Some Vice Presidential History, For No Good Reason
Both candidates for U.S. president have now picked their running mates. I won’t comment on the veep nominees except to say Barack Obama and John McCain clearly made their choices only to exploit Joe Biden’s and Sarah Palin’s popularity in their respective home states to rake in the electoral mother lode that Delaware and Alaska represent (both states bring in a whopping three electoral votes).
The Palin and Biden selections, however, should make us think about the vice presidency for a bit. Remember a year ago, as the possible candidates for president started lining up, many people talked about how this was going to be an especially unique election because it was the first time since 1968 that neither an incumbent president nor an incumbent vice president would be one of the major parties’ nominees? The field was wide open in ways we haven’t seen in decades, the pundits said. Some questioned George W. Bush in 2004 for sticking with Dick Cheney—who has always said he had no intention of running for president—and not grooming a successor. It is an interesting point since lots of vice presidents have succeeded their bosses, but when we look at recent history, it is actually rare that a sitting vice president takes over the executive branch via the electoral process. In fact, it happened only once since 1900.
Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, and George H. W. Bush were all vice presidents who later became president. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and Johnson all started their first terms as president when their predecessors died while in office—oddly enough, they also all won reelection after finishing out the previous term. Roosevelt took over William McKinley’s term after McKinley succumbed to complications from the gunshot he received in an assassination attempt. Coolidge became president when Warren G. Harding died from either a heart attack or a stroke. Harry Truman succeeded Franklin Delano Roosevelt when Roosevelt passed away due to a cerebral hemorrhage. Lyndon Johnson became president after John F. Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas.
Nixon was Dwight D. Eisenhower’s vice president and later won the election to become president, but it was not as Eisenhower’s successor. He actually failed in his attempt to follow Eisenhower by losing to Kennedy in 1960 and did not win a presidential election until 1968. Since 1900, vice presidents who actually ran after their tenure as second in command—the number is actually pretty low—it was more often the case that they lost.
Ford succeeded Nixon after Nixon resigned, but unlike the presidents who began their first term by inheriting the office after the predecessor’s death, Ford did not win reelection.
That means since 1900 only one vice president has actually succeeded their outgoing boss by election. In 1988 George H. W. Bush won the election for president as Ronald Reagan’s sitting vice president.
How much weight then, do presidential nominees and their parties give to trying to create a line of succession when they choose the running mates? It seems that hoping to create legacy via lineage would not play as much of a factor as the other factors do—shoring up weaknesses, trying to gain an electoral advantage in a state or region, etc.


I think because Bush followed Reagen the conventional wisdom of our political generation is that you win at least 12 if not 18 years in an election. I think you have demonstrated that it is incorrect. I am just saying that I think this all can be traced back to Bush Sr’s first term. I heard someone on Hardball operating on this common wisdom just today.
Comment by Bill — August 29, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
In terms of the presidency, I think you’re right, but in terms of the parties themselves I think a case can be made that the veep picks acquire a significant amount of influence within their party, even winning nominations they probably wouldn’t have won otherwise. Would Gore have been the 2000 nominee if not for Clinton having selected him as veep in 1992? If Ford hadn’t selected Dole as his running mate in ‘76, would Dole have won the nomination in ‘96? Counterfactuals like this are interesting to ponder, at least to me (although I don’t believe there is even a possible world in which a candidate other than Reagan wins in 1984). But the point is, even nominees for veep that lose can still have an impact on the parties.
Comment by Timbo — August 29, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
A commentator this morning on meet the press said that one in three vice presidents becomes president, if you go back to the beginning.
Comment by Bill — August 31, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Tim, that is an interesting point. I think it will depend on how well she does. If she is a Quaile, what is Quaile doing these days? He didn’t help his position in the party and he actually was the VP. If she makes no waves at all like Gore, that would position her well. She seems very, very sharp on her feet. I echo what I said before, though, McCain could be cutting this up and coming leader off at the knees. He could be throwing her out onto the front lines before she gets any weapons training. One hard ball question from a reporter about a daily event in the middle east and she could be known for the rest of her career as an embarrassment to her party that should never have been so ambitious as to try to vault to the national stage so suddenly. She is taking a substantial gamble here as well. She has talent, and she could really capitalize on that. On the other hand, every day she risks crushing her national career.
Comment by Bill — August 31, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
The affect of the VP on their party is an angle I didn’t consider when writing the post. I had forgotten Dole was Ford’s running mate, but I assumed his popularity in 1996, or even 1988, was due to his position as the Senate minority leader. Of course, his place on the Ford ticket might have helped him move up the ranks in the Senate.
I agree that Gore wouldn’t have been the nominee in 2000 without being a VP first. The same could probably be said of the first Bush. It seems to show that the VP gives a politician great visibility even if the amount of their influence is up for grabs.
One wonders what would have happened to Quayle had he not been VP. By all accounts he was an intelligent and rising star in the GOP prior to 1988 and it seems like he could have benefited from some more time in the Senate. The GOP has certainly moved away from Quayle as a candidate—though he seems to still have influence in think tanks. Similarly, we didn’t see much of Jack Kemp after 1996, but then again, he didn’t have an elected position to return to after the campaign.
Comment by Tyler Watson — September 2, 2008 @ 8:05 am