On JD Vance and Tim Walz: how likely are VP nominees to become president?

We learned this morning that vice president and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has selected Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her vice-presidential candidate. Trump has selected Ohio senator JD Vance as his running mate.

Of course, former FDR vice president John Nance “Cactus Jack” Garner once described the vice-presidency as “not worth a bucket of warm spit.” (Apparently he didn’t actually say “spit,” but that’s the usual quote.) So, should we give a damn who the VPs are?

On a constitutional basis, vice presidents reside over and break ties in the Senate, but their actions tend to depend on their party, not their personal qualities. They preside over counting the electoral votes, a position in which their personal integrity matters, as we learned in 2021. And of course, they sit around waiting in case the president dies, (Nance described himself as FDR’s “spare tire”), a real possibility when candidates are old and occasionally getting shot at.

And some vice presidents (like George W. Bush’s Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton’s Al Gore) are potent forces in policy, but that’s dependent on the president’s attitude.

The big question is, how likely are they to eventually become president?

What became of 16 VPs since 1946?

Let’s look at recent history, specifically the 16 vice presidents who have served since FDR’s last term. What became of each? Did they go on to become their party’s nominee, become president, or just fade away?

  • Harry S. Truman (D). Became president for three years after FDR’s death, won one election, served one additional term.
  • Alben Barkley (D). Sought and lost Democratic nomination to Adlai Stevenson.
  • Richard Nixon (R). Nominated to succeed president Eisenhower, lost to JFK. Ran again eight years later, was elected twice.
  • Lyndon B. Johnson (D). Became president for one year after JFK’s assassination, won one election, elected not to run for reelection.
  • Hubert Humphrey (D). Nominated to succeed Johnson, lost to Nixon.
  • Spiro Agnew (R). Resigned after pleading guilty to tax evasion.
  • Gerald Ford (R). Became president for two years after Nixon’s resignation, nominated for reelection, lost to Jimmy Carter.
  • Nelson Rockefeller (R). Never sought party’s nomination after being vice president.
  • Walter Mondale (D). Nominated to succeed Carter, lost to Ronald Reagan.
  • George H.W. Bush (R). Nominated to succeed Reagan, won one term, lost reelection to Bill Clinton.
  • Dan Quayle (R). Sought and lost Republican nomination to George W. Bush.
  • Al Gore (D). Nominated to succeed Clinton, lost to George W. Bush.
  • Dick Cheney (R). Never sought party’s nomination after being vice president.
  • Joe Biden (D). Four years after leaving office, nominated and won presidency.
  • Mike Pence (R). Sought and lost party’s nomination to Donald Trump.
  • Kamala Harris (D). Will be nominated and run against Donald Trump.

So here’s the scorecard.

  • Succeeded to presidency and reelected (2): Truman, Johnson.
  • Succeeded to presidency, renominated, not reelected (1): Ford
  • Elected president (3): Nixon, GHW Bush, Biden.
  • Nominated for president, not elected (4): Humphrey, Mondale, Gore, Nixon (first attempt).
  • Failed to get nominated (6): Barkley, Agnew, Rockefeller, Quayle, Cheney, Pence.
  • Nominated, may get elected (1): Harris

So if you are the nation’s vice president, based on history since Truman (rounded to nearest percent):

  • Total chances of becoming president: 6/15 (40%). Includes 2/15 succeeded to the presidency and reelected, 1/15 succeeded to presidency and not reelected, and 3/15 nominated and elected. This will rise to 7/16 (44%) if Harris wins this year’s election.
  • Total chance of being your party’s nominee in a presidential election: 10/16 (63%). If nominated, former vice presidents have a 5/11 chance of winning (45%) (because Nixon lost once and won once). If Harris wins, the chance of a former VP who becomes the nominee winning will increase to 6/12 (50%). Among former VPs who sought the nomination, 10/13 received it (77%) and 3/13 failed (23%).
  • Total chance of never being nominated: 6/16 (38%). This includes 3/16 who never sought the nomination and 3/16 who sought it and failed.

Also notable: Since 1946, there has never been a vice-presidential candidate on a major-party ticket who later became nominated as a major party’s presidential candidate after failing to win as a VP candidate. This list includes 15 people: Tim Kaine, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Jack Kemp, Lloyd Bentsen, Geraldine Ferraro, Sargent Shriver, Ed Muskie, William E. Miller, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr, Estes Kefauver, John Sparkman, and Earl Warren. Such candidates including Edwards and Muskie have run, but have never succeeded in getting the nomination.

What does this mean for Walz and Vance?

Based on this history, if their respective running mates are not elected, Walz and Vance are unlikely to become president. (Even so, in my opinion, despite recent history, if Trump loses, Vance has a decent chance to be nominated by the Republicans in 2028).

If Harris is elected, based on history, Walz will have a 7/16 (44%) chance of becoming president. If Trump is elected, based on history, Vance will have a 6/15 (40%) chance of being elected.

This is why these nominees are important for the nation’s future. Until then, they’re just competing for a bucket of something warm and undesirable.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2 Comments

  1. What is the delta?

    If one is offered the VP slot, when ought one take it? Or decline? Assuming one wants to be President someday.

    The simple analysis above says that one needs the Presidential candidate to win. Of course, ego and reality might trick or convince one that, of course, we will win with me on the ticket. So, I need to believe these: I improve the chances of us winning or the Presidential candidate is likely to win, period. I cannot readily remember a VP making a difference in voting, so the latter is the real key to the decision.

    I would guess if we were to look to the field of potential Presidential candidates, the benefits of being VP greatly outweigh not being VP.

    I found the decisions of the two Presidents in my lifetime who decided not to run for reelection odd in that it would likely would have greatly benefited their VPs if they had resigned. I think that is what I would do to ensure a legacy. I think it says a lot negatively about the Presidents and the VPs.

  2. Any thoughts on the Gardner quote?
    The current thought is he likely did not say it or the other versions (quart, piss, and the like). Ought we rid ourselves of it?