As we await Vice President Kamala Harris’s choice of running mate, there is the typical frenzy of informed reporting and idle speculation. But there is always a cynic in the room to argue that the media hysteria over the pick is overblown because, ultimately, it doesn’t make much difference.
Even Donald Trump himself made that observation last week. “Historically, the vice president — in terms of the election — does not have any impact,” he said. “I mean, virtually no impact. Historically, the choice of the vice president makes no difference. You’re voting for the president.”
It’s true that the days when a party could count on a vice-presidential pick to deliver a competitive state or otherwise change the trajectory of the race are gone, if they ever existed.
But even though its electoral significance may be questionable, the choice of VP has significant long-term implications. Just look at the current situation. President Biden was a two-time loser in presidential races — having dropped out once before Iowa and once just after. Had Barack Obama not tapped him as his running mate, Biden would most assuredly be either retired or still aging in place in the Senate. Harris, too, ran a disastrous campaign for president — it was launched with much fanfare, only to burn through tens of millions of dollars and then have her drop out months before Iowa. Yet now she is the Democratic nominee and the front-runner to become president.
History is filled with presidents who never would have found their way to the Oval Office were it not for being given the leg up by biding their time as VP. If the running-mate coverage can be criticized, it should be for the focus on the short-term electoral calculations rather than the high potential for the choice to be historically consequential.