 |
| picture from The New York Times |
VP candidates are often “less shiny” than their rock star counterparts, presidential candidates, in elections. Yet, observing VP is a paramount approach for voters to understand their presidential candidates. The title of vice president isn’t that big deal in an election compared to that of the presidential nominee, however, VP candidates are manifestation of presidential nominees’ vulnerabilities, to be more specific, presidential candidates’ running mates complement their weakness. Exceptional running mates walk you hand in hand to the Oval, bad ones leave you with concession.
Through the choice of vice presidential nominees, presidential candidates reveal his/her instincts and inabilities. There are numerous aspects considering the running mates that presidential candidates need to take into consideration. Except for general conditions like his/her educational background and proficiencies, candidates need to contemplate several questions. Does the person take the same position as I have on approximately every issue? Does the person have disreputable history contrasting my political view? Can the person make up my inabilities and make us perfect together? Do we have chemistry? All these questions unveil the personalities and vulnerabilities of candidates.
Take Donald Trump’s picking VP consideration for instance, he once said he needs insiders who are experienced and are aware of the ropes of Congress. In other words, Trump was looking for someone who can make up his vulnerability of lacking political experience. Eventually, Trump chose Mike Pence who is conservative enough to make up for his blatant utterances and his sometimes “infamous” images. Mike Pence had signed the original Religious Freedom Restoration Act, though he signed the revision of the act after the act was being overwhelmingly criticized. Hence, Mike Pence reveals his anti-abortion view. In Mike Pence, we can see critical personality traits which Donald Trump fails to possess as a Republican nominee.
 |
| picture from Harper's Bazaar |
There’s another perfect-together example we can see in presidential elections. Recalling 2008 presidential election, Obama chose Joe Biden because Biden is able to fill the gaps in Obama’s résumé. Barack Obama was inexperienced in foreign affairs and Biden was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who is familiar with foreign diplomacy. It is not saying that the only critical decision is about how to make up for each other’s vulnerabilities, but rather, impress voters with their team image.
Voters should observe not only themselves but also their running mates. Often, VPs are invisible and it seems all about presidential nominees. But voters must see them as a whole because from the VPs you get to see the other part of the presidential candidate, which might be contrasting or might make them complete. After November 8th, this person will be Vice President of the United States of America, and you don’t want to regret this.
Americans, you want to know your candidates? Watch the vice presidential debate 9pm to 10:30pm on October 4th.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThat was an interesting post. I think you made a good case for why candidates choose VP choices: that VPs are used to help candidates fill personality or professional voids/gaps or various deficiencies in demographics. In fact, during the primaries, there was wide speculation that Trump may pick a woman in an effort to shore up his waning female base, specifically choosing Carly Fiorina to correct that problem.
Another instance of this concerns Mrs Clinton. During that same time, many thought that if Clinton picked Senator Elizabeth Warren, which some wanted her to do, that having two women on a national ticket may have put her at a disadvantage. An interesting side note here is VP picks also speak volumes about the electorate, not just the presidential candidates. In other words, what does it say about the United States and its people that the two women on a national ticket would potentially result in loss of an election?
In any case, I liked your topic and enjoyed reading your post!
Truthis
Gee, I just noticed I accidentally left out Mrs Clinton's choice for VP, Tim Kane, before mentioned Elizabeth Warren.
DeleteWhat I was going to write was that Clinton's choice of Tim Kane reflects her desire to shore up men's votes, a demographic she has historically had difficulty with. Therefore, in choosing Kane, Mrs. Clinton expands her appeal into that demography with Kane's help, another example of your point about VPs helping to strengthen their presidential partners.
As much as I disagree with the political of agenda of Mike Pence, I have to say as a politician he has been consistently right-wing conservative; certainly no flippy-floppy from him. Tim Kane I am not as familiar with, but Pence is a noted religious nutjob with his involvement in evangelical organizations going back decades. Wei sweater you are right in saying that Trump lacked this type of republican support until Pence came in, I feel like Trump is now (for better or for worse) more accessible to republicans across the board.
ReplyDelete