Who's the VP?

So I was thinking, since we've got our common alternate US Presidential nominations (see below), we'd have a thread asking the specific question: who would -- or, politically speaking, should -- (so and so) chose as their running mate if they won their party's nomination in (such and such) year? For example:
  • Theodore Roosevelt secures the GOP nomination in 1912
  • Leonard Wood, same in 1920
  • Robert F Kennedy, for Democrats in 1968
  • Ronald Reagan in 1976
  • McCain in 2000
  • etc
 
Last edited:
1912: Lodge
1976: I still think Dole would have been a good pick.
2000: Lindsey Graham if him being one of the house impeachment managers does not seem like a huge deal.
 
1912: Lodge
He's got a really good resume, but I do worry about two men from the Northeast sharing a ticket.
Leonard Wood, same in 1920
Answering my own, I'd say Harding is the pretty obvious choice here.
I forgot is RFK:Muskie
If he's good enough for Humphrey, it might make sense; I do wonder if RFK would feel more pressure to pick someone from the South, maybe Fred Harris.
1976: I still think Dole would have been a good pick.
Makes sense; though sure he wouldn't want someone more moderate to balance the ticket?
2000: Lindsey Graham if him being one of the house impeachment managers does not seem like a huge deal.
He was still a member of the US House of Representatives at the time; other than that, he is a great choice.
 
Maybe Reagan, if he doesn't go with Schweiker, would go with Baker. Yarborough I think for RFK. Engler, the Governor of Michigan, could be a good McCain choice, given he could appeal to a Democrat-leaning state and unite the party because Engler was a Bush supporter.
 
  • Theodore Roosevelt secures the GOP nomination in 1912 Fairbank
  • Leonard Wood, same in 1920 Harding
  • Robert F Kennedy, for Democrats in 1968 Sanford or Yarbourgh
  • Ronald Reagan in 1976 Schweiker
  • McCain in 2000 somebody social conservative
  • etc
[/QUOTE]
 
On Reagan 1976 I'll recycle something I posted here some time back:

***

You have to remember that the choice of Schweiker was a desperation move, at a time when Ford was ahead in delegates--indeed, he was very close to being over the top. (Hence, the unusual conduct of a non-incumbent announcing his running mate in advance.) Really, it was between Schweiker and Governor James Rhodes of Ohio:

"Previously, Sears had reviewed the situation with Laxalt after talking it over with Black and Keene. All parties agreed that something needed to be done, but the pickings in the GOP were pretty slim. Choices for a running mate came down to Governor Jim Rhodes of Ohio and Schweiker--although some conservatives felt a case could have been made for Senator James Buckley of New York.

"Rhodes controlled the ninety-seven Ohio delegates and most likely could have delivered them while not antagonizing Reagan's conservative delegates. All parties agreed that if winning the convention were the only goal, Rhodes would have made sense. But no one wanted to run a general election with the curmudgeonly and controversial Rhodes. Jules Witcover described him as 'slightly unsavory' in *Marathon* and Sears dryly told Witcover his feeling about the choice of Rhodes: 'You've got to have some responsibility in this business.'"
https://books.google.com/books?id=fPWPDH-0TZYC&pg=PA272

One should remember that Schweiker was not all *that* liberal, especially on non-economic issues (and on economic issues he was after all from a heavily unionized state)--in particular, he was pro-gun and anti-abortion. It was therefore plausible to think that he would not alienate conservatives too much. And Sears definitely thought Reagan had to reach out to moderates to win both the nomination and the election. He had tried to get William Ruckelshaus (a Catholic and a moderate from Indiana--and of course, along with Elilot Richardson, the man who had refused to fire Archibald Cox...) on the ticket--but Reagan already controlled the Indiana delegation, at least on the first ballot.

But Sears' real first choice is shocking--Nelson Rockefeller! When asked what the reaction of Helms and other conservatives would be, Sears replied "They would have come off the ceiling in a day or two." Sears added, "I thought very strongly that he [Rockefeller] would have liked the irony of it, and he had firm control of his delegates. And, Mrs. Reagan liked him a lot. But you couldn't trust that others wouldn't talk him out of it, and you couldn't take that chance."

"Although Rockefeller controlled Dick Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum controlled the vast majority of the New York delegation, it is unknown whether delegates would have gone along with them and supported Reagan had Rockefeller joined the ticket. Still, it was no secret that Rockefeller and Rosenbaum were angry and dismayed over the treatment afforded Rockefeller by Ford and the President Ford Committee. The question is whether Reagan could hold his conservative delegates in the face of such a selection..." https://books.google.com/books?id=fPWPDH-0TZYC&pg=PA273
 
McCain

Thinking about it. Kasich is an excellent choice. He ran in 2000 himself. He also like McCain work in a bi-partisan manner. He also helps with Ohio. He is not the hawk McCain is, but no 9/11 yet so it does not matter all that much.

Engler. All I will say is (and I say this as a Republican leaning voter) how in September we will be talking about how Republicans have a "real" shot at carrying MI,WI,IA, NH and most of all PA oh and throw in CO and NM. If Trump is the nominee we can throw NY in there.

Hillary! Will then carry them all. I hate the electorial college. Again, I say this as a person who leans Republican. We're going to get slaughtered by a horrible canidate.
 
1912: Lodge


Two Northeasterners? Hardly.

Most likely someone from the Midwest. Maybe his former VP, Fairbanks, or possibly Harding.

In the end, though, it comes down to who would accept. If he's serious about winning the election, he needs to conciliate the defeated Taft men, but they may refuse to be conciliated, and either run a third-party ticket or just advise their supporters to abstain and vote only for Congress [1]. If no "Regular" will accept, then maybe his OTL running-mate, Hiram Johnson.


[1] If Wiki can be believed, about one voter in four did this even OTL, producing the lowest turnout of any Presidential race since 1836. The 1912 election excites historians and AH enthusiasts far more than it ever did the voters, many of whom seem to have greeted it with a yawn.
 
Last edited:
For TR in 1912, I'd suggest Herbert Hadley of Missouri. Given that he's a Republican in a traditionally Democrat state, he could tip the balance favorably. And the fact that he's a Midwesterner/sort of southerner won't hurt either.
 
Looking at the McCain suggestions we have two members of the House of Representatives (Grahm and Kaisch) and the Governor of Michigan. Unless there are any other ideas, I'd say Engler looks most likely, since a governor is a safer running mate.
 
Top