A Tale of Two Veeps
The 2024 nominees for Vice President show two different paths to selecting a running mate.
A little more than a week after his surprise selection as Vice Presidential nominee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz diverged from his would-be boss.
In a video showing what is apparently supposed to look like a relaxed, off-the-cuff conversion between the two, Vice President and now-presidential candidate Kamala Harris appeared incredulous at Walz’s description of plain, bland, un-spiced, beef-and-cheese, “white guy tacos.” The moment of jovial friction comes after the two had spent a little over a week appearing together on stage as the Democratic party’s newly-minted presidential ticket, talking (albeit vaguely) about their shared vision for the country.
That small interaction shows one big reason why Harris tabbed Walz as her running mate. In fact, it exemplifies how most running mates are chosen.
There are two strategies presidential candidates follow when picking a running mate: balancing or branding. The former is far more common than the latter; Almost every single presidential candidate looks at their selection as a way to shore up support where it may otherwise be lacking.
Many pundits trying to read tea leaves and guess a vice presidential pick will talk about political calculations, like currying favor in a particular swing state. Remember that up until Walz was announced, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro seemed to have the inside track on the nod. Though the role of running mates in carrying states is usually overblown, people in Pennsylvania believe Shapiro’s unique insight into his state could have been the exception.
But the most successful pairings offer a nuanced contrast. In 2020, President Joe Biden sought to shore up his bona fides with the base of his party by selecting Harris as his running mate. Biracial, female, and at the time unabashedly aligned with more progressive views, Harris offered a stark contrast to Biden’s image as a old-school, moderate, and white-as-plain-paper Democrat. That very same image had helped Biden in 2008, when he helped balance the 2008 Democratic ticket as the safe, traditional “elder statesman” paired with first-term Sen. Barack Obama. (And being a white guy certainly helped him balance the optics of a ticket that sought to elect America’s first Black President.)
Walz is a similar pick to Biden in 2008. As a woman of color, Harris’s historic candidacy offers demographic change. She also hails from a state with a left-leaning reputation and has taken several far-left stances herself in the past. If any of that is too spicy for older working-class Democrats, Walz is the beef-and-cheese taco that evens out the taste.
This idea is not exclusive to Democrats: Donald Trump followed the same playbook in 2016. With his rambling speeches and revivalist rallies, Trump took to campaigning with both the enthusiasm and skill of a teenager starting a highly-anticipated first driving lesson. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was there in the passenger seat, the driver’s ed instructor meant to reassure voters that an adult was present, watching over things.
But former President Trump tried something different this time around (and not just because Trump and Pence are on the outs after that whole January 6 riot, though that’s surely a part of it). In selecting Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, Trump pursued a rarely-seen “branding” strategy.
Despite his past comments to the contrary, Vance has cut a very similar political brand to Trump. Both purport to be champions of the forgotten industrial working class; both champion protectionist and isolationist economic policies over the free trade deals Republicans of the past have favored; both espouse hawkishly rhetoric on illegal immigration. They are both white males, and both tend to throw off-the-cuff arguments out there that come off poorly. If you grew a clone of Donald Trump in a vat, the result might very well be similar to Vance. There’s no weakness that Trump has that is blunted by Vance’s presence on the ticket.
Why would a candidate select a running mate who checks all the same boxes?
Branding.
With his background in business and entertainment, Trump certainly appears to understand the value of consistent branding. In business, good branding lets new customers know what you’re all about and reaffirms what old customers already know about you. It makes it very clear what newcomers can expect, and — importantly — resells your product to those who have already bought it. In entertainment, adhering to a brand keeps audiences coming back for more.
Sure, Vance checks the same boxes as Trump. But in doing so, he makes each check mark darker and bolder.
This is uncommon as a running mate selection strategy, but not unprecedented. In 1992, Democratic nominee Bill Clinton cast himself as a young, moderate Southerner ushering in a new generation of leadership. To complement him on the ticket he picked… Al Gore, another young, moderate Southerner. Clinton and Gore won by doubling down on messages of change and renewal (ironically, prefiguring many themes Obama would use to defeat a different Clinton 16 years later).
Trump’s own doubling down may prove to be an outdated strategy.
Remember that when he selected Vance, Trump was running against Biden. The now-infamous debate that exposed Biden’s limitations was only a few weeks old. On top of that, Trump had just been shot at during a rally, an event which made everyone pause for a moment to question if political rhetoric was getting out of hand. Dulled Democratic enthusiasm was starting to suggest a November victory for Trump.
A “balance” pick to shore up support didn’t seem necessary when Trump was hurtling toward an easy victory. A “branding” pick only served to underscore what appeared to be a winning message. Biden’s withdrawal and Harris’s near-immediate assumption of the nomination changed the race.
If he had it to do over, Trump might pick someone else who could provide more balance for the current matchup. But then again, Trump’s branding play may prove useful even in an electoral loss. Assuming he loses in 2024, Trump would immediately become a credible candidate for 2028 (and quite likely, the Republican frontrunner). By using 2024 to strengthen his brand, Trump would set himself up better for fundraising and campaigning in 2028 and beyond.
It’s not the strategy most candidates typically employ. But then again, how much of Donald Trump’s political career has been typical?
