News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process: What's Wrong with the "Veepstakes"? 9783031281655, 9783031281662

Citation preview

News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process What’s Wrong with the “Veepstakes”?

Christopher J. Devine

News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process

Christopher J. Devine

News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process What’s Wrong with the “Veepstakes”?

Christopher J. Devine Department of Political Science University of Dayton Dayton, OH, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-28165-5 ISBN 978-3-031-28166-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28166-2 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: © John Rawsterne/patternhead.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To my brother, Michael Devine

Acknowledgments

It is customary at this point in a book to acknowledge those people without whom what you hold in your hands—or see on your screen— “would not have been possible.” I try to avoid saying such things because I am a stickler for literalism, and the truth is that when you really want to get something done, usually you can find a way to get it done. But in this case, because of several twists and turns involving other research projects and the tyranny of the academic and electoral calendars, I can honestly say—indeed, it would be dishonest not to say—that this book’s publication could not have happened without the help of several people that I have the privilege to recognize here. First and foremost, Grant Neeley, my department chair at the University of Dayton, made this book possible by helping to rearrange my teaching schedule in the spring and fall of 2022, which gave me the time needed to research and write it. There was a window for publishing this book ahead of the 2024 veepstakes, and I would have missed it but for Grant. Honestly, I was just kind of venting to him one day about what I’d do if I had more time. It’s a mark of Grant’s character and leadership that he was not only listening (when ignoring me seemed like a perfectly reasonable option), but that his first instinct was to help solve the problem—and he found a way to do so. This made all the difference. Second, this book would not have been possible without the collaboration and guidance of Kyle Kopko and David Congdon—respectively, co-author and editor on my last book, Do Running Mates Matter? The

vii

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Influence of Vice Presidential Candidates in Presidential Elections. I only half-jokingly refer to the present project as something of an “outtake” from that book. It started as the third chapter—to be included in Part I, on “Perceptions of Running Mate Effects,” alongside other chapters examining presidential candidates’ and voters’ expectations regarding the electoral influence of vice-presidential candidates. I wrote the chapter on journalists’ perceptions of running mate effects in its entirety, and loved it—to the point where I couldn’t recognize that it was overkill for Part I. David had the good judgment to recognize this and, along with Kyle, he convinced me that the manuscript would be stronger without it. It was hard to accept at the time, but I sort of knew then and definitely know now that this was the right decision. Still, I couldn’t let go of the idea for that chapter—and clearly, I didn’t. In fact, by expanding that initial work into a book project, I was able to develop my ideas and the scope of the analysis more fully, and (I think) do justice to it all. But for David and Kyle being willing to tell me what I didn’t want to hear, that would not have happened. Finally, I knew this book would become a reality only when Jordan Marsh, an outstanding undergraduate student and Political Science major at the University of Dayton, agreed—enthusiastically, no less—to serve as a second coder for the content analysis featured in Chaps. 4 and 5. If this book project was a puzzle, finding the right person for that job was the missing piece that I kept ignoring while putting the rest of it together. Implementing an extremely complex, novel coding process was a major undertaking, requiring not just a great deal of time but (above all) great care and conscientiousness. Jordan may not have a lot of the former to spare, but he has an abundance of the latter. He was exactly the right person for the job, and a pleasure to work with. Thank you, Jordan. Here’s to the bright future ahead of you. I am grateful to Palgrave Macmillan and particularly Madison Allums, for believing in this project and capably guiding it toward publication. Arun Kumar Anbalagan and Nandakini Lahiri were quite helpful in that process, as well. Thanks, also, to two anonymous reviewers, who provided excellent feedback on the initial manuscript; Karine Prèmont Herb Weisberg, and Andrew Green, for generously providing endorsements; Gianluca Passarelli and Chris Galdieri, for very helpful advice on the publication process; Heidi Gauder, for valuable research assistance;

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ix

Li-Yin Liu, for coming through in a Stata emergency; and my family— Trudy, Hayes, Miles, Madison, and McKinley—for all of their love and support along the way.

Praise for News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process

“A third of American Presidents have previously served as the nation’s Vice President. Yet, there has been little attention to the considerations involved in the selection of Vice-Presidential candidates. In this important volume, Devine examines how the media describe potential candidates when covering the “veepstakes,” and he insightfully critiques the media’s relative focus on electoral versus governing considerations.” —Herbert F. Weisberg, The Ohio State University “This book, which is well-written and full of fascinating details, provides a rich and original empirical analysis of media coverage of the vicepresidential selection process since 2000. Devine shows that the electoral strengths of prospective candidates are still the most prevalent topics put forward by the media—to the detriment of the governing qualifications of the candidates, though those factors are becoming increasingly important in the selection of running mates due to the growing influence of vice presidents. Devine’s rigorous analysis will improve scholars’ understanding of the workings of the media and their effects on voters’ perceptions, especially since it offers suggestions to encourage more balanced coverage of the various selection criteria at the heart of this process. I loved this book and learned a lot from it. I couldn’t put it down until I finished it.” —Karine Prémont, University of Sherbrooke and Center for United States Studies at the University of Québec in Montréal xi

xii

PRAISE FOR NEWS MEDIA COVERAGE …

“Christopher Devine’s volume on media coverage of the “Veepstakes” makes an important contribution to the political science literature on vice-presidential selection. Devine finds that media coverage of vicepresidential selection focuses more on electoral factors versus governing factors, which has implications for the information voters have in American presidential elections. The volume is a must read for anyone who is interested in developing a greater understanding of political media coverage, vice-presidential selection, and American electoral politics.” —Andrew D. Green, Central College

Contents

1

Introduction Initial Insights Volume of Media Coverage Electoral Considerations Variability in Media Coverage So, What? Why Veepstakes Media Coverage? Plan of the Book References

1 5 5 8 10 11 14 18 19

2

How the Veepstakes Came to Be Vice-Presidential Selection Before the Veepstakes The Constitution’s Selection Process The Parties’ Selection Process The Presidential Candidate’s Selection Process(?) The Veepstakes Era A Reformed Nomination Process The First Veepstakes A More Powerful Vice Presidency Media Vetting—or a Parlor Game? References

23 25 26 27 28 32 32 33 35 37 38

3

Studying the Veepstakes Data

41 42

xiii

xiv

CONTENTS

Coding References

45 53

Veepstakes Media Coverage, 2000–2016 Which Veepstakes Criteria Come Up (Most Often) in Media Coverage? Do the Media Talk Too Much About Getting Elected—And Not Enough About Governing? Is Ticket-Balancing a Priority? Conclusion References

55

5

Veepstakes Media Coverage, 2020 Qualitative Analysis Quantitative Analysis Conclusion References

83 85 90 92 93

6

Conclusion There’s No Easy Fix Opportunities for Improvement Future Research Public-Facing Scholarship Call It Out References

4

57 61 71 78 79

95 97 99 99 101 101 102

Appendix A: Data Sources

105

Appendix B: Coding Rubric

115

Index

131

About the Author

Christopher J. Devine is an associate professor of political science at the University of Dayton. He is the co-author of two other books on vice-presidential candidates, including Do Running Mates Matter? The Influence of Vice Presidential Candidates in Presidential Elections (with Kyle C. Kopko). This research has been cited by numerous U.S. and international media outlets. Devine also has published extensively on other topics relating to campaigns and elections, public opinion, and the U.S. presidency, including the forthcoming book on presidential campaign visits, I’m Here to Ask for Your Vote.

xv

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1

Fig. 2.1

Google searches for “Biden,” March 5–September 29, 2020 (Data come from Google Trends. Daily search volume is normalized to range from 0 to 100. The date on which searches for “Biden” was highest during this period [August 11] is scored as 100. All other scores are divided by that date’s total search volume. For example, March 5 is scored as 50 because total searches for “Biden” were half those of August 11) Percent of Books Referencing the “Veepstakes,” 1952–2019 (Data come from Google Ngram. Entries represent four-year, moving averages of published books that used the term “veepstakes” during this period)

3

26

xvii

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 5.1

References to evaluative (sub)categories in veepstakes media coverage, 2000–2016 Percent of veepstakes profiles referencing evaluative categories, by vice-presidential selection process, 2000–2016 Proportion of veepstakes profiles referencing characteristics (not) associated with the presidential candidate, 2000–2016 References to evaluative (sub)categories in veepstakes media coverage, 2020

58

60

75 91

xix

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract This chapter explains why it is important to analyze news media coverage of the vice-presidential selection process, or “veepstakes.” Such coverage is extensive, and often draws considerable public interest. For example, in 2020, Joe Biden’s selection of Kamala Harris dominated news coverage that day, and Google searches for “Biden” spiked to a six-month high. Past research shows that media coverage of the vice-presidential candidate, following selection, can influence candidate evaluations and presidential vote choice. However, no previous study has analyzed the content of media coverage prior to selection. Veepstakes media coverage can prime voters to view the selection of a running mate as (more) relevant to their choice among presidential candidates, and to view certain selection criteria as (more) relevant to their evaluation of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. For instance, emphasizing governing over electoral credentials might prime voters to expect a well-qualified running mate, and judge the presidential candidate accordingly. Conversely, emphasizing electoral credentials—such as the ability to (purportedly) deliver a home state or key voting bloc—might help to legitimize the choice of an electoral “game-changer” with less-impressive qualifications for office. This chapter outlines these arguments, and the contents of the subsequent chapters. Keywords Vice-presidential selection · Vice presidency · Media coverage · Priming effects · Joe Biden · Kamala Harris © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. J. Devine, News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28166-2_1

1

2

C. J. DEVINE

It started like so many Zoom calls, in that summer of 2020. A woman working from home, at her condo in Washington, D.C., was invited to join a meeting with a potential business partner. She clicked the link and, following a nervous delay, a man’s image appeared on her screen. He was also working from home, in a different state. “Hi, hi, hi, hi, sorry to keep you,” the woman began, almost breathlessly, eager to convey the enthusiasm that so often comes through pixelated on a computer screen. “No, that’s alright,” the man responded, reassuringly. “You ready to go to work?” Mundane as this meeting, and that question, might sound, it was anything but. This was the call. Joe Biden—the Democratic Party’s soonto-be nominee for president of the United States—had just asked Kamala Harris to be his running mate. Harris—the only Black woman then serving in the U.S. Senate, and now the first to run for the vice presidency on a major-party ticket—took a moment to process what was happening. “Oh my God,” she exhaled. “I am so ready to go to work” (Joe Biden for President 2020). Not long afterward, the Biden campaign sent an announcement to its supporters, via text message and email. “Joe Biden here. Big news: I’ve chosen Kamala Harris as my running mate. Together, with you, we’re going to beat [President Donald] Trump.” It was big news, indeed—the top story on every major media outlet’s homepage, and on every evening news broadcast. Nor was this merely a media obsession; the American public was paying attention. According to Google Trends data, searches for “Biden” were higher on this date, August 11, than at any point during the nearly seven-month period between Biden essentially securing the Democratic nomination in early March and his first debate against Trump in late September (see Fig. 1.1). What did the American people learn from media coverage of Harris’s selection? Most news articles and broadcasts focused on three major themes (often in this order)—first, the historic nature of Harris’s candidacy, as the first Black woman and first Asian-American to be nominated for the vice presidency; second, her campaign experience and potential electoral appeal, particularly in terms of mobilizing Black voters; third, her personal relationship with Joe Biden. Discussions of the latter focused on a contentious debate during the Democratic primaries, in June 2019, when Harris criticized Biden for speaking well of segregationist colleagues and opposing mandatory student busing while serving as a U.S. Senator in the 1970s. “There was a little girl in California who was a part of

1

8/21 DNC Speech

90

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

3

8/11 VP Pick

100

80

INTRODUCTION

3/11 Biden COVID Speech

3/16 Final Dem. Debate

9/29 1st Debate

4/8 Sanders Ends Campaign

5/23 Biden: "You Ain't Black"

8/19 Biden Nominated 3-5 3-10 3-15 3-20 3-25 3-30 4-4 4-9 4-14 4-19 4-24 4-29 5-4 5-9 5-14 5-19 5-24 5-29 6-3 6-8 6-13 6-18 6-23 6-28 7-3 7-8 7-13 7-18 7-23 7-28 8-2 8-7 8-12 8-17 8-22 8-27 9-1 9-6 9-11 9-16 9-21 9-26

0

Fig. 1.1 Google searches for “Biden,” March 5–September 29, 2020 (Data come from Google Trends. Daily search volume is normalized to range from 0 to 100. The date on which searches for “Biden” was highest during this period [August 11] is scored as 100. All other scores are divided by that date’s total search volume. For example, March 5 is scored as 50 because total searches for “Biden” were half those of August 11)

the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day,” Harris said, in perhaps the most memorable moment of her presidential campaign. “And that little girl was me.” Biden decried this “mischaracterization of my position,” and the relationship between the two—which had been close, going back to Harris’s friendship with Biden’s late son, Beau, while they served together as state attorneys general in the 2010s—apparently soured. Reportedly, Biden’s wife, Jill, along with other key advisors, opposed Harris’s selection on the basis of this “attack” (Martin and Burns 2022). A representative example of the initial coverage of Harris’s selection comes from the Associated Press (Ronayne and Weissert 2020): WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) – Joe Biden named California Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate on Tuesday, making history by selecting the first Black woman to compete on a major party’s presidential ticket and

4

C. J. DEVINE

acknowledging the vital role Black voters will play in his bid to defeat President Donald Trump. In choosing Harris, Biden is embracing a former rival from the Democratic primary who is familiar with the unique rigor of a national campaign. The 55-year-old first-term senator, who is also of South Asian descent, is one of the party’s most prominent figures. She quickly became a top contender for the No. 2 spot after her own White House campaign ended.

By and large, these initial reports provided a balanced presentation of the factors that might have influenced Biden’s selection, and the political implications of Harris’s candidacy—albeit with some of them dwelling more on the purported Biden–Harris “rivalry” during the 2020 primaries (e.g., ABC News 2020) and others directing attention to electoral considerations (e.g., Morin 2020). This was true even on cable news. On CNN’s “The Situation Room,” for example, reporter Jeff Zeleny explained the rationale behind “the biggest decision that Joe Biden has made in his political career” first by noting: “When you talk to friends of the former vice president they say he was consistently looking for someone who could be a governing partner.” But, Zeleny added, electoral considerations also played a role: “he knows, I’m told, that he needed someone who had campaign experience… [I]t’s also the type of voters she is able to reach out to” (CNN 2020). As media coverage moved on from the initial, polished reports to more informal conversation and analysis, however, electoral considerations increasingly came to the fore. For instance, CNN Political Director David Chalian—appearing on “The Situation Room,” following Zeleny and two other reporters—explained to guest host Anderson Cooper: “What the Biden campaign is now counting on is Kamala Harris joining forces and being a force multiplier and really appealing to key segments of core constituencies [within the Democratic Party] to help jazz that enthusiasm even more….” Cooper homed in on this point: “I mean, obviously, you know, when one is considering a vice president you try to… look for a person who has strengths in areas that you may not have.” He could have been referring to Harris’s potential to help Biden govern, once in the White House. But, no; Cooper had the 2020 election in mind. His (rather garbled) follow-up: “And certainly, Kamala Harris had appeal among women in the suburbs… You know, Joe Biden—clearly who had a lot of support among older African-Americans, as well as, you know, she’s got California, West Coast connections and she has been on that stage.”

1

INTRODUCTION

5

In other words, Cooper suggested, picking Harris made sense because she could help Biden win. Not to be outdone, “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd proclaimed to Lester Holt on NBC’s Nightly News that he knew exactly why Biden had selected Harris: it was all about getting elected (NBC News 2020). “What does Biden’s choice tell you he’s thinking about right now, going into November?” Holt asked his guest, on that night’s broadcast. “Simple, Lester,” Todd began, by way of explaining a complex and private selection process of which he was not a part; he’s not putting the cart before the horse. He realizes he’s gotta win first. He picked not just somebody who he thinks he can govern with, but he also picked someone who is an effective campaigner… As a campaigner, as someone who can fire up an audience, who can connect with people, she’s very good at that. And I think she brings a picture of unity to this larger coalition of the Democratic Party.

Then came the punctuation—an exclamation point, where a question mark would have sufficed. “Bottom line is this,” Todd declared: “this wasn’t Joe Biden thinking about, what is he gonna do as president and what kind of vice president does he want. This was Joe Biden thinking: who do I need to win this election?” To which Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and viewers of the NBC Nightly News might have responded, incredulously: how do you know that?

Initial Insights What does this narrative tell us about media coverage of the vicepresidential selection process? First, there is a lot of it. Second, it tends to focus on electoral considerations—more so than, or even to the exclusion of, governing considerations. Third, coverage is not uniform across media outlets, but there are some identifiable patterns that call for further analysis. Volume of Media Coverage Every election cycle, the news media extensively cover not only the announcement of a vice-presidential candidate, but also the selection process that precedes it. Take 2008, for example. Barack Obama chose

6

C. J. DEVINE

Joe Biden as his running mate on August 23 of that year, and John McCain chose Sarah Palin on August 29. According to the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, from August 18 to 24, more than two-fifths (42%) of all campaign news coverage focused on the vice-presidential selection process (Jurkowitz 2008a).1 The Biden announcement itself attracted only 9% of this coverage (in part because it happened at the end of the week); 27% of campaign coverage was devoted to speculation about Obama’s impending announcement, and 5% to McCain’s. In other words, one-third of all campaign coverage during that week concerned who Obama and McCain would or should select as a running mate (i.e., the “veepstakes”)—not reporting on an actual news event, mind you, but merely the anticipation of and rampant speculation about one to come. With 35% of all news coverage that week devoted to the campaign, in general, the “veepstakes” alone commanded 11% of the news media’s attention—more, in fact, than the closing week of the summer Olympics in Beijing (10%) or the recent Russian invasion of Georgia (8%). The ongoing U.S. war in Iraq attracted only 2% of all news coverage, and the U.S. economy—which would implode one month later, triggering the Great Recession—only 3%. One week later, from August 25 to 31, 2008, the Biden and Palin selections accounted for 18% of all campaign coverage and 12% of total news coverage, ahead of Hurricane Gustav (7%) and behind only the Democratic National Convention (17%) (Jurkowitz 2008b). Coverage of Palin’s selection, alone, accounted for 16% of all news coverage from September 1 to 7—just behind Hurricane Gustav (17%) and well ahead of the Iraq War (2%) and the economy (1%). According to Pew’s report, “the media were largely focused on the strategic impact of McCain’s stunning selection of Palin” (Jurkowitz 2008c). A similar analysis, conducted in 2016 by researchers at the MIT Media Lab’s Electome Project, shows that up to 35% of daily campaign news coverage from June 20 to July 8 was devoted to the veepstakes (Powers and Vosoughi 2016). These percentages fluctuated quite a bit, but often

1 Pew’s analysis was based on its Campaign Coverage Index (CCI). In terms of methodology, Jurkowitz explains, “The CCI measures both the nature of the campaign narrative and the amount of coverage devoted to each candidate. The race for exposure is measured by the number of stories in which a candidate plays a significant role (as a subject of between 25 and 50% of the story) or a main newsmaker role (at least 50% of the story).”

1

INTRODUCTION

7

approached or exceeded 20%. What is particularly striking about these findings is that Donald Trump did not announce his running mate, Mike Pence, until July 16, and Hillary Clinton did not announce her running mate, Tim Kaine, until July 23. Yet weeks in advance, with nothing concrete to report, the vice-presidential selection was on the top of journalists’ minds, and all over the news. Nor does media coverage of the running mate stop once his or her identity has been revealed. First, there is extensive coverage of the announcement and its aftermath, often referred to as the vice-presidential “roll-out.” This is especially true in the case of a surprising or historic choice. In 1988, for example, George H.W. Bush surprised journalists and most of his own presidential campaign staff by selecting Dan Quayle as his running mate. Quayle—a second-term senator who had previously served in the U.S. House—was well-qualified for the vice presidency, but his rollout was a disaster (Goldstein 2016, 228–229). This was mostly because, in its efforts to preserve the element of surprise, the Bush campaign had failed to prepare staffers to answer questions about Quayle and his record. It did not even provide Quayle with a security escort to the outdoor announcement event in New Orleans, leaving him and his wife, Marilyn, along with a personal aide, to fight their way through a large crowd and up to the stage. Quayle—sweaty and bewildered by this experience—tried too hard to appear energetic at the event, and came off as unpresidential. For all of these reasons, Quayle’s roll-out attracted a great deal of media coverage—much of it negative. Over the next two weeks, Quayle was the subject of 93 stories on the Big Three television news networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), accounting for about 70–80% of their campaign news coverage (Goldstein 2016, 229; Woodward and Broder 1992, 71). Other, less controversial, roll-outs also attracted extensive media coverage. Bob Dole’s selection of Jack Kemp in 1996, for example, drew not one but three front-page stories in The New York Times on the day of, as well as the day before, that announcement. Al Gore’s selection of Joe Lieberman, in 2000, drew nearly the same coverage—three front-page stories in The New York Times on the day of the announcement, and two more the next day (Goldstein 2016, 231). Vice-presidential candidates also attract extensive media coverage throughout the campaign—particularly at critical moments such as their

8

C. J. DEVINE

national convention speech and the vice-presidential debate.2 According to the most comprehensive analysis of this phenomenon, conducted by Stacy Ulbig (2013, 34–37), running mates typically receive about onefifth as much media coverage as presidential candidates—no small feat, given the enormous attention devoted to the latter during a presidential campaign. Some running mates—again, mostly those whose candidacies are particularly controversial or historic—attract more media attention than others. In 2008, for example, the ratio of campaign coverage referencing the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, versus his vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, was about 3:2 (0.63). In 1984, for Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman ever nominated for the vice presidency, this ratio was about 2:1 (0.47). Quayle, seeking re-election in 1992 (0.31), and Lieberman (0.29) also attracted substantial media coverage. Electoral Considerations Vice presidents exercise few formal powers. The U.S. Constitution empowers them only to serve as president of the U.S. Senate, cast tiebreaking votes in that body, and (in what used to be merely a ceremonial function) open and count each state’s certified Electoral College votes before a joint session of Congress. The vice president’s most significant role, however, has been that of successor, to be elevated to the nation’s highest office upon the president’s death, resignation, removal by Congress, or (since ratification of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, in 1967) inability to serve. This is what the first vice president, John Adams, had in mind when he said: “I am vice president. In this I am nothing, but I may be everything” (Milkis and Nelson 2011, 486). Yet, for the past half-century, vice presidents actually have exercised substantial power. This institutional transformation has come about not through constitutional amendment or the passage of news laws, but informally, as a matter of practice among recent presidents. The White House vice presidency, as Joel Goldstein (2016) calls it, began with the Jimmy

2 The 2008 vice-presidential debate, between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, actually attracted more viewers (66.9 million) than any of that year’s presidential debates between John McCain and Barack Obama. Viewership for all vice-presidential debates, from 1976 to 2012, was substantial, in each case at least two-thirds that of the corresponding presidential debates (Baumgartner 2015, Table 6.6).

1

INTRODUCTION

9

Carter Administration (1977–1981). Carter, for reasons addressed more fully in Chapter 2, reached an agreement with Walter Mondale prior to selecting him as his running mate in 1976. Mondale would be a uniquely consequential vice president, with regular access to Carter, the White House paper flow, and all high-level meetings. Mondale’s staff would be integrated with the president’s staff, and the vice president would even have an office in the White House’s West Wing. Perhaps most important was that Mondale would not be given “line assignments” or confined to a particular piece of bureaucratic turf. He would serve as a general advisor to, and troubleshooter for, Carter, as someone whose daily and longterm political interests coincided with those of the president. Mondale proved to be an invaluable asset to Carter, and the “Mondale Model” a template for future administrations. With relatively minor modifications, subsequent presidents informally have granted their vice presidents similar powers. As a result, Goldstein concludes, “The vice presidency is no longer a sinecure. It matters now. A lot. An office that was ‘nothing’ has become a robust political institution” (2). Indeed, “most vice-presidential work now is significant” (5). This is a radical departure from earlier periods of American history, when vice presidents exercised minimal power once in office—formally or informally—and therefore were chosen primarily for electoral purposes. Whereas strategic considerations, such as home state size and competitiveness, or ticket-balancing by age or geography, predicted vice-presidential selection prior to 1976, political experience (i.e., governing qualifications) has predicted selection since then (Baumgartner and Park 2022; Hiller and Kriner 2008). This is not to say that electoral considerations now are irrelevant; as Devine and Kopko (2020) show, choosing a well-qualified running mate improves perceptions of the presidential candidate’s judgment and therefore provides electoral benefits, in and of itself. Indeed, Baumgartner and Park (2022) explain that governing and electoral considerations are relevant to vice-presidential selection today. “Clearly, presidential nominees in the modern era value electoral and governing considerations when selecting a running mate,” they explain. “This is likely a product of the increased focus in the modern era on how qualified a VP candidate is perceived to be to assume the presidency in the event of a presidential vacancy” (682). Thus, it is hardly inappropriate for media coverage of the vicepresidential selection process to discuss electoral considerations, as the examples from 2020 cited above generally do. The question is whether

10

C. J. DEVINE

such coverage duly balances electoral against governing considerations, and takes stock of the available evidence regarding vice-presidential candidates’ actual effect on voting behavior. Analysis such as that provided by Chuck Todd (see above) privileges electoral over governing considerations, to the point of treating the two as separable and even in competition with one another. However, as Devine and Kopko (2020, 218) put it: “choosing a well-qualified running mate is not just a matter of responsible governance; it is also a good campaign strategy.” Indeed, they find that running mates have quite limited direct or targeted effects on voting behavior; that is to say, very few voters seem to cast their vote based on vice-presidential preferences, or in order to elect a vice president who shares their political or social identity. Rather, running mates are most likely to have an indirect effect on voting behavior, by changing perceptions of the presidential candidate that voters actually have in mind when casting their ballot. In short, I would argue that media coverage of the vice-presidential selection process should focus on governance, first and foremost—not only because modern vice presidents exercise substantial (informal) power once in office, but because perceptions of their qualifications seem to influence voting behavior. It is also reasonable to discuss how a (potential) running mate might influence the outcome of an election—for example, by mobilizing voters who share their social identity (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity)—but this should not overwhelm discussions of political experience, or be treated as a rival point of consideration. The preceding examples, from 2020, show how this can be done well, or done poorly. Variability in Media Coverage It is all too common to treat the news media as monolithic—even to refer to it in the singular (e.g., “the media is liberal”). As the preceding examples show, that is not always appropriate. For example, some media outlets, or even some guests on a particular program, were more likely than others to focus on electoral over governing considerations when discussing Joe Biden’s selection of Kamala Harris as his running mate. Thus, it would not be fair to characterize media coverage, as a whole, based on a small number of examples, or to ignore outlying cases. And yet it is possible—indeed, it is worthwhile, empirically—to identify general trends in the data that help to evaluate tendencies among journalists and the information conveyed to their audiences.

1

INTRODUCTION

11

For example, consider Ulbig’s (2013, Chapter 4) analysis of the tone of media coverage of vice-presidential candidates from 1972 to 2008. Among Republican running mates, the two that received the most negative media coverage, on average, were incumbents seeking re-election: Dan Quayle, in 1992, and Dick Cheney, in 2004. But this hardly means that coverage of these candidates was uniformly negative. In fact, only 38% of Cheney’s coverage, and 28% of Quayle’s coverage, was negative; most of it—60% and 67%, respectively—was neutral. Among Democratic vice-presidential candidates, Joe Lieberman, in 2000, received the most negative coverage—just 0.01 better than Cheney in 2004, on a 1–3 scale, and equal to Sarah Palin, in 2008. This evidence demonstrates two important points. First, the news media do not always cover one party’s candidates negatively and the other positively, as some of their most vociferous critics might claim. Second, the tone varies across candidates within both parties, with some attracting more positive or negative coverage than others. That is to say, media coverage is variable; we cannot treat it as monolithic, yet we can observe general trends—such as the tendency to cover incumbent vice presidents more negatively, or to provide neutral more often than negative or positive coverage. The question, then, is not whether the news media predictably and uniformly cover vice-presidential selection in negative or positive terms, or by emphasizing electoral over governing considerations, but whether there are identifiable patterns in media coverage that might influence how the public thinks about vice-presidential selection, in terms of its general importance or the relative importance of certain selection criteria. To understand that is the objective of this research.

So, What? Does the volume and content of vice-presidential candidates’ media coverage actually matter, in the first place? That is to say, does it have any impact on electoral outcomes? Previous research suggests that it does. Most notable is Stacy Ulbig’s (2013) analysis of the 1972–2008 presidential elections. Ulbig finds that vice-presidential candidates have a greater impact on presidential vote choice, particularly among independents, when they attract substantial media coverage. For instance, she estimates that Geraldine Ferraro—who, in 1984, attracted the secondhighest volume of media coverage (in terms of the number of New York Times articles about any candidate that referenced her) and the

12

C. J. DEVINE

most intensive coverage (in terms of the average amount of coverage received within articles that referenced her)—had the greatest effect on the presidential choice of any running mate during this period.3 Ulbig also finds that the content of this coverage, with respect to demographic characteristics and candidate traits, often influences vote choice. Specifically, vice-presidential candidate evaluations have a greater effect on independent voters when media coverage of that candidate emphasizes their demographic characteristics—such as sex or religious affiliation— or questions their competency, in terms of intelligence and political experience. Ulbig attributes these findings to the effects of “priming”—that is, the media’s ability to influence which issues voters consider when registering opinions on political issues or making political decisions. Indeed, priming can influence political attitudes such as presidential approval (e.g., Iyengar, Peters, and Kinder 1982; Krosnick and Brannon 1993; Krosnick and Kinder 1990; McGraw and Ling 2003), as well as voting behavior (e.g., Druckman 2004; Hetherington 1996; Vavreck 2009). It is important to distinguish priming from other potential media effects, such as framing (e.g., Iyengar 1990; Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley 1997). Priming does not concern how news consumers might think about an issue already on their mind—for example, whether a running mate’s lack of political experience is problematic (i.e., “not ready to lead”) or beneficial (i.e., “a fresh face”). Rather, it concerns the relative importance of the issue, or the aspects of that issue that they regard as important, when making political evaluations. As Sides, Shaw, Grossmann, and Lipsitz (2019, 242) explain: “The media influence or ‘prime’ the criteria citizens use to make judgments by the degree of emphasis issues receive, even if the media are not explicitly telling the public to make judgments in this manner.” For example, when media coverage of a presidential campaign very frequently mentions the vice-presidential candidate (“volume”)—or, for that matter, typically makes extensive rather than just passing references to that candidate (“intensity”)—voters are “primed” to factor the vice-presidential candidate into their voting decision, in the first place, or to weight this

3 Ulbig measures impact in terms of the percentage of voters whose vote preferences likely would have changed in response to a 25-point increase in the vice-presidential candidate’s feeling thermometer rating. According to Ulbig’s estimates, such a change in favor of Ferraro would have persuaded an additional 42.2% of independents, and 5.3% of all voters, to support the Democratic ticket in 1984.

1

INTRODUCTION

13

factor more heavily than they would have, otherwise. Also, when factoring the vice-presidential candidate into their decision calculus, voters might be primed to consider or more heavily weight a particular characteristic or trait—such as political experience—if it has been the subject of extensive media coverage. Other studies of vice-presidential candidates at least indirectly support such an interpretation. For example, Baumgartner (2015) cites the vicepresidential “roll-out” as an important opportunity to generate favorable media coverage; alternatively, if the presidential candidate has chosen poorly, or the campaign has failed to prepare for the event, it risks negative coverage that might hurt the ticket. “This must be handled carefully,” Baumgartner cautions. If not properly vetted, “the [vicepresidential] nominee may become the target of attack ads or negative press. The result? The candidate may become a drag on the ticket, or at a minimum, an unwelcome distraction” (110). Goldstein (2016) notes the polling bounce, or “boost,” that presidential candidates usually receive following the announcement of a running mate—three percentage points, on average, from 1996 to 2012—and suggests a connection to the rollout itself; “It provides a widely covered event in which the ticket receives favorable publicity in contexts set by the campaign” (230). He, too, notes the risks of a botched roll-out: The roll-out may be affected by the quality of the vetting and whether its fruits are shared with campaign decision-makers. The campaign may fail to respond effectively if potential problems are missed, underestimated, or kept from campaign operatives. Issues first publicized after the announcement, as occurred with Palin’s selection, may impeach the competency of the selection process and the presidential candidate. (232)

This assessment is in keeping with Devine and Kopko’s (2020) research, cited above, showing that running mates matter primarily in terms of how they affect perceptions of the presidential candidate; a well- (poorly-) qualified running mate will bolster (undermine) perceptions of the presidential candidate’s judgment—which, in turn, should increase (decrease) his or her chances of winning election.

14

C. J. DEVINE

Why Veepstakes Media Coverage? How much attention the media pay to the running mate, and the criteria that they emphasize when doing so—from the initial roll-out to Election Day—clearly seems to have some influence on public opinion and ultimately vote choice. What is missing from the existing literature, however, is an empirical analysis of what comes prior to the announcement of a running mate: the pre-selection process, or “veepstakes.” Indeed, as indicated above, the news media extensively—critics would say, disproportionately—cover this campaign period, not only to identify potential running mates but also to discuss and debate their credentials, often framed explicitly as “pros and cons” or “strengths and weaknesses.” Frequently, such coverage is dismissed as little more than a “parlor game”—even by journalists, pundits, and other figures that take part in it. And—given the important role that vice presidents play in American governance, as well as their real but limited influence on voting behavior—there is good reason to be skeptical, if not scornful, of such “gamification” of the selection process. Yet it would be a mistake to dismiss veepstakes coverage as inconsequential, in light of the preceding discussion of priming effects and evidence of such effects starting with the vice-presidential roll-out. Simply put, if media coverage matters in the period following vicepresidential selection—particularly, by priming voters to treat it as (more) relevant to their choice among presidential candidates, and to treat certain criteria as (more) relevant to their vice-presidential candidate evaluations—then media coverage also should matter prior to selection. This is not to say that the two periods are equally important; surely, postselection coverage is more influential, because it allows the media to focus on one rather than a range of candidates, reflects a presidential candidate’s actual rather than potential choice among those options, and occurs in closer proximity to the time at which voters cast their ballot. But that does not make all coverage prior to the point of selection irrelevant—as if the post-selection effects would be exactly the same were the media to completely forego all coverage of the topic prior to the vice-presidential roll-out. Rather, pre-selection media coverage should provide a salient and early signal of what voters apparently learn to recognize later in the campaign—about the importance of vice-presidential selection, and the (ir)relevance of various selection criteria. To the former, it is difficult to imagine that the American public would pay so much attention

1

INTRODUCTION

15

to the announcement of a running mate (recall the Google Trends data discussed above) were it not for the steady drumbeat of news coverage in the weeks and months prior priming the importance of this choice and analyzing the presidential candidate’s options. To the latter, veepstakes coverage not only can draw the public’s attention to favorable or unfavorable characteristics of a particular would-be running mate, but also can prime the public to perceive certain criteria as relevant to the selection process in general. For example, if the news media generally emphasize governing considerations (e.g., political experience, expertise in foreign affairs or other important policy areas) when profiling potential running mates during the veepstakes period, this could prime voters to weight governing considerations more heavily when evaluating the initial selection and perhaps throughout the general election campaign. If, for example, in this media environment, a presidential candidate chooses a poorly qualified running mate, apparently for electoral purposes (e.g., to win a home state or mobilize a bloc of voters), the public might react negatively, viewing it as a failure to handle this important decision in a responsible and appropriate manner. Conversely, if veepstakes coverage emphasizes electoral over governing considerations, this might help to legitimize the choice of such a running mate, by making it seem sensible or even savvy to prioritize winning the election, above all else. For that matter, it is important to recognize that journalists do not begin thinking about how to evaluate the vice-presidential candidate on the day that he or she is announced. What they and their peers say or write about the selection process or individual candidates beforehand surely influences their expectations—which, in turn, should influence their initial reactions to the selection, and thus the public’s reaction to it. Previous studies have touched on the importance of veepstakes media coverage. Baumgartner (2015, 210), for example, suggests—albeit, not in these terms—that such coverage primes voters to regard the selection as important. “The media,” he says, “serves to generate publicity for the vice presidential choice, and thus the campaign, by way of covering the veepstakes.” Goldstein (2016, 178) makes a similar point, in stating that the shift in public attention from the presidential primaries, once settled, to the veepstakes, “raise[s] the visibility of the vice-presidential selection and ma[kes] the presidential nominee’s role more conspicuous, thereby increasing the stakes of an improvident process or choice.” But perhaps the most important function of veepstakes coverage, both scholars argue,

16

C. J. DEVINE

is the media’s role in vetting potential running mates. Indeed, presidential candidates and their advisors often float “trial balloons,” as Goldstein refers to them, “by leaking a short list [of finalists for selection] in order to elicit negative information about, or reactions to, prospective running mates” (187). This can serve not only to identify fatal flaws among vice-presidential finalists, effectively excluding them from contention, but also to reduce the impact of negative information prior to a running mate’s selection, by making it familiar to the public in advance (see also Baumgartner 2015, 210).4 This is the first study to adopt veepstakes media coverage as its central focus. The only prior empirical analysis of it, by Devine and Kopko (2016, Chapter 2), exclusively addresses geographic considerations. They find that approximately half of all veepstakes coverage from 2000 to 2012 referenced the potential running mate’s home state or region as a factor relevant to the selection process. This evidence suggests that veepstakes coverage frequently emphasizes electoral considerations (e.g., the “home state advantage”). But it would take a more comprehensive analysis to characterize the content of such coverage, in its totality. For example, how often does it emphasize electoral considerations, more generally— based on not just geography, but also demographics (e.g., age, gender, race/ethnicity) or communication or other campaign-related skills? More important, given the considerations cited above: how often does veepstakes media coverage emphasize governing considerations that might help voters to evaluate potential running mates’ ability to serve effectively as vice president or, if necessary, as president? This, after all, is what presidential candidates regularly cite (in public, at least) as their primary selection criterion (Devine and Kopko 2020, 30–34). Do journalists evaluate presidential candidates’ options accordingly? Do they prime voters to do so, as well? Or do they conform to critics’ dismissals of veepstakes

4 Stuart Spencer, a legendary Republican campaign operative and advisor to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign, emphasized this point while excoriating the vetting process for Dan Quayle as “criminal” (Freedman et al. 2001, 102). “If you’re going to pick a young, totally unknown Senator from a state like Indiana,” he fumed, “you’d better use the political process to see how it’s going to work.” How so? “Five weeks out, four weeks out, [Bush] should have made sure that Quayle’s name was leaked so that it could get bounced around, so that the press could do their vetting, which they do.” This, of course, is not necessarily a friendly service of the news media to political campaigns. Rather, Spencer recognized, “They’re looking for something to nail them with”—essentially, to attract an audience through negative coverage about a major news story: the veepstakes.

1

INTRODUCTION

17

coverage as merely a “parlor game,” consumed by gossip and playful strategizing rather than the type of serious analysis that might help candidates and the public, alike, to vet applicants for one of the most important offices in American government? For that matter, what about other worthwhile considerations, such as a potential running mate’s personal or ideological compatibility with the presidential candidate and other leading government officials? By what criteria do the news media evaluate contenders for the vice presidency—potentially influencing the choices made by presidential candidates, and by voters—prior to selection? This study is unique in that it provides a comprehensive, empirical analysis of veepstakes media coverage. Specifically, I present content analyses of numerous “veepstakes guides”—that is, newspaper articles and other news items that systematically evaluate the credentials of potential running mates—for each competitive selection process taking place in this century, from 2000 to 2020. I use an inductive approach to identify and categorize the substantive content of candidate profiles within the veepstakes guides—including various criteria relating to electoral as well as governing considerations. For each selection process, and pooling across processes within a given time period, I am able to quantify and compare the news media’s attentiveness to various selection criteria. The available data do not allow me to directly evaluate the effects of this coverage on public opinion about the selection process, or voting behavior. I leave it to future studies to take those next steps. For now, my goal is to evaluate the content of veepstakes media coverage—with the expectation, based on previous studies of priming and vice-presidential candidates’ electoral effects, that this should influence voters’ evaluations of the selection process and the eventual nominee. Among many important research findings, this is my takeaway point: the news media, in general, are doing a disservice to the public with their veepstakes coverage. They focus way too much on electoral strategizing, and way too little on evaluating the running mate’s potential to help govern once in office. To be sure, there are exceptions—and I take pains to point out those journalists whose coverage provides a model for others to follow. But, by and large, veepstakes media coverage deserves its bad reputation, as little more than a parlor game. Too bad; it should be so much more than that.

18

C. J. DEVINE

Plan of the Book Chapter 2 expands upon this introduction to the study of veepstakes media coverage, by providing relevant historical context. Briefly, I explain the evolution of the vice-presidential selection process, particularly by focusing on institutional changes within political parties and the vice presidency itself that made it practical, reasonable, and even important, for the news media to extensively cover what has become known as the “veepstakes.” Chapter 3 lays the foundation for this book’s empirical analysis. Here, I describe the data and methodology used to conduct my content analysis of veepstakes media coverage, from 2000 to 2020. First, I explain the process used to identify relevant news items about the selection process, or what I refer to as “veepstakes guides” (see Appendix A). Second, I explain the process used to develop and implement an original coding scheme for analyzing veepstakes media coverage (see Appendix B). My empirical analysis is divided into two chapters. Chapter 4 analyzes veepstakes media coverage in the 2000–2016 elections, and Chapter 5 the 2020 election, only. Why? Because the 2020 election is unique (for this dataset) in that a presidential candidate announced prior to the veepstakes that he would only consider selecting someone from one major demographic group. Specifically, Joe Biden announced at the last Democratic primary debate, in March 2020, that he would select a woman as his running mate. For analytical purposes, this limits the comparability of the 2000–2016 versus 2020 data. By promising to select a woman in 2020, Biden effectively removed gender as a basis for choosing among vice-presidential finalists—whereas in previous elections it was an important point of distinction among them in most media coverage. Imagine, for example, that Kamala Harris had been a vice-presidential finalist prior to 2020. In any of those elections, gender would have been regularly cited as a major factor in deciding to choose her versus other, mostly male competitors—usually as a way to win votes among women, by balancing the ticket in terms of gender, but perhaps as a reason not select her in 2016, when Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated for the presidency. Given the space limitations that constrain most media coverage, some of Harris’s and other finalists’ selection criteria probably received more attention in 2020 than would have been the case in earlier years when (often prominent) discussions of gender would have downgraded or displaced them.

1

INTRODUCTION

19

In short, the removal of a major selection criterion such as gender distorts comparisons among other criteria, such that we cannot be sure whether additional coverage of the latter in 2020 indicates a natural evolution in media coverage. Also, in some cases I pool together data from the earlier selection processes, to provide more generalizable characterizations of media coverage and to compare different types of elections versus others (e.g., based on electoral competitiveness). For the reasons cited above, including 2020 in the pooled data could distort these averages, probably by decreasing references to gender and increasing references to other selection criteria. My principal objective in Chapters 4 and 5 is to summarize the content of veepstakes media coverage, across a wide range of selection criteria, in general as well as with respect to specific selection processes and electoral conditions. This makes it possible to characterize the nature of such coverage, and its variability across time and political circumstances, with an eye toward its potential to condition, or “prime,” voters’ evaluations of the selection process and the eventual nominee. In particular, I am interested in the media’s relative emphasis on electoral versus governing considerations. As discussed above, I do not consider the former to be irrelevant or somehow inappropriate; indeed, it is common and reasonable for presidential campaigns to consider how the choice of a running mate might help or hurt their chances of winning election. But—given the increased institutional power of the vice presidency over the past 50 years, and evidence indicating that selecting a well-qualified running mate is one of, if not the best electoral strategies—I would argue that media coverage should strike a reasonable balance between the two, tipping in favor of governing considerations. If not, and especially if veepstakes coverage pays very little attention to the potential running mates’ qualifications, I would consider the news media, in general, to have failed in its duties to serve the public interest by properly vetting the next vice president prior to his or her selection. Unfortunately, more often than not, that appears to be the case. I discuss why this is a problem, and what can be done about it, at the conclusion of this book, in Chapter 6.

References ABC News. 2020. “World News Tonight with David Muir.” ABC News, August 11. https://abc.com/shows/world-news-tonight/episode-guide/2020-08/ 11-tuesday-august-11-2020. Accessed September 26, 2022.

20

C. J. DEVINE

Baumgartner, Jody C., with Thomas Crumblin. 2015. The American Vice Presidency: From the Shadow to the Spotlight. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Baumgartner, Jody C., and Baekkwan Park. 2022. The Complex Reality of Vice Presidential Selection in the Modern Era. Presidential Studies Quarterly 52 (3): 671–691. CNN. 2020. “Transcripts: The Situation Room.” CNN, August 11. https://tra nscripts.cnn.com/show/sitroom/date/2020-08-11/segment/01. Accessed September 26, 2022. Devine, Christopher J., and Kyle C. Kopko. 2016. The VP Advantage: How Running Mates Influence Home State Voting in Presidential Elections. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Devine, Christopher J., and Kyle C. Kopko. 2020. Do Running Mates Matter?: The Influence of Vice Presidential Candidates in Presidential Elections. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Druckman, James N. 2004. Priming the Vote: Campaign Effects in a U.S. Senate Election. Political Psychology 25 (4): 577–594. Freedman, Paul B., Stephen F. Knott, Russell L. Riley, and James Sterling Young. 2001. Interview with Stuart Spencer. Miller Center of Public Affairs, November 15–16. http://web1.millercenter.org/poh/transcripts/ ohp_2001_1115_spencer.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2022. Goldstein, Joel K. 2016. The White House Vice Presidency: The Path to Significance, Mondale to Biden. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Hetherington, Marc J. 1996. The Media’s Role in Forming Voters’ National Economic Evaluations in 1992. American Journal of Political Science 40 (2): 372–395. Hiller, Mark, and Douglas Kriner. 2008. Institutional Change and the Dynamics of Vice Presidential Selection. Presidential Studies Quarterly 38 (3): 401–421. Iyengar, Shanto. 1990. Framing Responsibility for Political Issues: The Case of Poverty. Political Behavior 12 (1): 19–40. Iyengar, Shanto, Mark D. Peters, and Donald R. Kinder. 1982. Experimental Demonstrations of the ‘Not-So-Minimal’ Consequences of Television News Programs. American Political Science Review 76 (4): 848–858. Joe Biden for President. 2020. Kamala Harris | Vice Presidential Announcement. YouTube, August 12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfACU9wC1ok. Accessed September 26, 2022. Jurkowitz, Mark. 2008a. It’s All Veepstakes All the Time. Pew Research Center, August 25. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2008/08/25/pej-cam paign-coverage-index-august-18-24-2008/. Accessed September 26, 2022.

1

INTRODUCTION

21

Jurkowitz, Mark. 2008b. Denver and Palin Fuel Biggest Campaign Week Yet. Pew Research Center, September 2. https://www.pewresearch.org/jou rnalism/2008/09/02/pej-campaign-coverage-index-august-25-31-2008/. Accessed September 26, 2022. Jurkowitz, Mark. 2008c. The Palin Phenomenon Drives Campaign Coverage. Pew Research Center, September 8. https://www.pewresearch.org/jou rnalism/2008/09/08/pej-campaign-coverage-index-september-1-7-2008/. Accessed September 26, 2022. Krosnick, Jon A., and Laura A. Brannon. 1993. The Impact of the Gulf War on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Multidimensional Effects of Political Involvement. American Political Science Review 87 (4): 963–975. Krosnick, Jon A., and Donald R. Kinder. 1990. Altering the Foundations of Popular Support for the President Through Priming: Reagan and the IranContra Affair. American Political Science Review 84 (2): 497–512. Martin, Jonathan, and Alexander Burns. 2022. This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America’s Future. New York: Simon & Schuster. McGraw, Kathleen M., and Cristina Ling. 2003. Media Priming of Presidential and Group Evaluations. Political Communication 20 (1): 23–40. Milkis, Sidney M., and Michael Nelson. 2011. The American Presidency: Origins & Development, 1776–2011, 6th ed. Los Angeles: Sage. Morin, Rebecca. 2020. That’s the Ticket: Joe Biden Picks Sen. Kamala Harris as His 2020 Vice Presidential Running Mate. USA Today, August 11. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/ 11/joe-biden-kamala-harris-vice-president-running-mate/5186393002/. Accessed September 26, 2022. NBC News. 2020. “Nightly News Full Broadcast.” NBC News, August 11. https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news-netcast/video/nightly-news-fullbroadcast-august-11th-89926214001. Accessed September 26, 2022. Nelson, Thomas E., Rosalee A. Clawson, and Zoe M. Oxley. 1997. Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance. American Political Science Review 91 (3): 567–583. Powers, William, and Soroush Vosoughi. 2016. Veepstakes, Visualized. Medium.com, July 9. https://medium.com/mit-media-lab/veepstakes-visual ized-7e17a3f7325c. Accessed September 26, 2022. Ronayne, Kathleen, and Will Weissert. 2020. Biden Picks Kamala Harris as Running Mate, First Black Woman. Associated Press, August 11. https://apn ews.com/article/virus-outbreak-election-2020-ap-top-news-race-and-ethnic ity-ca-state-wire-5ac8fff8bbe1c70479604e3ff62ecb10. Accessed September 26, 2022. Sides, John, Daron Shaw, Matt Grossmann, and Keena Lipsitz. 2019. Campaigns and Elections, 2018 Election Update, 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton.

22

C. J. DEVINE

Ulbig, Stacy G. 2013. Vice Presidents, Presidential Elections, and the Media: Second Fiddles in the Spotlight. Boulder, CO: First Forum Press. Vavreck, Lynn. 2009. The Message Matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Woodward, Bob, and David S. Broder. 1992. The Man Who Would Be President: Dan Quayle. New York: Simon & Schuster.

CHAPTER 2

How the Veepstakes Came to Be

Abstract This chapter explains the evolution of the vice-presidential selection process and the news media’s essential role in the modern “veepstakes.” That system only became practical in the 1970s, once presidential candidates established their primary role in the selection of a running mate and party reforms made it possible to thoroughly vet candidates prior to formal nomination at the national party conventions. Jimmy Carter, in 1976, pioneered this system, while also making the veepstakes more newsworthy by working with his eventual running mate, Walter Mondale, to establish a more powerful, modern (or “White House”) vice presidency. As Carter’s selection process demonstrates, presidential candidates often rely on the news media to help vet potential running mates during the veepstakes period, by uncovering potentially damaging information prior to selection. This points to the importance of substantive veepstakes media coverage—indeed, its potential to serve the public interest. This chapter asks whether the news media live up to that responsibility—or abdicate it, as critics more often contend, by treating the veepstakes as little more than an electoral “parlor game.” Keywords Vice presidency · Veepstakes · Veep · Jimmy Carter · Walter Mondale · 1976 presidential election

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. J. Devine, News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28166-2_2

23

24

C. J. DEVINE

Veepstakes Provides Laughs Even in Serious Campaign

It’s easy to imagine coming across this headline on our smartphones today—a familiar invitation to political junkies to indulge, for a few forgettable moments, in their favorite quadrennial parlor game. But this headline appeared in Omaha’s Evening World-Herald long ago, in May 1952. And it is the first recorded use of the term “veepstakes” (Popik 2012). “Veep” only recently had become a common shorthand for “vice president,” or “VP”—first in the corporate world, then in politics. The first vice president of the United States to whom it was applied was Alben Barkley, who served under Harry Truman from 1949 to 1953. Whereas many people—including his successor, Richard Nixon1 —regarded such informality as undignified, Barkley embraced it. After leaving office, he even hosted a television show on NBC called “Meet the Veep,” and released a record called “‘Veep’: Alben W. Barkley Tells His Own Story” (Safire 2008, 776). “Veepstakes,” of course, is an amalgam of “veep” and “sweepstakes.” Today, the latter term is synonymous with pure luck—of getting rich quick, by winning the lottery, or finding the Publishers Clearing House Prize Patrol at your door. But it was originally a horse-racing term, referring to a contest in which the winner would take home (“sweep”) the entire cash prize (“stakes”).2 The illusion, then, is to winning the race for the vice presidency. It is only fitting that the most popular term for the vice-presidential selection process would borrow from the world of horse racing. After all, this is where we get the term “running mate”—and other enduring political metaphors, such as “dark horse,” “front runner,” “vetting,” and even the “race” itself (Palmatier 1995; Zimmer 2020). But “veepstakes” was slow to catch on. It appeared only sparingly in media coverage in the 1950s and early to mid-1960s.3 That would change

1 “I think veep was a term of affection applied to Mr. Barkley and should go out with him,” Nixon growled (Safire 2008, 776). 2 See here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sweepstakes. October 1, 2022.

Accessed

3 For example, in 1964, a headline in Montana’s Missoulian-Sentinel read: “LBJ May Be Warming up Dark Horse for Veepstakes.” This result and others cited in the paragraph above may be found on the Google Books website (https://books.google.com), by searching “veepstakes.” Accessed October 1, 2022. Popik (2012) also cites two examples

2

HOW THE VEEPSTAKES CAME TO BE

25

in the late 1960s and 1970s. For example, the term regularly featured in Newsweek’s election-year headlines: “Nixon and the Veepstakes” (1968); “Veepstakes: Agnew and Shriver” (1972); and “Now the Veepstakes” (1976). Figure 2.1 provides more systematic evidence of the trend in veepstakes coverage. It reports data from Google Ngrams, tracking the percent of books per year that used the word “veepstakes.”4 Of course, books are not equivalent to daily or weekly news coverage. Nor is the term “veepstakes” equivalent to coverage of the vice-presidential selection process. But both serve as reasonable proxies thereof. And the evidence clearly suggests that attention to the veepstakes has grown substantially over time—first picking up in the 1970s, then getting a boost in the 1980s, before spiking, almost vertically, in the 2010s. Indeed, coverage increased nearly six-fold during the last decade of available data.5 Why has media coverage of the veepstakes increased? Why is vicepresidential selection a big story, in the first place? To understand this, we must consider the historical evolution of the vice-presidential selection process, particularly in relation to two institutions that underwent major changes in the 1970s: the presidential nomination process, and the vice presidency itself.

Vice-Presidential Selection Before the Veepstakes The veepstakes, as we know it, began in 1976. In that year, Jimmy Carter established the modern vice-presidential selection process, while also— together with his chosen running mate, Walter Mondale—laying the foundation for a newly-empowered vice presidency. But vice-presidential

from 1964. He does not cite, nor can I find, any other examples between 1952 and 1964. 4 See books.google.com/ngrams. Accessed October 1, 2022. These are four-year moving averages, to account for the dropoff in veepstakes coverage between presidential election years. Essentially, by smoothing the data, they depict election-by-election, rather than year-by-year, changes. 5 A Google Ngram search for “veepstakes” yields non-zero percentages in some years prior to the 1950s, beginning in 1867. I cannot determine which sources are responsible for these results. However, I have searched Google Books for “veepstakes” references prior to the 1950s, and in every case, doing so returned a false positive. Specifically, the word “sweepstakes”—usually in reference to horse racing—often is mistaken for “veepstakes.” For this reason, I exclude data from prior to the 1950s, when the first known media reference to the veepstakes was recorded.

26

C. J. DEVINE

0.0000300000%

0.0000250000%

0.0000200000%

0.0000150000%

0.0000100000%

0.0000050000%

0.0000000000%

Fig. 2.1 Percent of Books Referencing the “Veepstakes,” 1952–2019 (Data come from Google Ngram. Entries represent four-year, moving averages of published books that used the term “veepstakes” during this period)

selection, in one form or another, had been taking place for nearly 200 years before that. The Constitution’s Selection Process The U.S. Constitution established the first vice-presidential selection process—by presidential electors, but not specifically for that office. Article II’s description of the Electoral College stipulated that each presidential elector must cast two votes for president, with at least one vote going to a candidate not from the elector’s state.6 The winner of the most

6 It is often stated, incorrectly, that a presidential and vice-presidential candidate cannot come from the same state. They can; it is just that electors from that state cannot vote for both candidates. For example, in 2000, George W. Bush’s running mate, Dick Cheney, switched his voter registration from Texas (where Bush served as governor at the time) to Wyoming, just prior to the announcement of his selection. Had Cheney remained a resident of Texas, that state’s electors could not have cast votes for both candidates. But electors from the other 49 states, and Washington, D.C., could have done so.

2

HOW THE VEEPSTAKES CAME TO BE

27

votes, if constituting a majority, would become president; the first runnerup, even when failing to obtain a majority, would become vice president. Why such a convoluted system? The Framers apparently feared that electors would be biased in favor of candidates from their home state. If electors had only one vote for president, and many or most voted only for “native sons,” then electoral votes would be scattered across many candidates, and quite possibly none of them would win the required majority. Mandating that electors cast two presidential votes, and look outside their home state, increased the odds of actually electing someone president— or, if no candidate won a majority, allowing the House of Representatives to choose among several candidates with broad-based support. But why make the second-place finisher vice president ? To “encourage conscientious balloting,” explains Goldstein (2016, 12; also see Baumgartner 2015, 12; Witcover 2014, x). In other words, this scheme gave electors an incentive to choose not just one, but two, capable candidates. For if one did not win the presidency, he might become vice president. And—in addition to the limited duties of that office, as described in Articles I (presiding over the Senate and casting tie-breaking votes) and II (presiding over the opening and counting of electoral votes)—this would put him first in line to succeed to the presidency. The Parties’ Selection Process The original vice-presidential selection process was changed (informally) by the rise of political parties, in the mid-1790s, and (formally) by ratification of the Twelfth Amendment, in 1804. Beginning with the first contested presidential election, in 1796, party leaders privately coordinated to determine which candidates they would support for the president and vice president. Electors, who were typically party loyalists, would be expected to cast their votes accordingly—not only by supporting the party ticket, but also by shaving off a vote here or there for the intended vice president, so that he would finish just behind the intended president. This system failed in 1800 when the Democratic-Republicans’ would-be vice president, Aaron Burr, tied the would-be president, Thomas Jefferson, with a majority of 73 electoral votes. Jefferson did become president, but only after a protracted and bitter contest in the House of Representatives, in which both candidates solicited votes from the opposing Federalists. Such unforeseen consequences of the presidential and vice-presidential selection processes prompted calls for reform that were realized through

28

C. J. DEVINE

the Twelfth Amendment. Among other things, this amendment required electors to cast their two votes separately—one for president and one for vice president. Thus, the possibility of a vice-presidential candidate was born. But who would designate this candidate, in the first place? Political parties began to formally endorse candidates for the vice presidency (and, of course, the presidency) prior to an election, following the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment. Until the 1820s, this decision was made by party members in Congress, in what became known as “King Caucus.” By the 1830s, parties adopted a new system, by nominating presidential and vice-presidential candidates at national meetings of delegates from each state, known as “conventions.” Nominations were decided by a majority—and, for much of the Democratic Party’s history, a two-thirds majority—vote among delegates, who were chosen, and in many cases controlled by, state or local party leaders. Thus, party elites— operating through the delegates—were in charge of vice-presidential selection. To be sure, presidential nominations were the main event at party conventions—often requiring several days of voting and in some cases, dozens of ballots. Vice-presidential nominations would be decided afterward, often on the following day or even within a few short hours. In most cases, this required only one or two ballots (Baumgartner 2015, 33). Vice-presidential nominations were less contentious because the outcome was less consequential; once in office, vice presidents had little formal power and, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, little informal power, either. In short, the choice of a vice president did not have much bearing on governance; its most likely consequence, party leaders figured, was to influence the election. Goldstein’s (2016, 18) summary of this era in vice-presidential selection is apt: “Political, not governance, considerations dictated the selections. The second spot was generally used to achieve geographic and/or ideological balance, to heal party wounds, or to enhance the ticket’s appeal in a competitive state.” The Presidential Candidate’s Selection Process(?) The first major break from this pattern of vice-presidential selection came in 1940, when Franklin Roosevelt—while seeking an unprecedented third term in office—vowed to accept the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination only if allowed to run alongside his then-Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace (Jeffries 2017, 115–116). Reluctantly, convention

2

HOW THE VEEPSTAKES CAME TO BE

29

delegates obliged Roosevelt by nominating Wallace. Four years later, while seeking a fourth term, Roosevelt gave convention delegates two— but only two—choices for the vice presidency, one of which was Harry Truman (who won the nomination and succeeded Roosevelt as president following his death in April 1945). Roosevelt’s strong-arming of party leaders was not easily replicated by other presidential nominees at that time or shortly thereafter, who lacked the power of incumbency—let alone the clout of a two- to three-term incumbent. But it did start to shift the power over vice-presidential selection from party leaders to presidential candidates, creating something of a hybrid system in the interim that was characterized by extensive consultation between the two. Perhaps the best indicator of this change, counterintuitively, was Adlai Stevenson’s invitation to Democratic convention delegates to choose his running mate in 1956. As Baumgartner (2015, 54) observes: “by this time the presidential nominee’s inclusion in the process was so accepted that Stevenson’s announcement that he would defer to the convention was a bombshell.”7 In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidential candidates began to exert more informal control over the vice-presidential selection process—while formal control remained in the hands of convention delegates. For example, in January 1964—just two months after taking over as president, following John Kennedy’s assassination—Lyndon Johnson began actively considering his choice of a running mate, and, foreshadowing the modern veepstakes, leaked several names to the press (Baumgartner 2015, 87). Such assertions of power were made possible by several factors. First, presidents had become much more powerful in office—as the federal government’s role in domestic affairs increased with the New Deal, and the United States’ role in foreign affairs increased with World War II and the Cold War—and presidential campaigns were becoming more candidate-centered. Thus, the influence of presidents and presidential candidates, relative to that of political parties, was on the rise.

7 Stevenson’s gambit, however, did have lasting political consequences, by helping to

bring John F. Kennedy to national prominence. While Kennedy lost the vice-presidential nomination to Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver, he impressed many party leaders and the American public in the process—making it more plausible for a senator who was not yet 40 years old in 1956 to win the Democratic presidential nomination, and the presidency, just four years later.

30

C. J. DEVINE

Second, the importance of having a vice president ready to take over as president at any time was more apparent than ever, following Harry Truman’s and Lyndon Johnson’s sudden ascensions to office, (in 1945 and 1963, respectively), and given the new (and ever-present) possibility of nuclear warfare. In this context, the choice of a running mate was not merely a party matter, made in service to electoral interests, but what became known as the “first presidential act” of a prospective Commanderin-Chief. Third, vice presidents were starting to gain more informal power and establish themselves as members of the executive, rather than legislative, branch. This evolutionary process included vice presidents attending and later chairing cabinet meetings, starting in the 1920s; visiting other countries, on behalf of the United States, in the 1930s; serving on the National Security Council, in the 1940s; and chairing presidential committees on matters ranging from government contracts to space policy, in the 1950s and 1960s. Alben Barkley (1949–1953) was the last vice president to preside over the Senate with any regularity. Lyndon Johnson (1961– 1963) was the first vice president to get an office in an executive branch building. And Spiro Agnew (1969–1973) was the first vice president to get a line in the executive branch’s budget, which enabled him to support a staff and fund other activities conducted in service of the Nixon administration (Baumgartner 2015; Goldstein 2016). Finally, by the 1960s, the vice presidency had come to be seen as a presidential “springboard.” In 1960, Richard Nixon became the first incumbent vice president since Martin Van Buren, in 1836, to win his party’s presidential nomination. After narrowly losing to Kennedy that year, Nixon won his party’s nomination again, and this time the presidency, in 1968—defeating another incumbent vice president nominated by his party, in Hubert Humphrey. For all of these reasons, the choice of a running mate could no longer be treated as a matter of short-term electoral strategizing. While electoral considerations remained relevant, governing considerations also demanded attention. And, if vice-presidential selection was, in part, a governing decision, then surely the next Commander-in-Chief should have a leading role in making that selection. Convincing as this logic may be, there was one seemingly intractable problem: no one knew who the presidential nominee would be until delegates voted at the national convention. With the convention’s next major agenda item being to nominate a vice-presidential candidate, this

2

HOW THE VEEPSTAKES CAME TO BE

31

left almost no time for the presidential nominee and his advisers to conduct a thorough vetting of possible running mates. For example, consider George McGovern, in 1972. Amid disputes about the seating of delegates, McGovern focused on winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination and devoted little attention to the choice of a running mate. After securing the nomination just before midnight on July 12, McGovern only had until 4:00 the next afternoon to inform party leaders of his pick. McGovern’s first choice, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, turned him down. McGovern and his advisers then scrambled to draw up a short list of other potential running mates and weigh their pros and cons. After several other finalists, many of whom were skeptical of his chances in the election, rejected McGovern’s offer, finally Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton agreed to join the ticket (Baumgartner 2015, 87). Shortly after Eagleton’s nomination, however, he confirmed reports that he had been hospitalized with “nervous exhaustion” and undergone electroconvulsive therapy in the 1960s. Eagleton faced a public backlash—not just for this revelation, which might be met with more understanding today, but for failing to disclose it to McGovern prior to his selection. It was primarily for this reason that—despite McGovern’s assurance that he was “one thousand percent behind” his running mate— Eagleton reluctantly agreed to withdraw from the ticket (Glasser 2012, 205–206; 231). McGovern’s choice of Eagleton, and his indecisiveness amid controversy, undermined public perceptions of his judgment. And it demonstrated the importance of properly vetting vice-presidential candidates prior to their selection. That lesson became even more apparent the next year, when Vice President Spiro Agnew—who, with Richard Nixon, had been re-elected by an overwhelming margin in 1972—resigned from office following revelations that he had accepted bribes while serving as governor of Maryland, and even as vice president. If Nixon—who had decided on selecting Agnew prior to the 1968 convention, had served in the office with him for four years, and ran with him again in 1972—had been oblivious to such disqualifying information, how could any presidential candidate, or the public for that matter, be sure that vice presidents were being properly vetted? How could the vice-presidential selection process be fixed?

32

C. J. DEVINE

The Veepstakes Era A new vice-presidential selection process, introduced by Jimmy Carter in 1976, provided the vetting required to identify each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, and their fitness for office. In doing so, it also created the conditions for a dramatic increase in media coverage during what became known as the “veepstakes.” Despite Carter’s intention to conduct such a deliberative search process, these changes would not have been possible without reforms aimed at changing two other institutions: the presidential nomination process, and the vice presidency, itself. A Reformed Nomination Process What transformed the vice-presidential selection process, yet again, was a change to the presidential selection process. Following its disastrous 1968 convention in Chicago—marked by police violence against protestors outside the hall and even on the convention floor, and party leaders’ choice of a presidential nominee, in Hubert Humphrey, who had not contested a single primary—the Democratic Party appointed a commission to explore reforms aimed at democratizing the presidential nomination process and increasing diversity among its delegates. One important consequence of the reforms enacted by the McGovern–Fraser Commission—as it was called, after its co-chairs, Senator George McGovern and Representative Don Fraser—was to (more or less) transfer the power to nominate presidential candidates from party leaders to rank-and-file party members. It did so by requiring that delegates be chosen not by state and local party leaders, but through primaries or caucuses at which party members (and in some states, even non-party members) could vote for their preferred presidential candidate. While processes varied across states, and have changed over time, in general this would mean—once most state governments decided to hold primaries, thus bringing the same reforms to bear on the Republican Party—that the nomination would go to a candidate who won broad intra-party support. And it meant that the nomination now could, and in most cases would, be effectively decided weeks or even months prior to the national party convention (Masket and Noel 2021, 181; 263). This change to the presidential nomination process, more than any other factor, is what made the veepstakes possible. Why? Because it has given most presidential candidates enough time to conduct a thorough

2

HOW THE VEEPSTAKES CAME TO BE

33

vetting of potential running mates, after effectively securing their own nomination but prior to the convention at which they, along with the vice-presidential candidate, must be formally nominated.8 This also opens up opportunities for increased media coverage of the vice-presidential selection process. As the presidential candidate turns his or her attention to the choice of a running mate, coverage of this process becomes “news.” Of course, much of the selection process is conducted privately, thus limiting how much actual news the media have to report. But the candidates have incentives to feed information to reporters. Leaking names of potential finalists, as Lyndon Johnson did in 1964, can gin up interest in the campaign, perhaps distracting from other, less favorable narratives. Or it can serve public relations purposes, by suggesting that a candidate is being seriously considered when in fact he or she is not—perhaps to boost the ego of an important ally, or to curry favor with a particular group of voters. Most importantly, signaling interest in particular candidates allows campaigns to enlist the news media to participate in the vetting process—by discovering potentially damaging information that might not be known to the campaign, by inoculating the public to negative information about a candidate prior to selection, or by gauging public reactions in order to evaluate how a particular selection might be received by voters generally and within the party—which, in turn, serves the campaign’s interests. The First Veepstakes Jimmy Carter’s vice-presidential selection process, in 1976, inaugurated this new system. Carter effectively secured the Democratic Party’s nomination in early June, about five weeks prior to the convention. This made it possible for his campaign to conduct a thorough vetting process. More than that, the presumptive nominee was committed to overseeing such a process. First, Carter appointed a trusted advisor, Charles Kirbo, to head the vice-presidential search. After working with Carter to narrow down a much larger list developed in April, Kirbo began vetting a pool 8 Of course, this may not always be the case. If the primaries fail to yield a clear winner, a presidential candidate might go to the convention focused on securing the nomination rather than choosing a running mate. This was the case for George McGovern in 1972 (see above), and for Gerald Ford in 1976.

34

C. J. DEVINE

of about a dozen possible candidates. This initial vetting process included interviews with the candidates, their family, and associates; requests for personal documents, including tax records; and an extensive questionnaire probing sensitive matters relating to their personal life, health, finances, and politics. The purpose of such vetting, of course, is to expose information that—as with Eagleton and Agnew—could prove damaging if it came out only after the candidate’s selection, and without the campaign’s prior knowledge.9 Indeed, the final item on the questionnaire asked: “Without details, is there or has there been anything in your personal life which you feel, if known, may be of embarrassment in the presidential election this year in the event you should be a candidate?” (Baumgartner 2015; Goldstein 2016; Mohr 1976). Following this initial vetting process, and some internal campaign polling, Carter and his team drew up a short list of seven finalists. He then met with each candidate privately, at his home in Plains, Georgia, or at the site of the Democratic convention, in New York City. But Carter also made sure to include the media in this process, by announcing each meeting in advance and scheduling a joint press conference afterward. By so clearly signaling his interest in these candidates, and inviting media coverage of their interviews, as news events, Carter effectively was soliciting public scrutiny that might contribute to the vetting process. Carter selected Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale as his running mate, following additional consultations with his campaign advisers, party leaders, and others—and, he said, rather transparently, after changing his mind a few times. Carter made it official by scheduling a joint news conference with Mondale, on the last day of the Democratic convention. As was becoming common practice, the delegates ratified the presidential candidate’s choice; Mondale was nominated for the vice presidency, with 87% of their votes (Mohr 1976; New York Times 1976). Carter’s selection process set a precedent that presidential candidates follow to this day. There are some differences, of course; for example, the announcement of a running mate now comes in the days or weeks prior to the national convention, and finalists essentially audition for the

9 This process has grown even more intensive in recent years, with campaigns often committing ten lawyers for up to two weeks to the vetting of each candidate (Goldstein 2016, 185–186). Joe Lieberman, who was selected as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 and was seriously considered by John McCain in 2008, likened the vetting process to undergoing “a colonoscopy without anesthesia” (Devine and Kopko 2020, 5).

2

HOW THE VEEPSTAKES CAME TO BE

35

role by campaigning alongside the presidential candidate, rather than holding joint press conferences. But most elements of this process, and the general characteristics of deliberation and transparency, are familiar to voters today. More important, for present purposes, this process facilitates veepstakes media coverage, by providing “news” during a lull in the presidential campaign. A More Powerful Vice Presidency Carter’s selection of Mondale made one other vital contribution to the modern veepstakes, by laying the foundation for a more powerful vice presidency. In other words, it helped make the selection process more relevant to governance, and thus worthy of news coverage. As noted above, vice presidents had gained some informal powers over the course of the twentieth century, and established themselves primarily as members of the executive, rather than legislative, branch. But, by 1976, the vice presidency was still an underwhelming position that its current occupant, Nelson Rockefeller, said made him feel like mere “standby equipment” (Devine and Kopko 2020, 2). That would change, starting with Mondale’s vice presidency—and it was by design. Mondale entered the selection process intent on serving as a consequential vice president—or not at all. The vice presidency, he believed, should be “an arm of the presidency” (Goldstein 2016, 41). Mondale was not the first aspiring vice president to see his role in such grand terms. What was different, this time around, was that the presidential nominee saw it that way, too. Indeed, this is a major reason why Carter undertook such a deliberative and rigorous selection process: he believed he was choosing not just a running mate, but a governing partner. When Carter interviewed Mondale in Plains that July, it was apparent that the two shared a vision of a strengthened vice presidency—one that they agreed to sketch out in greater detail during the presidential transition period, if elected. One month after winning the election, on December 9, they drafted a memorandum that defined this new, more powerful vice presidency. Mondale, they agreed, would not be charged with narrowly defined administrative tasks that might leave him competing with other executive branch officials for government resources and the president’s attention. Rather, he would serve as a “general advisor” and troubleshooter, with unlimited access to the president and all

36

C. J. DEVINE

information to which he was privy (Goldstein 2016, 59). This arrangement would serve both men well: Carter would benefit from having a capable advisor always at hand, whose interests were inseparable from his own, while Mondale would benefit from serving in a consequential role that, if done well, would contribute to the administration’s successes while also advancing his future political—read: presidential—ambitions. Carter not only accepted these terms, but offered Mondale an office in the White House’s West Wing, to boot (Goldstein 2016, 63). Mondale was the most powerful vice president to date, and by all accounts a successful one. While Carter’s presidency generally is not judged to have been as successful, and he lost re-election in 1980 to Ronald Reagan, it was clear that his vice president had been a major asset to the administration. As such, the “Mondale Model” would inspire future presidents to adopt similar arrangements with their vice president. As a result, vice presidents have acquired significant informal power over the past 50 years, and, in most cases, they have been particularly consequential governing partners. For example, Dick Cheney, while serving as George W. Bush’s vice president, had a great deal of influence over national security policy and the Iraq War. His successor, Joe Biden, was less effective at influencing Barack Obama’s foreign policy decisions, but played a vital role as a liaison to Congress on budgetary and other matters (Baker 2013; Goldstein 2016; Prèmont 2022; Woodward 2010; 2012). One key indicator of the growing power of the vice presidency is the emphasis that presidential candidates now put on governing credentials, when selecting a running mate. Whereas electoral considerations once dominated the selection process, over the past 50 to 60 years, governing experience and national media exposure—both signs of competence and thorough vetting—have become much stronger predictors (Baumgartner and Park 2022; Hiller and Kriner 2008). This may suggest the presidential candidate’s genuine interest in having a capable partner in governance, once in office. But it also suggests that presidential candidates are aware, given the increased power of vice presidents and the possibility of succession, that the public has come to expect a well-qualified running mate. “Political considerations give most presidential candidates reasons to value governance qualities,” Goldstein (2016, 199) explains. “The vice-presidential selection sends messages regarding the presidential candidate’s judgments and values and gives most nominees reason to choose an able and philosophically compatible running mate.” Indeed,

2

HOW THE VEEPSTAKES CAME TO BE

37

Devine and Kopko’s (2020) quantitative analysis of running mate effects in recent presidential elections shows this to be the case. Media Vetting—or a Parlor Game? But do the news media—given their (potential) role in vetting vicepresidential candidates, and informing the public, more generally—share this interest in evaluating potential running mates’ capacity to govern? Do they use the window of opportunity created by the veepstakes to scrutinize finalists’ qualifications, records of service, and policy positions? Or do they squander this opportunity by treating the choice of a running mate as little more than a parlor game? Judging by the reputation of veepstakes media coverage, unfortunately, there is good reason to expect the latter. The veepstakes often is dismissed as a vacuous “media spectacle” (Goldstein 2016, 173). At times, it is the target of vitriol—particularly among journalists who see in this coverage a missed opportunity to serve the public interest, or to report any news at all. “Of all the disposable news created during a presidential campaign, is there anything more disposable than the endless, tedious and hollow stories about who the candidates are considering to join the ticket?” spits Politico’s senior media writer, Jack Shafer (2016). “Yes, yes, the vice president is just a heartbeat away from the presidency, and that’s important,” he acknowledges. But coverage we devoted to the veepstakes resides more in the realm of gossip than it does news. Registering at almost the zero-informationcontent mark… [t]here are phone books that provide more nourishment than the name-slinging masquerading as political journalism in your reading diet.

Note that Shafer does not object to the media covering vice-presidential selection, per se, but to the way in which they do so—in essence, by treating it as mere entertainment rather than an opportunity to inform the public about a serious news event. Voice of America reporter Christopher Jones-Cruise (2016), for his part, scorns the very term, veepstakes: “It’s disrespectful, cliché and childish,” he fumes. “And most reporting on the selection of a vicepresidential candidate is pure speculation and almost always wrong. In other words, it isn’t news.” It is also, Jones-Cruise claims, a media obsession that the public does not share (but see Fig. 1.1). Therefore, he

38

C. J. DEVINE

suggests, “Let’s stop spending so much time reporting on speculation. And when we feel a need to fill our air with such speculation, let’s have enough respect for the office to not equate filling it to a sweepstakes. It’s the second highest office in the land… Let’s treat it the way it should be treated.” This is sound advice. But is the criticism preceding it quite as sound? Is media coverage of the veepstakes really so shallow and speculative? Does it fail to focus public attention on the qualifications of prospective running mates, thereby distorting voters’ understanding of the selection process and limiting their ability to evaluate a presidential candidate’s judgment when choosing among the available options? Or are the media being unfairly maligned? Are their efforts to serve as a public watchdog going un(der)appreciated? Are they fulfilling a vital role by thoroughly vetting the vice-presidential candidates, after all? To answer these questions, we cannot rely on reputation or anecdotal evidence, alone. A fair and informative evaluation of veepstakes media coverage requires systematic analysis, based on content from a wide range of news sources and election years. I provide such an analysis in this book. But before analyzing the data, I must explain what they represent and where they come from. Chapter 3 details my research methodology. Specifically, I describe the “veepstakes guides” that constitute my dataset, and the coding procedures used to conduct the content analyses presented in Chapters 4 and 5.

References Baker, Peter. 2013. Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House. New York: Doubleday. Baumgartner, Jody C., and Thomas Crumblin. 2015. The American Vice Presidency: From the Shadow to the Spotlight. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Baumgartner, Jody C., and Baekkwan Park. 2022. The Complex Reality of Vice Presidential Selection in the Modern Era. Presidential Studies Quarterly 52 (3): 671–691. Devine, Christopher J., and Kyle C. Kopko. 2020. Do Running Mates Matter?: The Influence of Vice Presidential Candidates in Presidential Elections. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Glasser, Joshua M. 2012. The Eighteen-Day Running Mate: McGovern, Eagleton, and a Campaign in Crisis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

2

HOW THE VEEPSTAKES CAME TO BE

39

Goldstein, Joel K. 2016. The White House Vice Presidency: The Path to Significance, Mondale to Biden. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Hiller, Mark, and Douglas Kriner. 2008. Institutional Change and the Dynamics of Vice Presidential Selection. Presidential Studies Quarterly 38 (3): 401–421. Jeffries, John W. 2017. A Third Term for FDR: The Election of 1940. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Jones-Cruise, Christopher. 2016. “Let’s End the ‘Veepstakes’ Now.” Radio Television Digital News Association, May 9. https://www.rtdna.org/article/let_ s_end_the_veepstakes_now. Accessed October 1, 2022. Masket, Seth, and Hans Noel. 2021. Political Parties. New York: W.W. Norton. Mohr, Charles. 1976, “Choice of Mondale Helps to Reconcile the Liberals.” The New York Times, July 15. https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/16/arc hives/choice-of-mondale-helps-to-reconcile-the-liberals-choice-of-mondale. html. Accessed October 1, 2022. New York Times. 1976. “The Vote for Mondale.” The New York Times, July 16. https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/16/archives/the-votefor-mondale.html. Accessed October 1, 2022. Palmatier, Robert Allen. 1995. Speaking of Animals: A Dictionary of Animal Metaphors. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Popik, Barry. 2012. “Veepstakes (Veep + sweepstakes).” barrypopik.com, March 24. https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/ veepstakes_veep_sweepstakes. Accessed October 1, 2008. Prèmont, Karine. 2022. “The President and the Vice President: Different Types of Partnerships for a Unique Power Couple.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Montreal, September 15–18. Safire, William. 2008. Safire’s Political Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shafer, Jack. 2016. “The Meaningless Veepstakes.” Politico, April 26. https:// www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/the-meaningless-veepstakesrunning-mate-media-predictions-213856/. Accessed October 1, 2022. Witcover, Jules. 2014. The American Vice Presidency: From Irrelevance to Power. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books. Woodward, Bob. 2010. Obama’s Wars. New York: Simon & Schuster. Woodward, Bob. 2012. The Price of Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. Zimmer, Ben. 2020. “Why Kamala Harris Is Known as a ‘Running Mate.’” Wall Street Journal, August 12. https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-kamalaharris-is-known-as-a-running-mate-11597270833?mod=Searchresults_pos2& page=1. Accessed October 1, 2022.

CHAPTER 3

Studying the Veepstakes

Abstract This chapter introduces the data and research methodology used in this book to analyze veepstakes media coverage. The data include 90 “veepstakes guides”—ten per competitive selection process— published by major media outlets, in the 2000–2020 presidential elections. Veepstakes guides include discrete profiles of numerous potential running mates, typically structured according to their perceived strengths and weaknesses or the pros and cons associated with their selection. Journalists and their editors control the contents of these profiles; by citing (omitting) certain political or personal considerations, they indicate which credentials should (not) be treated as relevant to the vice-presidential selection process. For example, if the news media, in general, reference electoral more often than governing considerations, it is fair to assume that they regard the former as more relevant to the choice of a running mate. To make such a systematic analysis possible, I introduce an original coding procedure whereby individual veepstakes profiles may be designated as referencing each of 12 substantive categories, and associated subcategories. This allows me to determine which vice-presidential selection criteria are cited (most often) in media coverage; whether electoral or governing criteria are more salient; and whether selection criteria vary in accordance with “ticket-balancing” considerations. Keywords Vice-presidential selection · Vice presidency · Media coverage · Content analysis · Qualitative research © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. J. Devine, News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28166-2_3

41

42

C. J. DEVINE

Does veepstakes media coverage serve the public interest, by focusing attention upon a potential running mate’s qualifications for office? Or do the news media, generally, cater to—even cultivate—the “parlor game” mentality that often animates veepstakes speculation, by talking up purely strategic, electoral considerations? Which electoral considerations, for that matter, do journalists emphasize (most often) in their news coverage? And (how) do these considerations vary depending on the presidential candidate’s characteristics—in other words, based on the perceived importance of ticket-balancing? The first step toward answering these substantive questions is to address a methodological one: How would we even know? That is to say, how can we characterize—even quantify—veepstakes media coverage, particularly given that it is so voluminous and emanates from such a wide range of news sources? This is a fundamental question. The principal objective of this chapter is to answer it. In short, there is no way to evaluate the entirety of veepstakes media coverage. But it is possible to identify a reasonably representative sample of such coverage from influential sources, across recent elections. Moreover, comparison across sources is facilitated by news items that conform to a common structure, identifying (explicitly or implicitly) the perceived “pros and cons” or “advantages and disadvantages” associated with choosing one potential running mate over another. These are what I call “veepstakes guides.” In this book, I present a content analysis of 90 veepstakes guides—including ten such guides from each of the nine most recent vice-presidential selection processes—published in major media outlets, from 2000 to 2020. This chapter introduces the dataset and explains the coding process used to determine which criteria received (the most) attention in recent veepstakes media coverage.

Data In recent elections, it has become common for media outlets to publish features devoted to identifying the individuals most likely to be selected as a vice-presidential candidate, and evaluating their relevant credentials. These “veepstakes guides” typically are divided into discrete profiles of the potential running mates that follow a (more or less) common internal format. For example, The New York Times ’ “Election Guide 2008” feature on “Potential Running Mates” included profiles of nine Democratic and 11 Republican vice-presidential contenders (Nagourney

3

STUDYING THE VEEPSTAKES

43

and Zeleny 2008). Democrats appeared on the left side of the page, and Republicans on the right side. Each profile listed the candidate’s name and political office above his or her photograph. Accompanying this information was a paragraph summarizing the candidate’s case for selection. One Republican profile, of former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, reads as follows: In many ways, Mr. Ridge might be an ideal choice for [the Republican presidential candidate, John] McCain. He is a former governor of Pennsylvania, a state Mr. McCain would love to put in play. He was the first secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. He is also a dynamic presence on a stage, and his moderate politics could help Mr. McCain as he appeals to independent voters. But Mr. Ridge is a supporter of abortion rights, and that would be a very risky choice given Mr. McCain’s already uneasy relations with conservatives.

Also in 2008, NPR published a veepstakes guide formatted in nearly the same fashion, with Democrats appearing on the left side and Republicans on the right side; each profile including the candidate’s name, title, and photographs; and a one-paragraph summary of the candidate’s credentials (Rudin 2008). The only difference is that NPR included arrows pointing upward (downward) for candidates whose prospects of selection appeared to be increasing (decreasing) of late, or from side-to-side if unchanged. Ridge’s NPR profile reads as follows: Ridge retains a reservoir of support in Pennsylvania, a key battleground state in the fall, and he also served as secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush. And, like McCain (with whom he is very close), he is a decorated Vietnam War veteran. But unlike McCain, Ridge supports abortion rights—a stance likely to alienate party conservatives.

Other veepstakes guides divide their profiles into distinct categories of evaluation, often explicitly identifying the candidate’s perceived strengths and weaknesses. For example, in 2008, ABC News divided its profiles into two categories: “PROS” and “CONS.” New York Magazine (Keating 2008a, 2008b) used the same categories, as well as others indicating popularity, biographical attributes, and the author’s “Bottom Line.” Again, Tom Ridge’s profile: Former Governor Tom Ridge (Pennsylvania). Google Meter: 48,300. Age: 62.

44

C. J. DEVINE

Religion: Roman Catholic. Education: B.A., Harvard; J.D., Dickinson School of Law. Pros: Was a popular governor of a state McCain would love to compete in; decorated Vietnam veteran. Cons: Difficult tenure as secretary of Homeland Security; somnolent public speaker; pro-choice. Bottom Line: Anyone who thinks McCain is ambivalent about abortion is in for a rude awakening—he’s already said that “respect and cherishing of the right of the unborn” essentially eliminates Ridge’s chances to be on the ticket. Finally, conservative author and commentator Jonah Goldberg (2008), writing for the Los Angeles Times , divided his profiles of the Republican contenders into four categories: “Appeals to,” “Alienates,” “Risk factor,” “Bottom line.” Goldberg’s (often tongue-in-cheek) opinion of Ridge reads as follows: Appeals to: Tom Ridge, Pennsylvanians, pro-choice Republicans, pro-nuclear-freeze Republicans, fans of color-coded terror. Alienates: Conservatives who have looked at his post-Vietnam War record. Risk factor: High: The only argument anyone makes is that he could carry Pennsylvania. Bottom line: If he can’t deliver the Keystone State, “Sexier than Arlen Specter” won’t wow the base. Veepstakes guides are ideal for the purposes of my analysis because, as the preceding excerpts indicate, they are designed to explain precisely why—in the journalist’s opinion—a potential running mate might (not) or should (not) be selected. Indeed, many guides explicitly identify the candidate’s perceived strengths and weaknesses, as a potential running mate. Most important, journalists decide which criteria to cite when making these evaluations. In other words, they choose whether to reference a potential running mate’s governing qualifications, ideology, home state appeal, and so forth. This stands in contrast to public opinion polls that ask respondents to evaluate the importance of a particular characteristic, almost always with predetermined response options (see Devine and Kopko 2020, Chapter 2). The open-ended nature of these profiles

3

STUDYING THE VEEPSTAKES

45

therefore gives direct insight into what journalists consider (ir)relevant when evaluating a potential running mate; if the journalist chooses (not) to mention a particular characteristic, then it is reasonable to infer that he or she considers it to be (ir)relevant. Therefore, in this book I present a content analysis of veepstakes guides published by major media outlets during the 2000–2020 presidential campaigns.1 This time frame encompasses nine vice-presidential selection processes, including selections made by four Republican presidential candidates (George W. Bush, 2000; John McCain, 2008; Mitt Romney, 2012; Donald Trump, 2016) and five Democratic presidential candidates (Al Gore, 2000; John Kerry, 2004; Barack Obama, 2008; Hillary Clinton, 2016; Joe Biden, 2020). My data comprise ten veepstakes guides per selection process, and 90 in total (see Appendix A). These guides include 777 candidate profiles, in total (342 for Republicans and 435 for Democrats), for an average of 8.6 profiles per veepstakes guide (8.6 for Republicans and 8.7 for Democrats).

Coding My specific research objectives for this book are to determine: (1) which vice-presidential selection criteria are cited (most often) in media coverage; (2) whether media coverage emphasizes electoral over governing criteria (or vice versa); and (3) whether media coverage emphasizes different selection criteria based on the presidential candidate’s characteristics, in order to “balance the ticket.” To achieve these objectives, my content analysis is designed to identify and quantify the specific 1 Veepstakes guides were identified through internet searches (e.g., “veepstakes 2008”). The principal criterion for inclusion in the dataset was that the guide conform to the basic structure described above, by featuring discrete profiles of many different potential running mates, implicitly or (preferably) explicitly highlighting their perceived pros and cons. All veepstakes guides for a given year were chosen prior to conducting the content analysis; thus, inclusion in the dataset was not based on a guide’s substantive content (i.e., whether it referenced a given selection criterion). Generally speaking, it was quite easy to find ten qualifying veepstakes guides for more recent elections. However, I did have difficulty finding enough guides for 2000 and, to a lesser extent, 2004, because there was less internet-based content at that time and many webpages are no longer accessible. This necessitated including some media coverage that did not conform to the general structure described above, such as a transcript from an episode of CNN’s “Crossfire.” Even these items, however, serve the purposes of this analysis by providing discrete evaluations of numerous candidates’ credentials in the context of vice-presidential selection.

46

C. J. DEVINE

criteria that journalists invoke in veepstakes guides, when evaluating the merits of potential running mates. This allows me to: (1) calculate the percentage of veepstakes guides in which each criterion appears, and rank all criteria accordingly; (2) compare the percentage of veepstakes guides that reference electoral versus governing criteria; (3) compare the percentage of veepstakes guides that include references to certain “ticketbalancing” criteria, whereby the presidential candidate is atypical or does not represent a large segment of his or her party. Of course, content analysis often involves difficult judgments about ambiguous content. For this reason, I developed a coding rubric designed to ensure that decisions about whether and how to code specific content from the veepstakes guides were systematic and consistent with my research objectives. Appendix B provides this coding rubric, in full. I conducted the initial coding of each article, and then trained an undergraduate student to code the same articles. I find strong evidence of intercoder reliability.2 The coding rubric specifies instructions for assigning each substantive reference within a veepstakes profile to a particular evaluative (sub)category. It is important to note that these (sub)categories were not predetermined; rather, they reflect the actual content of the veepstakes guides. Specifically, I developed these (sub)categories by implementing the instructions from the coding rubric’s “Overview” (see Appendix B), in an initial iteration of the content analysis, and then made revisions during subsequent iterations before implementing a final rubric that yielded the results described in Chapters 4 and 5. The complete list of evaluative (sub)categories includes each of the following: 1. Background (Business, Education, Legal, Media, Military, Party, Presidential Administration); 2. Campaigning (Ability, Attack Dog, Communication, Experience, Fundraising); 3. Compatibility (Electoral, Governing, Personal); 4. Demography (Age, Faith, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status); 5. Electoral Appeal (National Profile, Party Base, Popularity, Swing Voters); 2 Agreement among the two coders was very high, at 94.5%. More advanced measures that account for the possibility of chance agreement and are most applicable to the present data (see Gwet 2014), also provide strong evidence of intercoder reliability (Gwet’s AC = 0.932, Brennan-Prediger = 0.890).

3

STUDYING THE VEEPSTAKES

47

6. Experience (Criminal Justice, Economic, Executive, Foreign Policy, General, Legislative); 7. Geography (Home Region, Home State); 8. Issues (Economic, Foreign, Social); 9. Party Factions (Ideology, Party Unity); 10. Personal Attributes (Communication, Demeanor, Family, Integrity, Knowledge, Likability, Loyalty, Physical Appearance); 11. Qualifications (General; Presidency; Vice Presidency); and 12. Washington, D.C. (Insider, Outsider). The criteria used to code for each evaluative (sub)category are too extensive to detail fully in this space. Again, I refer readers to Appendix B for the complete coding rubric. But, in the interest of providing more immediate context for the analyses that follow, below I present exemplars for each of the evaluative (sub)categories, from the actual veepstakes guides used in this book’s analysis. Background • Business: “Scott’s profile is also likely appealing to Trump—a wealthy businessman who ran and beat the Republican establishment to get elected governor.”—The Washington Post (on Rick Scott, 2016). • Education: “Rhodes Scholar; valedictorian of his class at West Point.”—New York Magazine (on Wesley Clark, 2008). • Legal: “Castro is a lawyer by training.”—Los Angeles Times (on Julian Castro, 2016). • Media: “…his ‘Saturday Night Live’ background could come in handy countering Donald Trump’s jabs with comedic routines of his own.”—NBC News (on Al Franken, 2016). • Military: “As a decorated Vietnam veteran, Mr. Ridge could help Mr. Bush win over McCain voters and balance out Mr. Bush’s limited military service record.”—The New York Times (on Tom Ridge, 2000). • Party: “Has only been a Democrat since 2006…”—New York Magazine ( on James Webb, 2008).

48

C. J. DEVINE

• Presidential Administration: “But he was a [President George W.] Bush [Administration] appointee.”—NPR (on Rob Portman, 2008). Campaigning • Ability: “…terrific retail campaigner”—New York Magazine (on Mike Huckabee, 2008). • Attack Dog: “Biden is also a scrappy campaigner and would almost certainly revel in the traditional attack-dog role of the running mate.”—CNN (on Joe Biden, 2008). • Communication: “She impressed during the [2020 presidential primary] campaign with her quick wit on debate stages and on the campaign trail.”—NPR (on Amy Klobuchar, 2020). • Experience: “[H]as presidential campaign experience (including, presumably, opposition and media vetting that would have exposed any serious skeletons in her closet)…”—New York Magazine (on Kamala Harris, 2020). • Fundraising: “Harris brings access to California money (she raised $2 m for Biden in a recent virtual event)…”—BBC (on Kamala Harris, 2020). Compatibility • Electoral: “Picking Sebelius would affirm Obama’s core message of change and would give Obama’s run even more historic weight.”— The Washington Post (on Kathleen Sebelius, 2008). • Governing: “It’s also unclear how the outspoken Warren would adapt to the subservient role of vice president.”—Los Angeles Times (on Elizabeth Warren, 2016). • Personal: “But he and McCain haven’t always gotten along, and McCain has a long memory when it comes to slights.”—NPR (on Mitt Romney, 2008). Demography • Age: “At 55, she is relatively young, offering a generational balance against a nominee who will turn 78 in November”—Politico (on Kamala Harris, 2020).

3

STUDYING THE VEEPSTAKES

49

• Faith: “A Catholic like Kerry, making it an unbalanced ticket.”—New York Daily News (on Tom Vilsack, 2004). • Gender: “It could also help Trump, who is deeply unpopular among women, to have a woman on the ticket.”—Los Angeles Times (on Mary Fallin, 2016). • Race/Ethnicity: “…he could certainly help among Hispanics, a segment of the electorate Obama struggled with in the primary season.”—CBS News (on Bill Richardson, 2008). • Socioeconomic Status: “The Missouri congressman’s blue-collar roots appeal to the labor vote.”—Chicago Tribune (on Dick Gephardt, 2004). Electoral Appeal • National Profile: “But she’s also not well known nationally…”— NPR (on Michelle Lujan Grisham, 2020). • Party Base: “Would rev up the base…”—Los Angeles Times (on Tom Coburn, 2008). • Popularity: “Among the most popular governors in the country…”—New York Magazine (on Brian Schweitzer, 2008). • Swing Voters: “And she would carry minimal appeal among swing voters in battleground states.”—Los Angeles Times (on Mary Fallin, 2016). Experience • Criminal Justice: “Mr. Christie has expertise in law enforcement and criminal justice issues… which could be [a] valuable qualit[y].”—The New York Times (on Chris Christie, 2016). • Economic: “Romney brings… real-life economic experience to fill a perceived gap in McCain’s resume…”—CBS News (on Mitt Romney, 2008). • Executive: “She is also a former governor, giving her executive experience to use as a vice president.”—Fox News (on Maggie Hassan, 2020). • Foreign Policy: “Biden’s foreign policy experience could help calm concerns that Obama isn’t prepared to take the reins of one of the

50

C. J. DEVINE

most powerful positions in the world.”—CBS News (on Joe Biden, 2008). • General: “In Congress since 1975, Dodd could bring experience and gravitas to the ticket.”—NPR (on Chris Dodd, 2008). • Legislative: “But Fallin served only four years in Congress, giving her little of the lawmaking expertise that Trump is seeking.”—Los Angeles Times (on Mary Fallin, 2016). Geography • Home Region: “And she also happens to be from the Midwest, a critical battleground this fall.”—CNN (on Tammy Duckworth, 2020). • Home State: “Nelson is a natural to be on the short list if he can help Obama carry his home state of Florida. He’d be a solid choice even if all he did was make Republicans divert more of their resources to the must-win state.”—CBS News (on Bill Nelson, 2008). Issues • Economic: “…he has kept taxes down (with a liberal use of the line item veto), pared down state government and enacted welfare reform while earmarking money for education.”—The New York Times (on George Pataki, 2000). • Foreign: “Nunn could help Kerry stay off the defensive on national security issues and would credibly argue that Bush has not done enough to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons.”—NBC News (on Sam Nunn, 2004). • Social: “Supports gay marriage and abortion rights, and stricter gun laws.”—ABC News (on Michael Bloomberg, 2008). Party Factions • Ideology: “He is a tried-and-true right-wingman who would speak to the conservative base that Mr McCain has had some difficulty shoring up.”—The Economist (on Charlie Crist, 2008). • Party Unity: “Yes, choosing Mrs. Clinton would go some distance in quieting the concerns of her supporters and bringing them behind Mr. Obama.”—The New York Times (on Hillary Clinton, 2008).

3

STUDYING THE VEEPSTAKES

51

Personal Attributes • Communication: “Mr. Carson can be a compelling speaker…”—The New York Times (on Ben Carson, 2016). • Demeanor: “And his scruffy, off-the-cuff demeanor could help humanize Clinton, who often comes off as too focus-grouped.”— Newsweek (on Sherrod Brown, 2016). • Family: “…putting her kids through the wringer may not fly.”—Los Angeles Times (on Sarah Palin, 2008). • Integrity: “Danforth is an old Boy Scout with integrity to spare…”— Time (on John Danforth, 2000). • Knowledge: “A rare Bush-administration policy wonk, has displayed sanity and smarts…”—New York Magazine (on Rob Portman, 2008). • Likability: “He is garrulous and well-liked…”—The New York Times (on Joe Biden, 2008). • Loyalty: “Is he enough of a team player to play the highly scripted role of No. 2?”—The New York Times (on Chuck Hagel, 2008). • Physical Appearance: “…he looks the part of vice president.”—Huffington Post (on Bob McDonnell, 2012). Qualifications • General: “But putting a well-qualified woman on the ticket could energize voters…”—NPR (on Jeanne Shaheen, 2000). • Presidency: “But she’s never stood for office, making her readiness to be president a question mark, despite her foreign-policy credentials.”—NPR (on Susan Rice, 2020). • Vice Presidency: “And she is likely not seasoned enough to step into the vice presidential role.”—Huffington Post (on Susana Martinez, 2012). Washington, D.C . • Insider: “But she would not help the ticket shed the inside-thebeltway image…”—CBS News (on Kay Bailey Hutchison, 2008). • Outsider: “Vilsack would bring an outside Washington persona to help balance the ticket.”—Washington Post (on Tom Vilsack, 2004). To better understand how I conducted the content analysis, consider the following

52

C. J. DEVINE

veepstakes profile of Tim Kaine (Ververs 2008): Like Jim Webb, Kaine is an attractive choice because he could help bring Virginia into Obama’s column. His executive experience and his distance from Washington fits nicely with Obama’s themes and his presence could help moderate the party’s image. But Kaine’s experience is limited and he’s an unknown on the national stage.

This profile implicates several evaluative criteria, according to my coding rubric. Those criteria include: • Geography (Home State): “he could help bring Virginia into Obama’s column”; • Experience (Executive): “His executive experience”; • Washington, D.C. (Outsider): “his distance from Washington”; • Compatibility (Electoral): “fits nicely with Obama’s themes”; • Party Factions (Ideology): “his presence could moderate the party’s image”; • Experience (General): “But Kaine’s experience is limited”; • Electoral Appeal (National Profile): “he’s an unknown on the national stage.” Thus, Kaine’s CBS veepstakes profile would be coded as one for each of the evaluative criteria identified above, and zero for all others.3 I code each profile accordingly, and then calculate the percentage of all profiles—overall, or for a particular selection process—referencing each evaluative (sub)category to determine its relative salience in veepstakes media coverage.

3 Kaine’s profile also provides a good indication of when not to code a reference in substantive terms. The coding rubric’s “Overview” (see Appendix B) instructs: “Finally, read between the lines as much as you need to in order to understand each point in its intended context.” In this case, the profile describes Kaine as an “attractive choice.” Read out of context, the use of “attractive” might suggest coding this as a reference to “Personal Attribute—Physical Appearance.” But, read in context, clearly the word is not used to refer to physical appearance. Rather, it is a descriptor of his merits as a candidate (i.e., a “good choice”), and one that is too ambiguous to code as a substantive reference.

3

STUDYING THE VEEPSTAKES

53

References Devine, Christopher J., and Kyle C. Kopko. 2020. Do Running Mates Matter?: The Influence of Vice Presidential Candidates in Presidential Elections. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Goldberg, Jonah. 2008. “John McCain’s Veepstakes.” Los Angeles Times, July 18. https://www.latimes.com/la-oe-goldberg21-2008jul21-b-htmlstory. html. Accessed October 8, 2022. Gwet, Kilem Li. 2014. Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability: The Definitive Guide to Measuring the Extent of Agreement Among Raters. Gaithersburg, MD: Advanced Analytics. Keating, Peter. 2008a. “McCain’s Potential Running Mates: A Who’s Who.” New York, June 30. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2008a/06/mccains_p otential_running_mate.html. Accessed October 8, 2022. Keating, Peter. 2008b. “Obama’s Potential Running Mates: A Who’s Who.” New York, June 30. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2008b/06/obamas_potent ial_running_mates.html?gtm=bottom>m=top. Accessed October 8, 2022. Nagourney, Adam, and Jeff Zeleny. 2008. “Potential Running Mates.” The New York Times, n.d. https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/primaries/ candidates/vp/index.html. Accessed October 8, 2022. Rudin, Ken. 2008. “Who’s Up, Who’s Down in the Veepstakes.” NPR, August 19. https://legacy.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/july/veepstakes/ veepstakes.html. Accessed October 8, 2022. Ververs, Vaughn. 2008. “Vice Presidential Bios.” CBS News, June 17. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vice-presidential-bios-17-06-2008. Accessed October 8, 2022.

CHAPTER 4

Veepstakes Media Coverage, 2000–2016

Abstract This chapter presents a content analysis of veepstakes media coverage in the 2000–2016 presidential elections. Out of twelve categories, I find that media coverage most often references: Geography, Compatibility, Issues, Demography, and Electoral Appeal. The least salient category is the one most directly relevant to governance: Qualifications. Even the candidate’s physical appearance comes up more often than this. Journalists’ preoccupation with electoral concerns is evident throughout this chapter. Veepstakes profiles are much more likely to reference electoral than governing criteria, particularly in competitive election years. Also, they tend to emphasize the importance of ticket-balancing. If the news media were serving the public interest, this analysis would indicate that veepstakes coverage focuses on the substantive contributions to governance that a vice-presidential candidate is certain to make, if elected, rather—or at least much more so—than their uncertain electoral contributions. My findings to the contrary suggest that the news media, in general, are failing to properly inform the public about what is at stake during the vice-presidential selection process, by overstating a running mate’s likely electoral impact and minimizing, if not ignoring, the consequential role in governance to be played by the next vice president. Keywords Vice-presidential selection · Media coverage · Content analysis · Home state advantage · Qualifications · Ticket-balancing

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. J. Devine, News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28166-2_4

55

56

C. J. DEVINE

This chapter characterizes veepstakes media coverage, based on the dataset and coding procedures described in the previous chapter. Specifically, I analyze 10 veepstakes guides from each of the 2000–2016 vicepresidential selection processes, published by major media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, CNN, ABC News, and NPR. These guides feature brief profiles of potential running mates— 664 in total, and 8.3 on average—typically describing the perceived pros and cons, or advantages and disadvantages, associated with their selection. There is, of course, no fixed set of selection criteria that must be addressed in these candidate profiles; each news outlet—working through its journalists and editors—may indicate which criteria it views as (ir)relevant to a given selection process, by choosing (not) to mention it. Thus, we can characterize the substantive content of veepstakes media coverage by observing whether, and how frequently, candidate profiles invoke various selection criteria. For each candidate profile, I record whether (1) or not (0) it makes any reference to the following categories (subcategories) of selection criteria: • Background (Business, Education, Legal, Media, Military, Party, Presidential Administration); • Campaigning (Ability, Attack Dog, Communication, Experience, Fundraising); • Compatibility (Electoral, Governing, Personal); • Demography (Age, Faith, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status); • Electoral Appeal (National Profile, Party Base, Popularity, Swing Voters); • Experience (Criminal Justice, Economic, Executive, Foreign Policy, General, Legislative); • Geography (Home Region, Home State); • Issues (Economic, Foreign, Social); • Party Factions (Ideology, Party Unity); • Personal Attributes (Communication, Demeanor, Family, Integrity, Knowledge, Likability, Loyalty, Physical Appearance); • Qualifications (General; Presidency; Vice Presidency); • Washington, D.C. (Insider, Outsider).

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

57

This coding scheme allows me to quantify—across a wide range of candidates, elections, and news sources—the media’s relative attention to various selection criteria. To address the research objectives identified in Chapter 3, the present analysis aims to determine: (1) how frequently veepstakes media coverage invokes each selection criterion; (2) whether veepstakes coverage more frequently invokes electoral versus governing criteria, or vice versa; (3) whether veepstakes coverage adapts to the presidential candidate’s characteristics, by emphasizing vice-presidential selection criteria that would “balance the ticket.” By using data from five elections, including an equal number of Republican versus Democratic vice-presidential selection processes (four each), this chapter provides generalizable conclusions about veepstakes media coverage throughout the early twenty-first century. For reasons explained in Chapter 1, I analyze media coverage of Joe Biden’s 2020 vice-presidential selection process separately, in the following chapter. While Biden’s stated intention to consider women candidates, only, limits the comparability of the 2020 versus 2000–2016 data, still we can evaluate whether the fundamental dynamics of veepstakes media coverage were any different in the most recent presidential election. Will this chapter show that the news media treat vice-presidential selection as little more than an electoral “parlor game?” And, if so, will the next chapter show any signs of improvement?

Which Veepstakes Criteria Come Up (Most Often) in Media Coverage? Table 4.1 reports the percent of veepstakes profiles referencing each evaluative (sub)category, ranked from most to least salient. According to this analysis, media outlets most frequently cite Geography (53.5%), Compatibility (50.5%), Issues (49.9%), and Demography (49.0%), when discussing the merits of potential vice-presidential candidates. Difference of proportions testing indicates that these categories are not statistically distinguishable from one another. However, Geography is more salient than each of the eight remaining categories, at conventional significance levels. Specifically, those categories include: Electoral Appeal (47.1%); Personal Attributes (44.1%); Party Factions (41.4%); Experience (34.8%); Campaigning (29.8%); Background (24.6%); Washington, D.C. (11.6%); and Qualifications (4.4%).

58

C. J. DEVINE

Table 4.1 References to evaluative (sub)categories in veepstakes media coverage, 2000–2016 Criterion

Total

Percent (%)

Criterion

Total

Percent (%)

Geography Home State Home Region

355 283 111

53.5 42.6 16.7

Party Factions Ideology Party Unity

275 253 42

41.4 38.1 6.3

Compatibility Electoral Personal Governing

335 294 87 8

50.5 44.3 13.1 1.2

Issues Economic Social Foreign

331 167 154 103

49.9 25.2 23.2 15.5

Experience General Foreign Policy Executive Economic Legislative Criminal Justice

231 109 79 36 24 21 2

34.8 16.4 11.9 5.4 3.6 3.2 0.3

Demography Race/Ethnicity Gender Age Faith Socioeconomic

325 124 107 91 65 61

49.0 18.7 16.1 13.7 9.8 9.2

Campaigning Ability Experience Communication Attack Dog Fundraising

198 97 57 41 29 28

29.8 14.6 8.6 6.2 4.4 4.2

Electoral Appeal Popularity Swing Voters National Profile

313 157 105 87

47 .1 23.6 15.8 13.1

163 61 31 28 23 20

24.6 9.2 4.7 4.2 3.5 3.0

Party Base

43

Background Military Business Party Education Presidential Administration Legal Media

19 10

2.9 1.5

Personal Attributes Demeanor

293

44.1

92

13.9

77

11.6

Communication Integrity Family Likability Physical Appearance Knowledge Loyalty

64 59 58 53 48

9.6 8.9 8.7 8.0 7.2

Washington, D.C Insider Outsider

48 33

7.2 5.0

Qualifications Presidency

29 22

4.4 3.3

37 26

5.6 3.9

Vice Presidency General

5 3

0.8 0.5

6.5

Note Data include 664 candidate profiles featured in 80 “veepstakes guides” (10 per selection process). See Appendix A for data sources. See Appendix B for coding rubric

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

59

In terms of the evaluative subcategories, by far the most salient are: Electoral Compatibility (44.3%); Home State (42.6%); and Ideology (38.1%). The first two subcategories are not statistically distinguishable from one another. However, Ideology is significantly less salient than Electoral Compatibility (−0.062), at conventional levels (z = 2.286, p = 0.022), and Home State, at marginal levels (z = 1.680, p = 0.093). Electoral Compatibility, Home State, and Ideology are significantly more salient than each of the remaining subcategories, including Economic Issues (25.2%); Popularity (23.6%); and Social Issues (23.2%). This analysis allows me to illustrate what a “typical” veepstakes profile looks like. The average profile, based on this dataset, includes 5.4 references at the subcategory level. Rounding up to the nearest whole number, I aim to identify a profile that includes references to the six most frequently cited evaluative subcategories. I find nearly the perfect exemplar in this 2008 ABC News profile of Florida’s then-Republican governor, Charlie Crist (with subcategories identified in brackets): PROS: Popular governor [Popularity] of perhaps the most important electoral state in the nation [Home State]. Endorsement of McCain may have been critical in helping him win Florida—and the nomination [Electoral Compatibility]. CONS: Doesn’t solve McCain’s problems with conservatives [Ideology], particularly on immigration and environmental issues [Social Issues]. Has served less than two years as governor [Executive Experience].

This profile is somewhat atypical, only in that it fails to reference explicitly economic issues, but does reference executive experience. To provide further insight, Table 4.2 reports the percent of veepstakes profiles referencing each evaluative category by party (Republican or Democratic selections, on average) and election year (eight selection processes, individually), from 2000–2016. First, in terms of party averages, the top five categories include each of those identified above as being the most salient, overall—but in different orders. For Democrats, Geography remains the most salient vice-presidential selection criterion (57.8%), followed by: Demography (50.9%), Issues (47.5%), Compatibility (46.3%), and Electoral Appeal (45.0%). For Republicans, Compatibility is the most salient selection criterion (54.4%), followed by: Issues (52.1%), Geography (49.4%), Electoral Appeal (49.1%), and Demography (47.1%).

60

C. J. DEVINE

Table 4.2 Percent of veepstakes profiles referencing evaluative categories, by vice-presidential selection process, 2000–2016 2000–2016

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

Criterion

REP

DEM

REP DEM

REP DEM

REP DEM

REP DEM

REP DEM

Background Campaigning Compatibility Demography Electoral Appeal Experience Geography Issues Party Factions Personal Attributes Qualifications Washington, D.C.

24.9 23.7 54.4 47.1 49.1

24.2 36.3 46.3 50.9 45.0

24.2 13.6 39.4 43.9 37.9

21.7 20.0 51.7 51.7 35.0

– – – – –

22.1 44.2 29.5 40.0 44.2

30.9 32.7 61.8 43.6 47.3

25.7 36.2 52.4 42.9 44.8

18.4 20.4 41.8 45.9 59.2

– – – – –

25.0 23.5 75.0 57.4 48.5

27.4 40.3 56.5 80.7 56.5

33.6 49.4 52.1 46.2

36.0 57.8 47.5 36.3

30.3 56.1 48.5 33.3

25.0 56.7 48.3 41.7

– – – –

30.5 64.2 50.5 22.1

25.5 54.6 57.3 60.9

46.7 60.0 45.7 38.1

28.6 55.1 51.0 43.9

– – – –

57.4 26.5 48.5 38.2

37.1 45.2 45.2 50.0

45.3

42.9

43.9 45.0

–

41.1

40.9 40.0

57.1 –

36.8 48.4

3.8 14.0

5.0 9.0

3.0 10.6

– –

4.2 13.7

4.6 0.0 10.0 11.4

4.1 – 9.2 –

2.9 12.9 30.9 3.2

6.7 3.3

Note Data include 664 candidate profiles featured in 80 “veepstakes guides” (10 per selection process). See Appendix A for data sources. See Appendix B for coding rubric

Second, in terms of individual selection processes, Geography is most salient in four cases (Bush, 2000; Gore, 2000; Kerry, 2004; Obama, 2008); Compatibility in two cases (McCain, 2008; Trump, 2016); Electoral Appeal in one case (Romney, 2012); and Demography in one case (Clinton, 2016). Of the three most salient categories, overall, Geography ranks in the lower half of categorical salience only once (ninth, for Trump in 2016); Compatibility, twice (eighth, for Kerry in 2004; seventh, for Romney in 2012); and Issues, never. Of the categories ranked lower than sixth, overall, the only ones to rank among the top three in any individual selection processes are: Party Factions (second, for McCain in 2008); Experience (third, for Obama in 2008; tied for second, for Trump in 2016); and Campaigning (tied for third, for Kerry in 2004). Finally, among the two least salient categories, overall, Washington, D.C. and Qualifications rank last or second-to-last in each individual selection process, excepting only the former for Trump in 2016 (eighth). That the evaluative categories’ relative salience varies by party and election year is hardly surprising, since, in many cases, they are only separated by a few percentage points in the overall rankings. What is more

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

61

important, for present purposes, is that I find general stability in terms of which categories are most and least salient in the overall rankings (Table 4.1) and in the party- or selection-specific rankings (Table 4.2). Based on this analysis, I conclude—as a general matter—that the most salient evaluative categories in veepstakes media coverage are Geography, Compatibility, Issues, Demography, and Electoral Appeal, while the least salient categories are Background, Washington, D.C., and Qualifications.

Do the Media Talk Too Much About Getting Elected---And Not Enough About Governing? The preceding analysis also indicates that media outlets emphasize electoral over governing considerations, when evaluating the merits of potential vice-presidential candidates. Indeed, three of the five most salient evaluative criteria—Geography, Demography, and Electoral Appeal—clearly point to considerations of electoral strategy. References to Geography invoke the candidate’s (in)ability to win votes in his or her home state or region; references to Demography invoke the candidate’s (lack of) appeal to voters based on social characteristics; and references to Electoral Appeal invoke the candidate’s (un)popularity among voters in general or within select partisan groups. The second most salient category, Compatibility, includes a Governing subcategory that speaks to the candidate’s ability to govern alongside the presidential candidate. However, only 8 of the 664 veepstakes profiles (1.2%) include such references. By far, most of the Compatibility references (294 of 335) belong to the Electoral subcategory. These include references to a potential running mate’s compatibility with the presidential candidate’s campaign message,1 campaign style,2 or policy positions,3 as well as his or her status as a political ally or rival of the presidential candidate.4 Finally, the third-most salient category, Issues, is more ambiguous, since it has implications for electoral strategy as well as governance. 1 E.g., “Picking Sebelius would affirm Obama’s core message of change and would give Obama’s run even more historic weight” (Cillizza 2008). 2 E.g., “Scene stealer. Edwards is more charismatic than Kerry and could overshadow him” (Neumer 2004). 3 E.g., “May disagree with McCain on more big issues than he agrees with him on” (ABC News 2008). 4 E.g., “From endorsing McCain in 2000 to joining the anti-filibuster ‘Gang of 14’… he is a definitive McCain Republican” (Keating 2008a).

62

C. J. DEVINE

Indeed, many such references clearly implicate the former. For example: “Nunn could help Kerry stay off the defensive on national security issues and would credibly argue that Bush has not done enough to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons” (Alter 2004). Moreover, it is important to note that, in accordance with the coding rubric (see Appendix B), any references to issues that directly invoke governing compatibility, experience, or qualifications to be (vice) president, also are coded within those categories. Thus, it would be inappropriate to interpret the Issues category as necessarily implicating considerations of governance. With that being the case, the five most salient evaluative categories include several that explicitly invoke electoral considerations and only one that could, but very rarely does, explicitly invoke governing considerations. The category that most directly invokes governing considerations, Qualifications, ranks dead-last. Not even one out of twenty veepstakes profiles (4.4%) explicitly addresses whether the candidate is qualified to serve as (vice) president, or to perform the duties associated with that role. This includes only five references to the candidate’s qualifications to serve as vice president (0.8%) and 22 references to the candidate’s qualifications to serve as president (3.3%), as well as three general references to qualifications (0.5%). Difference of proportions tests indicates that references to Qualifications are significantly less frequent than references to every other evaluative category, at p < 0.05, in the pooled 2000–2016 data. And, according to Table 4.2, Qualifications was the least salient category in every selection process since 2000, except for Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016, when it ranked second-to-last. But media coverage need not directly invoke a potential running mate’s qualifications to serve as, or perform the duties of, (vice) president—as my coding rubric requires for the Qualifications category—in order to communicate the importance of governing considerations. Indeed, the Experience category—ranked eighth overall, with references in 231 of 664 veepstakes profiles (34.8%)—would seem to provide a reasonable, albeit more indirect, indicator of the same. In many cases, journalists’ references to a potential running mate’s experience clearly communicate his or her credentials to serve effectively as (vice) president. For example, one veepstakes profile said of former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, approvingly: “Experienced lawmaker with deep ties on both sides of the aisle” (Klein 2008). Another profile, this one of Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, cautioned: “But Fallin served only four years in Congress, giving

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

63

her little of the lawmaking expertise that Trump is seeking” (Los Angeles Times Staff 2016). Yet it would be a mistake to assume that all Experience references invoke governing considerations. In fact, many are framed in terms of electoral strategy. For example, one 2008 profile of Joe Biden noted: “The Democrat’s political experience will help counter GOP arguments that Obama is inexperienced in foreign policy” (Malveaux et al. 2008). Another profile, this one of Rob Portman, described him as “a widely touted economic expert, a specialty that could protect McCain from attacks on his familiarity with the issue” (Cillizza 2008). Many other references to experience simply are ambiguous—for example: “And she is probably too inexperienced” (Ward 2012); “Has never held elected office” (ABC News 2008); “No foreign policy experience” (Rudin 2004). Notwithstanding the preceding clarifications, suppose we were to treat the Experience category as synonymous with governing considerations. Even then, we would conclude that electoral considerations are more salient. This is because references to Experience are significantly less frequent, at p < 0.05, than references to each of the seven categories ranked above it—including Geography, Demography, and Electoral Appeal. To be even more generous, we could combine references to Experience, Qualifications, and Governing Compatibility, into a single “Governance” super-category. This would make little difference; references to governing considerations increase to 38.0%, still ranking eighth among the twelve evaluative categories and significantly lower than each of the more salient categories, except for Party Factions. By way of comparison, nearly twice as many veepstakes profiles (73.4%) include references to Geography and/or Demography. But, as Table 4.2 indicates, the media’s relative emphasis on various evaluative criteria varies, at least slightly, across selection processes. This raises the possibility that journalists’ emphasis on electoral versus governing considerations might be responsive to characteristics of the political environment. That is to say, when faced with the prospect of a competitive presidential election, veepstakes media coverage might focus more on electoral considerations and less on governing considerations (or vice versa). Many veepstakes guides suggest just such a perception of the relationship between electoral competitiveness and the importance of selecting

64

C. J. DEVINE

an electorally advantageous running mate. Most often, this comes across when journalists are discussing a race that is not (perceived to be) competitive. For example: “Up comfortably in the polls against an erratic Republican nominee who has yet to unite his party, Clinton seems likely to opt for a safe pick” (Rahn and Schultheis 2016). Similarly, in reference to George W. Bush in 2000, The New York Times offered this (rather questionable) assessment: “Sure of a win in November, the Texas governor reportedly feels he doesn’t need a flashy vice president, but someone with whom he’ll work well when he takes office in January” (Bundy 2000). The insidious implication of such statements is that selecting a running mate with whom the presidential candidate can govern effectively, if elected, is a luxury; when the election’s outcome is uncertain, it only makes sense to choose a running mate who can win votes, first and foremost. To provide a systematic analysis of this relationship, I divided the selection processes into those that occurred in a year when the presidential election generally was expected to be very competitive (2000, 2004, 2012), versus less competitive (2008, 2016). The former set of elections includes four selection processes (Bush, Gore, Kerry, Romney), as does the latter (McCain, Obama, Trump, Clinton). Each group also includes two Republican and two Democratic selections. Next, I compare the percent of veepstakes profiles within each group that referenced Geography (the most salient category to directly invoke electoral considerations) versus Experience (the most salient category to at least approximate invocations of governing considerations), and test for significant differences between these groups. The results of this analysis confirm my expectations. In close elections, 58.3% of veepstakes profiles reference Geography and only 28.8% reference Experience (for a difference of 29.5 percentage points). In other elections, when the outcome is not expected to be as close, 49.0% of veepstakes profiles reference Geography and 40.3% reference Experience (for a difference of 8.7 percentage points). For both criteria, these differences are statistically significant, at p < 0.05.5 That is to say, journalists place significantly more emphasis on electoral considerations, and significantly less emphasis on governing considerations, when faced with the prospect of a close election. Indeed, I find evidence of a tremendous imbalance 5 The difference in proportions for Geography is .093 (z = 2.413, p = 0.016), and for Experience it is .114 (z = 3.113, p = 0.002).

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

65

in close election years—with more than twice as many references to Geography versus Experience—while in other years there is somewhat of a balance between the two. This analysis reinforces my conclusions regarding the salience of electoral versus governing considerations in veepstakes media coverage. The preceding quantitative analysis, however, does not do justice to describing the dominance of electoral over governing considerations in veepstakes media coverage. Indeed, it hardly conveys the incredible shallowness and arrogance that pervades so much of this coverage—even from journalists who purport to scoff at the “parlor game,” yet adopt that very mentality when presenting their analysis to an audience that would actually benefit from a more substantive treatment of this important subject. Perhaps the worst offender in the dataset is William Schneider (2000), who—in a formulation all too common to veepstakes media coverage— begins his column by dismissing vice-presidential selection as electorally insignificant, with a nod to Lyndon Johnson’s candidacy in 1960 as the last one that really mattered, only to segue into a lengthy analysis of how various running mates—lo and behold!—could decide this year’s election. He writes: People don’t vote for Vice President. Dan Quayle proved that. In fact, when’s the last time a running mate actually affected the outcome of a presidential election? You’d have to go back 40 years, to 1960, when John F. Kennedy’s controversial choice of Lyndon B. Johnson helped put Texas in the Democratic column. That was a close election. This one may be another, with all but hand-to-hand combat over every piece of disputed territory. Which is why geography once again looms as an important consideration.

Many of the candidate profiles that follow from Schneider are overly simplistic and even crass: “Bush could pick Gov. Christine Todd Whitman. Woman, that’s good;” “Republicans have Sen. George Voinovich. Catholic, anti-abortion, former mayor of Cleveland and former governor—he knows how to get Democratic votes;” “Some people think Gore could make a statement by putting another New Democrat similar to himself on the ticket, maybe Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana or Bob Graham of Florida. But then, Gore would be doing the same thing Clinton did in 1992. That’s no way to show you’re your own

66

C. J. DEVINE

man.” Schneider concludes with a statement that is as journalistically irresponsible as it is plainly untrue: “In the end, there are 10 good reasons for choosing a running mate. No. 1: Find someone who will help you win. The other nine reasons don’t matter.” Other profiles convey the primacy—if not the exclusive relevance— of electoral considerations by presenting the case for a given candidate’s selection as a slam dunk, with little if any reference to his or her qualifications or governing credentials. Marco Rubio, in particular, has inspired many such profiles, including the following: Marco Rubio, a tea party favorite and first-term US Senator from Florida, seems to have everything going for him when it comes to what Mr. Romney might want in his running mate. He’s a Hispanic senator from a key swing state who is popular with many of the more conservative Republicans who question Romney’s credentials. He potentially helps Romney with Latinos… Southern voters, Florida voters, and tea party voters. (Paulson 2012) The case for Rubio is simple and close to conclusive. He’s Hispanic, giving the GOP an opportunity to reestablish some sort of foothold in that electorally critical community. He’s from Florida, a major swing state. He’s a tea party favorite…. And, he’s young. (Cillizza 2012) Rubio, 41, is a rock star. He’s young, good-looking, well-spoken and a Latino. He’s from the must-win state of Florida. What’s not to like? (Ward 2012) What’s not to love about Rubio? He’s young. He’s smart. He’s adored by the Tea Party but also has cross-over appeal to Latinos. Oh, and he also represents a swing state with 29 electoral votes. The downside: He’s young and untested. (Walter et al. 2012)

In other cases, journalists present the case for vice-presidential selection as little—even, nothing—more than a matter of Electoral College math. Consider this recurring formulation: • “The Florida senator is a possibility for three reasons: Florida, Florida, Florida.”—NBC News (on Bob Graham, 2004) • “One word: Florida.”—CBS News (on Bob Graham, 2004) • “It’s Florida, stupid.”—Chicago Tribune (on Bob Graham, 2004) • “In a word, Virginia.”—CBS News (on Tim Kaine, 2016).

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

67

In the last instance, the author elaborates: “For veepstakes, one thing a running mate might offer is help at the top of the ticket in a key swing state—and Kaine, a former Virginia governor and relatively popular firstterm senator, would do just that.” Indeed, many journalists treat the vicepresidential home state advantage as a given. Perhaps the best example of this is NPR’s Ken Rudin (2004), who definitively asserted in reference to Florida Senator Bob Graham: “Had he been the nominee in 2000, it would be President Gore today.” In many cases, journalists dismiss or at least significantly downgrade the candidacy of a running mate who seems unlikely to deliver his or her home state. For instance, McCabe (2000) draws back from a positive assessment of John Kerry’s candidacy by concluding: “But Kerry would deprive Gore of a running mate who could bring along a swing state.” And, in 2008, ABC News concluded many of its profiles with dismissive notes such as these: • Joe Biden: “Delaware is solidly Democratic without Biden’s help.” • Chris Cox: “Would provide little help in carrying California…” • Jon Huntsman: “Home state is among the safest Republican states in the country.” • Joe Lieberman: “Probably wouldn’t carry his heavily Democratic home state.” • Sam Nunn: “Home state of Georgia is unlikely to be in play.” • Kathleen Sebelius: “Democrats are highly unlikely to hold a chance in Kansas.” • Jack Reed: “Brings nothing to the ticket geographically.” • Mitt Romney: “Will offer no help in carrying his home state.” • John Thune: “Geographical diversity would not add states to GOP column.” As Devine and Kopko (2016) point out, “journalists’ belief in the vice presidential home state advantage is so strong, in general, that it sometimes leads them to posit far-fetched advantages in states to which a vice presidential contender has more tenuous connections” (24). The evidence of this provided by Devine and Kopko, based on a content analysis of geographic references in veepstakes media coverage, is so egregious that it is worth quoting them in full:

68

C. J. DEVINE

In 2004 and 2008, several of the articles included in our content analysis suggested that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius might boost the Democratic ticket in Ohio because her father had been governor of that state. A Time article in 2008, for instance, noted: “Sebelius is popular in Kansas… and even offers a family connection in the key swing state of Ohio, where her father John Gilligan served as governor in the ‘70s” (Calabresi 2008). Being born in a swing state, or attending college in one, might also help: “Demographically and geographically, [Virginia Governor] Tim Kaine is the full package… Kaine was also born in Minnesota and went to college in Missouri, two swing states in the Midwest” (Malveaux et al. 2008); likewise, from the Washington Post in 2004, “New Hampshire is expected to be one of the key swing states in play during the fall, and [former governor] Jeanne Shaheen’s experience there could be helpful. In addition, she was born in Missouri and attended college in Pennsylvania, two other states expected to be presidential battlegrounds”. (Washington Post 2004)

But, wait, there’s more: National Journal ’s Chuck Todd in 2000 even suggested that Al Gore might improve his chances of winning Pennsylvania if he selected John Kerry, the US senator from Massachusetts, as his running mate (see Todd 2000). Why? Because Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, had been married to a former US senator from Pennsylvania, John Heinz, and after his death became heiress to the Pennsylvania-based Heinz Corporation ketchup fortune. One wonders whether the journalists who posit these advantages would consider themselves more likely to vote for a presidential candidate because the running mate attended college in their home state, or is married to someone who was married to someone who used to hold office in that state. (Devine and Kopko 2016, 24–25)

Indeed, media coverage often portrays vice-presidential selection merely as an exercise in (electoral) box-checking—as in this assessment of New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez: “A Hispanic woman from a key swing state, Martinez checks a lot of boxes” (Walter et al. 2012). As it pertains to demographics, this mentality often reduces credible vicepresidential candidates to little more than the fact of their gender, race, or ethnicity. For example, in 2016, Newsweek’s profile of Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar concluded: “If Clinton needs a woman, Klobuchar makes sense, but otherwise there are better options” (Wofford 2016). The same article said of New Jersey Senator Cory Booker: “If Clinton wants a

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

69

black running mate, Booker’s the guy…. But, other than his youth and skin color, Booker doesn’t bring much to the ticket.”6 A CBS News profile of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro also conveys that demography is his only compelling credential: “And when you put aside his Mexican heritage, the Harvard-educated Castro hasn’t yet built the strongest resume for the job” (Rahn and Schultheis 2016). As for Condoleezza Rice, a former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, there is this condescending assessment: “Oh, right, and she’s a woman. A likable woman, at that. And she’s African-American” (LoGiurato 2012). Perhaps such discourse helps to explain why, in the case of Jeanne Shaheen in 2000, Washington Monthly columnist Alexandra Starr speculates that “many voters would probably surmise she was put on the ticket purely because of her gender” (Starr 1999). Indeed, in the very same article, Starr says (rather crudely) of Elizabeth Dole: “Aside from her pearly whites, Dole’s chief assets are her last name and her XX chromosomes….”7 In other words, we learn, one of the only two reasons to put Dole on the ticket is her gender. Aha! Now we know why voters surmise such things. As the last quote suggests, it is also common for journalists to comment on a potential running mate’s physical appearance. Indeed, in what might be the most discouraging finding from this analysis, veepstakes profiles are significantly more likely to directly reference the candidate’s physical appearance than whether he or she is qualified to serve as (vice) president (z = 2.231, p = 0.026). This includes references to physical attractiveness; for example, John Thune has “movie-star good looks” (Paulson 2012), and “The phrase ‘central casting’ can easily be applied to the senator from South Dakota. Thune is handsome…” (Cillizza 2008). In other cases, journalists seize on a particular, and often irrelevant, physical characteristic; for instance, multiple profiles dwelled upon Chris Christie’s weight—“His weight is also a factor” (Ward 2012)—and Charlie Crist’s 6 This article’s author, Taylor Wofford, also dismisses three potential running mates based on their age, race, and gender—Tim Kaine, because “old white guys don’t excite voters like they used to;” Al Franken: “And he’s an old white guy;” and Sherrod Brown: “But he’s another old white guy.” 7 Starr’s profile also refers to Dole, at one point, as “Sugar Lips.” Other profiles of Dole, in 2000, include similarly derogatory comments. For example, Frank Pelligrini (2000), writing for Time, offered this assessment: “but methinks Bush wants a buddy, not a fembot.”

70

C. J. DEVINE

tan—“Mr Crist, the perpetually tanned and single governor of Florida” (The Economist 2008). Often, such comments are mischievous addendums more suitable to describing a high school crush than a potential vice president: “Easy on the eyes too” (Neumer 2004, on Evan Bayh); “Good looks don’t hurt either” (Neumer 2004, on John Edwards); “Being tall and good-looking doesn’t hurt him” (Ward 2012, on Paul Ryan); “Appeals to: …visually unimpaired heterosexual men” (Goldberg 2008, on Sarah Palin). Or there is this sober assessment from The Washington Post (2004): “A KerryLandrieu ticket might set the mark for the most appealing presidential pairing ever—Elle magazine called Kerry ‘the sexiest man in politics’ in 1998, and Landrieu was on Playboy’s list of ‘Washington’s sexiest power brokers’ of 2000.”8 Well, then—what more do we need to know? In fairness to journalists, certainly it is not the case that all veepstakes media coverage focuses on electoral considerations, or does so in the simplistic, superficial, and often patronizing manner that characterizes many of the examples cited above. In fact, my data include numerous examples of journalists seriously weighing a potential running mate’s qualifications to serve in office, or to bring relevant experience into a new presidential administration. In addition to other quotes cited throughout this chapter, consider the following assessment of Dick Cheney’s credentials, from 2000: Bush has said his two most important qualifications for the person he’ll ask to run with him are a willingness to work as a loyal No. 2 and the ability to serve as president. Cheney, a former secretary of defense, chief of staff, and congressman from Wyoming, would certainly fit the bill on both accounts. (ABC News 2000)

The problem with veepstakes media coverage is not that such examples don’t exist. The problem is that there aren’t enough of them. Indeed, as previously noted, journalists are more likely to directly invoke a potential running mate’s physical appearance than whether he or she is qualified to serve as (vice) president. In a broader sense, journalists are more apt to speculate on the potential electoral (dis)advantages—based upon

8 Interestingly, the percentage of veepstakes profiles referencing physical appearance is higher for male candidates (7.8%) than for female candidates (4.5%). However, this difference is not statistically significant (.032, z = 1.190, p = 0.234).

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

71

geography, demography, and other factors—that a running mate might bring to the presidential ticket, than the governing credentials or relevant experience that he or she will bring to a presidential administration, if elected. This is not to say that media coverage should avoid referencing electoral considerations, altogether. In some cases, such considerations may be relevant and well-founded. But, given the vice president’s significant role in American government, and the news media’s critical role in informing the public and shaping public discourse, shouldn’t journalists’ treatment of electoral versus governing considerations at least be more balanced? Or, if there is an imbalance, shouldn’t it tilt toward emphasizing governance? As this analysis indicates, media coverage is (heavily) imbalanced toward an emphasis on electoral considerations. This fact, and the superficial manner in which much of that coverage is presented, suggests that journalists all too often cede an important opportunity to serve the public by responsibly informing it about the significance of the vice presidency and the merits of the candidates vying for that position. Instead, veepstakes coverage generally serves a media outlet’s commercial interests, by seeking to do little more than entertain its audience with a parlor game—one that its hosts laugh off knowingly, even while inviting us to play.

Is Ticket-Balancing a Priority? This chapter’s third, and final, research objective is to determine whether veepstakes media coverage presents ticket-balancing as an important criterion for vice-presidential selection. In other words, do media outlets focus more on certain characteristics—such as experience, ideology, gender, or age—when the presidential candidate is atypical or does not represent a large segment of his or her party? Indeed, many veepstakes guides explicitly frame the choice of a running mate in such terms, often in an introduction. Consider the following examples, from 2008: Both men have needs to fill. McCain’s weaknesses call for a younger leader who can shore up conservative support while representing a new direction for the GOP (and appears ready to be President if necessary, given McCain’s age). Obama must build a bridge to centrist white voters while bolstering his foreign policy credentials and improving his support among

72

C. J. DEVINE

women, many of whom think he should simply pick Hillary Clinton as his VP. (Ververs 2008) Barack Obama… needs a running mate who does just three things: Appeal to centrists and moderates, bolster his foreign-policy weak spot and not turn off the base…. McCain, meanwhile, needs a running mate who can do roughly a dozen things: reassure skittish evangelicals, deliver a key state, shore up his weakness on economics, appeal to swing voters, attract women, be an acceptable conservative standard-bearer, add energy to the ticket, and on and on. (Goldberg 2008) As a young, African-American, Midwestern outsider with little executive and no military experience, maybe [Obama] needs to balance the ticket with an older person and/or white person and/or Southerner and/or Washington hand and/or governor and/or general—or maybe his [sic] wants to build his own brand of national Democrat from scratch. (Keating 2008b) Democrat Barack Obama, with just four years in the Senate, needs someone with national, political and foreign policy experience. Republican Sen. John McCain, whose conservative credentials have come under question, needs someone who will help ensure a conservative turnout in November. (Rudin 2008)

Many of the substantive references to vice-presidential selection criteria that I analyze in this chapter also explicitly invoke ticket-balancing concerns. For example: • Background: “Military background balances Obama’s lack thereof.”—ABC News (on Jim Webb, 2008) • Demography (Gender): “So aside from closing a possible gender gap, she doesn’t balance the ticket.”—The New York Times (on Elizabeth Dole, 2000) • Demography (Race): “[A]s an African-American woman, would radically balance the ticket.”—New York Magazine (on Condoleezza Rice, 2008) • Demography (Faith): “A Catholic like Kerry, making it an unbalanced ticket.”—New York Daily News (on Tom Vilsack, 2004) • Demography (Age): “He is also 52 years old, providing a good age balance with Mr. McCain.”—The New York Times (on Rob Portman, 2008)

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

73

• Demography (Socioeconomic Status): “Also, his blue-collar roots appeal to the broader GOP base and work as a counter balance to Romney’s wealth.”—CBS News (on Tim Pawlenty, 2008) • Experience: “He does bring the key balance of experience, however, having worked in public life for almost 30 years.”—The New York Times (on Frank Keating, 2000) • Party Factions : “Mr. Davis would balance the ticket to the right….”—The New York Times (on Gray Davis, 2000) • Personal Attributes : “Christie’s brash persona could be the perfect counterbalance for Romney’s perceived lack of charisma.”—New Republic (on Chris Christie, 2012) • Geography: “Gives ticket North–South balance.”—NPR (on John Edwards, 2004) • Washington, D.C.: “Vilsack would bring an outside Washington persona to help balance the ticket.”—The Washington Post (on Tom Vilsack, 2004). But these excerpts only provide anecdotal evidence of journalists’ emphasis on ticket-balancing. To provide more systematic evidence, I begin by dividing the data according to various characteristics of the presidential candidates. Then, I compare the percent of veepstakes profiles referencing the same characteristic with regard to potential vicepresidential candidates. Specifically, I divide the data according to the following presidential characteristics: • Experience: Experienced (Gore, Kerry, McCain, Clinton) = 1; Inexperienced (Bush, Obama, Romney, Trump) = 0. • Executive Experience: Experienced (Bush, Gore, Romney, Clinton) = 1; Inexperienced (Kerry, McCain, Obama, Trump) = 0. • Legislative Experience: Experienced (Gore, Kerry, McCain, Obama, Clinton) = 1; Inexperienced (Bush, Romney, Trump) = 0. • Washington, D.C.: National Officeholder (Gore, Kerry, McCain, Obama, Clinton) = 1; State or Non-Officeholder (Bush, Romney, Trump) = 0. • Demography (Gender): Woman (Clinton) = 1; Man (Bush, Gore, Kerry, McCain, Obama, Romney, Trump) = 0. • Demography (Race/Ethnicity): Black (Obama) = 1; White (Bush, Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney, Trump, Clinton) = 0.

74

C. J. DEVINE

• Demography (Age): Young (Obama) or Old (McCain, Trump, Clinton) = 1; Middle-Aged (Bush, Gore, Kerry, Romney) = 0.9 So, for example, I would find evidence of ticket-balancing if vicepresidential experience is more salient when the presidential candidate is relatively inexperienced, or if age is more salient when the presidential candidate is exceptionally young or old. Table 4.3 presents the results of this analysis. Specifically, this table reports the proportion of veepstakes profiles referencing a particular characteristic of potential vice-presidential candidates (Column 1), for selection processes in which the presidential candidate does not (Column 2) or does (Column 3) possess that characteristic. Then, it reports the difference of proportions between each group of selection processes (Column 4), and whether these differences are statistically significant (Columns 5 and 6). Perhaps the most important finding from Table 4.3 is that media coverage is significantly more likely to emphasize a potential running mate’s experience when the presidential candidate is lacking in political experience. Specifically, the percent of veepstakes profiles referencing Experience increases from only 29.1% for experienced presidential candidates to 40.4% for inexperienced presidential candidates—a difference of 13.3%, which is statistically significant at p < 0.05. Media coverage also emphasizes ticket-balancing when the presidential candidate is a Washington “outsider” who has never held office at the national level, or at any level. That is to say, references to a potential running mate’s status as a Washington “insider”—i.e., a national officeholder—are more frequent when the presidential candidate is an outsider (9.9%), rather than a fellow insider (5.8%). This difference is statistically significant at p < 0.05. However, references to a potential running mate’s “outsider” status also are significantly more frequent when the presidential candidate is a fellow outsider (7.3%) than when he or she is an insider (3.7%). Thus, I find mixed evidence of an emphasis on ticket-balancing, as it relates to national officeholding; the potential running mate’s status as a Washington outsider is more salient when the presidential candidate 9 On Election Day of the year in which they first ran for president, the candidates’ ages were: Bush, 54 years old; Gore, 52; Kerry, 60; McCain, 72; Obama, 47; Romney, 65; Trump, 70; Clinton, 69. For the purposes of this analysis, I treat 50–65 as middle-aged; under 50 as young; and over 65 as old.

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

75

Table 4.3 Proportion of veepstakes profiles referencing characteristics (not) associated with the presidential candidate, 2000–2016 Presidential characteristic? VP Criterion Experience Overall Executive Legislative Washington, D.C Insider Outsider Demography Woman (Gender) Black (Race) Young/Old (Age)

No

Yes

0.404 0.069 0.043

0.291 0.035 0.025

0.099 0.037 0.146 0.191 0.110

Difference

Z Statistic

P-Value

0.113 0.034 0.018

3.057 1.906 1.238

0.002 0.057 0.216

0.058 0.073

0.041 −0.036

1.960 2.049

0.050 0.041

0.306 0.162 0.162

−0.160 0.030 -0.053

3.268 0.712 1.969

0.001 0.477 0.049

Note Data include 664 candidate profiles featured in 80 “veepstakes guides” (10 per selection process). See Appendix A for data sources. See Appendix B for coding rubric

is an insider, but it also more salient when the presidential candidate is a fellow outsider. Finally, in terms of demographics, I find additional evidence of an emphasis on ticket-balancing. Perhaps the clearest example of this concerns age. For presidential candidates who are particularly young (under 50 years) or old (over 65), 16.2% of veepstakes profiles reference a potential running mate’s age, whereas for middle-aged presidential candidates (50–65) only 11.0% do so. This difference, which is statistically significant at p < 0.05, indicates that media coverage more heavily emphasizes a running mate’s age when the presidential candidate is exceptional in this regard—presumably because journalists perceive the importance of having a balanced ticket. Similarly, I find that gender was significantly more salient in media coverage of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 veepstakes (30.6%), in comparison to the seven other presidential candidates, all of whom were men (14.6%). However, race/ethnicity was not more salient in media coverage of Barack Obama’s 2008 veepstakes (16.2%), in comparison to the seven other presidential candidates, all of whom were white (19.1%).

76

C. J. DEVINE

This evidence indicates that journalists perceive ticket-balancing to be an important criterion when selecting a vice-presidential candidate, at least in terms of certain characteristics such as experience, age, and gender. But why is this the case? Do journalists believe that voters will pass up their preferred presidential candidate, in order to elect an appealing vicepresidential candidate? Do they believe that the vice-presidential candidate will, if elected, draw upon his or her experience, demographic identity, or other factors, in order to significantly and positively influence government actions? Devine and Kopko’s (2020) analysis suggests another possibility: at least in many cases, journalists seem to believe that the selection of a running mate influences voters’ perceptions of the presidential candidate and his or her campaign. That is to say, voters may make their choice between presidential candidates, but evaluate those candidates differently based upon inferences drawn from vice-presidential selection.10 Indeed, many of the veepstakes profiles that directly or indirectly invoke ticket-balancing considerations focus on how the choice of a running mate might reinforce or undercut the presidential campaign’s central theme, or message. Perhaps the best example of this logic comes from The Weekly Standard, in 2000: “The early line on Gore’s thinking is that… his choice will be designed to send a message about what kind of president Gore would be. It might signal clean government/moral rectitude, or uninterrupted economic stewardship, or political leadership for the next generation” (Rees 2000). To cite other examples, just from 2008: • “Adding a second senator to the ticket would conflict with the ‘change’ message.”—ABC News (on Joe Biden, 2008) • “[P]icking her as vice president would seem to run counter to Obama’s change message.”—The Washington Post (on Hillary Clinton 2008) • “[S]he would seem to undercut Mr. Obama’s central call for changing the face of Washington.”—The New York Times (on Hillary Clinton, 2008)

10 Also, Devine and Kopko find that voters—in general, and with respect to particular selection processes—tend to prefer a running mate who balances the ticket. In that sense, veepstakes profiles might be reflecting public preferences—or perhaps influencing them.

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

77

• “Just as Al Gore did for President Bill Clinton, Kaine helps re-inforce the central theme: the Democratic Party is new and different.”— CNN (on Tim Kaine, 2008) • “Would fit with Obama’s unity theme.”—ABC News (on Colin Powell, 2008) • “Message of a new kind of politics melds well with Obama’s.”—ABC News (on Michael Bloomberg, 2008) In other cases, journalists suggest that selecting a particular running mate might cause voters to reevaluate the presidential candidate’s perceived deficiencies, or it might bolster voters’ perceptions of the presidential candidate’s strengths. These include references to: • Background (Military): “As a military leader, he would appeal to veterans, making irrelevant the fact that Gore served in Vietnam and Bush in the Texas Air National Guard.”—Knight Ridder Newspapers (on Colin Powell, 2000) • Demography (Age): “And Mr. Biden’s age—he will turn 66 this November—might serve as a reminder of Mr. Obama’s youth.”— The New York Times (on Joe Biden, 2008) • Experience (General ): “The downside: With only four years in elected office, Hagel might underscore Bush’s relative lack of experience.”—Los Angeles Times (on Chuck Hagel, 2000) • Party Factions (Ideology): “His moderate views could take the liberal edge off Kerry…”—Newsweek (on Evan Bayh, 2004) • Washington, D.C. (Outsider): “Mr. Keating also has the advantage of currently serving outside the Beltway, which boosts Mr. Bush’s narrative of being a Washington outsider and thus more capable of reform.”—The New York Times (on Frank Keating, 2000) More broadly, Cillizza (2008) identified Kathleen Sebelius as Barack Obama’s likeliest vice-presidential pick “because of her ability to further bolster Obama’s strengths while not exacerbating his weaknesses.” Thus, journalists’ perceptions of running-mate effects—particularly regarding the importance of ticket-balancing—may be more nuanced than, at first, they appear. While media coverage often dismisses the significance of vice-presidential selection—by claiming that no one votes for a vice president, and that no running mate has decided an election’s

78

C. J. DEVINE

outcome (supposedly) since Lyndon Johnson in 1960 (e.g., Schneider 2000; but see Devine and Kopko 2016, Chapter 5)—or ridicules the speculation in which they engage as a mere “parlor game,” at the same time this coverage often suggests a more complex effect that has been borne out by recent research: the choice of a running mate may influence voters’ perceptions of the presidential candidate who selects him or her, and this, in turn, may influence vote choice.

Conclusion This chapter presents a content analysis of veepstakes media coverage in the 2000–2016 presidential elections. Of the twelve evaluative categories identified in Chapter 3, I find that media coverage most often references: Geography (53.5% of veepstakes profiles); Compatibility (50.5%); Issues (49.9%); Demography (49.0%); and Electoral Appeal (47.1%). Of the evaluative subcategories, media coverage most often references: Electoral Compatibility (44.3% of veepstakes profiles); Home State (42.6%); and Ideology (38.1%). References to the remaining (sub)categories are significantly less frequent, according to difference of proportions testing. Also, I find that journalists are much more likely to reference electoral over governing considerations, when evaluating the merits of potential vice-presidential candidates. Indeed, the most salient category that could reasonably—but rather imperfectly—be treated as synonymous with governing considerations is Experience (34.8%), and it is significantly less salient than other categories associated with electoral considerations, including Geography, Demography, and Electoral Appeal. The category most directly indicative of governing considerations, Qualifications (4.4%), ranks lowest in salience among the twelve evaluative categories. In fact, media coverage is significantly more likely to invoke a potential running mate’s physical appearance than to explicitly address whether he or she is qualified to serve as (vice) president! Furthermore, journalists are significantly more likely to reference Geography, and significantly less likely to reference Experience, in years when the presidential election is expected to be close, citing the former twice as often (58.3%) as the latter (28.8%). When it seems less likely that the presidential election will be close, references to Geography (49.0%) and Experience (40.3%) are more balanced. This, together with the other evidence and comments cited in the text above, suggests that journalists generally regard the running

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

79

mate’s potential to deliver electoral advantages as the most relevant basis for vice-presidential selection. Finally, as this evidence also suggests, journalists’ vice-presidential selection criteria are not fixed across candidacies and election years. In particular, I find that media coverage often emphasizes the importance of selecting a running mate who “balances the ticket,” in the sense that he or she exhibits a characteristic that the presidential candidate does not. This does not, of course, apply to all presidential characteristics. But I do find statistically significant evidence that journalists emphasize a running mate’s ability to balance the presidential candidate in terms of overall experience, status as a Washington insider, age, and gender. One interpretation of these results, supported by numerous excerpts from veepstakes media coverage, is that—at least in many cases—journalists perceive ticket-balancing to have an indirect effect on vote choice, by causing voters to reevaluate the presidential candidates’ strengths and weaknesses. If the news media were serving the public interest, this analysis would indicate that their coverage focuses on the substantive contributions to governance that a vice-presidential candidate is certain to make, if elected, rather—or at least much more so—than their uncertain electoral contributions. My findings to the contrary suggest that the news media, in general, are failing to properly inform the public about what is at stake during the vice-presidential selection process, by overstating a running mate’s likely electoral impact and minimizing, if not ignoring, the consequential role in governance to be played by the next vice president.

References ABC News. 2000. “Bush Narrows In on V.P. Pick”. ABC News, July 21. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123206&page=1. Accessed October 8, 2022. ABC News. 2008. “Who’s In the Republican Veepstakes?” ABC News, August 2008. https://web.archive.org/web/20081101211411/http://abcnews.go. com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4710917&page=1. Accessed October 8, 2022. Alter, Jonathan. 2004. “With Kerry In, Let the Veepstakes Begin”. Newsweek, March 2. Accessed via Lexis Nexis, October 8, 2022. Accessed October 8, 2022.

80

C. J. DEVINE

Bundy, Clare. 2000. “A Look at the Vice Presidential Pool: Republican.” The New York Times, July 6. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ library/politics/camp/whouse/042700wh-gop-vp-stakes.html. Accessed October 8, 2022. Calabresi, Massimo. 2008. “Playing the Veepstakes.” Time, n.d. https://con tent.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1813163_1813180_ 1813175,00.html. Accessed October 8, 2022. Cillizza, Chris. 2008. “The Friday Line: Veepstakes!” The Washington Post, May 9. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/the-friday-lineveepstakes-1.html. Accessed October 8, 2022. Cillizza, Chris. 2012. Veepstakes 2012: “The Inaugural Edition.” The Washington Post, March 23. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/ post/veepstakes-2012-the-inaugural-edition/2012/03/22/gIQAAAbKUS_b log.html?utm_term=.620b8297a5e2. Accessed October 8, 2022. Devine, Christopher J., and Kyle C. Kopko. 2016. The VP Advantage: How Running Mates Influence Home State Voting in Presidential Elections. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Devine, Christopher J., and Kyle C. Kopko. 2020. Do Running Mates Matter?: The Influence of Vice Presidential Candidates in Presidential Elections. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Goldberg, Jonah. 2008. “John McCain’s Veepstakes.” Los Angeles Times, July 18. https://www.latimes.com/la-oe-goldberg21-2008jul21-b-htmlstory. html. Accessed October 8, 2022. Keating, Peter. 2008a. “McCain’s Potential Running Mates: A Who’s Who.” New York, June 30. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2008a/06/mccains_p otential_running_mate.html. Accessed October 8, 2022. Keating, Peter. 2008b. “Obama’s Potential Running Mates: A Who’s Who.” New York, June 30. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2008b/06/obamas_potent ial_running_mates.html?gtm=bottom>m=top. Accessed October 8, 2022. Klein, Rick. 2008. “Who’s in the Democratic Veepstakes?” ABC News, August https://web.archive.org/web/20120308002525/https://abcnews.go. 1. com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5210851&page=1. Accessed October 8, 2022. LoGiurato, Brett. 2012. “One of These 16 People Will Be Mitt Romney’s Running Mate.” Business Insider, May 25. https://www.businessinsider.com/ republican-vice-presidential-candidates-2012-15-people-who-could-earn-thenomination-2012-5. Accessed October 8, 2022. Los Angeles Times Staff. 2016. “Here Are the Top Vice President Picks for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.” Los Angeles Times, July 8. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-trump-vp-20160708snap-htmlstory.html. Accessed October 8, 2022.

4

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2000–2016

81

Malveaux, Suzanne, Bill Schneider, Robert Yoon, Alan Silverlieb, and Ed Hornick. 2008. “CNN Analysis: Who’ll Win the Obama Veepstakes?” CNN, July 30. https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/dem.veepstakes/ index.html. Accessed October 8, 2022. McCabe, Kathy. 2000. “Democratic VP Contenders.” USA Today, August 3. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/e98/vp.htm. Accessed October 8, 2022. Neumer, Alison. 2004. “Running Mating Game.” Chicago Tribune, March 17. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-03-17-0403180040story.html. Accessed October 8, 2022. Paulson, Amanda. 2012. “Ten Possible Vice-Presidential Candidates for the GOP Ticket.” Christian Science Monitor, March 28. https://www.csmonitor. com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0328/Ten-possible-vice-presidentialcandidates-for-the-GOP-ticket/Marco-Rubio. Accessed October 8, 2022. Pellegrini, Frank. 2000. “Yee-Haw! In GOP Veepstakes, It’s the Last Roundup.” Time, July 23. https://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,506 29,00.html. Accessed October 8, 2022. Rahn, Will, and Emily Schultheis. 2016. “Veepstakes: Who Could Hillary Clinton Pick as Her Running Mate?” CBS News, May 17. https://www. cbsnews.com/news/democratic-veepstakes-who-could-hillary-clinton-pick-asher-running-mate/. Accessed October 8, 2022. Rees, Matthew. 2000. “The Veep’s Veep: Al Gore Looks to Choose a Successor.” The Weekly Standard, March 20. Accessed via LexisNexis, October 8, 2022. Rudin, Ken. 2004. Who Will Be Kerry’s VP? NPR, n.d. https://web.archive. org/web/20041213093626/https://www.npr.org/politics/vp/. Accessed October 8, 2022. Rudin, Ken. 2008. “Who’s Up, Who’s Down in the Veepstakes.” NPR, August 19. https://legacy.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/july/veepstakes/ veepstakes.html. Accessed October 8, 2022. Schneider, William. 2000. Wanna Run? Where Ya From? National Journal, July 15. Accessed via Academic Search Complete, October 8, 2022. Starr, Alexandra. 1999. “Running Mates: Who Will Be on the Ticket in 2000?” Washington Monthly, July/August. Accessed via Academic Search Complete, October 8, 2022. The Economist. 2008. “The Veepstakes: McCain Takes a Closer Look at Some Candidates.” The Economist, May 22. https://www.economist.com/democr acy-in-america/2008/05/22/the-veepstakes. Accessed October 8, 2022. Todd, Chuck. 2000. Crystal Ball Veep-Gazing. National Journal, June 14. https://web.archive.org/web/20000816034538/www3.nationaljournal. com/members/buzz/2000/trail/061400.htm. Accessed October 8, 2022.

82

C. J. DEVINE

Ververs, Vaughn. 2008. “Potential VP Bios: Republicans.” CBS News, June https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vice-presidential-bios-16-06-2008/. 16. Accessed October 8, 2022. Walter, Amy, Z. Byron Wolf, Sarah Parnass, and Meg Fowler. 2012. “Top Likely Republican Running Mates.” ABC News, April 4. https://abcnews.go.com/ Politics/OTUS/top-republican-running-mates/story?id=16070382. Accessed October 8, 2022. Ward, Jon. 2012. “Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential Pick: Signs Point to Risk Avoidance.” Huffington Post, April 19. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ mitt-romneys-vice-president_n_1439122. Accessed October 8, 2022. Washington Post. 2004. “Who Will It Be?” The Washington Post, n.d. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/vee pomatic_bios.htm. Accessed October 8, 2022. Wofford, Taylor. 2016. “Who Will be Hillary Clinton’s Running Mate?” Newsweek, May 7. https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-vice-presid ent-picks-456908. Accessed October 8, 2022.

CHAPTER 5

Veepstakes Media Coverage, 2020

Abstract This chapter presents a content analysis of veepstakes media coverage in 2020. This selection process is distinct from previous elections, because the Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, announced in advance that he would choose a woman as his running mate. I find some evidence that veepstakes media coverage improved in 2020, over the previous five elections analyzed in Chapter 4. Anecdotally, some of the best examples of responsible media coverage, focused on governing considerations, come from 2020. Quantitatively speaking, there were more references to experience and qualifications than in past years, fewer references to geography, and no references to physical appearance. However, I do not observe a fundamental change in media coverage; in 2020, as in previous years, veepstakes profiles were much more likely to reference electoral over governing credentials. Keyword Vice-presidential selection · Media coverage · Content analysis · Joe Biden · Kamala Harris · 2020 presidential election

Generally speaking, the news media treat vice-presidential selection as little more than a parlor game. Most coverage focuses on the running mate’s potential electoral impact. Only rarely does it explicitly address the question of whether a candidate actually is qualified to serve as vice © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. J. Devine, News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28166-2_5

83

84

C. J. DEVINE

president—or president, if necessary. Indeed, veepstakes profiles are more likely to discuss a candidate’s physical appearance. Three-quarters of all veepstakes profiles reference a candidate’s demographic or geographic appeal; half as many—even by the most generous definition—reference their potential contributions to governance. Election is the priority; choosing someone who can serve effectively alongside the president, in the White House, is presented as something of a luxury. These are the conclusions that I draw in Chapter 4, based on a content analysis of media coverage in the first five presidential elections—including eight vice-presidential selection processes—of the twenty-first century, from 2000 to 2016. This chapter applies the same research methods to our most recent presidential election, from 2020, when Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris as his running mate. Recognizing that—as the evidence from Chapter 4 shows—every vice-presidential selection process is different, and media coverage varies systematically depending on the presidential candidate’s characteristics, I do not expect to find that various selection criteria were precisely as salient in 2020 as in previous elections. Nor do I assume that an increase or decrease in the salience of a particular criterion is indicative of a longterm trend. Rather, in this chapter, I ask more broadly: Was veepstakes media coverage better in 2020 than in past elections? That is to say, was anything fundamentally different? There was one fundamental difference in 2020, compared to past vicepresidential selection processes: Joe Biden promised, in advance, to pick a woman. This, in itself, limits the comparability of the present data to those from the previous chapter. Whereas in previous years veepstakes profiles, of women in particular, often dwelt on the electoral implications of the running mate’s gender, it made little sense to do so in 2020 because all of the viable candidates were women.1 A decrease in discussions of gender, therefore, would not indicate that it was a less salient selection criterion in 2020, but rather that it was a less relevant point of distinction among the candidates. Likewise, it would be difficult to say that an increase in references to other criteria—for example, race/ethnicity or ideology—was indicative of their greater salience in 2020; perhaps, at least in some cases, 1 Only Hagen’s (2020) veepstakes guide included a man, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. “Biden remains committed to choosing a woman as his running mate,” Hagen explained. “But that hasn’t stopped some from speculating, or calling on Biden to choose Cuomo.”

5

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2020

85

neutralizing gender as a selection criterion created the opportunity to discuss such factors more often. In other words, had Biden not pledged to choose a woman, it is possible that certain alternative criteria would have been covered at the same rate as in past elections. There is no way to know, with regard to any particular criterion, whether that is the case. But it is reasonable, under these circumstances, to analyze veepstakes media coverage in 2020 separately, and to focus on broader trends—such as the relative salience of electoral versus governing considerations—rather than any one selection criterion, in particular. This chapter’s analysis draws on the same dataset and methodology introduced in Chapter 3 and used for my analysis of the 2000–2016 elections in Chapter 4. That is to say, I provide a content analysis of 10 veepstakes guides published by major media outlets in 2020. These guides include 113 candidate profiles, in total, and 11.3, on average. Appendix A lists the articles included in this analysis. Appendix B describes my coding procedures.

Qualitative Analysis Qualitatively speaking, I do see a difference in 2020 veepstakes coverage—and a positive one, at that. While I cannot say so definitely, given a relatively small sample size per selection process (N = 10), it seems that major media outlets generally were more likely in 2020 than in past elections to frame the veepstakes—that is, at the beginning of an article, prior to presenting the candidate profiles—as a serious matter of governance, and not just electoral strategizing. The New York Times and Politico, in particular, are commendable in this respect. Alexander Burns (2020), for The New York Times , frames the selection process as follows: People close to Mr. Biden acknowledge that, at this point, the V.P. choice is almost entirely in his hands. He has said all along that he wants a running mate with whom he has strong personal chemistry, and who could be a hand-in-glove partner in governing. Those criteria appear to have strengthened both [Michigan Governor Gretchen] Whitmer, with whom Mr. Biden developed a tight political bond this year, and [former National Security Adviser Susan] Rice, who worked closely with Mr. Biden in the Obama administration.

86

C. J. DEVINE

Ultimately, only Mr. Biden can judge which person in this historically diverse vice-presidential field best meets his own view of what the job demands.

This emphasis on governing considerations is reinforced by the structure of The New York Times ’ veepstakes guide. Burns’s profiles are broken up into six sections, including “Bio” (describing the candidate’s major professional achievements), “Signature issues” (describing major policy positions), and “Relationship with Biden” (describing previous governing and/or electoral partnerships), as well as “Pros and Cons” (in many cases, focusing on the candidate’s governing credentials). Even better is this set-up from Politico: We know Biden’s bottom line: He wants a partner who shares his policy and governing priorities—who is ‘simpatico’ with him, to use Biden’s well-worn shorthand. He needs his vice president to be able to take responsibility for key administration initiatives, and he has talked about wanting a person whose strengths balance his own. And Biden, who will turn 78 weeks after the November election, has said it’s critical his running mate is ready to be president from the first day. (Rahman et al. 2020)

It is apparent that this focus on governing considerations guides Politico’s analysis of the potential running mate’s credentials—which is broken up into three sections: a brief biographical “Intro”; “Why Biden Shouldn’t Pick Her”; and “Why He Shouldn’t.” As the authors explain when introducing their analysis: “Our team tracking the 2020 race has analyzed the pluses and minuses each VP contender would bring to the ticket—and what their selection would say about Biden’s strategy for winning the 2020 election and governing the country in 2021.” In other words, they consider not only the immediate electoral appeal of the vice-presidential candidate, but—reflecting political science research and modern political realities—how that selection might influence perceptions of the presidential candidate, and the conduct of his presidential administration, if elected. This is exemplary veepstakes media coverage—the opposite of treating vice-presidential selection as merely a parlor game. But do these news sources deliver on their promise to focus on vicepresidential candidates’ governing credentials? Indeed, they provide a model for such responsible coverage. Take their profiles of Susan Rice, for example. First, The New York Times :

5

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2020

87

Bio: National security adviser and ambassador to the United Nations under President Obama…. Relationship with Biden: Rice served with Biden in the Obama administration for eight years, and their working relationship dates back to the 1990s when Rice was an assistant secretary of state and Biden was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Pros and cons: Rice has credentials on national security and foreign policy that no other candidate can match, as well as a deep working relationship with Biden. While she has never been a candidate, she is seen as an agile communicator on television and would likely fare well in a vice-presidential debate. But Rice has never been elected to office before….

Next, Politico: WHY BIDEN SHOULD PICK HER: Rice has unmatched foreign policy experience among the VP contenders, having served in diplomatic and national security roles in two Democratic presidential administrations. During that time, she worked closely with Biden when he was vice president, an experience no other current vice presidential possibility can claim. While Rice’s governmental experience doesn’t extend beyond foreign affairs, she has noted that her experience running bureaucracies and making them work could extend beyond the National Security Council… WHY HE SHOULDN’T: Rice has advised campaigns, but she doesn’t have experience as a candidate…. Biden already considers himself strong and experienced in the areas of foreign policy and diplomacy, so Rice is not a candidate whose strengths fill in his weaknesses on the campaign trail or who could liaise with progressive Democrats in Congress as the vice president.

Politico, in particular, hits the mark. All 11 profiles reference the candidate’s political experience, and three (27.3%) explicitly reference their qualifications to be (vice) president. Only half of The New York Times ’ s profiles reference experience, and one of 14 (7.1%) explicitly references qualifications. Indeed, some veepstakes guides promise to focus on governing credentials but deliver something quite different. Take NPR, for example. Author Domenico Montanaro (2020) says all the right things, by way of introduction:

88

C. J. DEVINE

Biden, a former vice president, has said he wants someone with whom he’s ‘simpatico.’ Chemistry is vitally important in a vice president. She needs to be someone Biden can trust to have his back in hard times, and she needs to be someone with whom a potential President Biden can govern.

But then comes the perennial—well, quadrennial—veepstakes qualifier: This year might be different, though. Given Biden’s age, this pick is perhaps the most consequential in decades. Biden will be 78 by the time he would be sworn in. That would make him the oldest president ever to assume the office. So his VP pick needs to be ready on Day 1 to be president. And she, of course, has to fulfill that first rule of picking a running mate: First, do no harm.

How does Montanaro balance such competing considerations? By focusing almost exclusively on electoral strategy. Eight of eleven profiles (72.7%), for example, reference the candidate’s potential appeal to voters from her home state or region, while only four (36.4%) reference the candidate’s political experience or qualifications to serve as (vice) president. Take this profile of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: Pros: The New York Senator has taken a leading role on sexual assault, and she’s backed Biden on the 1993 allegation of an assault made by a former staffer. That could help blunt any issues Biden might have on the subject. Cons: But being from New York, there’s no geographic diversity she’d bring, she isn’t as much of a rock star on the left as, say, Elizabeth Warren, and she doesn’t solve the issue of groups calling for Biden to pick a woman of color.

Translation: forget what I said about governing. Who cares if she can provide valuable perspective on sexual assault, or getting legislation through Congress? What really matters is that she might provide cover to Biden on sexual assault allegations during the campaign, or deliver a state or a voting bloc, or energize progressives, and thus help him get elected—right ? Of course, veepstakes profiles present a range of considerations. In some cases, electoral criteria are most prominent—and in other cases, governing criteria. Take Chris Cillizza’s (2020) analysis, for CNN. His

5

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2020

89

discussion of Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin exclusively focuses on electoral considerations: Democrats picked Wisconsin for the site of their quadrennial party convention because they believed the state held the key to winning back the White House. So picking the popular senior senator [sic] from the state as VP makes sense too, right? Yes, but as Biden’s lead nationally and in the Electoral College has grown, the necessity of making a geographic pick has waned.

In other words, picking a well-qualified running mate is a luxury, afforded only to presidential candidates virtually guaranteed of winning the election. Hence, Cillizza’s appraisal of Susan Rice’s candidacy: With Biden comfortably ahead, he can entertain making a governing pick rather than a political one. And… Biden wants a VP who he can have the sort of close relationship that he enjoyed with Barack Obama. Rice checks those boxes better than anyone.

In other cases, governance must compete with rival considerations. Take Cillizza’s profile of Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms: Loyalty matters to Biden. We know this. But so does experience. So, in the final assessment, what matters more when Biden and his team consider the Atlanta mayor? She was a prominent supporter and surrogate for the former vice president even when he looked like he was going to fail in a third bid for the White House. But her relevant governing experience is as the mayor of Atlanta. Is that enough for Biden, who has made clear that he believes his VP must be ready to step into the big job on day one?

This is a reasonable consideration of the tradeoffs between competing considerations. But, given that only two of Cillizza’s ten veepstakes profiles explicitly reference the candidate’s experience or governing qualifications—while, for example, six reference their demographic appeal— clearly he regards the former as more important. For what it’s worth, I see fewer egregiously bad takes in veepstakes guides from 2020 than in previous elections. Probably the worst example comes from Jim Newell (2020), whose analysis for Slate’s newsletter, “The Surge,” in fairness clearly is written with the proverbial tongue-incheek. Even so, it is striking how readily he dismisses the vice-presidential

90

C. J. DEVINE

candidates’ substantive credentials, often using them as a basis for punchlines. Take this example, from his profile of Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar: They [her and Biden] have the exact same politics. They get the exact same high off of saying that ‘Medicare for All’ would cost an impractical $32 trillion. Their shared idea of a good time is a working lunch with Sens. Susan Collins and Roy Blunt to discuss practical solutions to rural hospital funding…. Klobuchar’s pathway involves convincing Biden… that his priority should be picking someone else who fantasizes about getting the word ‘COMPROMISE’ tastefully tattooed on her wrist.

A vice president who cares about policy and knows how to get legislation passed—what a joke! Hilarious, isn’t it? Apparently, Newell thinks so. Only two of his seven candidate profiles (28.6%) reference a candidate’s political experience or qualifications—equaling the number of profiles that reference the candidate’s home state or fundraising ability. Of course, anecdotal evidence can only take us so far. As this analysis shows, even in just ten veepstakes guides, we can find examples of exemplary journalism and unmitigated nonsense. The question is not whether examples from either end of the spectrum exist, but how typical one versus another may be. To that end, in the next section of this chapter, I present a quantitative analysis of 2020 veepstakes coverage.

Quantitative Analysis Table 5.1 reports the percent of 2020 veepstakes profiles referencing each evaluative (sub)category, ranked from most to least salient. This can be paired with Table 4.1, which reports the same results from 2000 to 2016 (see Chapter 4). Again, it is important to stress that the results from both tables are not directly comparable; rather, we can use them to evaluate whether veepstakes media coverage changed fundamentally in the most recent presidential election. The evidence indicates that it did not. In terms of evaluative categories, we see minimal differences in 2020. Geographical references were quite a bit less frequent in 2020 (36.3%) than in 2000–2016 (53.1%), and, to a lesser extent, the same is true for Compatibility (44.3% versus 50.5%, respectively). But the top three evaluative categories for 2020—Issues (61.1%), Demography (53.5%), and

5

91

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2020

Table 5.1 References to evaluative (sub)categories in veepstakes media coverage, 2020 Criterion

Total

Percent

Criterion

Total

Percent

Issues

69

61.1

37

32.7

Social Economic Foreign

47 22 17

41.6 19.5 15.0

Demography Race/Ethnicity Age Faith

60 54 9 3

53.1 47.8 8.0 2.7

Personal Attributes Family Communication Integrity Knowledge Demeanor Likability Loyalty Physical Appearance

14 12 6 6 5 3 3 0

12.4 10.6 5.3 5.3 4.4 2.7 2.7 0.0

Socioeconomic Gender

2 –

1.8 –

Electoral Appeal

60

53.1

37 16 10

32.7 14.2 8.9

National Profile Party Base Popularity Swing Voters

38 17 17 11

33.6 15.0 15.0 9.7

Background Legal Presidential Administration Military Education Party Business Media

8 5 3 0 0

7.1 4.4 2.7 0.0 0.0

Compatibility Electoral Personal Governing

50 34 20 10

44.3 30.1 17.7 8.9

Experience Executive Legislative General Criminal Justice Foreign Policy Economic

50 21 21 15 4 4 1

44.3 18.6 18.6 13.3 3.5 3.5 0.9

Campaigning Experience Communication Fundraising Ability Attack Dog

29 21 8 5 2 1

25 .7 18.6 7.1 4.4 1.8 0.9

Qualifications General Vice Presidency Presidency

8 4 3 2

7 .1 3.5 2.7 1.8

Geography Home State Home Region Party Factions Ideology Party Unity

41 31 14 37 35 9

36.3 27.4 12.4 32.7 40.0 8.0

Washington, D.C Insider Outsider

5 3 2

4.4 2.7 1.8

Note Data include 113 candidate profiles featured in 10 “veepstakes guides” from 2020. See Appendix A for data sources. See Appendix B for coding rubric

92

C. J. DEVINE

Electoral Appeal (53.1%)—were ranked third, fourth, and fifth, respectively, in previous elections. References to candidate experience were more common in 2020 (44.3%) than in 2000–2016 (34.8%), but still well behind electorally focused categories. Geography, in contrast, was much less. Explicit references to the potential vice-presidential candidates’ qualifications were somewhat more frequent in 2020 (7.1%) than in 2000–2016 (4.4%), but still far less common than all but one other evaluative category. In terms of evaluative subcategories, the 2020 results differ more from 2000 to 2016, but not dramatically so. The three most commonly cited subcategories from earlier years—Compatibility (Electoral), Geography (Home State), and Factions (Ideology)—still rank among the top five in 2020. The top two subcategories in 2020—Demography (Race/Ethnicity) and Issues (Social)—ranked in the top seven from 2000 to 2016. References to political experience—including executive, legislative, and campaign experience—were more common in 2020 than in 2000–2016, but ranked similarly among evaluative subcategories. Perhaps the most notable change in 2020 is that no veepstakes profiles referenced a candidate’s physical appearance; journalists were significantly more likely to reference a candidate’s qualifications to serve as (vice) president—thankfully. But again, to focus on fundamental changes, we must ask whether 2020 veepstakes profiles were more likely than in the past to reference governing versus electoral considerations. Indeed, 2020 profiles (48.7%) were more likely than in the past (38.0%) to reference governing credentials—including Qualifications, Experience, and Compatibility (Governance). But, still, this was much less common than references to electoral considerations (66.4%). The difference between the two is statistically significant, at p > 0.001. To summarize: veepstakes media coverage in 2020 was more likely than in the past to (implicitly or explicitly) address whether the candidate in question was qualified to serve as (vice) president. But still, this coverage was more likely to focus on the candidate’s electoral credentials—even if somewhat less so than in past elections.

Conclusion Does this evidence indicate that veepstakes media coverage is improving— indeed, that it is presenting the selection process less as a parlor game and more as a serious choice about governance? My answer is a qualified “Yes.” In 2020, I find that journalists were more likely than in past

5

VEEPSTAKES MEDIA COVERAGE, 2020

93

years to discuss a potential running mate’s experience or, more explicitly, her qualifications to serve as (vice) president. Also, they were somewhat less likely to discuss electoral considerations. Let’s put it this way: veepstakes media coverage continues to privilege electoral over governing considerations, but the gap was smaller in 2020 than in previous elections. Of course, we have to be careful not to extrapolate too much from the present data. This chapter analyzes media coverage of only one vicepresidential selection process. Particularly given the apparent variability in media coverage based on presidential characteristics and electoral circumstances (see Chapter 4), it would be unwise to judge trends based on a single selection process. To determine whether veepstakes media coverage is improving—particularly, by bringing greater balance to discussions of electoral versus governing considerations—will require collecting data from other selection processes, beyond 2020. Anecdotally, I do observe that the 2020 veepstakes guides were more likely than in past years to frame their analysis in terms of governing considerations. However, as subsequent evidence demonstrates, this hardly guarantees that journalists will follow up by evaluating individual candidates in terms of their political experience or qualifications to serve in the White House. Some journalists—such as those from The New York Times and Politico, as highlighted above—seem to be not only preaching but also practicing that approach to the veepstakes. Others, such as NPR’s Domenico Montanaro, have mastered the former but not the latter. The public will be better served when journalists more consistently align the two.

References Burns, Alexander. 2020. “Joe Biden’s Vice-Presidential Pick: Kamala Harris.” New York Times, August 11. https://www.nytimes.com/article/biden-vicepresident-2020.html. Accessed October 26, 2022. Cillizza, Chris. 2020. “The Top 10 Women Joe Biden Might Pick as Vice President.” CNN, July 30. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30/politics/joebiden-kamala-harris-vice-president/index.html. Accessed October 26, 2022. Hagen, Lisa. 2020. “Who Will Joe Biden Choose for Vice President? The Short List.” US News & World Report, August 3. https://www.usnews. com/news/elections/slideshows/who-will-be-joe-bidens-vice-presidentialcandidate. Accessed October 26, 2022.

94

C. J. DEVINE

Montanaro, Domenico. 2020. “The Pros and Cons of 11 Potential Running Mates for Joe Biden.” NPR, June 11. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/14/ 854433511/the-pros-and-cons-of-12-potential-running-mates-for-joe-biden. Accessed October 26, 2022. Newell, Jim. 2020. “The Surge.” Slate, May 1. https://slate.com/news-andpolitics/2020/05/joe-biden-running-mate-vp-abrams-warren-whitmer.html. Accessed October 26, 2022. Rahman, Kamran, Scott Bland, Tim Alberta, Marc Caputo, Natasha Korecki, Elena Schneider, David Siders, and Alex Thompson. 2020. “Running-Mate Rundown: Tracking Joe Biden’s VP Pick.” Politico, July 27. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/27/joe-biden-vp-run ning-mate-pick-tracker-377652. Accessed October 26, 2022.

CHAPTER 6

Conclusion

Abstract This chapter discusses what is wrong with veepstakes media coverage, and how to bring about some improvement. First, what is wrong? As explained in the preceding chapters, the news media have an important responsibility to vet potential vice-presidential candidates prior to selection, but usually focus their coverage on electoral strategy rather than governance. Indeed, it is fair to say that the news media too often treat the veepstakes as little more than an electoral parlor game. What’s the solution, then? Frankly, there is no easy fix—in large part, because most media outlets have a financial incentive to entertain more so than educate or challenge their audiences when covering the veepstakes, as well as other news events. Appealing to journalists and editors on moral or civic grounds, therefore, is not enough. Nonetheless, it is important to identify and document the problems associated with veepstakes media coverage, as I do in this book. And it is essential to build upon that foundation, in hopes of eventual improvement. I offer three recommendations toward that end: further academic research, public-facing scholarship, and calling out the best and worst examples of veepstakes media coverage, in real time. Keywords Vice-presidential selection · Vice presidency · Media coverage · Media ownership · Journalism ethics · Public-facing scholarship

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. J. Devine, News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28166-2_6

95

96

C. J. DEVINE

What’s wrong with veepstakes media coverage? The answer is twofold. First, as Chapter 4 and (albeit, to a lesser extent) Chapter 5 demonstrate, the news media generally deserve their reputation for covering vicepresidential selection as if it were little more than a parlor game. Electoral strategy is the predominant focus of such coverage. Profiles of potential running mates are more likely to discuss their ability to deliver a home state or region than their political experience—or to discuss their physical appearance rather than whether they are qualified to serve as (vice) president. Of course, not all journalists privilege electoral over governing credentials—nor should they ignore the former, altogether. What’s problematic is failing to maintain a proper balance between the two, or even (explicitly or implicitly) dismissing governing qualifications as irrelevant. As my empirical analysis shows, such coverage is not exceptional, but more like the norm. Second, news media coverage has the potential to influence public opinion and political behavior. In particular, previous research demonstrates that it can “prime” audiences to factor considerations made salient by media coverage into their decision-making processes. In the present context, when veepstakes media coverage focuses on electoral over governing considerations, it may prime voters to prioritize the former over the latter when evaluating a newly announced running mate and the presidential candidate that chose him or her. This, in turn, may influence candidate preferences, and ultimately vote choice. To the extent that media coverage primes voters to treat electoral considerations as most important, this may cause them to accept or even applaud choosing a running mate whose primary function is to help win the election, regardless of his or her ability to govern. If, instead, the media were to privilege governing over electoral considerations, this might prime voters to expect a well-qualified running mate, and—more so than research suggests they already do—reward (punish) a presidential candidate for (not) making such a responsible choice. In short, when veepstakes media coverage focuses on governing considerations, presidential candidates have that much more of an incentive to choose a well-qualified running mate; conversely, when focused on electoral considerations—as I find to be the case, typically—the news media reduce that incentive. Indeed, as I discuss in Chapter 2, news media can play a vital role in the vice-presidential selection process, by helping to vet potential running mates. By not taking this responsibility seriously,

6

CONCLUSION

97

they fail to serve the public interest. As an indirect result of this failure, a poorly qualified vice president might end up taking office.

There’s No Easy Fix So, if that is the problem, then what’s the solution? Frankly, I see no easy fix. It is tempting to think that pointing out the deficiencies of veepstakes media coverage, and the news media’s obligation to the public interest, by itself might prompt a resolution to this problem, through sheer enlightenment and goodwill. In this scenario, well-meaning journalists would see the error of their ways, and simply choose to write differently—with greater emphasis on the governing credentials of potential running mates—in future elections. But this rather naïve approach fails to consider veepstakes media coverage within a broader, structural context. In particular, we must consider two points. First, individual journalists, alone, are not responsible for the content of veepstakes coverage; they answer to editors and even owners, who have direct or indirect control over what gets published under their byline (or whether it gets published at all). In that case, appealing to journalists—as professionals or citizens—by itself is not enough to effect change. Second, most media outlets are for-profit companies that must attract a sizable audience in order to sell advertisements and stay in business; in other words, while serving the public interest may be part of their mission, it is not their first—let alone their only—priority. The electoral focus in veepstakes media coverage therefore is not an isolated phenomenon, to be corrected and brought in line with the rest of the campaign news output. In fact, the norm in campaign coverage is what scholars call “horse race journalism”—that is, a way of reporting about candidates and campaign events that focuses on electoral strategy, first and foremost, with much less attention to substantive concerns such as policy positions and past performance in office. Patterson (2016), for example, finds that four times as much coverage during the 2016 presidential campaign was devoted to electoral strategy and performance, versus policy concerns. This is not the product of sheer cynicism or incompetence on the part of journalists and editors; it is, sadly, a rational response to public demand. Indeed, when presented with a wide range of campaign-related information, people in general—and political sophisticates, in particular—are much more likely to seek out items associated with “horse race” coverage than public policy (Iyengar et al. 2004). All of this is to say that, by

98

C. J. DEVINE

focusing on electoral over governing considerations, media outlets are responding to financial incentives, based on audience preferences. This makes it all the more difficult—if not utterly impractical—to try to change veepstakes media coverage by making moral appeals grounded in the public interest. I can just about hear the response from journalists and (especially) their bosses: Who’s gonna pay for it—you? In that case, what’s the point of critiquing veepstakes media coverage? Can any good come of it? Yes, I think so. Consider this: while journalists are constrained by editors, and media outlets are constrained by financial incentives, neither is entirely subservient nor insensitive to reputational concerns. Journalists, for example, typically publish under their own bylines and stand to benefit from doing good work through promotions, awards, and other incentives. In short, they have plenty of reasons to resist publishing work that will lose them respect among their peers or to seek employment elsewhere if required to do so. Media outlets, for their part, obviously set limits on how far they will go to in the pursuit of profit. The emergence of “click bait” in recent years illustrates the point. Clearly, there are financial gains to be realized by literally making up, or at least significantly distorting, news items aimed at exploiting public fears or interests. But publishing such items, to make a quick buck, (one hopes) would undermine the credibility of any legitimate news outlet. In other words, mainstream outlets not only have an immediate financial incentive to attract an audience but also a long-term interest in maintaining their reputation for high-quality, or at least reasonably credible, journalism. They must strike a balance between the two. This is why I think critiquing veepstakes media coverage can make a positive difference—even if just at the margins. If journalists and media outlets care about their reputations, they should want to publish pieces that will earn respect, and even praise, from their peers and the public; likewise, they should want to avoid publishing material that will be perceived as ill-informed or even harmful. To this point, the “parlor game” style of veepstakes coverage has been widely accepted in media circles. Not only are such pieces published regularly, but their authors often seem to revel in the opportunity to exhibit their strategic acumen. In many cases, they even adopt a jocular or cynical tone apparently designed to show off their (perceived) good humor or political savvy. Perhaps it made sense to treat this all as fun and games once upon a time, but not any longer. How can it, when we know—based on extensive academic research—that it matters a great deal who becomes vice

6

CONCLUSION

99

president, while (apart from their governing credentials) vice-presidential candidates actually don’t matter that much. Furthermore, if my argument in this book is correct, media coverage of the vice-presidential selection process is a serious matter, which must be handled more responsibly than it has been in recent years. In that case, it should not—and hopefully cannot—be to a journalist’s or media outlet’s advantage to publish analyses of the veepstakes that treat it as some kind of joke or game. Knowing what we know now, such coverage should cause reputational damage. Conversely, engaging in serious vetting of potential vice presidents should enhance a journalist’s or media outlet’s reputation for rigorous, responsible coverage. I do not imagine that this book, alone, will cause such changes in media coverage. But by documenting the problem, and explaining why it is a problem, I hope it will serve as some sort of rallying point for scholars, journalists, and others to pursue positive change in the future, and systematically measure whatever gains might be made.

Opportunities for Improvement What, exactly, can be done to improve veepstakes media coverage? Realistically, I have no panacea to prescribe. But there are some opportunities to bring about improvement—specifically, through future research; public-facing scholarship; and small-scale, persistent efforts to encourage journalistic accountability. Future Research First and foremost, veepstakes media coverage will benefit from further academic study. This book is the first comprehensive empirical analysis of the subject. But it cannot be the last. For one thing, it will be useful to extend the present analysis to future election years. As I note in Chapter 5, there is some indication—based on qualitative and quantitative evidence—that veepstakes media coverage in 2020 was better than in the five previous elections. Was this an aberration, or the beginning of a trend? One can only hope for the latter. But to draw empirical conclusions will require replicating the present analysis in future election years, preferably across a wide range of selection processes (e.g., by party, incumbency, national conditions, etc.).

100

C. J. DEVINE

Also, future studies could provide a more comprehensive analysis of veepstakes media coverage, by drawing upon a wider range of sources and content. My analysis is based on veepstakes guides, alone, from 10 sources per selection process. What if, instead, such an analysis were to include all veepstakes coverage from these or other sources, say, during a onemonth-period prior to selection? Would the difference in format between veepstakes guides and traditional news coverage affect my results? Would the inclusion of multiple news items from the same source demonstrate attention to a more diverse range of selection criteria than what I capture? Frankly, I do not see any reason to expect such systematic differences. But given the limitations of my data, in terms of format and sources, I cannot offer any definitive assurances to that effect. Even if there were no such discrepancies, additional research along these lines at least would allow for greater confidence in my research findings. Finally, and perhaps most important, future research ought to directly examine the effects of veepstakes media coverage on public opinion and political behavior. I assume, based on previous research, that the content of veepstakes media coverage will prime voters to factor more salient selection criteria into their evaluation of the vice-presidential candidate and, in turn, the presidential candidate, in ways that might ultimately affect vote choice. But I do not test for any such causal relationships. Rather, this study is intended as a first step toward understanding veepstakes media coverage and its effects. To establish that such analysis is, in fact, consequential will require direct testing. For example, one could imagine an experimental study in which one group of participants reads a veepstakes guide that emphasizes electoral over governing considerations, and vice versa for another group. Afterward, they might be asked to rank various selection criteria and rate the desirability of selecting various potential running mates—with the expectation that they would rank more highly those criteria that were emphasized in their media diet, and rate candidates accordingly. Ideally, researchers could then re-interview the same participants following the actual selection of a running mate, and at later points in the campaign, to evaluate whether the experimental stimulus had a lasting effect on participants’ candidate evaluations and vote choice. For that matter, researchers also might ask participants to evaluate the news source’s credibility, to determine whether it fares better when focusing on governing over electoral credentials.

6

CONCLUSION

101

Public-Facing Scholarship Second, academic perspectives on vice-presidential selection can be better integrated into media coverage. Indeed, political scientists in recent years have seized upon opportunities to engage in public-facing scholarship, through op-eds and blogs such as “The Monkey Cage” (once hosted by The Washington Post ) or “Mischiefs of Faction” (once hosted by Vox). In many cases, academics have used these and other outlets to inform the wider public about the importance of the vice presidency and the electoral effects of vice-presidential candidates (e.g., Devine and Kopko 2020; Goldstein 2016; Krumel and Enami 2015; Mannes 2020). In other cases, academics and/or journalists have shared such expertise via podcasts (e.g., Grossmann 2020) or more traditional radio programs (e.g., Tatter and Brooks 2020). Finally, academics and journalists sometimes collaborate to provide thorough yet accessible overviews and applications of the relevant scholarly literature (e.g., Adler et al. 2020). Each such effort goes a long way toward improving upon past coverage of the vice-presidential selection process, as well as other aspects of electoral campaigns, which have traditionally relied upon anecdotal evidence, journalistic impressions, and the perspectives of former campaign insiders. Academics, of course, have their limitations; most peer-reviewed work, for instance, would not be devoured by the general public. But, once put through the journalistic filter of an editor, collaborator, or interviewer, an academic perspective can add tremendous depth to veepstakes media coverage, while still engaging and (presumably) better informing a receptive audience. This is one, rather concrete and systematic, way in which journalists and academics, working together, can improve the quality of veepstakes coverage. Call It Out Finally, to build upon an earlier point about reputational incentives, we— citizens, scholars, journalists, whomever—must call attention to the best and worst examples of veepstakes coverage, when we see them. How? By citizens posting about them on social media; scholars citing them in their research; and journalists conferring with peers, to commend good coverage and sanction poor coverage. I have provided many positive and negative examples of veepstakes coverage in the preceding chapters. This includes calling out the worst of the worst (e.g., Schneider 2000; Starr

102

C. J. DEVINE

1999; Todd 2000) and—just as important, if not more so—praising the best of the best (ABC News 2000; Burns 2020; Rahman et al. 2020). Such feedback may make only a small difference, but, accumulated across many people and especially within journalistic networks, it could help to normalize responsible veepstakes coverage and stigmatize irresponsible coverage. The end result, I hope, will be a media environment in which vicepresidential selection continues to attract a great deal of attention, but with more of it directed toward governing qualifications than electoral strategy—in other words, veepstakes coverage that (finally) treats the choice of a running mate as a serious and consequential decision rather than a silly parlor game.

References ABC News. 2000. “Bush Narrows In on V.P. Pick.” ABC News, July 21. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123206&page=1. Accessed October 8, 2022. Adler, William D., Julia Azari, and Perry Bacon, Jr. 2020. “How Will Biden Choose His Running Mate?” FiveThirtyEight, March 31. https://fivethirt yeight.com/features/will-biden-choose-a-running-mate-based-on-electabilityideology-or-identity/. Accessed November 1, 2022. Burns, Alexander. 2020. “Joe Biden’s Vice-Presidential Pick: Kamala Harris.” New York Times, August 11. https://www.nytimes.com/article/biden-vicepresident-2020.html. Accessed October 26, 2022. Devine, Christopher J., and Kyle C. Kopko. 2020. “Do Vice-Presidential Picks Matter?” The Washington Post, August 13. https://www.washingtonpost. com/politics/2020/08/13/do-vice-presidential-picks-matter/. Accessed November 1, 2022. Goldstein, Joel K. 2016. “How the Vice President Became a Powerful and Influential White House Player.” The Washington Post, July 20. https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/07/20/how-the-vicepresident-became-a-powerful-and-influential-white-house-player/. Accessed November 1, 2022. Grossmann, Matt. 2020. “How Much Do Vice Presidential Running Mates Matter?” Niskanen Center, May 20. https://www.niskanencenter.org/howmuch-do-vice-presidential-running-mates-matter/. Accessed November 1, 2022. Iyengar, Shanto, Helmut Norpoth, and Kyu S. Hahn. 2004. Consumer Demand for Election News: The Horse Race Sells. Journal of Politics 66 (1): 157–175.

6

CONCLUSION

103

Krumel, Thomas P. Jr., and Ali Enami. 2015. “Pairing with an Extreme Running Mate Helps Moderate Presidential Candidates to Appeal to More Voters.” USAPP, October 19. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2015/10/19/pai ring-with-an-extreme-running-mate-helps-moderate-presidential-candidatesto-appeal-to-more-voters/. Accessed November 1, 2022. Mannes, Aaron. 2020. “‘The Vice Presidency Is a Good Gig’: Here’s Some Advice for Joe Biden’s 2020 Running Mate.” USA Today, August 2. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/08/02/bidenvice-president-running-mate-history-advice-column/5547954002/. Accessed November 1, 2022. Patterson, Thomas E. 2016. “News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters.” Shorenstein Center, December 7. https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-ele ction/. Accessed November 1, 2022. Rahman, Kamran, Scott Bland, Tim Alberta, Marc Caputo, Natasha Korecki, Elena Schneider, David Siders, and Alex Thompson. 2020. “Running-Mate Rundown: Tracking Joe Biden’s VP Pick.” Politico, July 27. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/27/joe-biden-vp-run ning-mate-pick-tracker-377652. Accessed October 26, 2022. Schneider, William. 2000. “Wanna Run? Where Ya From?” National Journal, July 15. Accessed via Academic Search Complete, October 8, 2022. Starr, Alexandra. 1999. “Running Mates: Who Will Be on the Ticket in 2000?” Washington Monthly, July/August. Accessed via Academic Search Complete, October 8, 2022. Tatter, Grace, and Anthony Brooks. 2020. “The Short List: What We Know About Joe Biden’s VP Search.” On Point, June 30. https://www.wbur.org/ onpoint/2020/06/30/the-short-list-what-we-know-about-bidens-vp-pick. Accessed November 1, 2022. Todd, Chuck. 2000. “Crystal Ball Veep-Gazing.” National Journal, June 14. https://web.archive.org/web/20000816034538/www3.nationaljournal. com/members/buzz/2000/trail/061400.htm. Accessed October 8, 2022.

Appendix A: Data Sources

2000 Republican Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

Title

ABC News

July 21, 2000

ABC News

“Gov. Bush Says He Will Choose VP Soon”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96428&page=1 CBS News March 15, 2000 CBSNews.com Staff https://www.cbsnews.com/news/veepstakes-2000 CNN July 6, 1999 CNN

“Veepstakes 2000”

“Has the Vice Presidential Campaign Begun Yet?” http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/06/president.2000/veepstakes CNN, “Crossfire” July 18, 2000 CNN.com Transcripts “Who Would Make the Best Running Mates for Al Gore and George W. Bush?” http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0007/18/cf.00.html Knight Ridder March 10, 2000 Jodi Enda “Running-Mate Newspapers Guessing Games Begin” Accessed via Lexis Nexis Los Angeles Times July 17, 2000 Ronald Brownstein “In Veepstakes, Candidates Look for Partners Who Are Already Winners” http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jul/17/news/mn-54370 National Journal July 15, 2000 William Schneider “Wanna Run? Where Ya From?” https://web.archive.org/web/20000829141905/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/ schneider2000-07-18.htm (continued)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. J. Devine, News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28166-2

105

106

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES

(continued) 2000 Republican Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

The New York Times

July 6, 2000

Clare Bundy

Title

“A Look at the Vice Presidential Pool: Republican” https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/whouse/042700whgop-vp-stakes.html Time July 23, 2000 Frank Pellegrini “Yee-haw! In GOP Veepstakes, It’s the Last Roundup” http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,50629,00.html Washington July/August 1999 Alexandra Starr “Running Mates: Who Monthly Will Be on the Ticket in 2000?” https://web.archive.org/web/20000305010318/http://washingtonmonthly.com/features/ 1999/9907.starr.campaign.html

2000 Democratic Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

The Associated Press

July 25, 2000

Mike Glover

Title

“Gore Has ‘Short List’ of VP Candidates” https://greensboro.com/gore-has-short-list-of-vp-candidates-al-gore-is/article_fcbfb689-2f2c547e-b10d-b589bd7d4b89.html CBS News March 15, 2000 CBSNews.com Staff “Veepstakes 2000” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/veepstakes-2000/ CNN July 6, 1999 CNN “Has the Vice Presidential Campaign Begun Yet?” http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/06/president.2000/veepstakes/ CNN, “Crossfire” July 18, 2000 CNN.com Transcripts “Who Would Make the Best Running Mates for Al Gore and George W. Bush?” http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0007/18/cf.00.html Los Angeles Times July 17, 2000 Ronald Brownstein “In Veepstakes, Candidates Look for Partners Who Are Already Winners” http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jul/17/news/mn-54370 National Journal July 15, 2000 William Schneider “Wanna Run? Where Ya From?” https://web.archive.org/web/20000829141905/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/ schneider2000-07-18.htm The New York Times July 6, 2000 Clare Bundy “A Look at the Vice Presidential Pool: Democratic” https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/whouse/042700whdem-vp-stakes.html (continued)

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES

107

(continued) 2000 Democratic Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

Title

USA Today

August 3, 2000

Kathy McCabe

“Democratic VP Contenders”

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/e98/vp.htm Washington Monthly July/August 1999 Alexandra Starr

“Running Mates: Who Will Be on the Ticket in 2000?” https://web.archive.org/web/20000305010318/http://washingtonmonthly.com/features/ 1999/9907.starr.campaign.html The Weekly Standard March 20, 2000 Matthew Rees “The Veep’s Veep” Accessed via Lexis Nexis

2004 Democratic Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

CBS News March 2, 2004 Dick Meyer https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kerrys-vp-list/ Chicago Tribune March 17, 2004 Alison Neumer

Title “Kerry’s VP List”

“Running Mating Game” https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-03-17-0403180040-story.html The Nation March 3, 2004 John Nichols “Running for Running Mate” https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/running-running-mate/ NBC News March 2, 2004 Jonathan Alter “With Kerry In, Let the Veepstakes Begin” http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4433232/ns/politics/t/kerry-let-veepstakes-begin/#.Wnz R9W_waMo New York Daily News July 6, 2004 NA “Handicapping the Veepstakes” http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/handicapping-veepstakes-article-1.577329 NPR NA Ken Rudin “Who Will Be Kerry’s VP?” https://web.archive.org/web/20041213093626/https://www.npr.org/politics/vp/ Time March 22, 2004 Mitch Frank “The Veepstakes” http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993632,00.html UPI March 24, 2004 Peter Roff “Analysis: Democratic Veep-Stakes’ Ticket” https://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2004/03/24/Analysis-Democraticveep-stakes-ticket/UPI-87681080148995/?st_rec=4093593496000 Washington Business June 21, 2004 John Zogby “The Great Veepstakes: Journal Whom Will Kerry Tap?” https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2004/06/21/editorial3.html The Washington Post NA The Washington Post “Who Will it Be?” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/veepomatic_bios.htm

108

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES

2008 Republican Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

ABC News

August 28, 2008

ABC News

Title

“Who’s in the Republican Veepstakes?” https://web.archive.org/web/20081003121849/http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vot e2008/Story?id=4710917&page=4 CBS News June 16, 2008 Vaughn Ververs “Vice Presidential Bios: Republicans” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vice-presidential-bios-16-06-2008/ The Economist May 22, 2008 The Economist “The Veepstakes: McCain Takes a Closer Look at Some Candidates” https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/05/since_the_willshe_or_w henwills Los Angeles Times July 21, 2008 Jonah Goldberg “John McCain’s Veepstakes” http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-goldberg21-2008jul21-b-htmlstory.html New York Magazine June 30, 2008 Peter Keating “McCain’s Potential Running Mates: A Who’s Who” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2008/06/mccains_potential_running_mate.html The New York Times NA Adam Nagourney & “Potential Running Jeff Zeleny Mates” https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/primaries/candidates/vp/index.html NPR August 19, 2008 Ken Rudin “Who’s Up, Who’s Down in The Veepstakes” https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/july/veepstakes/veepstakes.html Time NA Massimo Calabresi “Playing the Veepstakes” https://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1813163_1813180_181317 5,00.html U.S. News & World June 27, 2008 U.S. News & World “The Vice President Report Report List” https://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/06/27/the-vice-president-list The Washington Post May 9, 2008 Chris Cillizza “The Friday Line: Veepstakes!” http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/the-friday-line-veepstakes-1.html

2008 Democratic Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

Title

ABC News

August 1, 2008

Rick Klein

“Who’s in the Democratic Veepstakes?” (continued)

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES

109

(continued) 2008 Democratic Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

Title

https://web.archive.org/web/20120308002525/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vot e2008/story?id=5210851&page=1 CBS News June 17, 2008 Vaughn Ververs “Vice Presidential Bios: Democrats” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vice-presidential-bios-17-06-2008/ CNN July 30, 2008 Suzanne Malveaux et al “CNN Analysis: Who’ll Win the Obama Veepstakes?” http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/dem.veepstakes/index.html New York Magazine June 30, 2008 Peter Keating “Obama’s Potential Running Mates: A Who’s Who” https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2008/06/obamas_potential_running_mates.html The New York Times NA Adam Nagourney & “Potential Running Jeff Zeleny Mates” https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/primaries/candidates/vp/index.html Newsweek October 3, 2007 Howard Fineman “Fineman: Inside the Hillary Veepstakes” http://www.newsweek.com/fineman-inside-hillary-veepstakes-102851 NPR August 19, 2008 Ken Rudin “Who’s Up, Who’s Down in The Veepstakes” https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/july/veepstakes/veepstakes.html Time NA Massimo Calabresi “Playing the Veepstakes” https://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1813163_1813180_181317 5,00.html U.S. News & World June 27, 2008 U.S. News & World “The Vice President Report Report List” https://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/06/27/the-vice-president-list The Washington Post May 9, 2008 Chris Cillizza “The Friday Line: Veepstakes!” http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/the-friday-line-veepstakes-1.html

2012 Republican Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

ABC News

April 4, 2012

Amy Walter et al

Title

“Top Likely Republican Running Mates” https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/top-republican-running-mates/story?id=16070382 Business Insider May 25, 2012 Brett LoGiurato “One Of These 16 People Will Be Mitt Romney’s Running Mate” (continued)

110

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES

(continued) 2012 Republican Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

Title

http://www.businessinsider.com/republican-vice-presidential-candidates-2012-15-people-whocould-earn-the-nomination-2012-5 CBS News August 6, 2012 Sarah Jorgensen et al “Romney’s Potential Running Mates” https://www.cbsnews.com/media/romneys-potential-running-mates/ The Christian Science March 28, 2012 Amanda Paulson “Ten Possible Monitor Vice-Presidential Candidates for the GOP Ticket” https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0328/Ten-possible-vice-presid ential-candidates-for-the-GOP-ticket/Marco-Rubio The Daily Beast April 6, 2012 Ben Jacobs “Mitt Romney’s Top Five Vice President Options, From Marco Rubio to Paul Ryan” https://www.thedailybeast.com/mitt-romneys-top-five-vice-president-options-from-marcorubio-to-paul-ryan Huffington Post April 19, 2012 Jon Ward “Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential Pick: Signs Point to Risk Avoidance” https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mitt-romneys-vice-president_n_1439122 New Republic January 12, 2012 Eliza Gray “Vice Squad” https://newrepublic.com/article/99515/vice-president-republican-2012 The New York Times NA The New York Times “Romney’s Potential Running Mates” https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2012/romney-potential-running-mates.html Time NA Mark Halperin “The Romney Veepstakes” http://content.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,2114492,00.html The Washington Post March 23, 2012 Chris Cillizza “Veepstakes 2012: The Inaugural Edition” https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/veepstakes-2012-the-inaugural-edi tion/2012/03/22/gIQAAAbKUS_blog.html?utm_term=.620b8297a5e2

2016 Republican Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

ABC News

July 7, 2016

ABC News Political Unit

Title

“Veepstakes 2016: A Look at the Potential Vice Presidential Picks for Donald Trump and…” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/veepstakes-2016-potential-vice-presidential-picks-donaldtrump/story?id=39992424 CBS News May 10, 2016 Will Rahn “Commentary: Who Might be Trump’s VP?” (continued)

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES

111

(continued) 2016 Republican Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

Title

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-who-might-be-trumps-vp/ CNN May 11, 2016 Jeremy Diamond & Will “The Trump 6: Who Cadigan Could be on Trump’s Shortlist?” http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/donald-trump-potential-vice-president/index. html The Guardian July 10, 2016 Ben Jacobs “Who Will Be Donald Trump’s Running Mate? Five of the Most Likely Choices” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/10/donald-trump-running-mate-newt-gin grich-chris-christie The Hill March 6, 2016 Lisa Hagen “Veepstakes: Who Trump Might Pick?” http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/271892-veepstakes-who-trump-might-pick Los Angeles Times July 8, 2016 Los Angeles Times Staff “Here are the Top Vice President Picks for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton” http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-trump-vp-20160708-snap-htmlstory.html NBC News June 27, 2016 Kelly O’Donnell et al “Who Will Donald Trump Pick as His VP?” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/who-will-donald-trump-pick-his-vp-n59 8736 The New York Times April 30, 2016 Ashley Parker & Patrick “Who Might (or Might Healy Not) Be Donald Trump’s Running Mate if He’s the Nominee?” https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/01/us/politics/donald-trump-running-mate. html Newsweek May 4, 2016 Taylor Wofford “Donald Trump’s Possible Running Mates: The Odds” http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-running-mate-455736 The Washington Post May 3, 2016 Chris Cillizza “Donald Trump is the Presumptive GOP Nominee. Here are 5 People Who Could Be His VP” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/29/5-people-donald-trumpcould-pick-to-be-his-vice-president/?utm_term=.d707e70c5baa

112

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES

2016 Democratic Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

ABC News

July 7, 2016

ABC News Political Unit

Title

“Veepstakes 2016: A Look at the Potential Vice Presidential Picks for Donald Trump and…” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/veepstakes-2016-potential-vice-presidential-picks-donaldtrump/story?id=39992424 CBS News May 17, 2016 Will Rahn & Emily “Veepstakes: Who Could Schultheis Hillary Clinton Pick as Her Running Mate?” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-veepstakes-who-could-hillary-clinton-pick-as-herrunning-mate/ CNN July 15, 2016 Jeff Zeleny “5 People to Watch in Hillary Clinton’s Veepstakes” http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/politics/hillary-clinton-vice-president-choice/index.html The Guardian July 18, 2016 Sabrina Siddiqui “Who Will Be Hillary Clinton’s Running Mate? Five of the Most Likely Choices” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/18/hillary-clinton-running-mate-vice-pre sident-choices The Hill May 14, 2016 Amie Parnes “Clinton’s Top Five Vice Presidential Picks” http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279879-hillary-clintons-top-five-vicepresidential-picks Los Angeles Times July 8, 2016 Los Angeles Times Staff “Here are the Top Vice President Picks for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton” http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-trump-vp-20160708-snap-htmlstory.html NBC News June 27, 2016 Monica Alba et al “Here’s Who Hillary Clinton Could Pick as Her VP” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/here-s-who-hillary-clinton-could-pick-hervp-n598011 The New York Times April 23, 2016 Alan Rappeport & Patrick “Who Might Hillary Healy Clinton’s Running Mate Be if She’s the Nominee?” https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/24/us/politics/hillary-clinton-running-mate. html Newsweek May 7, 2016 Taylor Wofford “Who Will Be Hillary Clinton’s Running Mate?” http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-vice-president-picks-456908 The Washington Post April 22, 2016 Chris Cillizza “5 People Hillary Clinton Might Pick as Her Vice President” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/22/5-people-hillary-clintonmight-pick-as-her-vice-president/?utm_term=.29875298fefc

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES

113

2020 Democratic Veepstakes Guides Source

Date

Author(s)

Title

BBC

August 7, 2020

Anthony Zurcher

“Biden Pick: Who Could Be Joe Biden’s Running Mate?”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53088353 CNN July 30, 2020 Chris Cillizza

“The Top 10 Women Joe Biden Might Pick as Vice President” https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30/politics/joe-biden-kamala-harris-vice-president/index. html Fox News August 10, 2020 Tyler Olson “Veepstakes Heats Up: Guide to Biden’s Running Mate Options” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/veepstakes-heats-up-guide-to-bidens-running-mate-options New York Magazine July 29, 2020 Ed Kilgore “The Pros and Cons of Biden’s Top Vice-Presidential Prospects” https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/joe-biden-vice-presidential-prospects-pros-cons. html The New York Times August 11, 2020 Alexander Burns “Joe Biden’s Vice-Presidential Pick” https://www.nytimes.com/article/biden-vice-president-2020.html NPR May 14, 2020 Domenico Montanaro “The Pros and Cons of 11 Potential Running Mates for Joe Biden” https://www.npr.org/2020/05/14/854433511/the-pros-and-cons-of-12-potential-runningmates-for-joe-biden Politico July 27, 2020 Kamran Rahman et al “Running-Mate Rundown: Tracking Joe Biden’s VP Pick” https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/27/joe-biden-vp-running-mate-pick-tracker377652 Slate May 1, 2020 Jim Newell “The Surge” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/joe-biden-running-mate-vp-abrams-warren-whi tmer.html U.S. News & World August 3, 2020 Lisa Hagen “Who Will Joe Biden Report Choose for Vice President? The Short List” https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/slideshows/who-will-be-joe-bidens-vice-president ial-candidate The Washington Post June 5, 2020 Aaron Blake “The 11 Most Logical Picks for Joe Biden’s Vice President, Ranked” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/05/11-logical-picks-joe-bidens-vice-pre sident-ranked/

Appendix B: Coding Rubric

Overview The purpose of this content analysis is to determine which political or personal considerations journalists reference when discussing the merits of potential vice-presidential candidates. Included in this analysis are ten “veepstakes” guides from prominent news outlets, published online and/or in print from 2000 to 2020. Most guides include, or entirely consist of, an individualized discussion of why a given candidate may or may not be selected. In many cases, the article labels this discussion in terms of strengths/weaknesses, advantages/disadvantages, or pros/cons. Whenever such individualized profiles are available, analyze this section only—ignoring any introductory, concluding, or otherwise general discussion of the election and/or the selection process. When such individualized profiles are not available, identify—to whatever extent possible—sections of the article that focus specifically on the individual candidates’ credentials, as opposed to thematic discussions about multiple candidates’ credentials. Also, do not enter codes for “boilerplate” information that a particular guide includes for every profiled candidate. For example, some profiles start with a series of biographical details, often listed on separate lines, such as job title, home state, age, religion, education, etc. In many other cases, each profile begins with a single detail, often bolded and on a separate line, e.g., “Governor Mike Pence” or “Mike Pence, 57 [years old].” Finally, in a few select cases, a particular piece of information such as © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. J. Devine, News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28166-2

115

116

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

current job title and/or age is included within the body paragraph(s) of each candidate’s profile. My assumption is that mentioning the candidate’s job title, for instance, in such guides does not represent a deliberate suggestion that this fact will influence whether the candidate in question is selected; rather, the author considers the fact relevant to vice-presidential selection, in a generic sense. Only code for this factor if the author references it later, and substantively (e.g., “Governor Mike Pence… Pence also brings executive experience, as Governor of Indiana.”). List each relevant code only once per candidate in a given veepstakes guide (for example, if the guide twice describes Pence as a “conservative,” or “conservative” and later “right-wing,” code ideology for the first reference and ignore the second). Whenever a sentence, phrase, or term references multiple coded items, assign each relevant code—but no more than one per word. For instance, if a journalist calls Pence “a social conservative,” code for “Issues—Social” (first) and “Party Factions—Ideology” (second). However, if a journalist called him “a free-marketeer,” you’ll have to decide whether to code for economic issues or ideology—but not both. Break the sentence down word-by-word if you have to (see “social conservative” example), but use no more than one code per word. Finally, read between the lines as much as you need to understand each point in its intended context. For instance, if a journalist references—even without any further comment—a candidate’s age or gender and does not do this for every other candidate, assume that s/he perceives this fact to be substantively relevant and code it accordingly. Some such references may seem merely descriptive and perfunctory. But ask yourself whether the journalist would, or better yet does, flag the same characteristic when it differs for other candidates. By way of example, consider: “Martinez, 52, is the first female, Hispanic governor of New Mexico.” Does the author refer to each candidate’s age in the same way? If so, do not code for age (unless a later comment justifies this). If not, assume that the author mentioned this for Martinez and not for other candidates because she is relatively young and this (probably) makes her more appealing as a candidate. Likewise, for race/ethnicity and gender. Does the author also write: “Pence is the 50th white, male governor of Indiana”? Probably not. So, assume that the author referenced Martinez’s race/ethnicity and gender because s/he considered those factors to be relevant. By the same logic, if an author said that Newt Gingrich is “just another old white guy who wouldn’t add excitement to the ticket,” it would be tempting to dismiss this out of hand as a common saying or irrelevant because

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

117

Gingrich belongs to majority groups. But, again, test its substantive meaning in reverse. If the candidate were a young, Black woman, would this be presented as something that does add excitement to the ticket, and thus argue for substantive coding? Yes. So, assume that Gingrich’s demographic status in each of these categories (age, race/ethnicity, gender) is being presented as a factor relevant to (not) selecting him. Codes Background Business . Current or previous employment in business-related, nongovernmental positions (e.g., CEO, labor leader, business owner), in general or in reference to specific organizations. Education . Identifies graduate or undergraduate institution, field of study, degree, or academic achievement (e.g., Harvard Law School, MBA, Rhodes Scholar). . Identifies employment at a postsecondary institution (e.g., professor, president, dean) and specifies the institution. . Must be for the purpose of providing background information or establishing educational credentials; if there is a more targeted purpose for mentioning educational background, use another code (e.g., mentioning that candidate went to college in another state specified as an electoral battleground; use “Geographic—Home State” code). Legal . Current or previous employment in law-related, non-governmental positions (e.g., lawyer, law professor). Media . Current or previous employment by radio, television, newspaper, or other media entities.

118

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

Military . Current or previous U.S. military service, in general (e.g., veteran, served in the military, former Marine) or in reference to specific wars (e.g., Vietnam War veteran) or honors (e.g., Purple Heart recipient). . Includes references to a specific leadership position within the U.S. military. Assume that any reference to military leadership also is meant to convey military service. Party . Past partisan affiliation (e.g., former Republican) or reference to past party-switching. . Current party affiliation, only if it differs from the presidential candidate’s party (e.g., independent, or Republican potentially being selected by Democratic presidential candidate). . Past or current service as an official within a political party, as an organization (e.g., national party chair)—but not as an official within an institutional caucus (e.g., Senate majority whip). Presidential Administration . Candidate is politically affiliated with current or previous presidential administration—on the basis of previous employment, campaign endorsements, or family connections—with the implication that this will influence how voters evaluate and/or opponents campaign against the candidate. Campaigning Ability . Effectiveness within the context of a political campaign, expressed as a general opinion (e.g., “a talented campaigner”) or demonstrated by presenting facts (e.g., number of states won in a presidential primary).

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

119

. Must specify a campaign context; for example, “an exciting (dull) campaigner” but not just “exciting (dull)” in a general or unspecified sense. . Must refer to campaign skills in general; if more specific, use one of the codes below (e.g., “an exciting speaker” or “great on television” qualifies as a more specific reference to campaign communication). Attack Dog . Ability/willingness to engage in negative campaigning, as a general matter or in reference to the (vice) presidential candidate on the opposing ticket. . May include specific references to “attack dog” role. Communication . Effectiveness of communication within a campaign context (e.g., overall quality, speaking style, prone to gaffes). . May include campaign communications in general, or in specific campaign contexts such as television appearances, debates, convention speeches, etc. Experience . Candidate has (not) been tested or vetted at a national level, generally or within the specific context of a presidential election (primary or general). This may include references to whether a candidate has (not) recently been involved in such a campaign, as long as the reference clearly is meant to imply that the candidate is (not) ready for a national campaign. . Candidate has never run for elected office. . Reference to having previously campaigned as a party nominee—not for president or vice president. . Note: Must specify that candidate hasn’t (recently, or at the national level) run for office. If statement is that candidate hasn’t held office, code under “Experience.”

120

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

Fundraising . Ability/willingness to raise funds for a political campaign, based upon past performance, popularity with donors, or established donor network. . Ability to self-fund a campaign based upon personal wealth. Compatibility Electoral . Past, ongoing, or prospective political relationship between the presidential and vice-presidential candidate (e.g., campaign endorsements, advisory role). This includes references to the potential vice-presidential candidate, as a general matter, pairing well or poorly with the presidential candidate (e.g., overshadowing, eclipsing, complementing) within the context of the presidential campaign. . Congruity in terms of campaign style and/or messaging (i.e., reinforcing or undercutting a central theme). . Any reference to a candidate’s characteristic that is explicitly contrasted with that of the presidential candidate (e.g., would make two senators on the same ticket, would be of a similar age or highlight presidential candidate’s age). Governing . Past, ongoing, or prospective governing relationship between the presidential and vice-presidential candidate (e.g., complementary professional skills or expertise, vice-presidential candidate’s capacity for subordinate role or loyalty once in office). Personal . Past, ongoing, or prospective personal relationship between the presidential and potential vice-presidential candidate (e.g., opinions of, or emotional responses toward, one another).

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

121

Demography Age . Age is specified (in a substantive way; see instructions from Overview). . General reference to age or generational balance. . Description based on age (young, youth, old). . Appeal to voters in specified age categories (young people, Millennials, senior citizens). Faith . . . .

Religious affiliation is specified. General reference to religious balance. Non-specific religious reference (diversity, minority, religiosity, faith). Appeal to voters in specified religious categories (evangelical Christians, Catholics, Jews, etc.).

Gender . . . .

Gender is specified. General reference to gender balance. Non-specific gender reference (diversity). Appeal to voters in specified gender categories.

Race/Ethnicity . . . .

Race/ethnicity is specified. General reference to racial/ethnic balance. Non-specific racial/ethnic reference (diversity, minority). Appeal to voters in specified racial/ethnic categories (Blacks, whites, Latinos, etc.).

Socioeconomic Status . Specific reference to the candidate’s current or past socioeconomic class or personal wealth (by itself; if in reference to instrumental purpose such as funding campaign, use a more specific available code).

122

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

. Appeal to voters in specified socioeconomic categories (e.g., working-class, middle class). . Any reference to the candidate’s appeal to, or affiliation with, labor unions. Electoral Appeal National Profile . Candidate is not well-known, in the United States, generally or outside of home state/region (e.g., not a household name, obscure). . Candidate is well-known, in the United States, generally or within the national party (e.g., celebrity, famous, household name). Party Base . (Un)popular with/(un)able to attract or influence the party’s “base” or “rank-and-file.” . Election, popularity, or success in governing constituency associated with candidate’s party (e.g., Republican governing a “red state”). Popularity . Description as “popular,” or another term indicating popularity such as “rising star,” “hero,” “beloved.” . Description as “well-regarded,” “well-respected,” etc., if presented without elaboration, or attributed to the public/electorate in general or specific geographic/demographic groups; if specific to relationships with/reputation among colleagues, code under “Personal Attributes—Likability.” . References to indicators of popularity, such as approval ratings or electoral performance (frequency or margin of victory) nationally or within state, party, or party faction. . Note: If reference is to popularity among a specific geographic or demographic group included in those coding categories, code for popularity here and for the relevant geographic/demographic category.

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

123

Swing Voters . (Un)popular with/(un)able to attract or influence independents, moderates, centrists, members of another party. . Election, popularity, or success in governing constituency associated with another party (e.g., Democratic governing a “red state”) or labelled “swing” / “purple.” Experience General . Summary reference to the candidate’s level of experience in government, using language closely associated with the concept and utility of experience (e.g., expertise, credentials, heft, gravitas, clout, chops, know-how, or lack thereof). Note: Such concepts must be directly invoked or clearly implied in order to qualify for this category. If an article only lists a credential (e.g., member of Senate Armed Services Committee) without implicating the concept of experience, it does not qualify for a code. . Candidate has not held political office. (Note: If statement is that candidate has not run or campaigned for office, code under “Campaigning—Experience”). . Reference to how long a candidate has held political office, as long as it is clearly intended to communicate a judgment about the candidate’s level of political experience (e.g., “elected only two years ago as governor,” “another freshman senator on the ticket”). . Note: Distinguish between references to experience in government (code here) or in electoral politics (code under “Campaigning”). Ambiguous references to experience in “politics” and such probably belong here, but judge carefully. Criminal Justice . Same as above, but specifying experience in positions at the federal or state level relating to the criminal justice system (e.g., judge, prosecutor, government attorney at federal, state, or district levels).

124

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

Economic . Same as above, but specifying experience in terms of economic policy, business, finance, in general or in specific, related contexts such as an event (e.g., housing crisis), place (e.g., “Wall Street”), or entity (e.g., Bain Capital, AFL-CIO, Senate Banking Committee). Executive . Same as above, but specifying experience in a state or federal executive office, either as an elected officeholder (e.g., governor, lieutenant governor, mayor) or in the immediate employ of an elected executive (e.g., White House official). Foreign Policy . Same as above, but specifying experience in terms of foreign policy or its equivalent (e.g., foreign affairs, national security), in general or in specific, related contexts such as an event (e.g., Iraq War), place (e.g., Middle East), or body (e.g., United Nations, Senate Armed Services Committee). . Note: References to military experience, etc., without an explicit connection to matters of foreign policy/national security should be coded “Background—Military,” as one cannot be sure whether it references experience in military policy or military service. Legislative . Same as above, but specifying experience in a state or federal legislative office, as an elected officeholder (e.g., U.S. House, U.S. Senate, state legislature); more general references to experience “on Capitol Hill” and so forth are acceptable here. Geography Home Region . Direct reference to the geographic region including candidate’s home state (e.g., New England, Northeast).

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

125

. List of states including candidate’s home state and neighboring or nearby states . Must refer to the region because of personal connection, not state’s demographic or political characteristics (e.g., Martinez/Southwest only because it is home, not because it has large Hispanic population, Tea Party strength, etc.). . Candidate will (not) help win (“deliver,” “bring,” etc.) specific region; comes (does not come) from battleground/electorally important region; is (not) popular in home region and region is close/electorally important (if only first part, code as “Electoral Appeal—Popularity”). . In cases of a general reference to geographic appeal, diversity, balancing, etc., use this code rather than home state. Home State . Can be a state that candidate currently lives in/represents, or one to which s/he has a preexisting personal connection (state of birth, family connection, etc.). . Must refer to a state in isolation; if part of a list, use “Home Region.” . Must refer to state because of personal connection, not state’s demographic or political characteristics (e.g., Rubio/Florida only because it is home, not because it has large Hispanic population, Tea Party strength, etc.). . Candidate will (not) help win (“deliver,” “bring,” etc.) specific state; comes (doesn’t come) from battleground/electorally important state; is (not) popular in home state and state is close/electorally important (if only first part, code as “Electoral Appeal—Popularity”). Issues Economic . General reference to a candidate’s record or position on economic policy/issues, or equivalent/closely related terms including “finance,” “business,” “labor,” and “Wall Street.” . Specific reference to a candidate’s record or position on one or more economic issues, including those that are enduring (e.g., taxes, labor

126

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

relations, public school funding, health care) or episodic (e.g., Great Recession, Bush tax cuts) in nature. . Current or prior service in a governmental (e.g., Senate Banking Committee, SEC) or private (e.g., investment firm, Club for Growth, AFL-CIO) organization or entity dedicated to economic policy. . Association with economic policy advocacy groups, whether positive (e.g., endorsed) or negative (e.g., opposed). . Note: For purposes of this analysis, the economic issues category is defined broadly to include issues or groups that are closely associated with government spending (e.g., taxes, debt, public school funding); economic growth; labor relations; health care. Foreign . General reference to a candidate’s record or position on foreign policy/issues, or equivalent/closely related terms including “national security,” “defense,” and “military.” . Specific reference to a candidate’s record or position on one or more foreign policy issues, including those that are enduring (e.g., defense spending, surveillance) or episodic (e.g., Iraq War, negotiating with North Korea) in nature. . Current or prior service in a governmental (e.g., Senate Armed Services Committee, NSA) or private (e.g., Nuclear Threat Initiative) organization or entity dedicated to foreign policy. This includes the U.S. military only when referring to specific leadership positions (e.g., General, NATO Supreme Allied Commander); general references to military service should be coded under “Background— Military.” . Association with foreign policy advocacy groups, whether positive (e.g., endorsed) or negative (e.g., opposed). Social . General reference to a candidate’s record or position on social policy/issues, or equivalent/closely related terms including “culture wars,” “moral values,” and “religious right.” . Specific reference to a candidate’s record or position on one or more social issues, including those that are enduring (e.g., abortion, gun control) or episodic (e.g., George Floyd, COVID-19) in nature.

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

127

. Current or prior service in a governmental (e.g., Drug Enforcement Agency) or private (e.g., NAACP, Planned Parenthood, National Rifle Association) organization or entity dedicated to social policy. . Association with social policy advocacy groups, whether positive (e.g., endorsed) or negative (e.g., opposed). . Note: For purposes of this analysis, the social issues category is defined broadly to include issues or groups that are closely associated with religion and sexuality (e.g., abortion, gay rights); criminal justice and law enforcement (e.g., police conduct, illegal drugs, guns, immigration); the environment. Party Factions Ideology . Conservative, moderate, liberal, progressive, populist, socialist, rightwing, left-wing, far-right, far-left, centrist, extremist. . Ideologically oriented factions within parties (e.g., Tea Party, Netroots, Goldwater Republican, Bernie Sanders Democrat). . Note: To qualify for this code, the reference may be to the candidate as an individual, the candidate’s voting record or policy positions, or the candidate’s appeal to/reception by ideological groups. Party Unity . Reference to party unity, winning/losing votes, support, or enthusiasm from a disaffected faction (ideological, primary opponent) resulting from vice-presidential selection. . Note: Reference must pertain to unity within the party, not the United States generally. Personal Attributes Communication . Description of the candidate’s communication style, specifically (e.g., straight-talking, plain-spoken, tells-it-like-it-is); if specified within a campaign context, code as “Campaigning—Communication”).

128

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

. Description of the candidate’s effectiveness as a communicator, in general (e.g., articulate), in a specific situation (e.g., good on television), or in a specific non-campaign example (e.g., quality of State of the Union response speech). Demeanor . Description of the candidate’s personal presence or manner, in general terms (e.g., dull, boring, exciting, energetic, aggressive, brash, eccentric); if specified within a campaign context, code under “Campaigning.” Family . Any reference to family life, including relationships with or activities of specific family members. . Reference to the absence of familial relationships (e.g., single/unmarried/bachelor status). Integrity . Specific references to personal or political scandals or controversies known, alleged, or rumored to be directly connected to the candidate’s behavior or words, or to those of a close non-family political or personal associate. . General references to the candidate’s honesty/ethics, in terms of personal (e.g., sleazy) or political (e.g., flip-flopper) conduct. Knowledge . General description of candidate’s intellectual capacity, in general (e.g., smart, knowledgeable) or in a political/policy context (e.g., wonky). . Specific reference to candidate’s knowledge about a certain policy area.

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

129

Likability . Appeal to others in a personal sense, expressed in terms of characteristics (e.g., charming, charismatic) or the status of existing relationships (e.g., well-liked by colleagues). Note: Do not code, here or elsewhere, for vague references to popularity among Democrats and Republicans, etc. since it is unclear whether this refers to voters from both parties (popularity) or personal relationships with colleagues from both parties (likability). Loyalty . Specific reference to candidate’s loyalty or independence, as a person (i.e., not in reference to political loyalties, endorsements, etc.) and in general; if specific to an electoral or governing context, use “Compatibility” codes. . General reference to candidate’s ability to subordinate/follow others, as a person and in general. Physical Appearance . Description of physical appearance, in summary terms (e.g., handsome, attractive) or in reference to specific physical characteristics (e.g., weight, hair, tan). . May refer to appearance in general, or in the context of a certain medium (e.g., telegenic, photogenic). Qualifications General . Any direct reference to the candidate’s qualifications, being qualified, etc., without further specifics (i.e., in a general sense). . General reference to the ability to participate in governance, if elected.

130

APPENDIX B: CODING RUBRIC

Presidency . Any direct reference to the candidate’s qualifications, being qualified, etc., specifically in terms of serving as president or executing presidential powers (e.g., to be commander-in-chief or to handle nuclear codes). . Reference to looking, acting, or being perceived as “presidential.” . Direct reference to prospects of presidential succession (e.g., “one heartbeat away,” “second in line,” “a president-in-waiting,” etc.). Vice Presidency . Any direct reference to the candidate’s qualifications, being qualified, etc., specifically in terms of serving as vice president or executing duties associated with the vice presidency (e.g., being “second-incommand”). . Reference to looking, acting, or being perceived as “vicepresidential.” Washington, D.C. Insider . Specific reference to working in Washington D.C., on Capitol Hill, etc., as an elected officeholder or lobbyist. . General reference to status as “insider” or equivalent. . Reference to campaign support from party establishment or leadership, generally or in reference to multiple specific individuals constituting one of those groups. Outsider . Specific reference to not ever or recently having served in Washington, D.C., on Capitol Hill, etc. . General reference to status as “outsider” or equivalent. . Reference to opposition from party establishment or leadership, generally or in reference to multiple specific individuals constituting one of those groups.

Index

A ABC News, 43, 50, 59, 67, 72, 76, 77 Ability, 48 Abortion, 43, 44 Adams, John, 8 African-Americans, 4 Age, 9, 48, 71, 74–76, 79 Agnew, Spiro, 30, 31, 34 Associated Press, 3 Attack Dog, 48

B Background, 46, 47, 57, 61, 72 Background (Military), 77 Balance, 28 Baldwin, Tammy, 89 Barkley, Alben, 24, 30 Baumgartner, Jody C., 9, 13, 15, 29 Bayh, Evan, 65, 70, 77 BBC, 48 Biden, Beau, 3 Biden, Jill, 3

Biden, Joe, 2–6, 8, 10, 18, 36, 48, 50, 51, 57, 63, 67, 76, 77, 84–90 Black voters, 2, 4 Bloomberg, Michael, 50, 77 Blunt, Roy, 90 Booker, Cory, 68, 69 Bottoms, Keisha Lance, 89 Brown, Sherrod, 51, 69 Burns, Alexander, 85, 86 Burr, Aaron, 27 Bush, George H.W., 7, 16 Bush, George W., 26, 36, 43, 47, 48, 60, 62, 64, 70, 74, 77 Business, 47 C Campaign experience, 92 Campaigning, 46, 48, 57, 60 Carson, Ben, 51 Carter, Jimmy, 9, 25, 32–36 Castro, Julian, 47, 69 Catholic, 65 CBS News, 49–51, 69, 73

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. J. Devine, News Media Coverage of the Vice-Presidential Selection Process, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28166-2

131

132

INDEX

Chalian, David, 4 Chemistry, 88 Cheney, Dick, 11, 26, 36, 70 Chicago Tribune, 49 Christie, Chris, 49, 69, 73 Cillizza, Chris, 77, 88, 89 Clark, Wesley, 47 Clinton, Bill, 77 Clinton, Hillary, 7, 18, 50, 60, 62, 64, 65, 68, 72, 74–76 Close election, 64 CNN, 4, 48, 50, 88 “The Situation Room”, 4 Coburn, Tom, 49 Coding rubric, 46, 47, 52, 62 Collins, Susan, 90 Communication, 48, 51 Compatibility, 46, 48, 57, 59–62, 78, 90 Compatibility (Electoral), 52, 92 Compatibility (Governance), 92 Conservative(s), 43, 50, 59, 66, 71, 72 Content analysis, 42, 45, 46, 51, 67, 78, 85 Convention, 28, 32–34 Convention delegates, 29 Cooper, Anderson, 4, 5 Cox, Chris, 67 Criminal Justice, 49 Crist, Charlie, 50, 59 Crossfire, 45 Cuomo, Andrew, 84

D Danforth, John, 51 Davis, Gray, 73 Delegates, 28–32, 34 Demeanor, 51 Democratic National Convention, 6 Democratic primaries, 2

Demographic characteristics, 12 Demographic(s), 68, 75, 84, 89 Demography, 46, 48, 57, 59–61, 63, 69, 71, 78, 90 Demography (Age), 72, 74, 77 Demography (Faith), 72 Demography (Gender), 72, 73 Demography (Race/Ethnicity), 72, 73, 92 Demography (Socioeconomic Status), 73 Devine, Christopher J., 9, 10, 13, 16, 37, 67, 76 Dodd, Chris, 50 Dole, Elizabeth, 69, 72 Duckworth, Tammy, 50

E Eagleton, Thomas, 31, 34 Economic, 49, 50 Economic Issues, 59 Education, 47 Edwards, John, 70, 73 Electoral, 48 Electoral Appeal, 46, 49, 57, 59–61, 63, 78, 92 Electoral Appeal (National Profile), 52 Electoral College, 8, 26, 66 Electoral Compatibility, 59, 78 Electoral competitiveness, 63 Electoral considerations, 4, 9–11, 15–17, 19, 30, 36, 61–66, 70, 71, 78, 89, 92, 93, 96, 98, 100 Electoral credentials, 96, 100 Electoral criteria, 45, 46 Electoral subcategory, 61 Electors, 26–28 Evangelicals, 72 Evening World-Herald, 24 Executive, 49, 72, 92 Executive Experience, 59, 73

INDEX

Experience, 36, 47–49, 57, 60, 62–65, 70–74, 76, 78, 79, 87, 89, 92, 93, 96 Experience (Executive), 52 Experience (General), 52, 77

F Factions (Ideology), 92 Faith, 49 Fallin, Mary, 49, 50, 62 Family, 51 Ferraro, Geraldine, 8, 11, 12 Florida, 50, 59, 66 Ford, Gerald, 33 Foreign, 50 Foreign Policy, 49 Foreign policy credentials, 71 Foreign policy experience, 72, 87 Fox News, 49 Framing, 12 Franken, Al, 47, 69 Fraser, Don, 32 Fundraising, 48, 90

G Gender, 18, 19, 49, 69, 75, 76, 79, 84, 85 General, 50, 51 General references to qualifications, 62 Geographic, 67, 84, 89, 90 Geographic considerations, 16 Geography, 9, 47, 50, 57, 59–61, 63–65, 71, 73, 78, 92 Geography (Home State), 52, 92 Georgia, 6 Gephardt, Dick, 49 Gillibrand, Kirsten, 88 Gilligan, John, 68 Goldberg, Jonah, 44

133

Goldstein, Joel K., 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 27, 28, 36 Google Books, 24, 25 Google Ngram, 25 Google Trends, 2, 15 Gore, Al, 7, 34, 60, 62, 65, 67, 68, 74, 76, 77 Governance, 63 Governing, 48, 61, 92 Governing Compatibility, 63 Governing considerations, 9–11, 15–17, 19, 30, 61–65, 71, 78, 86, 93, 96, 98, 100 Governing credentials, 66, 71, 86, 87, 96, 100 Governing criteria, 45, 46 Governing qualifications, 9 Graham, Bob, 65, 66 Great Recession, 6 Grisham, Michelle Lujan, 49 Grossmann, Matt, 12

H Hagel, Chuck, 51, 77 Hagen, Lisa, 84 Harris, Kamala, 2–5, 10, 18, 48, 84 Hassan, Maggie, 49 Heinz, John, 68 Heinz-Kerry, Teresa, 68 Hispanic, 49, 66 Holt, Lester, 5 Home Region, 50 Home State, 9, 15, 16, 27, 50, 59, 67, 68, 78, 88, 90, 96 Horse race coverage, 97 Horse race journalism, 97 Horse racing, 24, 25 Huckabee, Mike, 48 Huffington Post, 51 Humphrey, Hubert, 30, 32 Huntsman, Jon, 67

134

INDEX

Hurricane Gustav, 6 Hutchison, Kay Bailey, 51 I Ideology, 50, 59, 78 Independents, 11, 12 Independent voters, 12, 43 Insider, 51 Integrity, 51 Intercoder reliability, 46 Iraq, 6 Iraq War, 6, 36 Issues, 47, 50, 57, 59–62, 78, 90 Issues (Social), 92 J Jefferson, Thomas, 27 Johnson, Lyndon, 29, 30, 33, 65, 78 Jones-Cruise, Christopher, 37 Journalists, 97–99, 101 Jurkowitz, Mark, 6 K Kaine, Tim, 7, 52, 66–69, 77 Keating, Frank, 73, 77 Kefauver, Estes, 29 Kemp, Jack, 7 Kennedy, John F., 29, 65 Kennedy, Ted, 31 Kerry, John, 60, 67, 68, 70, 74 King Caucus, 28 Kirbo, Charles, 33 Klobuchar, Amy, 48, 68, 90 Knight Ridder Newspapers, 77 Knowledge, 51 Kopko, Kyle C., 9, 10, 13, 16, 37, 67, 76 L Landrieu, Mitch, 70

Latinos, 66 Legal, 47 Legislative, 50, 92 Legislative Experience, 73 Lieberman, Joe, 7, 8, 11, 34, 67 Likability, 51 Lipsitz, Keena, 12 Los Angeles Times , 44, 47–51, 77 Loyalty, 51, 89 M Marilyn, Quayle, 7 Martinez, Susana, 51, 68 McCabe, Kathy, 67 McCain, John, 6, 8, 34, 43, 44, 47–50, 59, 60, 63, 71, 72, 74 McDonnell, Bob, 51 McGovern-Fraser Commission, 32 McGovern, George, 31–33 Media, 47 Medicare for All, 90 Midwest, 50, 68 Military, 47 Minnesota, 68 Mischiefs of Faction, 101 Missoulian-Sentinel , 24 Missouri, 68 MIT Media Lab’s Electome Project, 6 Mondale Model, 9, 36 Mondale, Walter, 8, 9, 25, 34–36 Montanaro, Domenico, 87, 88, 93 N National convention, 8, 30 National Journal , 68 National Profile, 49 NBC News, 47, 50 NBC’s Nightly News, 5 Nelson, Bill, 50 Newell, Jim, 89, 90 New Hampshire, 68

INDEX

New Republic, 73 Newsweek, 25, 51, 68, 77 New York, 88 New York Daily News , 49, 72 New York Magazine, 43, 47–49, 51, 72 New York Times , 50 Nixon and the Veepstakes, 25 Nixon, Richard, 24, 30, 31 Now the Veepstakes, 25 NPR, 43, 48–51, 67, 73, 87, 93 Nunn, Sam, 50, 62, 67 O Obama, Barack, 5, 6, 8, 36, 48–50, 60, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 89 Ohio, 68 Olympics in Beijing, 6 Outsider, 51 P Palin, Sarah, 6, 8, 11, 13, 51, 70 Park, Baekwan, 9 Parlor game, 14, 17, 42, 65, 71, 78, 83, 86, 92, 96, 98, 102 Party Base, 49 Party convention, 28, 32 Party Factions, 47, 50, 57, 60, 63, 73 Party Factions (Ideology), 52, 77 Party(ies), 28, 47 Party leaders, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34 Party Unity, 50 Pataki, George, 50 Patterson, Thomas E., 97 Pawlenty, Tim, 73 Pelligrini, Frank, 69 Pence, Mike, 7 Pennsylvania, 43, 44, 68 Personal, 48 Personal Attribute–Physical Appearance, 52

135

Personal Attributes, 47, 51, 57, 73 Personal chemistry, 85 Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, 6 Physical Appearance, 51, 69, 70, 78, 84, 92, 96 Podcasts, 101 Political experience, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 74, 87, 88, 90, 92 Political parties, 27–29 Politico, 48, 85–87, 93 Popik, Barry, 24 Popularity, 49, 59 Portman, Rob, 48, 51, 63, 72 Powell, Colin, 77 Presidency, 51 Presidential Administration, 48 Presidential candidate, perceptions of the, 9, 13, 76–78 Presidential electors, 26 Presidential nomination process, 25, 32 Presidential primaries, 15 Prime/Priming, 12, 14–17, 19, 96, 100 Priming effects, 14 Progressives, 88 Public-facing scholarship, 101

Q Qualifications, 47, 51, 57, 60–63, 70, 78, 87–90, 92, 93 Qualifications to be (vice) president, 87 Qualifications to serve as president, 62 Qualifications to serve as vice president, 62 Qualified, 83 Quayle, Dan, 7, 8, 11, 16, 65

136

INDEX

R Race/Ethnicity, 49, 75 Radio, 101 Reagan, Ronald, 36 Reed, Jack, 67 Region, 16 Religious affiliation, 12 Rice, Condoleezza, 69, 72 Rice, Susan, 51, 85–87, 89 Richardson, Bill, 49 Ridge, Tom, 43, 44, 47 Rockefeller, Nelson, 35 Roll-out, 7, 13, 14 Romney, Mitt, 48, 49, 60, 66, 67, 74 Roosevelt, Franklin, 28, 29 Rubio, Marco, 66 Rudin, Ken, 67 Ryan, Paul, 70

S Schneider, William, 65, 66 Schweitzer, Brian, 49 Scott, Rick, 47 Sebelius, Kathleen, 48, 67, 68, 77 Selection process, 33, 35 Sex affiliation, 12 Shafer, Jack, 37 Shaheen, Jeanne, 51, 68, 69 Shaw, Daron, 12 Sides, John, 12 Slate, 89 Social, 50 Social Issues, 59 Socioeconomic Status, 49 Spencer, Stuart, 16 Starr, Alexandra, 69 Stevenson, Adlai, 29 Sweepstakes, 24, 25, 38 Swing state, 66–68 Swing Voters, 49, 72

T Tea Party, 66 Texas, 65 The Economist , 50 The Monkey Cage, 101 The New York Times , 7, 11, 42, 47, 49–51, 64, 72, 73, 76, 77, 85–87, 93 The Washington Post , 47, 48, 70, 73, 76, 101 The Weekly Standard, 76 Thune, John, 67, 69 Ticket-balancing, 9, 71–77, 79 Ticket-balancing criteria, 46 Time article, 68 Todd, Chuck, 5, 10, 68 “Meet the Press”, 5 Truman, Harry, 29, 30 Trump, Donald, 2, 4, 7, 47, 50, 60, 63, 74 Twelfth Amendment, 27, 28 Twenty-Fifth Amendment, 8 2016 presidential campaign, 97 2020 election, 4, 18 2020 primaries, 4 U Ulbig, Stacy, 8, 11, 12 U.S. Constitution, 8, 26 V Van Buren, Martin, 30 Veep, 24 Veepstakes, 14–16, 24, 25, 32, 35, 37, 38 Veepstakes: Agnew and Shriver, 25 Veepstakes guides, 17, 18, 42–47, 56, 85, 87, 89, 90, 100 Veepstakes profile, 46, 52 Vet/Vetting, 13, 16, 19, 24, 31–34, 36–38, 48, 96, 99

INDEX

137

Veterans, 77 Vice presidency, 9, 19, 25, 30, 32, 35, 36, 51 Vice-presidential debate, 8, 87 Vice-presidential roll-out, 7, 14 Vice-presidential selection, 28 Vice-presidential selection process, 18, 25–27, 29, 31–33, 99 Vice president(s), 8–10, 14, 28, 30, 35, 36, 99 Vietnam, 44, 47, 77 Vietnam War, 43 Vilsack, Tom, 49, 51, 72, 73 Virginia, 52 Voinovich, George, 65 Vox, 101

Washington “insider”, 74, 79 Washington “outsider”, 74 Washington, D.C., 47, 51, 57, 60, 61, 73 Washington, D.C. (Outsider), 52, 77 Washington Monthly, 69 Washington Post , 51, 68 Webb, James, 47 Webb, Jim, 52, 72 White House vice presidency, 8 Whitman, Christine Todd, 65 Whitmer, Gretchen, 85 Wisconsin, 89 Wofford, Taylor, 69 Women, 72 Woodward, Bob, 7

W Wallace, Henry, 28, 29 Warren, Elizabeth, 48, 88

Z Zeleny, Jeff, 4 Zoom, 2