AHC: strong social norm where pres. candidate announces v.p. choice month early?

It's amazing how often the choice is seemingly thrown together at the last minute. And this business where the choice is supposed to "electrify" the convention, usually unrealistic, and too dearly purchased when it does happen.

So, what might be a POD where it becomes a strong social norm for the presumptive presidential candidate to announce the choice about a month before his or her party's convention?
 
Last edited:
Jimmy Carter's a person who often feels comfortable doing things his own way. I can see him doing this in 1976.

And the artful part is that you do it a certain way and emphasize certain things so that you're not (too much) embarrassing then-Senator George McGovern.
 

jahenders

Banned
I think that all it might take for this to become a trend/norm is for one or two candidates to do it to shocking effect. For instance, if instead of waiting to the convention, a candidate announces their running mate during the caucuses and primaries and it has a huge (positive) effect, leading them to a strong come-from-behind victory in that primary.

As with the scheduling of the primaries, this might lead candidates to consider doing this earlier and earlier to get the boost to either save their campaign or possibly leave a trailing candidate in the dust.

It could also be done as a strategic move during the primary process. If, for instance, Candidate A said, "If I am nominated, Candidate B will be my running mate and he and I have agreed to the reverse" then people know what team they're getting and might downplay any weaknesses in candidate A that are well covered by Candidate B.

It's amazing how often the choice is seemingly thrown together at the last minute. And this business where the choice is supposed to "electrify" the convention, usually unrealistic, and too dearly purchased when it does happen.

So, what might be a POD where it becomes a strong social norm for the presumptive presidential candidate to announce the choice about a month before his or her party's convention?
 
This might be hard in early American politics when the decision on a President wasn't clear until the convention. There was a time when a person who hadn't even declared could end up being the nominee on the 10th (or more) ballot. Hard to announce your VP candidate when you aren't even running, and yet you become the nominee. Gore Vidal's 1876 is a great novelization of the presidential contest of that year, and then there's 1884 conventions where Blaine was picked on Republican side on 4th ballot and Cleveland on 2nd ballot for the Democrats. Such early announcements of VPs are just not possible until early-mid 1900s I believe, and then it's too late to create that precedent.

Even today the 2008 Democratic process was drawn out and relatively late in decisions, but floor fights are increasingly almost impossible. We'll see how many Republicans hold on and don't give up their delegates and if that keeps someone from gaining a majority on first ballot.

Any attempt to find a PoD to create this idea just runs completely contrary to established American history and the course of events up to any PoD someone will pick and I don't see as being possible.
 
TIME magazine, May 10, 1976

http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9605/10/

' . . . So certain was he, with good reason, of winning the Democratic nomination at Madison Square Garden in July that he began making a list of whom he might choose as a running mate. He says that his most important considerations are to pick someone who is qualified to step up as President if necessary, a person "compatible with me on basic issues and general philosophy" and offering "some sort of geographical or other balance on the ticket." According to insiders at the Democratic national Committee, Carter's list includes two liberal U.S. Senators: . . . '
Oh, I'm sure you can guess who at least one of these liberal U.S. Senators might be. The other might be a bit of a challenge.

Maybe Carter could have announced his selection a week or two after the last primary which may have been still a week or two before the convention.
 
This might be hard in early American politics when the decision on a President wasn't clear until the convention.

The other point is that in those days--whether the identity of the presidential nominee was clear in advance or not--the convention itself chose his running mate, not only in theory but in practice.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The other point is that in those days--whether the identity of the presidential nominee was clear in advance or not--the convention itself chose his running mate, not only in theory but in practice.

I had a class with someone who has spent his entire career studying presidential elections and has written a few books on them. He said that before the modern convention process was established, there was actually an entire committee charged with finding the nominees for President and Vice President and informing them about their selection. In many cases even those actively campaigning for the nomination didn't attend the convention.
 
I think that all it might take for this to become a trend/norm is for one or two candidates to do it to shocking effect. For instance, if instead of waiting to the convention, a candidate announces their running mate during the caucuses and primaries and it has a huge (positive) effect, leading them to a strong come-from-behind victory in that primary.
That might be how it develops, where a candidate is seeking to get a strategic advantage.

But I would hope that it would settle down to something kind of like the fall debates. With the debates in the general election, there is a very strong social norm to one, show up, and two, be engaged and at least reasonably polite. For example, we could discuss whether Al Gore was polite enough in 2000. And also what might have happened in '08 if John McCain had bowed out of that one debate due to the financial institution crisis.

So, the social norm I'm envisioning is that candidates pick their vice president about a month before the convention. That's viewed as the responsible way to do things. And if you do things another way, you better have an awfully good reason.
 
Last edited:
I believe Reagan did that in 1976, but he chose a liberal Republican (I forgot his name) as his running mate, angering a lot of people who would have voted for him.

If he chooses a conservative running mate, considering he was so close to winning in 1976 even with a bad choice for running mate, he would have probably won the nomination of his party.

But on the other hand, he would have been totally and utterly defeated in 1976.
 
I had a class with someone who has spent his entire career studying presidential elections and has written a few books on them. He said that before the modern convention process was established, there was actually an entire committee charged with finding the nominees for President and Vice President and informing them about their selection. In many cases even those actively campaigning for the nomination didn't attend the convention.
I think in many countries with 'strong' party systems, the party bosses essentially pick the candidates. For example, even in the UK to this day, if you live in a certain district can you run as the Conservative, Labour, or Lib Dem MP candidate for that district? ? ? I don't know. In 1991, one of my professors said no. If you're a newbie, some kind of committee assigns you a district, almost always a losing district. But if you do better than expected, they then assign you a little bit better district. And then maybe in three or four times, you get a district you can actually win. Now, that was almost twenty-five years ago and just according to one professor.

And maybe in earlier times, the U.S. had this 'strong' party system.

I do think that 1976 is a potential POD. Wanting to avoid how McGovern made such a mess of it in '72, and please remember, Carter was also an outsider much like McGovern, Carter announces his decision several weeks early. And he does so matter-of-factly in an effort to avoid embarrassing McGovern too much. In fact, I'd like to look up when the decision of Mondale was publicly announced.

On the Republican side, Ford has said that asking Rockefeller to bow out was one of the things he regretted. Reagan, in a somewhat desperate attempt, had the strategy of announcing three weeks before the convention that pro-union Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker would be his running mate. On C-SPAN's Book TV, Craig Shirley author of Reagan's Revolution said that this was a good gamble which changed a close but losing position into having at least some chance. And if Ford had picked a liberal choice, the convention may have revolted. But maybe not if he had done this three weeks early and people had plenty of time to make some calculations. I mean afterall, would you rather have President Ford or Governor Carter? So, I think there's some potential PODs on the Republican side, too.

Reagan announced his Schweiker selection on July 26, 1976.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-08-26/the-last-up-in-the-air-convention

The Republican Convention opened on August 16, 1976.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/convention_bounces.php
 
Last edited:
Carter announced his selection of Senator Walter 'Fritz' Mondale at a press conference the morning of the last day of the Convention, that is, Thursday, July 15, 1976. But, it does seem like he took somewhat more care and time than was usual for the process.

PDF --> http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1467&context=cmc_theses

bottom of page 19:

' . . By June 20, Carter had settled on eight finalists: Senators Edmund Muskie of Maine, John Glenn of Ohio, Walter Mondale of Minnesota, Henry Jackson of Washington, Frank Church of Idaho, Adlai Stevenson III of Illinois, Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut, and Representative Peter Rodino Jr. of New Jersey. . '
' . . The Los Angeles Times explained that “Carter had decided to disclose the names one by one so that if he chose to add someone else at the end of the interview period, the person would not be publicly placed in a different category from the others.” Powell also announced that the campaign would disclose the names of all remaining candidates by the end of the week and would not honor any request from a candidate to keep their inclusion secret. . '
' . . Ed Muskie and his wife arrived in Plains in the early morning hours of Monday, July 5 . . '


' . . On the morning of Thursday, July 8, Fritz and Joan Mondale arrived in Plains . . '
.
.
John Glenn
.
.
Henry "Scoop" Jackson
.
.
Peter Rodino
.
.
' . . Carter met with Frank Church on the morning of Monday, July 12, the first day of the convention. [emphasis added] . . '

' . . That afternoon, Carter held his final vice presidential interview, with Adlai Stevenson III. . '
So, the thing is still kind of thrown together at the last minute!


*Senator Ribicoff bowed out early on. Congressman Rodino bowed out during the process either because of his own health or that of his wife.
 
Last edited:
I believe Reagan did that in 1976, but he chose a liberal Republican (I forgot his name) as his running mate, angering a lot of people who would have voted for him.

If he chooses a conservative running mate, considering he was so close to winning in 1976 even with a bad choice for running mate, he would have probably won the nomination of his party.

But on the other hand, he would have been totally and utterly defeated in 1976.

That was PA senator Richard Schweiker. The thrust was not only to try to appeal to a broader party base but to somehow force Ford's hand as well.
 
Top