Research by political scientist Steven Rosenstone and others finds no evidence that the VP nominee can give much boost to a presidential ticket. There can be small effects that could make a difference in extremely close elections–for example, Joe Lieberman may have helped Al Gore in Florida–but no evidence for any major effects. Given these findings, it does not make a lot of sense to pick a VP candidate with the goal of getting a public opinion boost. It makes more sense to pick the person who you think would be the best president, were the presidential nominee to die or become incapacitated. Other legitimate concerns are the ability of the VP nominee to be more of an assistant to the president or to offer some specific policy expertise (as with the vice presidents Al Gore, Dick Cheney, and George H. W. Bush) or perhaps to make a political point in a race that is going to be lost in any case (as with Geraldine Ferrarro in 1984), or maybe to place a bet on an up-and-coming star of the party (Walter Mondale in 1976, Sarah Palin in 2008).
One of the many wonderful essays in the book, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (edited by Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky) is “The Illusion of Control,” written by cognitive psychologist Ellen Langer and published in 1975. In this article, Langer discusses a bunch of research results that show how people expect and demand control–act as if they have control–even in settings where their actions have little influence. My favorite of these is a study of gamblers, who apparently throw the dice more softly when they are trying to get low numbers and throw with more force when they’re going for 4’s, 5’s, and 6’s. What a great experiment! It rings true and it has obvious implications for so much of our lives.
How does the illusion of control fit into VP picks? Despite the general understanding that the VP choice doesn’t have much electoral effect, it’s human nature for parties and candidates to think that they can make a difference with the right choice here. Political candidates can’t avoid making compromises in order to win elections–but the vice presidential nominee isn’t the best place to make this sort of compromise. If he or she is not going to get you votes, you might as well pick the person who you think would do the best. Whether you think that Joe Biden or Sarah Palin was the best #2 alternative out there–that’s your call to make. I’m making no comments on the merits of the major-party nominees, merely suggesting that VP choice isn’t the best place to go for an electoral edge.
18 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Jan 28, 2009 at 9:42 am
I never thought that the Veep choice helps or hurts the ticket with the general electorate. McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin was more a way to bring the disaffected social conservatives, especially the Christian evangelicals, back into the GOP fold. As I recall, McCain had been thinking of picking Joe Lieberman as his running mate. When that got leaked to the press, the pushback began immediately from social conservatives, even on respected organs like National Review. The right-wing of the GOP might have walked out if McCain had picked Lieberman. So McCain had to come up with another name quickly, and he pulled Sarah Palin’s name out of a hat to soothe the angry social conservatives.
2 sinz54 // Jan 28, 2009 at 9:49 am
So I think you disregarded one of the main factors in influencing the choice of the running mate: Who can best help unify the party for the campaign to the general election. That’s critical in a year when the party is divided. McCain would have lost in a landslide if he had picked Lieberman or Portman as his running mate–NOT because Palin was a big vote-getter, but because the Christian evangelicals are key to grass-roots campaigning and they wouldn’t have campaigned for such a ticket. (Although in the end, they might have gritted their teeth and voted for McCain)
3 HollywoodBill // Jan 28, 2009 at 10:25 am
While the social conservatives may be crucial to Republican victory, their presence is in states that are in no danger in turning of Democratic. Paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher, “Ultimately they have no where to go.”
Palin did incalculable harm to the ticket in key Great Lakes States and along with McCain couldn’t even carry Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico. She is a social conservative in a time when the country has had enough of the likes of George W Bush and the entire theocracy. While the religious zealots like to think that their candidate didn’t hurt the ticket, ultimately she is as responsible for the loss as McCain. She has proven that she cannot bring in any votes other than Bush’s theocratic base. And that’s not enough to win elections.
4 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 10:58 am
When you loose NC by 1%, Indiana by 9% and just scrape Missouri to a black candidate then you know you have a problem not a solution as VP.
5 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 11:03 am
The recent election has driven the public face of the republican party to the right. States that were purple are now blue, states that were pink are now purple. Moderate Republicans have decreased in the house and senate. 2010 will not change the house position a great deal. The Senate was a different story but with the number of GOP senators resigning races that may have been easy could become a possible Dem gain.
6 realconservativ // Jan 28, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I get a kick out of moderate Republicans trying to place the party’s loss at the feet of Sarah Palin. The truth is that John McCain was a horrible candidate. If you check the Rasmussen daily tracking polls, the ONLY days McCain led Obama were between the introduction of Palin in Dayton and the financial meltdown. That’s a fact; check it out at Rasmussen.
7 HollywoodBill // Jan 28, 2009 at 3:04 pm
There is no question that the loss is McCain’s. However the Palinistas seem to forget that she was also on the ticket. She was unable to help in any battleground state. Ohio and Pennsylvania proved that they had enough of the theocrats when they threw out Santorum and Ken Blackwell. Sarah Palin was a base candidate who appealed to social conservatives and had no appeal outside of the South and the Bible Belt, the only region that social conservatives are capable of winning and keeping seats. Had McCain won, she would have been part of the victory team. In defeat, her share of the loss must also be accepted. The GOP lost every single suburb in America, including Dallas and Houston. Sarah Palin gets no pass. She lost just as much as McCain did. The Palinistas never seem to be able to accept responsibility. She is incapable of carrying one extra electoral vote than McCain did.
8 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Hollywood, you are talking facts and common sense. That’s a no, no.
9 realconservativ // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:00 pm
HollywoodBill – you are writing off too many things – the media, Obama outspending McCain 5-1, the ineptness of McCain’s campaign staff and the RNC. Sarah Palin’s job was to hold the base. She did that. John McCain’s was to attract voters in the middle he did not. Palin excited the base and attracted crowds of 20,000 or more. Before Palin came aboard, McCain was attracting crowds of less than 500. He was out of money. Go to conservative sites like freerepublic, redstate, hotair, polipundit and you’ll see how strong Sarah Palin’s appeal is with the base of the GOP. Now that SarahPAC has been announced, conservatives are giving to it instead of the RNC. Palin was marginalized by the media and mismanaged by McCain’s staff. As much as you’d like to see her go away, it isn’t going to happen and millions of conservatives don’t want her to go away. I live in a Detroit suburb (65,000 population) that the GOP carried, which shows how outrageous your claims are. She is a major player; learn to live with it and you will be much happier.
10 HollywoodBill // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:18 pm
McCain/Palin lost Michigan. If her job was to hold the base, she failed miserably in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida among others. Conservative websites? Please. Those are populated with the disgruntled, never satisfied and dittoheads. While the amount of ads mattered, the reality is that the American public has rejected the theocratic wing of the GOP outside of the South and the Bible Belt. Only in the minds of the social conservatives is she a major player. At best she is a regional candidate with zero appeal to Independents and moderate voters. She is a religious extremist. She appeals to the Buchanan wing of the GOP. She is not mainstream and never will be. She does not bring in a single crossover vote. At best she follows the Rovian methods for elections: Bring out wedge issues, shake as many social conservatives out to vote as possible and hope for the best. It is her views that are out of touch with today’s voters. She cannot bring a single Obama state into play. And she is as responsible for the electoral loss as McCain. She failed in capturing a single swing state. The Palinistas can claim whatever they like. The reality is that she is a loser. She cannot win electoral votes. She represents total failure.
11 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Hollywood, You risk getting banned!
12 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Lets face it you did not have any candidates capable of winning in 2008. They were all a sorry bunch of has beens. Palin even with her major inadaquacies was at least a fresh face. Plus she gave us all the best comedy of the electoral season.
13 realconservativ // Jan 28, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Suey, if you’re going to mistate facts, at least try to come close. McCain lost Indiana by 1%, not 9% as you claimed. Hollywood. I’ll go slow so you understand. Both Michigan senators and governors are Democrats. All are serving at least their second term. A Republican presidential candidate has not carried Michigan since 1988. McCain decided to pull out of Michigan with almost a month left in the campaign. Do you search out websites so you can bash this woman? I get the distinct impression that you have seldom, if ever, voted for any Republicans (moderate or conservative). It’s her right to run in the primaries; you don’t have to vote for her. That’s what democracy is all about. Are you an old guy? You sound like an old guy.
14 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 6:43 pm
My Bad, I clicked Iowa on the map in error. Point still stands, no Conservative should loose Indiana to a Black Democrat.
15 HollywoodBill // Jan 28, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Palin still lost. Nothing is going to change that inescapable fact. She couldn’t hold the line in any swing states. Sarah Palin is the sweetheart of the snake handling brigade. The social conservatives are losing the Mountain West. The Republican Party is changing from a big tent to a Revival Tent. She brings nothing new to the GOP. She is a failed relic. She and the Louisiana excorcist are total anachronisms. They really are the last two dinosaurs standing after the meteor strike. Personal attacks are the last resort of those who have nothing relevant to add to the discussion and are losing the debate. Despite the sad rantings, Palin LOST.
16 realconservativ // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Suey, easy mistake to make (Both “I” states). I used to live in Indiana. The northwest section is very Democratic as is Indianapolis. I don’t think being black is a detriment; in fact it may have been a plus. The Bradley effect certainly didn’t kick in in 2008. My son is a college student who is a waiter at a restaurant and he said everyone but him voted for Obama because “he’s cool.” I am not going to continue any conversations with Hollywood since it’s impossible to have a rational discussion. Why try to converse with someone who just has endless rants. Suey, while we disagree, I respect you.
17 suey // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Real, did you see the new Gallop poll of state voter identification? Only 5 states are now showing as firm Republican. If that is the real position it represents a further shift since November. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/State-States-Political-Party-Affiliation.aspx
I like the people here in general, they are polite and kind to me as a pain in the a$$ Liberal. I don’t like echo chambers and I like to learn more than the accepted point of view of my side of the divide. Thank you for your respect. I will probably disappoint you at some stage.
18 Bulldoglover100 // Jan 28, 2009 at 9:07 pm
May not give much boost but Sarah Palin on the ticket drove the moderates to the left faster than she could shoot a moose and belch “You Betcha”.
You must log in to post a comment.