There are three schools of thought on discussing the veepstakes: the first is discussion doesn’t matter - Trump will tell us who it is when he’s ready, so discussion at this point is uninteresting at least. The second school of thought is we can somehow influence the pick through speculation - trial ballooning candidates among us. (no, I’m not suggesting anybody with Trump’s ear reads this, even if they should!). Put me in the third school: it’s interesting to discuss what should influence the decision. Because there’s a lot at stake here and it may really matter one day. Who Trump picks may give a lot of insight into his thinking not just in the campaign, but beyond.
Most pundits agree and even Trump himself has said that the vice president pick is irrelevant to the campaign: "The VP choice has absolutely no impact. It's whoever the president is." But then he went on to say, "You would like to get somebody that could help you from the voter standpoint and honestly, all of those people are good. They're all good. They're all solid."
So on one hand it has “absolutely no impact” while on the other, the pick “could help you”. Which is it, and does it matter? Also, while this election is certainly important, the veep pick can determine the future of the Republican party - if that’s a consideration - which it should be.
Then there’s another point to this pick- a poor choice can cost you votes by handing the media a punching bag. And they’ll certainly try that anyway, so best to not make it easy. So whatever anybody says, the pick can be wrong.
I think up front it matters that Trump doesn’t pick a political liability. The vetting process should be rigorous, because Democrat opposition research will find every imaginable fault (and I mean imaginable, literally). It almost goes without saying that anybody associated with Trump is going to be savaged in the worst way. Is the candidate, and their family, ready for this?
Assuming Trump screens out any reasonable political liabilities, what then should guide his choice? Well there’s the Constitution, for starters. So the candidate must be a US citizen, at least 35 years old and have lived in the US at least 14 years. Then there’s the issue of state residency - the president and VP cannot be residents of the same state without forfeiting that state’s electors (sorry Gov DeSantis, you’re not worth 30 EVs!). And you don’t want to get cute with the law here. DeSantis is the sitting governor of FL - he can’t possibly change his residency. And if Trump were to attempt anything along those lines, it would be challenged aggressively. Not worth it.
What are the qualitative considerations?
The MAGA movement has largely subsumed the Republican Party today. As Trump leaves office in 2029, you’d like an able hand to pass the torch to. An heir apparent that will be solid, loyal and trustworthy to the cause. Picking an establishment GOP candidate would threaten this. Ideally, Trump wants someone he can campaign for after he leaves office. There’s also the problem with a pick that turns off the base in this election.
So I don’t see an establishment GOP pick, like Nikki, but she’s still got to be a contender. Why? Well, she brings the establishment a seat at the table, which means real money - and she’d shore up the vote with hemorrhaging women votes in this campaign.
Conventional wisdom on race, sex and geographic (home state) dynamics is what the pundits love to talk about but falls into that category of “hasn’t mattered historically”. Biden picked a black woman - from California - as his running mate, but it’s not likely that Harris swung any votes in California, or among females, or influenced the black vote - all those were “baked into” the Democrat vote long before the last election. In Trump’s first bid, he picked a pasty white guy from Indiana - no blocks checked there. Obama picked a pasty white guy from deep blue Delaware…and won twice.
But can a demographic pick help Trump this time? The answer is maybe? It depends. If you’re going to go down the race-sex-geography looking glass, you’re not going to find a perfect candidate, but I’ll explore these briefly:
Race. Trump is (supposedly, according to numerous polls) gaining a lot of ground among black and Hispanic voters. At 20% with black voters (a major move away from low single digits typical for Republicans), a Senator Tim Scott pick could cement those numbers in or even increase them on election day. The Hispanic vote is measuring 42% for Trump now, but there’s not an Hispanic candidate in the short list, and the Hispanic vote is animated by Trump’s strong stance on immigration, so he doesn’t “need” an Hispanic pick so much. I don’t think Vivek Ramaswamy - who’s certainly not white - would help with the black or Hispanic vote, but he resonates with some younger voters, who see age as a significant discriminator in a race led by a septuagenarian and an octogenarian. Vivek’s strength to the ticket would stem from his bold entrepreneurial spirit and engaging intelligence.
Sex. The conventional wisdom is that Republicans in general, and Trump in particular, perform poorly with women voters. And 2024 is no different. Trump is seriously getting killed by women voters. Like by 16 points. Picking a woman as his running mate might help Trump with that problem, but if the abortion issue is animating this tilt toward Biden, picking a staunch pro-life woman, like SD Gov Kristi Noem, is not likely to swing many women over. Plus Noem may come across as another Sarah Palin pick, a “Caribou Barbie”. And Trump already has the pro-life, pro-gun, evangelical woman vote locked up. Trump may be better off writing off the AWFULs - Affluent White Female Urban Liberals - and use his pick to motivate the base. Noem would do that. But it didn’t work for McCain. So we’re back to Nikki.
Geography. In the modern era, what state the veep is from really hasn’t played a role. Conventionally, the presidential candidate “counts on” the veep to deliver their home state, but there’s no chance a Republican veep candidate is going to swing NY, NJ or California. But what about a “swing state” like Arizona or Michigan or Georgia? Kari Lake hales from Arizona, a swing state - but Lake has failed to win the governorship there recently, so would she be a help to Trump this year? And as for the women vote, Lake is largely undifferentiated from Noem - she’d bring the same pro-life evangelicals that are already solidly in Trump’s camp.
Another angle pundits like to explore is the “covering your weakness” pick. This was why Obama picked Biden - for foreign policy and congressional chops (don’t laugh but yeah, that was the reasoning). But Trump already has a record on economics and foreign policy, so he doesn’t need a Senator Tom Cotton to bolster his foreign policy bona fides. And if “getting things done” through Congress matters, the WH Chief of Staff usually covers this role.
But Tom Cotton would cover a major weakness in Trump - Cotton is an authentic combat veteran, an Airborne Ranger with a Combat Infantry Badge, having led troops in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Cotton’s calm intelligence (Harvard Law) and thoughtful demeanor would counterbalance Trump’s bombast. Cotton would also be unflinchingly loyal to his boss and would never become a problem to be managed. I do think his presence on the ballot would lend a sense of gravitas and seriousness that would be attractive to independents and otherwise undecided voters.
So what should Trump do? Well, before we get to that, realize that Trump is certainly using an internal pollster. He used internal polls to target his win in 2016 and he used them again in 2020. If his internals are saying one of these “short listers” brings him stronger results, he’d be a fool not to take that into consideration. However, he’d be just as big a fool to rely on those internals against his own instinct.
That said, if his internals show he must have a woman, then that’s got to be Nikki Haley (I don’t see Lake or Noem helping him with women voters). If his internals show he needs a black veep choice, then that’s Senator Tim Scott. And if neither a black veep or a woman veep really helps him, then he needs to go with the gravitas guy, Sen Tom Cotton.
Frankly, I’m for the gravitas guy. I don’t see a Haley pick as good for the party at this point - we don’t need to be doing CPR on the establishment. And as for Tim Scott, whom I love, he’s already got Scott’s full-blown support on the campaign - what would he add as a veep candidate? And the optics of that vice presidential debate do not inspire me.
I’m not offering odds on any of this, of course. It’s Trump’s decision ultimately. But I think his decision will be shrewd and calculated.
As for the Sarah Palin analog, Kari Lake is far better going toe-to-toe with the media and the Left (but I repeat myself). Sarah didn't have that skill. Kari vs. Kamala would be a hoot, and maybe that would bring over some of the women who don't care for Trump? 'course Cotton vs. Kamala would be one-sided, but who would that bring in?
I don't have a clue. My views have been crap for 15 years at least.
"the president and VP cannot be residents of the same state without forfeiting that state’s electors"
Article II, Section 1 and the Twelfth Amendment would seem to say so, but in fact we don't hold presidential elections that way anymore. No elector votes for president and VP separately, and the VP is not the one who receives the 2nd-most votes.
So I wonder why they can't be from the same state given that AIIS1 and 12A are functionally moot.