(There is a point to this.)

In the past 104 years:

  1. How many tickets were a Senator (POTUS)/Governor (VP) combination?
  2. Name the winning Presidential nominees that had never before held elective office or been out of elective office in the prior three or more years.
  3. Name the losing Presidential nominees that had never before held elective office or been out of elective office in the prior three or more years.
  4. How many wining and losing Republican VP nominees had never before held elective office or been out of elective office in the prior three or more years?
  5. How many wining and losing Democratic VP nominees had never before held elective office or been out of elective office in the prior three or more years?

  6. How many tickets included a sitting US House Rep as the VP and how many won?

Update: The answers and the points

1. How many tickets were a Senator (POTUS)/Governor (VP) combination?

Answer: Two. Harding (Sen OH)/Coolidge (Gov MA) (R) and MCain (Sen AZ)/Palin (Gov AK) (R).

2. Name the winning Presidential candidates that had never before held elective office or been out of elective office in the prior three or more years.

Answer: Hoover (R) (none), DDE (R) (none), Nixon (R) (eight years), Reagan (R) (six years)

3. Name the losing Presidential candidates that had never before held elective office or been out of elective office in the prior three or more years.

Answer: Charles Hughes (R), John Davis (D), Wendell Wilkie (R), Stevenson (D) ’56, Mondale (D), Romney (R)

4. How many wining and losing Republican VPs had never before held elective office or been out of elective office in the prior three or more years.

Answer: Three winners and five losers. Winners: Dawes (R), GHWBush (R), Cheney (R); Losers: Butler (R), Fairbanks (R), Knox (R), Lodge (R), Kemp (R)

This one was a bit of a trick question because the 1912 GOP VP nominee was James Sherman, the sitting VP. He died a few days before the general election and Butler was selected as the substitute.

5. How many wining and losing Democratic VPs had never before held elective office or been out of elective office in the prior two or more years.

Answer: Zero winners and two losers. Cox/FDR, McGovern/Shriver

6. How many tickets included a sitting US Rep as the VP and how many won?

Answer: Four and one winner. FDR/Garner (D), Goldwater/Miller (R), Mondale/Ferraro (D), Romney/Ryan (R)

Note: Garner was the sitting Speaker of the House in 1932.

————-

Observations (for the 1912 – 2012 period):

A Sen/Gov ticket is rare. This is somewhat counterintuitive because we tend to think that Presidential tickets strive for some balance and the VP is expected to bring in a state or region that might otherwise be out of reach for the POTUS nominee. Formally, the VP is president of the US Senate and therefore, would be expected to be engaged on The Hill. Practically, there’s not much in the way of official duties for the VP to perform in the Senate. So, it’s a bit of a mystery why such a ticket doesn’t get more consideration. (But maybe after McCain nobody will want to go that route again for a long, long time.)

Democrats didn’t nominate a single presidential candidate that had never held elective office, and only three that were not in office when nominated. John Davis had been a House Rep 1911-13 and US Solicitor General 1913-18 when he was nominated in 1924. Stevenson IL Gov 1949-53 and out of office for three years when nominated in ’56. Mondale VP ’77-81 and out of office for three years in ’84. Note: all three lost. All winning DEM national tickets were comprised of two individuals that were in elective office during the campaign.

Republicans have been more flexible in who they nominate for president and VP. No experience in elective office and gaps between last office held and the nomination are frequent enough that they aren’t disqualifying for candidates. On the no elective office experience, they’ve won two out of their three attempts and the one loss was against FDR. They’re two for four among those that were out of office when nominated.

To be accurate it must also be noted that those with no prior elective office experience had served in appointed offices. Therefore, someone like Trump would be unique. The wealthy businessman nominee that comes closest to Trump served as Secretary of Commerce in the preceeding eight years. (That should give voters pause.) Hoover chose a Senator for his VP. (If Trump succeeds in getting the nomination would he be similarly conventional?)

In 1960, JFK broke that presidential religious barrier for non-Protestants. Although he wasn’t the first Catholic nominee. Reagan broke the “thou shall not be divorced” barrier. Catholics and divorcees have been nominated since then. None have won. Romney was the first Mormon and he lost as well.

Obama was the first mixed race nominee and by winning, he established two precedents.

How many new precedents can a national ticket set and succeed at getting elected? For the nomination, it would be one for Clinton, a woman. John Davis was out of elective longer than Clinton has been and as long out of an appointed office. Stevenson and Mondale were out of elective office for half as long as Clinton will be. If elected, she would be the first Democrat to do so while out of office. So, if elected that would be three precedents for her.

Julian Castro as her VP would present additional precedents. First Latino. Only nominee with elective office experience limited to the local level and out of elective office for three years.

The winning DEM tickets have been Gov/Gov, Gov/Speaker, P/VP, P/Sen, Sen/Sen, and Gov/Sen. And all of the candidates were in office when they ran on the presidential ticket.

Records are always there to be broken. But until they are, the odds are long.
———–

Or you could risk warping your brain reading NYMag – The Strongest Candidate Is the Strongest Candidate. A survey of IA and NH GOP voters.

Overall, ignorant and confused:

One of the biggest issues for me is gay marriage. I considered switching to the Democratic Party because of that alone. The Republican Party has been on the right side of social issues for the last 200 years, and this is just the one time when they’re on the wrong side. It’s a generational issue. I’m not going to let it define me politically.

Hey dude — the GOP hasn’t even existed for 200 years. And they have been on the wrong side of every social issue for the at least the past fifty odd years.

Ted Cruz is the most conservative guy in the bunch and he’s frankly the smartest guy in the bunch. I was leaning toward Rand Paul until Rand started to give me the impression that he was a little soft. Largely, the reason why I’m a conservative is because I’ve been on public assistance my whole life, and I have always felt ashamed of it. I have two major health conditions — cerebral palsy and an injury to my left hemidiaphragm. The whole idea of welfare and entitlements is to create a permanent underclass. They’ll give you plenty of handouts, but they won’t give you any hand-ups.”

Dude – a Cruz hand-up would be a bus ticket to Canada.

Supporting: Undecided, leaning toward Trump

“I’m more involved in this election. This is my first time voting, because I wasn’t a naturalized citizen before. I just got my citizenship a couple years ago. So now I’m even more excited.”

(She doesn’t appear to be white.)

“I just want to feel safe like I felt like I did with George W. after 9/11.

Dude — you live a thousand miles from NYC, GWB did nothing to prevent 9/11, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and we’ve spent $4 trillion bombing Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and not one of those bombs in any way made you “safer.” Your “feelings” are really fucked up.

Supporting: Paul

“I first learned about Rand Paul in the ‘08 election. One of my friends told me, ‘Hey, this guy is talking about legalizing everything.’ I was like, ‘That’s awesome. I want to check that out.’”

Dude — Rand Paul wasn’t a candidate, or even a politician, in ’08. And his daddy Ron Paul was never about “legalizing everything” or much of anything for that matter.

Okay — that’s as many of the mushy-muddled personal opinions in the article that I can stand to read.

Bottom line — they want a winner that can kick butt:

In DC – “You’re Fired!” Get rid of all those lazy government employees.

In the US – “You’re out of here!” If you don’t have papers. “Refugees? Don’t even think about coming here.”

In the world – “You’re dead!” If you mess with the US in any way and violate any rules we make up.