Hey there, and happy Tuesday! A shorter post today, but one that I hope elucidates some of the factors being considered by the Harris campaign as they look at potential running-mates. Enjoy!

With Kamala Harris now being the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, there’s a lot of discussion online and in the media on who her running mate will be.

These discussions are usually little more than moderately educated guesses, so why don’t we do the same amongst ourselves?

The Candidate Calculus

There are a lot of different ways to assess a candidate’s benefit (or cost) to a campaign. But based on the existing cycle and circumstances, I’ve come to the opinion that the following are the most important attributes of a running-mate, in order:

Complementary Vibes

This is a very short election for Harris, so many voters are going to have a very limited view of who she is as a person. While she has been the Vice President for four years, running for President brings a new level of exposure to the average voter.

Because of this short window, it’s going to be hard for many voters to see her as more than a California progressive.

Because of this, she’d benefit greatly from a running-mate with a complementary image. For Harris, a progressive woman of color from a white-collar background, this means a moderate white dude who can more easily appeal to blue-collar voters.

Messaging Effectiveness

But complementary vibes don’t help much if the VP nominee is a bad messenger. They need to be able to clearly articulate the Harris campaign’s message to new voters that she can’t reach on her own.

While the role of the VP candidate historically has been to not make a fool of themselves and discredit the ticket, this nominee will be far more important in reaching out to voters who can’t stomach Trump but remain hesitant about a progressive like Kamala Harris.

Geography

In the simplest terms, this goes along with complementary vibes. Harris can easily be cast as a “coastal elite” from California, so her running-mate needs to help counter this perception.

But beyond that, there’s some electoral math at play. If the running-mate is a popular Governor or Senator from a swing state (like Shapiro, Kelly, or Whitmer), there’s a chance that this provides some uplift in a critical state.

If you’re on the fence and your Governor who you like is now the VP nominee, it’s that much easier to support the ticket.

Fundraising Ability

Campaigns cost money. And while Harris has raised an eye-watering $200 million since announcing, she’s going to need a lot more to beat Trump.

While the above rankings are more subjective, I went with some pretty objective metrics on this one, like amount of money raised in each would-be candidate’s last election.

The only exceptions to this general rule are:

• J.B. Pritzker, a billionaire who has historically lent his own campaigns millions of dollars and likely would as the VP nominee, and

• Pete Buttigieg, who last ran for President and likely has a lot of crossover donors, likely limiting his impact on fundraising overall

Strength of Experience

Back to subjective metrics for a short moment.

Any national campaign is going to include attack ad after attack ad. One of a running-mate’s best qualities is the lack of ammunition they give to the opposition. Because of this, we’ll want to factor in their overall track record as a government official.

Have they gotten things done? What? Who did it help? Who did it hurt?

Polled Favorability

And for our final metric, we look at their favorability numbers in the available national polling.

This metric is the least important because for many, the “Never Heard Of” and “Unsure” numbers are very high. There’s a lot of room to move a candidate’s favorability numbers.

It also has much less impact on the final outcome than the above variables, simply because voters generally tend to go to the polls for the President, not the VP.

The Rankings

So, without further ado, here are the rankings:

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro comes out as the favorite here, with a blue-collar, moderate vibe, effective messaging, and critical electoral geography.

A close second is Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, who has a clear track record of raising a ton of money, winning over moderate voters in right-leaning Arizona, and being a generally well-liked guy.

The worst two picks are Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, with both sporting negative favorability numbers, progressive bona fides that don’t clearly complement Harris’ image, and middling-to-weak messaging skills relative to the rest of the pack.

The rest of the potential candidates might not necessarily hurt Harris’ chances, but they fail to improve them in a short election where she currently trails in key states. There’s a lot of work to do, and these candidates don’t help her do it.

For my money?

Shapiro or Kelly need to be the pick for the VP nominee position to benefit Harris when her campaign needs it most.

A Caveat

I’m not a fortune teller. This is my best attempt at neutrally assessing the strengths and weaknesses of would-be running mates, but I’m biased and don’t have all of the information that the Harris campaign does.

My rankings for the Republican Veepstakes are strong evidence that you shouldn’t make any bets based on this analysis:

Compared to all other would-be running-mates, J.D. Vance was the worst pick in my rankings.

Now, I still hold the opinion that the Trump campaign made an awful decision and would have been better off with Youngkin, Scott, Rubio, or Stefanik, but I digress.

My point is that you should view these rankings as predictive as swing-state polls 100 days out from election day: not very.

What do you think?

Do you agree with my rankings? Disagree? Think I’m smoking a number of illicit substances? Let me know in the comments!