Now that the 2008 U.S. Presidential election is sandwiched between the end of the primary season and the party conventions, it is time to play the game of assessing the possible vice presidential nominees, or “running-mate", to use that ever over-used sickly cliche.

But before actually mulling the field and dispensing armchair pretzels of wisdom of the greatness or diminutude of mere governors and senators, it is almost as fun to assess the criteria of assessment. What should a man (or woman, though this year not the case), who will be the leader of the free world, look for in someone who will take his job should an accident befall on him?

Here I have assembled an account of the main considerations (and various sub-considerations) when picking a veep:

1. Potential to help the nominee win the election. This has always been the most salient of the selection criteria. That is not surprising from a candidate’s self-interest perspective, but it is surprising how much the press, the public, and especially the candidates themselves cynically admit to it. Here are the kibbles and bits of what makes up this potential.

   • Possesses an independent national constituency. The candidate has a following that will increase the number of people who work for and vote for the nominee. Usually this is a result of a strong showing in the primaries, but not always. The choice in 1996 of Jack Kemp, who did not run that year, reflected the fact that there were many conservatives who new him and who would be energized. This was also one of the main reasons for the choice of George Bush in 1980 and John Edwards in 2004. This is also Hillary Clinton’s big argument for choosing her this year.
   • Represents a differing political viewpoint. Politicians will often pair up with running-mates who enlarge their political base by being significantly more conservative or more liberal, either on key issues or as a whole. This is especially true if the presidential nominee is not in the mainstream of their party’s orthodoxy. In some cases, such as the choice of Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, it is to garner votes from moderates or independents. In others, such as the selections of both Bob Dole and Walter Mondale in 1976, it is to nail down the support of the hardcore elements in the party.
   • Represents a demographic or interest group. Apart from people who know and already follow the veep candidate, there may be some natural support for a relatively unknown candidate because of who or what that candidate represents. Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 was chosen almost entirely for this reason. In many ways, this brings out the worst of identity politics. Often, as was the case with Joe Lieberman in 2000, the voters targeted are not exclusively from the demographic group the candidate personifies, and it is the appearance of “diversity” or care for the group’s issues that matters.
   • Possesses a local constituency that will deliver a state or region’s electoral college votes. This question is the most over-hyped, over-stated, and over-analyzed reason to choose a candidate. As our country became more and more homogenized, “favorite sons” became less and less effective at moving geographic-specific voting blocs. In the last forty years, running-mates added only around 1% more votes from their home states than would be otherwise expected. In 2004, only four states were within that margin of difference (IA, NH, NM, WI). But even if Kerry had chosen a candidate from one of the two he lost (IA, NM), and carried that state because of it, he still would not have had enough electoral votes to win. It is only critical in states which would have been close if the election itself is close. So let me ask. When was the last time that a vice-presidential candidate made a critical difference in a U.S. presidential election by pushing his home state into the winning column? NEVER. Come to think of it, when was the last time a presidential candidate chose a running-mate with this issue as a major factor? Hmmm. Exactly. So much for political consultants.
   • Is telegenic or charismatic. A thoroughly shallow and cynical reason to choose a veep. But this was a major factor in choosing Dan Quayle in 1988 and John Edwards in 2004.
   • Has presidential character people will vote for. In essence, this is the political implication of the next major category (how good a president the candidate would make). While the above five political calculations are ways candidates try to add something to their ticket, this is more one that subtracts if it is overlooked: Mike Dukakis ran commercials in 1988 mentioning how often vice presidents succeed sitting presidents (9 times thus far), because George Bush’s choice of Dan Quayle was not seen as being remotely presidential. George W. Bush learned a lesson from his father, and did not overlook this factor: the choice of Dick Cheney in 2000 garnered a lot of political mileage because Bush claimed that he chose Cheney for his ability to be president if he had to serve, and people believed that Cheney was well qualified to be president. An important note: if a nominee is old or of questionable health, this factor is amplified.
   • Continuity. This is not applicable this year, but is obviously a huge factor when an incumbent is running, mostly because it shows a lack of confidence in one’s past judgement to put someone new on the ticket. The last time this happened was when FDR chose Harry Truman in 1944 over his sitting vice president, Henry Wallace.

2. Potential to serve the nation well, if elected. From the nation’s perspective, as opposed to the party or the nominee, these should be the most important, perhaps only, considerations when choosing a vice-presidential candidate.

   • Service as Vice President. No presidential candidate has ever said that he chose a running-mate because he would serve the country well at funerals for foreign heads-of-state. But in recent years, vice presidents have been given more and more responsibility, and the president is bound to often have his ear bent by his number two. Consideration must be given to what value the candidate adds while in office, even if the office he holds is regarded as less valuable than a warm bucket of spit.
   • Possible service as President. This was the original intent of the office of Vice President. If the veep candidate also ran for president in the primaries (or in a previous election), he or she has at least wanted to be in the job. All the factors that make for strong presidential candidates also make for strong vice-presidential candidates. One important difference between this (how presidential the candidate seems to the nominee) and the political aspect of this (how presidential the candidate seems to the voters from the nominee’s perspective) as indicated above is the ideological compatibility between the nominee and his veep candidate. While a nominee may want to “balance” the ticket with someone who differs with him on his political outlook or on the issues, he would no doubt be more comfortable having the country run by someone who agrees with him 100%. The choice of Al Gore in 1992 was largely a case of such ideological compatibility.
3. Potential to serve the party or the movement. This is perhaps the most under-appreciated ramification of the nominee’s choice. Whether the nominee wins or loses the election, the vice presidential candidate will almost certainly be a bigger player on the national stage and usually becomes the front-runner for the party’s nomination in the next non-incumbent election. When party conventions chose the vice president, this concern was more of a factor, while in recent years more selfish concerns of the presidential nominee have prevailed. Nevertheless, the chosen individual’s rise to national prominence will occur whether it is considered or not. Consider this: four sitting vice presidents (Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, and G.H.W. Bush) and one previous vice president (Nixon) have been elected president. Also, five vice presidential nominees who lost were later presidential nominees of their party (F.D. Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, and Al Gore), and in the case of Roosevelt, served our nation as president for over twelve years. Not only is one choosing a running-mate, one is possibly choosing the future direction and leader of one’s party and one’s nation.
4. Personal considerations. Before 1960, because a vice presidential candidate was chosen by hundreds of convention delegates, the personal relationship between the running-mates was practically nonexistent as a deciding factor. Today, friendship, loyalty, and personal chemistry play a significant part in the selection process. While it is perhaps not as important as electability or the capability to serve as president, it can be a deal-breaker if the two candidates don’t get along.

The selection of vice presidential nominees by party conventions, rather than by the presidential nominees themselves, was the way the system worked until 1960. Obviously this change altered the relative prominence of the various factors indicated above, with long-term party considerations taking a back seat to immediate electoral results and personal considerations.

From the nation’s perspective, almost all emphasis should be placed on (2). From the party’s point-of-view, (1), (2), and (3) should be given almost equal consideration. But neither the nation nor the party get to choose the veep candidate; the party’s nominee for president does. And the nominee will almost certainly put the most emphasis on (1), with (2), (3), and (4) far behind, varying with how patriotic and ideological the nominee is, and how contained his or her self-interest is.

As the presidential candidates and the nation move forward through the selection process, the above criteria indicate some useful ways to evaluate potential running-mates. I will use them in my analysis next week of John McCain’s possible choices for his candidate for vice president.