VP Choices

A friend writes:

I was thinking about who the worst VP nominations were in history. Seen as an early test of a nominated candidate's likely governance, VPs have rarely been make-or-break. However, some have stood out as horrible. A VP nominee's job is to get the candidate elected. In my lifetime, I came up with a few who failed miserably, but first, Sarah Palin.

It is hard to know right now whether she helps or hurts McCain. Certainly, from my vantage point, she is an atrocious choice. But if McCain loses as expected, I don't think it is because of her. I think McCain would have lost anyway, and the worst she did was increase the margin in a few states. McCain threw deep on third and long with a minute six, and it was an interception. It happens. Could have been the hero, doesn't make him a goat. If McCain wins, Palin might be the best pick ever. He trailed without her, and she clearly lit up the base. If somehow that translates into a victory, she can take credit for being herself, and he can take credit for picking her.

There's still a difference between a good throw on third and long and a lousy one. McCain failed to adequately vet her, and things like the troopergate scandal and her dismal knowledge of non-Alaska policy should have been dug up beforehand. To twist the analogy a bit, the Palin pick was perhaps an interception because McCain threw off his back foot and failed to read the coverage.

The third worst might be Ferraro. Mondale didn't have a chance against Reagan in 1984, but she didn't help at all. I have a soft spot for her because of her Pepsi commercials, but her husband's troubles were such an issue that the ticket didn't even carry New York.

The second worst VP choice in my lifetime is probably Tom Eagleton. He was unfairly railroaded for going through electroshock therapy, but hey, McGovern should have known it would be a problem and not put him in the spotlight. I'm not sure McGovern could have won anyway (incumbent president, Watergate handicap), but Eagleton made sure that any hope was completely doused.

Easily the worst choice in my lifetime was Martin Stockdale. Perot had persuaded people he was real, just quirky. People wanted to believe in him. But when that doddering old man wandered out on stage, Perot was immediately and permanently suspect as batshit crazy. I'm not sure Perot really could have won with a different choice, but it became impossible with Stockdale.

I was 12 when Perot ran the first time, and my parents are pretty dyed-in-the-wool dems, so I largely absorbed their belief that Perot was a nut. I actually remember watching the Stockdale debate and wondering how Perot was able to convince an admiral to run with him...