My take on Harris' VP pick:
VP doesn't usually make that much difference in an election. It might help in a swing state that is a really close must-win. It might help if there was a perception that Harris didn't have policy creds (not the case). It will definitely matter if there is a real possibility the Presidential nominee might die in office (also not a concern).
Harris should pick the person who can be her successor in 2032.
@mattlehrer @Riedl it's rare that the VP pick actually wins the follow up election
@jmsdnns @mattlehrer True, but complicated.
1948: Truman (FDR's VP) won
1952: Barkley (Truman's VP) didn't get nomination (too old & withdrew)
1960: Nixon (Eisenhower's VP) lost
1964: LBJ (Kennedy's VP) won (was president)
1968: Humphrey (LBJ's VP) lost
1974: Ford (Nixon's VP) lost (was president)
1988: Bush (Reagan's VP) won
2000: Gore (Clinton's VP) lost (SC intervention)
2008: Cheney (GWB's VP) didn't run
2016: Biden (Obama's VP) didn't run
2020: Biden (Obama's VP) won
@jmsdnns @mattlehrer Prior to that:
1904: Roosevelt (McKinley's VP) won
1908: Fairbanks (Roosevelt's VP) didn't get nomination
1912: Sherman (Taft's VP) nominated but died before election
1916: Fairbanks (Roosevelt's VP) lost
1920 Marshall (Wilson's VP) didn't get nomination
1924: Coolidge (Harding's VP) won
1928: Dawes (Coolidge's VP) didn't get nomination
(not worth going before 1900 because things were kind of crazy during Reconstruction)
@Riedl @jmsdnns @mattlehrer Is It really a matter of statistics/precedents? I'm not convinced at all.
@mapto @Riedl @mattlehrer of course not. but history is still informative.