Is the GOP Vice Presidential nominee Trump’s Trump card?

Choosing a running mate is like driving a car. When done well, there is seldom praise, since we expect competence in each case. When done poorly, however, criticisms abound. Selecting a potential vice president is partly about avoiding failure, but the best candidate is constructive to an end. That is what Trump seeks, and there are several routes available to him.

Last week’s article concluded with how the Electoral College can smooth over gaps in Trump’s performance with certain populations. With his vice presidential selection, Trump can also actively target certain places and people in ways that will maximize his potential for success in conjunction with the federalist nature of presidential elections. A smart choice, then, would be someone who appeals to either a region or a demographic.

If there is one state whose voters are most akin to gatekeepers for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it is Ohio. Every candidate since 1964 who has won Ohio has become Commander in Chief. Governor John Kasich could put the Buckeye state deep in Trump’s pocket as he won its primary contest there and enjoys high approval ratings well after a successful 2014 gubernatorial re-election bid in which he won 86 of 88 counties. In the beginning of last year’s campaign cycle, Molly Ball of The Atlantic wrote:

If only there were a candidate who could appeal to blue-collar voters but also mingle with the GOP establishment. A governor who’d proven he could run a large state but who also had national experience. Someone who’d won tough elections and maintained bipartisan popularity in an important swing state. A candidate whose folksy demeanor and humble roots would contrast nicely with Hillary Clinton’s impersonal, stiffly scripted juggernaut.

Kasich’s status as a compassionate conservative could also balance out what some see as a callous Trump. Although Kasich has swerved away from the possibility of joining Trump on the ticket, the GOP knows he would be a great choice—and there are still two months until the convention to work out a deal.

Trump could go another route by recruiting someone who holds the key to a demographic group. Susana Martinez, Republican Governor of New Mexico, could boost Trump’s support among Hispanics (and by extension his chances in Florida). A pitfall here is that such a choice could be seen as outright pandering. But still, when people see names and faces similar to their own, they will be more likely to vote for them. Also, will Clinton’s blunt admission of such tactics in this awkward interview detract enough African American support to be significant? Probably not. Pandering is obnoxious, but it works.

Trump is by no means limited to just a regional or demographic candidate. Another viable option would be someone who has a unique, recognizable characteristic or personal style. Chris Christie’s “Tell It Like It Is” mantra mimicked Trump’s bold, anti-political style in that he too conveyed a message of anti-duplicity that has resonated with many this election cycle. Remembering his impressive assault on Marco Rubio’s rehearsed phrases and Washington-crafted debate style, one would think that he could step up to the plate once more against Clinton, the ultimate politician.

Whoever fills the role, whether he or she fits one or several of the above classifications, Trump’s ally must be an effective political tool in more ways than one. Ideally, Trump would choose someone akin to Lyndon Johnson, whose selection by Kennedy in 1960 ranks among the best vice presidential decisions. First, Kennedy knew Johnson, a Texan, held the key to some Southern states in 1960, a time when a Southern Democratic split was taking shape as social conservatives began to doubt the Democratic Party’s motives in the arena of civil rights. Johnson’s image also counterbalanced that of Kennedy; a southern drawl and a Boston accent on the same ticket, although clichéd perhaps, did diversify its appeal. Johnson’s political skills, furthermore, were unrivaled after 24 years in Congress, six of which he spent as Senate Majority Leader and two as Senate Majority Whip.

If political experience was the dominant criteria, then Newt Gingrich would top Trump’s list—and as it stands now, he does. As Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999, Gingrich led a revitalized conservative movement through his Contract with America and negotiated with Bill Clinton many pieces of legislation. Like Trump, Gingrich is a master at media exploitation and dominating the narrative, and so attacks against the Clinton campaign would accelerate. An experienced, establishment figure, Gingrich would also reassure some mainstream Republicans hesitant to back the outsider Trump that they should indeed maintain party loyalty. Gingrich’s presence on the campaign trail could even impart a sense of nostalgia for better times (the 1990s) among certain parts of the electorate—playing the “Make America Great Again” card from another angle. Gingrich and Trump may indeed be “kindred spirits in more ways than one,” and a Trump-Gingrich Republican ticket should not stun anyone.

However, Gingrich would not boost support in a crucial battleground state (like Kasich could in Ohio) since his home state is Georgia and it is solidly red. Suppose future polls show a closer race than expected; it would still be difficult to measure how much extra support (if any) he could draw from there, having left public office over sixteen years ago. Gingrich is also an older white male, which might reinforce the stereotype of the Republican Party.

But these drawbacks are the nature of the vice presidential choice: find someone who checks off a decent amount of boxes, know that not all of them can be checked off, and have a damn good reason for picking someone who has fewer check marks than another.

Choose who he may, we can only guess the degree to which a John Kasich, Chris Christie, or Newt Gingrich will help Trump’s chances in November. To many voters, his running mate simply will not matter, and likewise with Clinton’s choice. Interestingly, Trump falls victim to circumstance in that the Republican Convention ends four days before the Democratic Convention begins. This allows the Clinton team to deliberate (if need be), having seen the GOP ticket, and to counter with their own pick who could nullify the intended effect of Trump’s choice.

Nevertheless, it remains within Trump’s control to avoid the worst case scenario: an “awkward distraction” like Sarah Palin was to John McCain in 2008, or what happened after George McGovern hastily chose Thomas Eagleton in 1972. When Eagleton’s damaging medical history surfaced, it caused alarm (the “Eagleton Affair”) in the McGovern camp, who then purged him from the ticket after 18 days and replaced him with Sargent Shriver.

Both Trump and Clinton must make an unavoidable gamble by adding someone who could do more harm than good. Despite how suitable a running mate can look on paper, it only takes one mistake on the campaign trail to create irreversible damage.