VP picks have minimal direct impact on voting behavior, even in their home state. (Sources below)
The most widely cited example of a VP pick influencing anything about a presidential election is JFK’s pick of LBJ in 1960. Johnson was the most powerful politician in Texas at a time when parties were machines. While party affiliation data of the day are not consistent, Democrats likely held a 2 to 3x advantage. Democrats had won every single statewide office and US Senate election in Texas for 90 years, i.e., since Reconstruction. Johnson’s decision not to endorse Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 - he tacitly backed Eisenhower by supporting Democratic governor Shivers after he endorsed the Republican - resulted in Stevenson losing the state twice. With all of Johnson’s sway in his home state, Kennedy-Johnson carried Texas by just 24,000 votes. And on the other end of the spectrum, when one searches for VP picks that truly hurt the nominee one finds Dan Quayle. Vice President Quayle to you.
Based on the data Shapiro would not have flipped Trump’s 2% win in PA. Few if any serious analysts have suggested Tim Walz hurt Harris. So, why are we talking about this? Respectfully, it seems as though it is only because you prefer Josh Shapiro to Tim Walz (as would I, BTW).
This is all to say, dig deeper in your analysis. You’ve got better stuff in you. I’m sure of it, well sure enough to have invested $40 anyways.
Was Tim Walz not a winner from his 2006 win and then every election in the House from that point on. He also won two Governors races? I tend to agree that he struggled a bit keeping the brand as he attempted to court the leftier flake of the Minnesota DFL but overall I liked him because of his winning track record.. A track record spanning 16 years of winning was seriously impressive.
VP picks have minimal direct impact on voting behavior, even in their home state. (Sources below)
The most widely cited example of a VP pick influencing anything about a presidential election is JFK’s pick of LBJ in 1960. Johnson was the most powerful politician in Texas at a time when parties were machines. While party affiliation data of the day are not consistent, Democrats likely held a 2 to 3x advantage. Democrats had won every single statewide office and US Senate election in Texas for 90 years, i.e., since Reconstruction. Johnson’s decision not to endorse Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 - he tacitly backed Eisenhower by supporting Democratic governor Shivers after he endorsed the Republican - resulted in Stevenson losing the state twice. With all of Johnson’s sway in his home state, Kennedy-Johnson carried Texas by just 24,000 votes. And on the other end of the spectrum, when one searches for VP picks that truly hurt the nominee one finds Dan Quayle. Vice President Quayle to you.
Based on the data Shapiro would not have flipped Trump’s 2% win in PA. Few if any serious analysts have suggested Tim Walz hurt Harris. So, why are we talking about this? Respectfully, it seems as though it is only because you prefer Josh Shapiro to Tim Walz (as would I, BTW).
This is all to say, dig deeper in your analysis. You’ve got better stuff in you. I’m sure of it, well sure enough to have invested $40 anyways.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227714512_Evaluating_the_Impact_of_Vice_Presidential_Selection_on_Voter_Choice?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Histogram-of-Vice-Presidential-Home-State-Advantage_fig1_259077703
Was Tim Walz not a winner from his 2006 win and then every election in the House from that point on. He also won two Governors races? I tend to agree that he struggled a bit keeping the brand as he attempted to court the leftier flake of the Minnesota DFL but overall I liked him because of his winning track record.. A track record spanning 16 years of winning was seriously impressive.