July 17, 2024 • 8 mins
Here’s a trivia question for you. Since 1804 how many VP’s have gone on to win the presidency directly from having been Vice President?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
I'm going to question a lotest answersto questions you won't here anywhere else.
The Q and A of the dayreaction from our government to Brian mus show,
I don't get that the lack ofimpact of vice presidential picks on election
outcomes. Mike Q and A Todaybrought to you by my listener ashes check
(00:21):
mark elections. Each day I featurea listener question sent by one of these
methods. You may email me BrianMutt at iHeartMedia dot com, hand me
up on social at Brian mud Radio. You may also use the Ihear Radio
talkback feature. Just go to wJO or youuro Patriot inside of the iHeartRadio
app following us once you get there. Once you do, look for the
little microphone button. See you tapit. You may lay down your message
(00:43):
right there. Maybe a topic orquestion for a future Q and A.
Today's note is this. I knowyou do your research before making statements like
VP picks not having an election impact. And an answer to your question,
I've never voted for the bottom ofthe ticket either. What I would like
for you to do is to illustratethat so I can better understand and share
with others. Okay, yeah.So today's note sat response to my commentary
(01:07):
yesterday when I said, on theback of Donald Trump's announcement that JD.
Vans would be his running mate,I said, in reality, there's no
evidence that a running mate in eitherparty has had any material impact on the
outcome of an election and at leastseveral generations. For those who question that
statement, by the way, answerthis question in which presidential election have you
(01:29):
voted for president due to the runningmate? You know, like where you're
thinking, hey, I'm getting readyto go this way, but man,
that FTEs presidential pick on the otherside of it. There, that's going
to do it for me. Andso yes, my commentary is evidence based,
not just anecdotal. Though I amgoing to share what I think is
a really interesting anecdote at the endof this that I think helps illustrate the
(01:51):
broader point. But before digging intothe research, one thing I thought was
interesting. Anytime I'm doing these typesof stories, I always go back to
where I started the last time,and the last time I updated this was
on August thirteenth of twenty twenty.In my story Kama Harris in the lack
of impact of vice presidential candidates.I said this said, I'll start this
(02:15):
story by saying that if ever therewas a time a vice presidential pick mattered
most, it's potentially this one.Any objective observer of Joe Biden has questions
regarding his ability to presign over ourcountry effectively for the next four years.
So boys that ever proven true,just thought that was interesting. But anyway,
(02:35):
to the extent that train of thoughtwas potentially relevant four years ago,
I one might imagine it's amplified thistime around. Right, So yeah,
with all that said, let's goto the scorecard. Logically, the location
where the vice presidential pick would havethe greatest impact would be in their home
state. Right. If they're goingto move the needle anywhere, it would
be where they are from. Sothat's kind of the first place to start.
(02:59):
Now, els is, I think, see what the scorecard has been
from the point of the impact thevice presidential picks on the ticket's performance in
their home state. So if wego back to twenty twenty, we see
that Mike Pence Indiana one by Trumpin twenty twenty and twenty sixteen, but
also Rodney in twenty twelve, Sothere's never any change there In Indiana,
(03:22):
Kamala Harris. She's from California,of course, one by Democrats for an
awfully long time, so there's nochange there. In twenty sixteen, again
you're taking like a Pence that waswon by Trump but also one by Rodney
has mentioned in twenty twelve, sono change. If you go back to
(03:42):
the Democrats ticket in twenty sixteen,you see Tim Caine. He was from
Virginia, one by Clinton in twentysixteen, but also by Obama in twenty
Twelve's no change there. Twenty twelveis the first cycle where things begin to
get interesting from this perspective. JoeBiden Delaware won by Obama in twenty twelve
(04:03):
in two thousand and eight, butalso by John Kerry in two thousand and
four to no change. But PaulRyan Paul Ryan from Wisconsin that was won
by Obama in twenty twelve. PaulRyan failed to win his home state in
Wisconsin, of course the swing stateright, and yet Paul Ryan was unsuccessful
(04:24):
in helping Rodney win him and twothousand and eight Sarah Palin Alaska that had
been won by McCain but also byBush previously to no change. And then
two thousand and four, it's thenext most interesting one. Here you had
Dick Cheney Wyoming won by Bush intwo thousand and four. In two thousand,
(04:44):
but also by Bob Dolan ninety six. No change there, But much
like twenty twelve with the Republicans,John Edwards, John F. Carey's running
mate, he was from North Carolinaand he failed to win his home state.
And then you go back to twothousand and forget the vice presidential candidate.
(05:08):
Al Gore, the presidential candidate failedto carry his home state of Tennessee.
What's notable there. Bill Clinton carriedthe state in nineteen ninety six,
So here you had al Gore atthe bottom of the ticket. In ninety
six, Bill Clinton carries Tennessee,and then al Gore's at the top of
the ticket in two thousand he loseshis home state. So look, history
(05:28):
tells a very consistent story. Thereis no evidence of a catalyst shift in
the direction of polls or outcomes,and even a running mates home state.
In fact, ironically, in thecase of Paul Ryan's failure to deliver his
home state in twenty twelve and JohnEdwards in two thousand and four, it's
even more significant because Obama was ableto carry North Carolina in two thousand and
(05:53):
eight and Donald Trump one Wisconsin intwenty sixteen, So you think about that
they could have the prior cycle,ye had the running mates that couldn't carry
their home states, but they flippedto the other party in the next cycle.
That really shows the lack of animpact there. Most notable of all,
(06:14):
if al Gore had been able tocarry his home state of Tennessee in
two thousand, which again Bill Clintonwon only four years earlier, he would
have been president. So no runningmate has had any evidence impact where it
matters most, the electoral college inrecent political history. Now you can find
an election where there is an apparentimpact of the running mate, But to
(06:34):
find the first one you have togo back to nineteen sixty. Nineteen sixty
when JFK's running mate Lyndon Johnson wonhis home state of Texas. That was
a state that was won in theprevious cycle by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower.
So there's plenty of evidence around Johnsonmoving the needle enough to swing Texas
(06:55):
in that cycle. The most compellingcase generally, though, to be made
regarding the muted impact of VP selections. I think is this anecdote. There
is arguably no greater advantage for apresidential candidate than to have the name recognition
in the platform that comes with havingbeen vice president. Right, So here's
(07:17):
the trivia question for you. Sinceeighteen oh four, how many vps have
gone on to win the presidency directlyfrom having been vice president? And Joel,
you're pretty strong here. I couldonly think of one. You came
up with half the answer obviously hwBush. That was the only one I
(07:40):
could think of. And I thinkmost people that are astute enough to come
up with George hw Bush, whichis correct in eighty eight. I don't
think they're going to get the otherone either, because you have to go
back to eighteen thirty six. Theyear was eighteen thirty six, Martin van
Buren. So again, since eighteenoh four, only twice has the vice
(08:01):
president had enough jews to win ontheir own the next go round. That's
remarking they have a net losing record. It has been. It has been
a really poor showing for vice presidents. Going from the vice presidency and then
running for president. You have occasionallyseen a pause, like you know with
(08:24):
Nixon or with Biden right now,but going from vice president straight into the
presidency, No, it's it's beena losing proposition far more often than not.
So you think about that, itis if they can't win the presidency
of their own volition, you know, what are the odds that they're going
to win the presidency for the personat the top of their ticket as vice
(08:45):
president, you know, preceding AndI think that that illustrates as well as anything
I'm going to question a lotest answersto questions you won't here anywhere else.
The Q and A of the dayreaction from our government to Brian mus show,
I don't get that the lack ofimpact of vice presidential picks on election
outcomes. Mike Q and A Todaybrought to you by my listener ashes check
(00:21):
mark elections. Each day I featurea listener question sent by one of these
methods. You may email me BrianMutt at iHeartMedia dot com, hand me
up on social at Brian mud Radio. You may also use the Ihear Radio
talkback feature. Just go to wJO or youuro Patriot inside of the iHeartRadio
app following us once you get there. Once you do, look for the
little microphone button. See you tapit. You may lay down your message
(00:43):
right there. Maybe a topic orquestion for a future Q and A.
Today's note is this. I knowyou do your research before making statements like
VP picks not having an election impact. And an answer to your question,
I've never voted for the bottom ofthe ticket either. What I would like
for you to do is to illustratethat so I can better understand and share
with others. Okay, yeah.So today's note sat response to my commentary
(01:07):
yesterday when I said, on theback of Donald Trump's announcement that JD.
Vans would be his running mate,I said, in reality, there's no
evidence that a running mate in eitherparty has had any material impact on the
outcome of an election and at leastseveral generations. For those who question that
statement, by the way, answerthis question in which presidential election have you
(01:29):
voted for president due to the runningmate? You know, like where you're
thinking, hey, I'm getting readyto go this way, but man,
that FTEs presidential pick on the otherside of it. There, that's going
to do it for me. Andso yes, my commentary is evidence based,
not just anecdotal. Though I amgoing to share what I think is
a really interesting anecdote at the endof this that I think helps illustrate the
(01:51):
broader point. But before digging intothe research, one thing I thought was
interesting. Anytime I'm doing these typesof stories, I always go back to
where I started the last time,and the last time I updated this was
on August thirteenth of twenty twenty.In my story Kama Harris in the lack
of impact of vice presidential candidates.I said this said, I'll start this
(02:15):
story by saying that if ever therewas a time a vice presidential pick mattered
most, it's potentially this one.Any objective observer of Joe Biden has questions
regarding his ability to presign over ourcountry effectively for the next four years.
So boys that ever proven true,just thought that was interesting. But anyway,
(02:35):
to the extent that train of thoughtwas potentially relevant four years ago,
I one might imagine it's amplified thistime around. Right, So yeah,
with all that said, let's goto the scorecard. Logically, the location
where the vice presidential pick would havethe greatest impact would be in their home
state. Right. If they're goingto move the needle anywhere, it would
be where they are from. Sothat's kind of the first place to start.
(02:59):
Now, els is, I think, see what the scorecard has been
from the point of the impact thevice presidential picks on the ticket's performance in
their home state. So if wego back to twenty twenty, we see
that Mike Pence Indiana one by Trumpin twenty twenty and twenty sixteen, but
also Rodney in twenty twelve, Sothere's never any change there In Indiana,
(03:22):
Kamala Harris. She's from California,of course, one by Democrats for an
awfully long time, so there's nochange there. In twenty sixteen, again
you're taking like a Pence that waswon by Trump but also one by Rodney
has mentioned in twenty twelve, sono change. If you go back to
(03:42):
the Democrats ticket in twenty sixteen,you see Tim Caine. He was from
Virginia, one by Clinton in twentysixteen, but also by Obama in twenty
Twelve's no change there. Twenty twelveis the first cycle where things begin to
get interesting from this perspective. JoeBiden Delaware won by Obama in twenty twelve
(04:03):
in two thousand and eight, butalso by John Kerry in two thousand and
four to no change. But PaulRyan Paul Ryan from Wisconsin that was won
by Obama in twenty twelve. PaulRyan failed to win his home state in
Wisconsin, of course the swing stateright, and yet Paul Ryan was unsuccessful
(04:24):
in helping Rodney win him and twothousand and eight Sarah Palin Alaska that had
been won by McCain but also byBush previously to no change. And then
two thousand and four, it's thenext most interesting one. Here you had
Dick Cheney Wyoming won by Bush intwo thousand and four. In two thousand,
(04:44):
but also by Bob Dolan ninety six. No change there, But much
like twenty twelve with the Republicans,John Edwards, John F. Carey's running
mate, he was from North Carolinaand he failed to win his home state.
And then you go back to twothousand and forget the vice presidential candidate.
(05:08):
Al Gore, the presidential candidate failedto carry his home state of Tennessee.
What's notable there. Bill Clinton carriedthe state in nineteen ninety six,
So here you had al Gore atthe bottom of the ticket. In ninety
six, Bill Clinton carries Tennessee,and then al Gore's at the top of
the ticket in two thousand he loseshis home state. So look, history
(05:28):
tells a very consistent story. Thereis no evidence of a catalyst shift in
the direction of polls or outcomes,and even a running mates home state.
In fact, ironically, in thecase of Paul Ryan's failure to deliver his
home state in twenty twelve and JohnEdwards in two thousand and four, it's
even more significant because Obama was ableto carry North Carolina in two thousand and
(05:53):
eight and Donald Trump one Wisconsin intwenty sixteen, So you think about that
they could have the prior cycle,ye had the running mates that couldn't carry
their home states, but they flippedto the other party in the next cycle.
That really shows the lack of animpact there. Most notable of all,
(06:14):
if al Gore had been able tocarry his home state of Tennessee in
two thousand, which again Bill Clintonwon only four years earlier, he would
have been president. So no runningmate has had any evidence impact where it
matters most, the electoral college inrecent political history. Now you can find
an election where there is an apparentimpact of the running mate, But to
(06:34):
find the first one you have togo back to nineteen sixty. Nineteen sixty
when JFK's running mate Lyndon Johnson wonhis home state of Texas. That was
a state that was won in theprevious cycle by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower.
So there's plenty of evidence around Johnsonmoving the needle enough to swing Texas
(06:55):
in that cycle. The most compellingcase generally, though, to be made
regarding the muted impact of VP selections. I think is this anecdote. There
is arguably no greater advantage for apresidential candidate than to have the name recognition
in the platform that comes with havingbeen vice president. Right, So here's
(07:17):
the trivia question for you. Sinceeighteen oh four, how many vps have
gone on to win the presidency directlyfrom having been vice president? And Joel,
you're pretty strong here. I couldonly think of one. You came
up with half the answer obviously hwBush. That was the only one I
(07:40):
could think of. And I thinkmost people that are astute enough to come
up with George hw Bush, whichis correct in eighty eight. I don't
think they're going to get the otherone either, because you have to go
back to eighteen thirty six. Theyear was eighteen thirty six, Martin van
Buren. So again, since eighteenoh four, only twice has the vice
(08:01):
president had enough jews to win ontheir own the next go round. That's
remarking they have a net losing record. It has been. It has been
a really poor showing for vice presidents. Going from the vice presidency and then
running for president. You have occasionallyseen a pause, like you know with
(08:24):
Nixon or with Biden right now,but going from vice president straight into the
presidency, No, it's it's beena losing proposition far more often than not.
So you think about that, itis if they can't win the presidency
of their own volition, you know, what are the odds that they're going
to win the presidency for the personat the top of their ticket as vice
(08:45):
president, you know, preceding AndI think that that illustrates as well as anything
Popular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Missed in History Class
Join Holly and Tracy as they bring you the greatest and strangest Stuff You Missed In History Class in this podcast by iHeartRadio.
2. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
3. Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.