ‘wrong’ choice can do some damage (as in the case of Palin in 2008).

                Conventionally, it has been assumed that a party needs to offer a balanced ticket in order to win the presidential election. However, this is not necessarily the case. Back in 1992, the Democrats combined two southern, middle-aged Democrats from the DLC wing of the party in Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Whilst this strategy paid electoral dividends for the Democrats during the 1990s, there is always the possibility that certain groups within the party (such as those on the left of the Democrats and those on the right of the GOP) may feel marginalized in some way. This may well deter voters from the party base, drive away potential backers or even discourage potential activists from joining the campaign. Party activists tend to be more ideologically driven than those on the party’s ticket.

                The choice of vice-president often generates a certain frisson of media interest. In contrast, the public are often underwhelmed by the choice. The only truly memorable appointment since the turn of the century remains that of Sarah Palin, who both energized social conservatives and provided something of a godsend to those who sought to ridicule the GOP. She was also quite a boon to comedians such as Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live. Yet despite all this, the choice of vice-president matters for two reasons. Firstly, he or she is literally a heart-beat away from the presidency. This is more than just an academic point. Four presidents have been assassinated whilst in office, and countless attempts have been made on the man who occupies the Oval Office. Secondly, the vice-president can play a key role within an administration. Gone are the days when the post could be compared to a “bucket of warm spit” or dismissed as “handmade for ridicule.” The past three administrations have all made significant use of the vice-president in some capacity. During the Clinton administration, Al Gore played a key role over issues such as the environment and the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. For his part, Obama has made repeated use of Joe Biden in regards to gaining support from his former colleagues in the Senate. Biden’s personal touch enables the administration to reach those parts that Obama finds difficult to reach. Yet the most powerful figure of modern times remains Dick Cheney. He was rightly described as a big player within the Bush administration (Blumenthal, 2006; Bush, 2010); perhaps even the power behind the throne. Some commentators (Gellman, 2008) even described him as the “shadow President” - a view I concur with.