Is “Balancing the ticket” largely a myth in elections or does it still hold true?
For this post I will be talking about modern politics (1960-2012) and anyone is welcomed to use even further elections but I’m not entirely well versed on those so I’m happy to learn.
Anyway, it seems to me that there’s this big deal where people think picking a running mate will significantly change the outcome and the only election I think that works is 1960. You have a Northern Democrats (Kennedy) who needed to appeal to the South or else he would’ve easily lost the election so the only person that could’ve carried it was Johnson. I will argue that Johnson is the only candidate during that time that would carry Texas. If you picked someone like Stuart Symington Kennedy could maybe pick off southern states like Missouri or North Carolina.
By and large every election after that doesn’t seem to really change in anyway if you change the running mate. Sure, you might change the competency and wit but I don’t think H.W. Bush picking Colin Powell or Jack Kemp over Dan Quayle would’ve changed a thing. Obama and Biden are the only one I can see making an argument for a young/old ticket of experience and energy. I don’t think picking a VP will “carry” a region as a lot of people like to say especially since most VPs already come from safe regions.
Does Bob Graham change the Florida outcome in 2000? Maybe. Curious to see what everyone thinks