Very recent history
A look at past partnerships in light of Harris-Walz and Trump-Vance
There’s no editor here. It’s me each day writing and rewriting from 5:30 a.m. until the kid wakes up and the dog, Pancakes, has breakfast.
So imagine my chagrin last week when I wrote vice presidential candidates are an under-appreciated part of victory and barely addressed what makes them essential: The partnership model.1
Let’s see if I can strike the right balance between historicism and analysis that starts with Clinton-Gore and ends with Trump-Pence.
One last note on this week’s methodology: For each ticket, I will focus on the campaigns and what voters knew at the time (and not what we’ve learned since). Books are written about each election, sometimes specific moments, and I am going to keep this excessively brief (I hope).
Clinton-Gore defeats Bush-Quayle, Dole-Kemp (‘92, ‘96)
Issues: Economy, Cold War ends, domestic and international terrorism
Amid a long losing streak, Clinton-Gore was a kind of novelty. They campaigned together, they were of the same generation, region, and ideology. (You remember this from last week.)
Their focus in 1992 on the economy, specifically government intervention to promote training, tax reform, and global trade, was an indictment of policies of the preceding 12 years of Reagan-Bush.
Facing re-election, Clinton-Gore co-opted Republican messaging and policies around social spending and balanced budgets. They benefited from a strong economy, deft messaging on Clinton’s personal scandals, and a unifying response to the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing. They subtly suggested opponent Bob Dole, a veteran from World War 2, was a bridge to the past.
It was also a time when affability or likability became more important than character and temperament. After Watergate, politicians pioneered much of this. But it was Clinton who was likened to Elvis Presley.
By the end of two terms, Clinton had become the first Black president—and it was no compliment. Clinton’s impeachment and lying about an affair consumed the Clintons, the nation, and the world.
Amid a strong economy, his approval ratings went up, but Gore sought distance. The partnership had frayed, Gore felt sidelined, among other things, as Clinton “gave into [his] shame.”
Sen. Joe Lieberman was an acerbic critic of Clinton’s conduct. He personified distance from Clinton. This would be essential in 2000 with impeachment and ethics in the foreground—so much so the election boiled down to two issues: who loved their wife more and who would you rather have a beer with?
Bush-Cheney defeats Gore-Lieberman, Kerry-Edwards (‘00, ‘04)
‘00 Issues: Impeachment, presidential ethics, good economy
’04 issues: Terrorism, Iraq War, job growth
The folksy Texas governor might as well have been the next Elvis. He shed his Harvard Business School and private school bonafides and he filled the void established by Clinton. George W. Bush did not drink beer, not after a 1976 DUI arrest and subsequent religious conversion.
He sought to rebuild the Reagan coalition of religious, business, and national security voters. Dick Cheney was the perfect lasso for all three. He represented experience—he could be co-president, tutor, and fixer all in one. They would be partners in governance, in contrast to Gore-Lieberman which was more of an arranged marriage.
As you know, Bush-Cheney presided over 9/11 and two wars. You might’ve forgotten the Republican convention in New York City, where Bush-Cheney was ready to support the troops and wave the flag to re-election.
Kerry-Edwards was a forced marriage for Democrats. It’s hard to believe two Johns could lack chemistry, harder still to recall their different messages. Help is on the way was John Kerry’s slogan. Hope is on the way was John Edwards’s.
Bush-Cheney won elections, but was not on the ballot in 2006. Their policy failures gave Democrats control of Congress. Many expected they would wind down one or both wars. Instead, they funded the Global War on Terror and bank bailouts. Democrats sought stability because, in 2008, there’d be no incumbent, and the way things were going, no guarantee of an economy.
Obama-Biden defeats McCain-Palin, Romney-Ryan (‘08, ‘12)
Trump-Pence defeats Clinton-Kaine (‘16)
‘08 issues: Economic crisis, bailouts, Iraq War
’12 issues: Role of government and spending, Iran and Arab Spring, climate change
’16 issues: Culture wars, inequality, national security, foreign policy (Russia, Iran, Syria, Brexit), treatment of minorities and immigration policy
Joe Biden to Barack Obama was a lot like Cheney was to Bush. Plus, Biden had the folksy everyman thing Clinton and Bush enjoyed. Obama and Biden seemed to enjoy each other, though their relationship aged into something far more complex. Facing dwindling odds and enthusiasm, Sen. John McCain opted for a risky shotgun marriage with Sarah Palin (instead of his preferred choice, that old chestnut, Joe Lieberman!)
Obama-Biden navigated a treacherous economy, partisan polarization, health care politics, and an electoral wipeout in 2010. For the second time, Republicans nominated a runner up to be president. Mitt Romney selected Paul Ryan to enhance the economic message. The partnership was genuine and reciprocal, far more than McCain-Palin, but it wasn’t enough to unseat the incumbent.
I recognize people vote for president, not vice president. But vice presidential selection is a statement of values. Fewer picks represented that more than Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s evangelical religion and governing experience. Trump has the support of both now, extremely, and Pence, for obvious reasons, is not No. 2 again. By contrast, Tim Kaine represented a kind of nothingness and safety that would do no harm for Hillary Clinton.
Candidates pick running makes, but voters pick change, continuity, or indifference. My point the last two weeks has been vice presidents are part of a story to voters and a reflection of aspiring presidents and their view of the election and the world.
The rest is history, right? Although in many ways, we are reliving the 2016 election. But is the country the same, different, or somewhere in between? It’s 88 days until that can be answered. I hope the outcome can be definitive. History says no chance though. The past is never past. It’s not even past.
I also acknowledged this is basically impossible to quantify.