Mission Mediocrity: This Year’s Vice-Presidential Choices are Too Safe. They Probably Won’t Matter Anyway

Vice Presidents Don't Matter Until They Do...Just Ask Kamala

In honor of the upcoming vice presidential debate, I am highlighting this cycle's buried narrative of vice presidential picks. Although coverage surrounding the vice presidential selection is consistently overstated, the countless surprises this cycle have resulted in pickings that disadvantage both parties and the American public. Media narratives being what they are, I find portrayals of JD Vance overly harsh and those of Tim Walz overly rosy. But if you look past these biases to pure political fundamentals, both candidates are just very 'Meh.'

JD: More Like Just Don't

Media bias aside, JD Vance could have had a better start. On paper, he would be a slam dunk with views and upbringing seeming to offer a little of every significant political trend in our culture. Of course, when you are a little bit of everything, you can also be accused of being about nothing.

Mr Vance: Too Much is Too Little

In this respect, the general narrative on JD Vance was always going to be damning because his lifelong political and cultural evolution leaves something to be hated by almost everyone: He comes from a poor blue-collar background but has more wealth than his biography lets on; he describes strong women in his life as instrumental to his development but also resents Childless Cat Ladies (the Press has already beaten that to death); his book blames much of Appalachia for enabling poor outcomes, but his current candidacy now points to poor trade policies instead; he is a tough-talking investment banker with an Indian wife but disputes his connection to the cosmopolitan lifestyle he has come to adopt; and he, of course, compared Trump to Hitler until changing his mind and blaming the media for his hot takes. None of this is consistent or coherent.

Beyond purely political calculations, Vance appears similar in attribute to, begrudgingly, Hillary Clinton: Something about him is just not likable. His lack of personal charm while campaigning doesn't help either; some of my Republican Donor sources were startled by his lack of charisma at a recent private fundraiser, leaving host Mike Pompeo to rally the millionaires in the room. Maybe it is the tone of his voice or even the way he carries himself. Hell, it could even be the beard, but Vance is just not someone you care for. This is a shame; his biography and work should represent the American Dream, but that isn't too in style for this Vice Presidential Pick.

No Win with Walz

As media sources have scoffed at JD Vance, they over-zealously laud Walz, a degree to which hides his otherwise unremarkablility. True, Walz had a track record as a Midwestern Blue Dog in his swingy House Seat before embracing further left policy as governor of Minnesota. I believe this political calculus deserves more praise for reflecting its constituents than many would like to give. Even former Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledges such policy shifts are less so turncoat and moreso realistic to the base. With such little time for Harris to decide on a running mate (her most difficult decision thus far, as she mentioned in one of her few recent interviews), perhaps this ideological flexibility, similar in tones to hers, formed his appeal. But, in an almost Vancian style, it also makes it easier to hit him with every issue under the sun, considering that he has, at some point, stood for it.

The Walz Fandom: Twitter's Gotta Chill

If you generically scroll on socials, particularly after his announcement, Walz blasted out as an adorable man and traditional suburban parent, a testament to local branding of the 'Coach Dad' going national. Whoever secured his memification deserves a raise, as it instantly uplifted the governor from unknown to glorified. Along with Harris's turnaround in approval ratings, it creates a campaign aura of The Little Engine that Could. But digging below the digital surface to actual electoral appeal quickly flattens the flattery. Remember kids, internet posts don't count as votes

Walz, it was argued, appeals to an older union style of white working-class vote. I call BS. Just as Trump's pro-black racial messaging was broadly publicized not to increase actual support to those minorities as much as to increase support from white skeptics believing he was tolerant and 'changed,' Walz follows a similar book. The illusion of white working-class appeal will only increase support from base operatives and perceived independents while otherwise having little to no effect on swing working-class voters he is supposedly connecting with. That these are the voters he needs to win makes the strategy all the more of a dud.

The idea of a reassuring white male to the ticket is rational considering changing American Demographics. Still, of any man considered (Roy Cooper, Andy Beshear, Josh Shapiro, and Mark Kelly), only Tim Walz had a recent legacy of unabashed progressive politics, not to mention an association with the anti-police movement in the wake of George Floyd's death. Off the internet and in real working class America, I expect this ACAB-adjacent narrative along with trans-affirming care for minors to be the real points of discussion - and potential discomfort- for this specific strand of moderates (and that is not even touching on the accusations of service-dodging). In their indirect appeals, Trump and Walz will be equally unsuccessful by election day. However, in Walz's case, it leaves his addition to the ticket as a wash rather than offering any tangible benefit.

Governor Shapiro: Waiting for His, and Only His, Moment

Just as animating for the Walz question is the man he beat out: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. Although it will never be confirmed, Shapiro's presence could have been a boon for moderate support of a different type - suburban educated and upper-middle class. At the same time, he could have been a nightmare for the base. Feelings towards the Palestinian issue are an activating issue that makes Black Lives Matter look like settled political lore. Particularly in Michigan, Shapiro's identity (certainly in tandem with his hawkish views on Israel) is all the more unacceptable to spotlight nationally. Especially considering the lack of chemistry between the candidates and Kamala's nuanced approach to the Middle East, the partnership was not to be. It appears the argument that Shapiro's place on the ticket would guarantee or even improve PA's odds was outweighed (sadly) by the effect that his identity would have inflamed the narrow margins in Michigan. Still, if one thing was for sure, it was that Shapiro had more potential appeal to swing voters than Walz. Should the Harris Ticket lose this election, I imagine questions over the Shapiro Pass will be loud in Campaign Post-Ops.

Why Settle

Walz and Vance are alike in that their selection stemmed from specific criteria at the time of selection. Trump was at his peak, with both a strong debate performance and a rash of patriotism post-assassination animating the American electorate to sympathy (and support). The goal of his pick then became less about expanding the electorate and more about finding something more Trump-friendly that could further grease the base's wheels to an easy finish.

Vance was the perfect Trump defender because, at least in Team Trump's eyes, he played the parts and got the job done in his own conservative style, but not to a 'Pence Degree' of 'stabbing' his boss in the back. He was different, but not enough to actually matter. Of course, with the race competitive once more and coverage as it is, I am sure there is a lot of hand-wringing in the Trump world about Vance as being 'key' to their failings. That such narratives are false matters little; any of his VPs would fall victim to the same blame.

The Way We Were: Trump and Vance At The Beginning

As for Kamala, I, again, speculate the result of her decision was a factor in the speed at which she had to make it. A longer political playing field, with potential primary opponents, would have made the Democratic playing field significantly thicker in offerings. But both Walz and Harris have worn many political hats, from moderate to liberal, and their partnership makes sense for such a quick turnaround. That they have good personal rapport is another indicator of campaign synchrony.

Speaking of which, I wonder how much Shapiro and Ms. Harris's reported lack of chemistry made the pair untenable. Just as Kamala is reputed to be hard to work with, Shapiro is reportedly just as ambitious and aspiring. His political moves since being passed over, namely backing away from being vociferously pro-school choice, suggest he is rebranding. Perhaps he is trying to become more palatable to the National American Democratic Primary for his own run in 4-8 years. Regardless, Harris's campaign decided the risk of negative backlash was worse than the risk of none at all.

On Second Thought, Who Cares?

Exchange: The Only Thing Mattering Less Than the VPs is Their Debate

That fear of failure rather than success most aptly prescribes these VP picks. Walz and Vance fall victim to two media narratives in entirely different directions, while their actual effect is similar: They are both very average. Any political scientist will tell you a VP pick is always a minimal difference, with only Sarah Palin's VP nomination in 2008 marking any distinguishable effect on a ticket (side note: I find the publicity of Palin's negative effect curious, considering it mattered little to that election's outcome. Mr. Obama, of course, was sure to waltz to a win).

In an environment where politics is defined less by belief in one candidate and more by dislike of the other, it appears that a vanilla choice (in more ways than one) is a safe bet in an increasingly nationalized election where only base turnout is a priority. Tragically, anything akin to compromise is too risky for two campaigns focused on getting the same tired faces out to the pools rather than convincing skeptics or changing hearts and minds.

Would better options change anything? In an election as tight as this one and with such significant egos at the top of the ticket, probably not. But I certainly think more nuanced candidates would have been better for the country and overall engagement, not to mention logistically, considering Trump's age and Kamala's anointment post-Biden. On the bright side, it will make open primary conventions down the road exciting since both of these men appear to be very presidential and palatable in their own right. Then again, that is what everyone, and indeed, to his chagrin, Joe Biden, thought about Kamala Harris…