Research Fellow John C. Fortier

For the next two months, we will see endless hand-wringing about vice presidential choices, most of it centered on who can help the "ticket." The reality is that, while vice presidents have become significantly more powerful since John Garner's day, the choice of a running mate makes almost no difference in the November election. Good advice for Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain is to pick someone who could step into the presidency, who will be loyal and easy to work with, and, if possible, who might be able to add 1 or 2 percentage points to the vote in a key swing state.

Most commentary on this matter focuses on what a presidential candidate needs. If Obama, for example, selects a running mate with experience, especially foreign policy experience, it will make up for his weakness in this area. But what voter will say, "Obama is too young or naive on foreign policy, but I'll vote for him because his vice president is worldly"? Why not just vote for McCain? And why couldn't Obama get sage advice from an experienced secretary of state or chief of staff?

McCain's age is cited as an imperative for him to select a young, vibrant vice presidential nominee. Let's say that McCain has a senior moment on the campaign trail. Will voters breathe a sigh of relief because there is a 45-year-old vice president in the wings? Ultimately, if voters feel McCain is not up for the job, they won't vote for him, no matter who would be vice president. And if you are really worried that McCain won't serve out his term, then why would a particularly young vice president be the answer? Might not an experienced 60-something VP be a better choice?

Another common theory is that the vice presidential nominee should be from either another strain of the party or another region. A liberal nominee should have a moderate running mate. A Northeasterner should add a Southerner to the ticket. This theory was perhaps true in the earlier era of coalitional politics. The Democratic Party, in particular, had a conservative Southern wing that was allied with progressive Democrats in the rest of the country, and it often made sense to pair a Southerner with a non-Southerner.

In recent political history, geographic ticket-balancing helped the most in 1960. Not only was Democratic vice presidential nominee Lyndon Johnson able to carry his home state of Texas, but he was also a signal to other Southern states that it was OK to vote for the Catholic John F. Kennedy.

In recent years, however, this theory has not worked. The Massachusetts-Texas pairing of Mike Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen failed badly, as did John F. Kerry's pick of Southerner John Edwards. Democrats lost every Southern state by substantial margins in 1988 and 2004, respectively.

The most successful recent pairing was Clinton's choice of fellow Southerner Al Gore, which went against conventional wisdom. Clinton was able to win in some Southern states, and that ability was reinforced by Gore. Clinton won Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee twice, and Georgia and Florida, once.

So how should Obama and McCain go about picking nominees?

First, do no harm. Republican Dan Quayle in 1988 and Geraldine Ferraro four years earlier ended up generating attention that was more negative than positive. Both were picked from relative obscurity and faced tough media scrutiny.

Second, pick a credible successor. This vice president could become president and step in at a time of uncertainty. The vice presidential nominee should be seen as adult enough to step into a difficult circumstance. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota or Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee would fit the bill, though neither is from a competitive state.

Third, pick someone with whom you can work on the campaign trail and in office. There is no need for campaign squabbling, mixed loyalty or even the perception among voters that the running mates are not working toward a common purpose.

Fourth, if possible, pick an elected official who is popular, has a great organization and is from a key swing state that you might win if you shift it a couple of percentage points in your direction. Every short list will include governors and senators from Ohio and Florida. But ignore the talk that former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn will bring you Georgia or former Republican Gov. Christie Todd Whitman will bring you New Jersey. But several individuals could shore up or bring in competitive states, including Republican Govs. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Charlie Crist of Florida, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), and former Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio), as well as Democratic Govs. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Ted Strickland of Ohio.

And remember the final rule of vice presidential prognostication: It is often someone we don't expect, so don't think about it too hard.

John C. Fortier is a research fellow at AEI.