Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with Beth Myers, who supervised the vice-presidential selection process for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, and Jim Jordan, a manager of John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, to discuss how Kamala Harris might make her decision about a running mate.
Frank Bruni: Beth, Jim, thanks for joining me to discuss the hottest topic in American politics: To whom will Kamala Harris propose? It’s like “The Bachelor,” only with nuclear codes instead of a red rose. The announcement’s scheduling in Philadelphia on Tuesday has some observers thinking Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania will get the nod. But there have been periods recently when everybody around me was betting on either Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky or Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota.
Each of you has steered a presidential campaign: What, based on that experience, would you guess is Vice President Harris’s and her advisers’ primary consideration as they make this decision?
Beth Myers: Choosing a vice president is one of the very few choices that the nominee has under her control, and it’s very particular for every candidate.
Bruni: It obviously varies from candidate to candidate — John McCain wasn’t thinking about the geography of the Electoral College when he chose Sarah Palin (he was going to win Alaska anyway) and George W. Bush picked Wyoming’s Dick Cheney despite being assured of victory in that state — but what factors do you think Harris and her operation should be weighing?
Jim Jordan: Geography is on the menu. Geography is on the menu. But it’s probably been since 1960 that a V.P. pick was actually expected to deliver his or her home state, especially if it was a swing state. For example, in 2004, Kerry picked Senator John Edwards and lost North Carolina by about 12 points.
Bruni: What about ideological balance? Other considerations? If you were advising the Harris campaign …
Myers: When Mitt Romney was considering his V.P. selection, he wasn’t thinking as much about the electoral advantage of any individual as he was about how he would govern with that person. Most of the candidates we looked at didn’t help in any particular state. That being said, in this environment, and with the Electoral College being so close, I might suggest looking to one of the strong candidates in a swing state.
Bruni: You mean, for example, Shapiro over Walz, Kelly over Beshear? Does that kind of calculation become more important given that Harris could confront a Hillary Clinton situation: winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College?
Myers: While I agree with Jim that geography isn’t often determinative, if all things are equal, and a state (Pennsylvania) has undue importance in achieving an electoral win (as opposed to a popular vote win), and you have a strong candidate from Pennsylvania — it has to be a consideration.
Bruni: Of course, all things are never equal, and Beth, you once told me that in 2012, Romney and those of you advising him cared very much about the “narrative” of your choice — about there being a clear story or message in the pick. Please explain what you mean, in terms of past examples when nominees have successfully done that and in terms of what Romney achieved by choosing Paul Ryan.
Myers: The choice itself says something about the candidate. The narrative from Paul Ryan that we hoped to convey was that Mitt was serious about the work of governing, and he chose a running mate who reflected that. Other narratives also work — double downs (like Bill Clinton picking a relatively young fellow Southerner like Al Gore), old hand for reassurance (like Barack Obama picking Joe Biden, W. Bush picking Dick Cheney), party unity (Ronald Reagan picking George H.W. Bush).
Bruni: Jim, do you also think there’s a story being told by whom the nominee chooses?
Jordan: Besides the actual ability to be president — eight presidents have died in office, and there’s also Richard Nixon — the pick is largely about the candidate’s priorities, a reflection on the candidate. Casual voters are just tuning in, and who the V.P. pick is will tell them something about the presidential candidate.
Bruni: Jim, I think you’re dead right about priorities. When I look at the Harris list, I see the campaign telegraphing: Whatever your presuppositions about her, whatever your biases, whatever box you want to put her in, she intends to reach out to all America. And so we have Walz, a former football coach from a rural area. Beshear — rural state. Kelly — son of police officers, former military, macho astronaut. To Beth’s point, they are characters in a story Harris may want to tell, a narrative that undergirds her bid.
Jordan: Absolutely true. They all seem strong and plausible and fill her out and tell a new tale about her.
Bruni: And it’s no accident that Walz, Shapiro, Beshear, Kelly are all white men. How should we feel about that?
Jordan: Politically, it feels highly desirable, for demographic balance. A campaign that looks like America. Joe Biden got that.
Bruni: Jim, when I asked you and Beth before our conversation about a running mate’s ideal qualifications, you put “raw political skill” and “ability to perform” high on your list. Give me examples of past vice-presidential candidates who excelled in those areas? Beth, I’d love your thoughts on this, too.
Jordan: Lloyd Bentsen (Michael Dukakis’s running mate) was fabulous. Sarah Palin (who ran with John McCain) had a certain something. Walter Mondale projected establishment sturdiness that was good for Jimmy Carter.
Myers: George H.W. Bush was a critical part of Ronald Reagan’s big-tent agenda and had incredible political talent. He reached out to moderates in the G.O.P. while staying true to being a Reagan Republican.
Bruni: Among the possibilities for Harris, whose political talent stands out? They’re all out there flexing those muscles, zipping back and forth between CNN and MSNBC and, most memorably in Pete Buttigieg’s case, Fox. There aren’t this many auditions on Broadway in a given week.
Can a contender really talk his or her way onto the ticket? Does a Buttigieg home run on Bill Maher’s show matter? Will you forgive me for the mixed sports and theater metaphors? And I feel like I see less of Kelly than the others. Does that mean he’s less confident in his retail skills?
Myers: The one thing that strikes me is just how deep the bench is. Lots of talent. And yes, it may be possible to talk your way onto the ballot. I think JD Vance may have done that.
Jordan: Secretary Buttigieg is quite skilled and entertaining. But it seems Harris is looking for a bit more ideological breadth.
Bruni: More breadth than Buttigieg, Jim? But is it a lack of ideological balance or too much trailblazing — Black woman plus gay man — that’ll keep him out of the winner’s circle?
Jordan: It’s ideological balance. I certainly don’t think that the vice president is scared of trailblazing.
Myers: Yes, he may be the dark horse candidate. But also, his tenure as secretary of transportation has been bumpy at times. The airline problems, the train derailment.
Bruni: I wondered how long we’d last before a certain foe of “childless cat ladies” came up, and you mentioned him briefly a little earlier, Beth. So I have to ask you both: Beyond MAGA stalwarts and spin doctors, the political world seems unimpressed with Donald Trump’s choice of Vance. Was it a bad one? A cataclysmically dreadful one? If so, specifically why? What factors that should have gone into Trump’s decision — and, for that matter, should go into Harris’s deliberations — were left by the wayside when Trump brought Vance aboard?
Myers: The oldest maxim in the book: first, do no harm. Impossible to say what factors went into Trump’s decision making, but he had several choices that would not have brought on the torrent of problems that arose from the Vance pick. But at the time he made the choice, he felt very confident of a huge win, and he went with someone who flattered and cajoled. That is never the right selection criteria.
Jordan: Trump did the near impossible. He picked someone as loony, misogynistic and dangerous as himself. No idea if the campaign didn’t do real due diligence, or if Trump is just so arrogant that he thought what they turned up didn’t matter. But this is the worst V.P. controversy since Thomas Eagleton.
Bruni: Embedded in both of your answers is the possibility that the Trump campaign did inadequate vetting.
Myers: I believe the Trump campaign did do proper vetting. Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles are professionals. But it doesn’t mean that their candidate listened to them.
Bruni: Pivoting to Harris: Does the compressed time frame of her candidacy equal some risks that she won’t be able to vet all the contenders as fully as one would want to?
Jordan: No. It’ll be frantic but done well. Maybe a reason you hear about so few contenders, though.
Myers: The only thing she doesn’t have is the luxury of mulling the pros and cons of this decision over time.
Bruni: You’re both seasoned political hands, and most of what you’ve done in your careers is not the selection of running mates. Looking more broadly at the Harris campaign and her surest path to victory, what one piece of advice above all others would you give her?
Myers: Keep an eye on the Electoral College vote, not the popular vote.
Jordan: As Beth said, do no harm, just don’t screw it up. Find someone with whom you feel compatible, someone you feel you can trust as a ticketmate and as a partner in government. More broadly, keep punching back with the same smile on your face. Trump is melting down. Don’t worry about expanding the map, focus on the 6 to 8 percent of movable voters in six or seven states. Electoral College is all.
Bruni: Let’s finish with a lightning round. Quick answers, the ones that pop to mind first. It’s crunchtime. You get to decide Harris’s running mate. You pick …
Myers: Mark Kelly
Jordan: Kelly leaving is an issue in the Senate. So Josh Shapiro.
Bruni: A different question that puts you in a casino. You have to bet on whom she will choose. That person is …
Myers: Josh Shapiro
Jordan: Agree, Governor Shapiro.
Bruni: On a scale of 1 (not) to 5 (extremely), how reckless would it be for Harris to pick another woman?
Myers: Depends on the woman. I don’t think Whitmer is reckless, and personally I’d love to see an all-woman ticket. I’d put it as a 3.
Jordan: She needs balance of every sort. 4.
Bruni: Other than Sarah Palin (too easy), who was the worst V.P. selection in recent history?
Myers: Vance.
Jordan: Vance.
Bruni: Who was the best V.P. selection in recent history?
Myers: Easy. Paul Ryan. But George H.W. Bush in 1980 comes close second.
Jordan: Al Gore.
Bruni: No votes for Biden in 2008? I’m serious. I could argue that he represented precisely the kind of balance and even narrative we talked about earlier. Am I nuts?
Jordan: He offered that balance, but plenty of older, experienced politicians could have. I think Gore and Clinton created a kind of chemistry and energy that changed that race and contrasted with George H.W. Bush.
Myers: I agree with Jim. If Obama had picked a younger running mate, he may have infused a continuing new energy into the party.
Bruni: Finally, think ahead to Labor Day weekend. What are the chances, from 1 (no way) to 10 (definitely) that Harris is ahead of Trump in general election polling? And feel free to say a bit about why you choose the number you do.
Myers: In national polls, I would put it at an 8. But in swing state polling, I think she will still be behind. I’d put it at 4.
Jordan: 6. Trump is totally flummoxed, and the Vance troubles make it worse. She’s changed all the dynamics, all of the energy. 45 million miserable cat lovers won’t be denied.
Bruni: Beth, Jim, thank you both and here’s wishing the two of you — all of us — as much sanity and calm as possible between now and Nov. 5.
The post ‘Just Don’t Screw It Up’: Three Writers Go Behind the Scenes of Making a V.P. Pick appeared first on New York Times.
