U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris waves upon arrival at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on July 27.Stephanie Scarbrough/Reuters
John Adams, who from 1789 to 1797 served as the first vice-president, once complained that the United States had “in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”
Adams, like 14 other vice-presidents, eventually ascended to the top job – an aspiration that Kamala Harris now possesses as the 2024 election moves into its next great inflection point: the Vice-President’s choice of her own vice-presidential candidate.
Ms. Harris knows the limits of the office; John Nance Garner, who held the post from 1933 to 1941 under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was quoted as saying the position “isn’t worth a pitcher of warm spit.” Or, as Walter Mondale, who was vice-president under Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, put it, “If you want to talk to someone who’s not busy, call the vice-president.”
But she also knows how important her decision is as she approaches next month’s Democratic National Convention and the Labour Day kickoff of the general-election campaign.
Relatively unknown, somewhat unproven in national elective politics, the selection of her running mate is her first real test as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Her choice will provide insights into her judgment, her decision process, her political priorities, and ultimately into her electoral prospects as she girds to face Donald Trump in a critical election.
Few choices short of war and peace are as significant as the selection of a person who, as Harry Truman, who ascended to the presidency in 1945 after the death of FDR, put it, “simply presides over the Senate and sits around hoping for a funeral.” Ms. Harris’s choice has long-term implications for governing – some vice-presidents, such as Mr. Mondale, have had important, substantive tasks – and vital short-term consequences for politics.
Her selection could transform the map of the 2024 election. If, for example, she runs with Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, she will immensely improve the Democratic ticket’s prospects for carrying the 19 electoral votes of the Keystone State, which both parties regard as an important swing state.
Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan would provide the same boost in her state, with its 15 electoral votes, but she told reporters last Monday, “I am not interested in doing anything other than this job for the next 2½ years.”
If Ms. Harris, who is 59, nonetheless chooses Ms. Whitmer, who is 52; Mr. Shapiro, who is 51; or Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who is 42, she would give the Democratic slate a youthful profile that would provide a marked contrast with Mr. Trump, who is 78. Even Governors J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, who is 59, and Tim Walz of Minnesota, who is 60, are relatively youthful in comparison with the former president.
If she chooses Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, she would enhance her chances to win the 11 electoral votes of Arizona, another swing state – one that Joe Biden carried by fewer than 11,000 votes four years ago.
Mr. Kelly possesses five important attributes: He is a former astronaut and thus has a touch of glamour; he has a pugilistic style that would allow him to pummel Mr. Trump verbally; he is fluent in immigration and border issues, an important asset this year; like GOP vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance, he is a veteran; and he is married to former House representative Gabby Giffords, whose experience as a target of a gunfire attack might blunt the emotional advantage Mr. Trump has as a survivor of an assassination attempt.
Much like the 2000 and 2004 GOP ticket of George W. Bush of Texas and Dick Cheney of Wyoming, a Harris/Kelly ticket would have a distinctive Western tint. And their two states share a boundary, an unusual phenomenon until Bill Clinton, from Arkansas, chose Al Gore, from Tennessee, and they won both the 1992 and 1996 elections.
Richard Nixon, himself a vice-president who became president in 1968 – though not without losing his first try in 1960 against John F. Kennedy – used to say that running mates’ principal attribute was the ability to win their own state.
Though Mr. Nixon’s running mates lost their home states two of the three times he sought the White House, that notion provides the rationale behind the increased attention of Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina, a state that Mr. Trump won by a little more than a single percentage point in 2020. Mr. Cooper has won statewide elections, for attorney-general and governor, six times in a state that has gone Republican in 10 of the past 11 elections.
Democrats constantly regard the Tar Heel State – where they’ve occupied the governor’s chair for all but 12 years since 1977 – as within their grasp, only to fall short. The last time a Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, chose a North Carolinian, John Edwards, as a running mate (2004), the Republicans still won by a dozen percentage points. Still, Mr. Cooper has high approval ratings in the state and is regarded as an attractive choice for Ms. Harris.
So, too, is Governor Andy Beshear of Kentucky, a state that the Republicans have swept in nine of the past 11 elections and where the Harris ticket has virtually no chance of prevailing. Democrats Geraldine Ferraro of New York (1984) and Lloyd Bentsen of Texas (1988), along with Jack Kemp of New York (1996) and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin (2012), did not help their tickets win their home states. But Mr. Beshear would provide a moderate tint to the ticket.
Often presidential candidates seek a running mate to provide assets they do not possess themselves.
Ronald Reagan had two terms as governor of California but scant experience in foreign affairs; George H.W. Bush, who had been an envoy in China, ambassador to the United Nations and director of central intelligence, provided balance, just as Mr. Cheney, who had been defence secretary, did for George W. Bush, who had been Texas governor.
But Ms. Harris has travelled broadly as Vice-President and has met with scores of foreign leaders. She doesn’t need a foreign-policy hand at her side. In any case, none of the current contenders would provide that.