All posts tagged "mike pence"

Trump's lickspittle-in-chief just made a very dumb move indeed

Donald Trump’s narcissistic personality disorder took quite a jolt last week.

Here’s what some are saying happened: Vice President JD Vance somehow short‑circuited his electric fence and gave an interview to USA Today where he spoke openly — and maybe a little too eagerly — about that moment in the future when he might have to replace Trump as president.

“I've gotten a lot of good on‑the‑job training over the last 200 days," Vance said in an exclusive interview published Aug. 27, when asked if he was ready to assume the role of commander‑in‑chief.

"Yes, terrible tragedies happen,” he added. “But I feel very confident the president of the United States is in good shape, is going to serve out the remainder of his term, and do great things for the American people.”

Oh no you didn’t, JD.

By the time he started flipping around like a vice‑presidential seal, blathering about Trump’s supposed super‑stamina, it had to be too late.

Did Vance really not get the memo that Trump leaves office when Trump decides to leave office? That’s the last we all heard.

He might want to revisit the North Korean manual on speculating about the Leader’s health. We know he owns a copy — the whole Cabinet just performed it in unison in meeting with Trump last week.

We don’t have details as to how Trump exploded upon learning of the blasphemy from Vance, but it’s safe to assume he wasn’t swelling with pride. So, he thought he’d teach Vance a little lesson.

Trump Removes Secret Service Protection for Harris.

Oops. Wrong vice president.

Where can we go to get a president with cognitive acuity?

There’s nothing funny about the story that Trump revoked Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris — as he’s done with other political targets. In fact, it’s disgusting that the topic is even being debated.

But liberals might not want to seize the bait too quickly on this one. As the New York Times reported, vice presidents typically receive six months of protection after leaving office as a matter of standard procedure.

President Joe Biden had extended that period by a year through executive order, given the unusually high threat level faced by Harris, the Times reported. Biden had done the right thing in the right way, which is to say quietly.

But it wasn’t a permanent step because the nation does not give lifetime Secret Service protections to former vice presidents and their families (unlike presidents). Maybe it should, but it does not.

I didn’t know that, and I’m guessing neither did you. But its important context because Trump and his right-wing state media wants our heads to explode on this one. Or any outrage that doesn’t involve mention of “Epstein.”

This doesn’t excuse the stench of Trump gleefully promoting diminished safety for his political opponents. It’s just the public version of how he privately chokes loyalty out of Republicans, in this view.

As a mobster, Trump has reveled in each opportunity to proclaim the withdrawal of Secret Service details from individuals — which would have taken place quietly under a decent president. He gets to thrill his bloodthirsty followers with the closest thing to “lock them up” presently at hand.

Best of all, Trump gets to bask in dishing out the one thing he’s never had to fake: brazen cruelty. Just another ugly trademark.

Meanwhile, the person who ought to be swallowing hardest is JD Vance.

After all, Trump tried to have his last vice president killed by a mob.

Mike Pence caught off-guard by CNN anchor's instant fact check

CNN's Kate Bolduan seemed to catch former vice president Mike Pence off guard with a fact check on one of president Donald Trump's signature campaign promises.

Trump's first-term vice president appeared Thursday morning on "CNN News Central" to discuss a variety of topics, and he praised his old boss' handling of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and foreign policy crises elsewhere, but Bolduan pressed Pence to define the president's overarching principle.

"You add this together with just what you said, and the strikes on Iran, and you have isolationists, as you say, the isolationist wing of [the Republican Party] – get, no more, get out of every foreign conflict," Bolduan said. "You've been speaking out against it, against that growing part of the Republican Party? Do you see Donald Trump as a hawk or an isolationist?"

"President Trump is not an isolationist," Pence stated.

"What do you say to the isolationist wing of the party that says he is?" Bolduan countered. "And he ran on it."

Pence was briefly flummoxed and shifted in his seat before settling on an answer.

"I said this in a major address in Washington last fall that the president I served with is not an isolationist," Pence said. "His bias is to lead. I think he understands that America is the leader of the free world. One of the reasons our administration demanded that our European allies live up to their commitments, and I'm also very encouraged with the news that our NATO allies are now moving to 5 percent [contributions]. Again, that's that is that's not the action of an isolationist, that's the action of a president who understands that America's role is to lead the free world."

"But make no mistake about it, there's a there's a vigorous debate in the Republican Party today by some of the loudest voices around the president that say that America needs to pull back, that we need to we need to pull the shutters in, we need to worry exclusively about what's happening here at home," Pence added, "and while while we should always be concerned about what's happening in our country first – our economy, our security, our prosperity, our values – I think for the better part of the last century, the American people have understood that our role is to lead the free world."

Watch below or click the link.

- YouTube youtu.be

'Spoke Trump fluently': Mike Pence attempts to decode president's new comments

Former Vice President Mike Pence attempted to decode Donald Trump's comments on the Russia sanctions bill crafted by the Senate following the president's falling out with Vladimir Putin over Ukraine.

CNN's Kate Bolduan introduced the topic by saying that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) won't act on the bill crafted by Sen. Lindsey Graham and other Senate hawks "unless Trump signs off," adding "Trump is not a 'yes' yet."

"My hope is the president will make it clear that he wants that bill on his desk," Pence began as Bolduan interjected, "He keeps saying, 'yes, maybe, no, I don't need it yet.' He suggested to advisers that it won't deter —"

"Kate, I spoke Trump fluently for four years," Pence offered, leading Bolduan to remark, "So, decipher, please!"

"So, when I saw him the other day and he said he's 'strongly looking at it,' I know what that means," Pence said. "My hope is that the president will understand the value of the Senate acting, and they can put that on his desk, and it has broad waiver authority in it."

According to Politico, the White House has pushed back on the bill, claiming it didn't give the president "sole authority" on Russia and would allow Congress to "micromanage" the president on foreign policy.

A senior White House official told Politico, "The bill needs a waiver authority that is complete.”

Pence continued, "I literally think that the very presence of those new sanctions, especially the secondary sanctions that are included, that are that essentially are going to go against countries that are subsidizing that war —"

"Then, why pump the brakes?" Baldoun challenged Pence.

"Well, I think and hope the president will see the value of Vladimir Putin seeing those sanctions on his desk available for a signature."

Watch the clip below via CNN or click here.

Even Trump's sycophantic lapdog is quivering now

Spring is in the air … robins are bouncing around the backyard, yanking up worms, flowers sporting all colors of the rainbow are stretching hard for the sky, and former Vice President Mike Pence is tiptoeing onto the Sunday morning news shows and delicately trying to detach himself from America’s angry, orange 300-lb cyst.

For 1,461 days, the one-time Indiana governor was literally a heartbeat, or a lack of one, away from ascending to the most powerful office in the world.

Pence, of course, was No. 2 to the No. 1 most corrupt, morally busted president in U.S. history from 2017 to 2021. He was unflinchingly loyal to the racist, America- and woman-abusing Donald Trump, and often at an embarrassing level.

He had the singular talent of melting away into the background and making himself completely invisible, while his grotesque boss harrumphed his way around the world making our country look small, while becoming more bloated and full of himself by the day.

Pence knew his proper place in the administration was as far away from the limelight as possible. He was nothing but an expensive blue suit who hung himself neatly in the closet at the end of each lonely day spent in the shadows.

He was the perfect submissive sidekick for the sick, malignant narcissist, who has never been able to see anything past the end of those signature red ties that slop across his fat belly and hang down over his chubby, little feet. Everything was about this wreck of a man, and if Pence wasn’t good with that, nobody, with the possible exception of his wife, “Mother,” would have known it.

Cabinet members came and went during those chaotic four years, some exiting Trump’s wobbly orbit loudly calling him “a moron,” while others slithered away more quietly, out of the line of fire with hopes of landing a book deal and well-paid gigs on Rupert Murdoch’s noxious, right-wing propaganda channel.

But Pence stayed put, staring straight ahead and far off into the distance, literally thinking God knows what, while his racist boss defended Nazis, Putin, and the greedy billionaires, who attacked our environment, human rights, and democracy.

Well, we all know how it ended for Pence and the first iteration of the Greatest Woe on Earth.

Trump almost died from the pandemic he refused to take seriously, and then Pence almost died certifying our vote when his dark lord let loose his orcs in the Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to overthrow the government.

It would be the last anybody heard from Pence until three years later, when he ran one of the most inconsequential presidential campaigns in history, branding himself as a real conservative Republican.

Trouble was, there was already something far more shiny, and a woman no less, occupying that shrinking lane in their eroding party. Nikki Haley, not Pence, would end up being the weak GOP alternative to the ghastly Trump.

Defeated, left by his old boss as fresh roadkill, Pence was free to finally fade away into the farmlands of Indiana, to join his buddy, Dan Quayle. The two former Hoosier VPs could trade stories as two of the most notable footnotes in American history — both second fiddles to failed, off-key, one-term Republican presidents.

That’s when Pence sprung his first spring surprise. Instead of fading into the Indiana countryside, he took to the Fox propaganda airways in March of 2024, and decided to let everybody know he’d changed his tune. Though to hear him tell it, he was still singing from the same sheet of music he always had.

“It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year,” he said matter-of-factly.

He was right. It wasn’t surprising, it was completely shocking. After all, this was the same guy who raised his hand like a rocket during a GOP debate in the fall of 2023 when the group of presidential wannabes on the stage were asked if they would support Trump as the party's nominee even if he were convicted of a crime.

It was around the time Trump was calling the lowlifes who attacked our country and also wanted Pence dead, “hostages.”

Turned out, even Mike Pence was capable of sharpening a hickory stick and drawing a line in the sand, for all the good it did him — and us.

I wrote at the time that:

“Mike Pence didn’t need to say anything. Something or someone changed his mind. And if something or someone was capable of changing Pence’s mind, then Pence and his actions, however late, were capable of changing the minds of others who are still on the fence about supporting the gruesome Trump. In an election that could be close, these are the things that can make a real difference.”

I feel almost wistful re-reading those words, because they seemed to have some heft and consequence at the time. Unfortunately, looking back a long year later they can best be viewed as nothing but wishful thinking on my part.

We know how the damn election in 2024 turned out. We know too many Americans have a death wish, and zero respect for themselves or our country. We are ALL in a terrible, terrible spot because of it …

So on Sunday, with America’s reputation once again in a free-fall thanks to his repulsive former boss, the invisible Mike Pence sauntered onto the studio of Meet the Press, sat down with host Kristen Welker, and in his Mike Pence way very stoically and politely said what so-called conservatives like Haley haven’t the guts to say.

He took on Trump’s tariffs:

“The initial reciprocal tariffs that he unveiled would be the largest peacetime tax hike on the American people in the history of this country. What I see in this administration is a steady drive toward a baseline of maybe even 10 percent tariffs that I think would be harmful to jobs in America. It would be harmful to consumers in America. As the president has said to me many times, he has a sense that other countries pay tariffs, when the reality is, when Americans buy goods overseas, the company that imports those goods in this country pays the tariff and more often than not passes that along in higher prices to consumers.”

Trump’s anti-American rhetoric:

"I've never been a fan of American presidents criticizing America on foreign soil. To have POTUS in Saudi Arabia questioning America's global war on terror and describing it as nation building and interventionism I thought was a disservice to generations of Americans who wore the uniform — particularly given that speech in Saudi Arabia where 15 of the (9/11) 19 hijackers hailed from."

Russia:

"It's been roughly three years since Russia launched its unprovoked, brutal invasion in the Ukraine ... Putin only understands strength ... I honestly think the time has come for President Trump to impose a harsh sanctions on Russia and also increase military support for Ukraine."

Bribery:

“Well, I think first we've got to remember who Qatar is. We've got a military base there. I have members of our immediate family that have deployed to the region. But Qatar has a long history of playing both sides. They support Hamas. They supported Al Qaeda. Qatar has actually financed pro-Hamas protests on American campuses across the United States. So, the very idea that we would accept an Air Force One from Qatar I think is inconsistent with our security, and with our intelligence needs. And my hope is the president reconsiders it. I think if Qatar wants to make a gift to the United States, they ought to take that $400 million and plow it into infrastructure on our military base.”

Pardoning insurrectionists:

“Individuals who broke into the Capitol, who assaulted police officers, I said that day and I believe to this moment should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But the people that engaged in violence — you know, we're at the end here of Police Week in Washington, D.C. That's where the families of fallen officers come to our nation's capital every year to remember those who died in the line of duty. And the heroes on January 6 were all wearing uniforms. I mean, they held the line. They made it possible for us to secure the Capitol, reconvene the Congress, and complete our work under the Constitution the very same day. And for my part, I will always believe to have pardoned the people that assaulted police officers that day was wrong.”

Yes, he said all that, while also delicately sprinkling in praise for Trump, because even though he wouldn’t admit it, he somehow sees a future in the party, and doesn’t have a death wish.

So I’ll respond by reiterating what I typed last year after his first surprising spring appearance:

“I disagree with Pence on almost everything on the political spectrum. His ugly, white 1950s take on America is gross and insulting to everybody who has fought for their rightful place to be stitched into America’s colorful fabric. The guy doesn't deserve a Profile in Courage Award, but he did think it was important enough to put his life on the line once again, this time by saying publicly that he doesn’t think Trump, the guy he faithfully served for four years, should ever be our president again.”

Now that Trump is back, I still feel this bleeding country would be undeniably safer, healthier, and better-served if more conservatives like Pence had just a shred of honor, decency, and self-respect, and said what the hell so desperately needs saying, and what so many of these cowards are thinking.

I’d even argue that unless they do — unless there are cooler heads on the other side of spectrum who at least say out loud that pardoning people who attacked us is wrong, for instance — we are not going to make it.

We need to hear far more from people like Mike Pence, not less.

Of course, I’ve been wrong before …

(D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here, and follow him on Bluesky here.)

'Neocon traitor': MAGA erupts at Mike Pence over criticism of Trump's policies

Former Vice President Mike Pence said it was disheartening to see President Donald Trump revert to the same kind of rhetoric in his second term that had contributed to the January 6 Capitol riot.

In an interview with NBC aired Sunday, Pence also voiced criticism of Trump’s tariff strategy and various foreign policy choices.

“The initial reciprocal tariffs that he unveiled would be the largest peacetime tax hike on the American people in the history of this country,” Pence said, referencing the broad tariffs Trump introduced on the nation’s major trading partners in early April.

READ MORE: A showdown unleashed by Trump's outrage is coming

Supporters of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement on social media strongly criticized the former vice president over his remarks, calling him a "traitor"

"Every time they parade Mike Pence out for an interview, he reminds everyone just how much of a backstabbing traitor he really was as Trump's vice-president. Judas," wrote a MAGA supporter on the social platform X.

Another wrote: "Since Mike Pence is once again running his mouth about Donald Trump, let’s remind everyone of that Pence is a traitor. He had both a constitutional obligation and a moral responsibility to challenge the legitimacy of electoral votes from states that mysteriously halted counting in the middle of the night, something unprecedented in American history."

Trump's claims of widespread electoral fraud in the 2020 elections were widely debunked.

Another MAGA supporter @RealHickory posted a photo of Pence and wrote: "Do you consider Mike Pence a traitor? Yes or No?" The post received several responses calling Pence a traitor.

Another user wrote: "Mike Pence showing his true colors again - attacking Trump for advocating PEACE while defending the same BS wars that killed our troops and bankrupted America. What a pathetic attempt to stay relevant. This traitor stood by while J6 protesters rotted in jail, and now he's whining because Trump wants to END conflicts instead of starting new ones? Thank God Trump dumped this establishment puppet."

"Oh, look, that neocon traitor Mike Pence runs on Meet The Press to cry about President Trump and a free airplane," wrote another supporter.

In early 2021, amid intense pressure from Trump to reject the outcome of the 2020 election, Pence proceeded with the formal certification of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's victory. This followed the violent breach of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, when a mob of Trump supporters tried to halt the certification process.

Later, Pence publicly distanced himself from Trump, criticizing aspects of his conduct and backing political figures who opposed Trump’s endorsed candidates.

NOW READ: 'I made a mistake': Here's what moved the bar for one former Trump supporter

'Trump already lost': Ex-GOP insider says new pope poised to 'make president look small'

An American pope who values right over wrong has appeared on the world stage just when he's needed most, according to a former Republican strategist.

Steve Schmidt, who worked on Republican political campaigns for George W. Bush, wrote on his Substack that Pope Leo XIV is a force for good that will take on "fascist" Donald Trump.

"Morality vs. immorality and right vs. wrong are fully engaged in America," Schmidt wrote. "Donald Trump has already lost his war of aggression against American values and the Constitution — even if he doesn’t know it yet."

Schmidt has long opposed Trump and his MAGA faithful. Before we had an American pope, Schmidt wrote, "Real damage will find its way to everyone in America. When the scar is left everyone will have a specific place to look and remember what MAGA did to them and our country. There will be no hiding the mark or the cost."

EXCLUSIVE: Breastfeeding mom of US citizen sues Kristi Noem after being grabbed by ICE

Now, Schmidt writes, "The American Pope will help us see America again, and awaken a spirit that lies dormant in this land."

Schmidt's optimism has its roots in past comments Cardinal Robert Prevost posted to his X account before he became pope, where he took a firm stand against Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, who happens to be a Catholic.

" JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others," the cardinal tweeted in February, linking to a National Catholic Reporter column critical of Vance.

The cardinal also retweeted a post by Philadelphia-based Catholic writer Rocco Palmo, who denounced Trump's mass deportation policies.

Although Leo XIV hasn't yet spoken out against the Trump administration, Schmidt argues that "The drama between Donald Trump, the American fascist, and Leo, the American Pope, will be history that is written about for hundreds of years."

"There is an American Pope," Schmidt wrote. "He will make the American president look small as the fly that landed on Mike Pence’s head during the 2020 vice presidential debate."

Schmidt added, "The good guys are going to win."

Read Schmidt's Substack story here.

'Good on Karen!' Mike Pence's wife applauded for stone-faced Trump snub at Carter funeral

Former Vice President Mike Pence's wife, Karen, received praise from some circles on social media for snubbing Donald Trump at Washington's National Cathedral on Thursday.

Former presidents and vice presidents attended the state funeral for Jimmy Carter, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Trump was seen shaking Gore's hand before his former vice president, Mike Pence, stood up to greet his former boss — while his spouse remained seated and stone-faced.

Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) wrote on X, "Good on Karen Pence. And the fact that this is the first time Mike Pence & Donald Trump have seen each other in four years is all on Trump. Trump tried to force Pence to defy the Constitution, and Trump almost had Pence killed."

The X account for Republicans Against Trump posted, "Karen Pence completely ignores the man who incited the mob that wanted to hang her husband. Good for her."

After Trump lost in 2020, he claimed the election had been "rigged" and called on Pence to refuse to certify Joe Biden's win. Pence refused, writing in a letter to Congress, "It is my considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not" saying that refusing to certify the election "would be entirely antithetical to" the intent of the Founding Fathers.

ALSO READ: Trump intel advisor Devin Nunes still dismisses Russian election meddling as a 'hoax'

Trump posted to X on Jan. 6, 2021, that Pence lacked "the courage" to do the lame-duck president's bidding.

When hundreds of MAGA faithful stormed the Capitol, some erected a gallows and chanted, "Hang Mike Pence!"

According to a court filing with the Department of Justice, one of Trump's aides "allegedly received a call confirming that Pence had been taken to a secure location," in the hopes that Trump would "take action to ensure Pence’s safety."

Trump's only response was, "So what?" according to the filing.

Months later, Trump told ABC News' Jonathan Karl that he understood why the rioters went after Pence.

"Well, the people were very angry," Trump said. "It's common sense. It's common sense that you're supposed to protect. How can you — if you know a vote is fraudulent, right? How can you pass a fraudulent vote to Congress?"

Watch the video below or at this link.

One simple question may determine whether Mike Pence can help Jack Smith: Legal analyst

When special counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment against former President Donald Trump in the federal election interference case, he excluded all sorts of evidence that could run afoul of the Supreme Court's immunity decision. But he chose to keep in former Vice President Mike Pence — using a bit of clever argument.

Whether this will work hinges on a key question, CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers told anchor Phil Mattingly.

"It appears that what Smith is trying to do here is to take a lot and put it outside the orbit of the office of the presidency," said Mattingly. "The special counsel is arguing also that the former vice president, his vice president, Mike Pence, that his role in certifying the election results was ceremonial, not part of his duties as vice president. You think that's going to work?"

ALSO READ: Cruelty is all the Republicans have left

"Yeah. That's the big question to me is the thing that's closest to the line," said Rodgers. "Was he wearing his hat of vice president or was he wearing the hat of the president of the Senate when this pressure campaign was going on? And that's where I think Jack Smith may have the most trouble on appeal and even perhaps initially with Judge [Tanya ]Chutkan, in where that conduct falls."

In all other regards, she continued, "I think they've done a good job of kind of laying out the official versus unofficial, but I agree ... this really is the thing where I think they might have the most trouble, and we're at the starting line. So, Judge Chutkan will have the first crack after Donald Trump and his lawyers move to dismiss it, this indictment, at saying whether this new superseding indictment passes muster or not, they may have to go back to the drawing board on that very issue that you point out."

"But we're at the starting line and we'll see now again what happens as soon as this is under consideration by the court," she added.

Watch the video below or at the link here.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Yes: VP pick Tim Walz matters for winning the election. History shows it.

Growing up in Texas, we were treated to stories of colorful political characters. Few could top John Nance “Cactus Jack” Garner, who once pronounced that the vice-president position “is not worth a bucket of warm spit.” (Some say Garner said worse.)

That seems to be the opinion of more than a few pundits and political scientists. National Public Radio, The Economist and Politico have all run articles asserting how little impact a vice presidential pick makes on the ultimate outcome of a presidential election.

I take a different approach, comparing vice presidential picks’ performance in their states to how the party did in that state four years earlier.

Vice presidential picks: a recent history

To test their hypothesis, I analyzed how a party’s presidential ticket performed in the vice president nominees’ state in a given election year. Then I compared it to how the party’s ticket did in that state four years earlier.

It turns out that more often than not, a vice presidential candidate running as vice president for the first time helps you perform better in his or her state than four years earlier when that VP candidate wasn’t on the ticket.

ALSO READ: Tim Walz's personal finances are extraordinarily boring — and that may help Harris

For example, did Mike Pence help Donald Trump’s performance in Indiana during 2016 compared to how Republicans did in 2012? This case matters, given that Democrats won Indiana in 2008.

By the same token, did Democrats do better in Virginia with Sen. Tim Kaine as Hillary Clinton’s running mate in 2016 than Democrats did in the same state during 2012?

In these most recent 17 cases, where the vice presidential nominee isn’t already a vice president running for reelection — such as Joe Biden in 2012 — the vice presidential candidate boosted the party ticket 10 times in his or her home state. On seven occasions, the VP candidate did not do as well for his or her party as the party did four years ago in the state.

There were three cases where the vice presidential candidate boost or drag on the ticket was less than a percentage point. Taking those three out means that on nine occasions, the vice presidential candidate improved the ticket in his or her state. In five cases, the VP candidate did not help the ticket in the state he or she is from.

The average boost a vice presidential candidate gets a ticket in his or her own state is 4.4 percentage points, when considering all 17 cases.

That difference definitely matters in 2024.

As recently as last month, some polls put Trump ahead of Biden in Minnesota, which Biden had won by about 7 percentage points in 2020.

With Biden off the ticket, the advantage has swung back toward Democrats, but Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s addition to the ticket Tuesday will all but ensure that Minnesota — a must-win for Kamala Harris’ presidential chances — stays blue.

In three cases (1976 Democrats, 1980 Republicans and 1992 Democrats), a vice presidential candidate helped flip a state. In 2016, Kaine boosted the Democrats in his swing state of Virginia in a tight election — Clinton won Virginia, even if she lost the election.

One should also consider the cases where a presidential candidate would have done much better, possibly winning the overall election, with a better vice presidential selection.

ALSO READ: Why ‘vanilla’ Tim Walz is the ingredient to beat Trump: Dem lawmakers

Imagine President Gerald Ford keeping Vice President Nelson Rockefeller — and winning New York in 1976. It could have meant the difference in Ford defeating Democrat Jimmy Carter and winning his own four-year term after assuming the presidency from disgraced Richard Nixon. Instead, Carter narrowly won New York — and the election.

It’s also hard to imagine Democrat Al Gore losing Florida with the highly popular Sunshine State politician Bob Graham — a senator and governor — in 2000. Instead, he picked Connecticut's Joe Lieberman.

Republicans would have almost certainly fared a bit better against Democrat Barack Obama with a ticket of John McCain and Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania in 2008, instead of McCain and then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) might have helped Mitt Romney in 2012, at least in Ohio.

Still need convincing?

Many others in the media and academia have challenged the idea that vice presidential picks matter.

The Economist takes issue with the notion that vice presidential nominee Lyndon B. Johnson delivered the 1960 election to John F. Kennedy, who edged out Nixon in one of the nation’s closest elections in history.

And they might be right, given that the only states that voted for Democrat Adlai Stevenson II in 1952 and 1956 were from the South. Yet Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican, did win Johnson’s home state of Texas in both elections, and Kennedy captured Texas in 1960.

In a recent interview with A Martínez from National Public Radio, professor Kyle Kopko at Elizabethtown College takes issue with the idea that a VP candidate can deliver an election:

MARTÍNEZ: All right. So if the Harris campaign is thinking about picking a VP candidate to help them carry one of November's swing states, what is your message to them? Kyle, let's start with you there.

KOPKO: Well, first of all, it's probably not going to happen. Whenever we estimate a number of statistical models dating back decades, it's pretty rare that we find a vice presidential candidate that can deliver a battleground state. And even if they could, then it really has to be the decisive state in the Electoral College really to make a difference. So you can think about this as lightning needing to strike ever just right for it to count in the presidential election.

In a Politico article two elections ago, Kopko and Christopher Devine go into more detail about their model.

They look at state-level election returns from 1884-2012. They also delve in public opinion polls from 1952-2008 to see how much a vice-presidential candidate means for their home state.

Here are their findings: “While presidential candidates typically enjoy a home-state advantage (approximately 3 points to 7 points), vice presidential candidates generally do not. In each of the three analyses described above, a presidential ticket performs no better in the vice-presidential candidate’s home state than we would expect otherwise. Statistically speaking, the effect is zero.”

It's not that Kopko and Devine are wrong, but they are looking at eras with many blowout elections.

Think of Republican victories from 1896-1908 (William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt), 1920-1928 (Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge), and 1952-1956 (Eisenhower), or Democratic dominance from 1932-1944 (Franklin D. Roosevelt).

It wouldn’t have mattered if you put Superman on the ticket for the losing side, even with the X-ray vision.

But in more recent years, with 24-hour media and social media coverage, we learn a lot more about Palin, Pence, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden than America ever heard about Thomas Marshall, Thomas Hendricks, Levi P. Morton or Allen G. Thurman in those days.

Legacy of Charles not-quite-in-charge

But in more recent years, from 1976-2020, one could say that it’s a whole new ballgame for vice presidential picks.

And the selections of J. D. Vance of Ohio and Walz of Minnesota are likely to have a much bigger impact than Charles Fairbanks, Charles G. Dawes, Charles Curtis, Charles W. Bryan and Charles L. McNary (all vice presidential picks between 1904-1940) ever did.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.

What history says about V.P. picks: senator, governor or wild card?

We know this much: Vice President Kamala Harris will pick her running mate before accepting her party’s presidential nomination in August at the Democratic National Convention.

Harris also has a short list of about a dozen potential candidates she’s vetting, according to CBS News.

So should she choose a U.S. senator, governor, U.S. House representative — or someone else?

Let’s examine the historical record to see which type of vice presidential candidates have helped — or hurt — a presidential ticket.

Since 1945, presidential candidates have made 31 vice presidential picks — not counting vice presidential renominations.

ALSO READ: How much access did $50,000 buy someone at the Republican National Convention?

Of these 31 picks, 19 most recently served in elected office as U.S. senators, four were governors and seven had prior electoral experience only from the House of Representatives, such as Dick Cheney and George H. W. Bush. One did not have experience in any of those offices.

Of their 18 vice presidential selections, Democrats have chosen a U.S. senator in 16 cases since 1945. The Republicans are a little more diverse in their selections, with four U.S. Senate picks — including Donald Trump’s selection of J. D. Vance — four gubernatorial picks and six selections from the House of Representatives.

There’s the adage that a vice president can only hurt you, and he or she can’t help you. Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who Gerald Ford selected when he replaced President Richard Nixon as president, was not renominated by Ford when he unsuccessfully ran for his own term in 1976 — not that it mattered much in the end.

Historical evidence indicates that the prior job of the running mate makes little difference in victory or defeat — if he or she is a senator or governor. U.S. senators nominated for vice president have won nine times and lost eight times. Governors as vice presidential nominees are split, winning twice and losing twice.

But those without gubernatorial or senatorial experience fare poorly. Picking a candidate from the House of Representatives has only been successful two times in seven tries.

EXCLUSIVE: Trump ‘secretary of retribution’ won't discuss his ‘target list’ at RNC

The one candidate without experience as a governor, senator or representative, Sargent Shriver, lost in 1972 as Democrat George McGovern’s ticket partner.

Republicans picked Vance, and their record with U.S. Senate vice presidential nominees is pretty good: two wins (Richard Nixon and Dan Quayle) and one loss (Bob Dole).

Democrats, however, have seven wins with U.S. senators (Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Alben Barkley) against seven losses (Tim Kaine, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Lloyd Bentsen, Edwin Muskie, Estes Kefauver and John Sparkman).

Republicans are the only ones since World War II who have picked a governor as a running mate. Two (Mike Pence, Spiro Agnew) won, while two (Sarah Palin and Earl Warren) lost.

U.S. House representatives have largely failed for both parties, with the GOP picking two winners (George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney) and four losers (Paul Ryan, Jack Kemp, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., and Bill Miller). Democrats picked one (Geraldine Ferraro) and she lost.

It should also be noted that Bush — UN ambassador, CIA director — and Cheney — secretary of defense, CEO of Halliburton — both had extensive experience in other realms between their stints as House members and selections as vice presidential candidates.

Trump has already made his pick. What should Harris do?

It’s a flip of a coin based on the historical record, so long as she doesn’t pick a U.S. House member.

At present, senators and governors top her shortlist, including Harris can choose North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, California Gov. Gavin Newsom or even Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Some new names include Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, as CBS reports.

Given that the record shows all things are equal in vice presidential picks, it is probably best to select a running mate from a state that will help you. That would put those candidates from swing states, such as Kelly (Arizona), Shapiro (Pennsylvania), Whitmer (Michigan) and even perhaps Cooper (North Carolina), at the top of the list.

Had Gore picked popular Florida U.S. senator and former Gov. Bob Graham for his VP, he would have very likely won the 2000 election, given Florida’s overriding significance in that race. Taking a running mate from Connecticut in 2000 — Joe Lieberman — made little difference.

Ford might have done better in 1976 with a Texan such as George H. W. Bush instead of a Kansan in Dole, given that Ford lost the Lone Star State to Democrat Jimmy Carter.

For John McCain in 2008, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge would have been a far better choice than Palin, of then-deep red Alaska. McCain lost the Keystone State (and some Obama-backing moderates).

In a close presidential race, particularly now, vice presidential candidates from swing states may matter more, regardless of prior office experience.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.