Unknown to voters

The nobodies on the Trump and Clinton short lists

Most of the VP candidates under consideration are relatively unknown to voters.

By Steven Shepard

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are each hoping to get a bump from their vice presidential nominees, but polling data shows that most of the candidates on their short-lists are unknown to voters — even the ones who cut high profiles inside the Beltway.

Almost half of voters, on average, haven’t yet formed an opinion of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is viewed as a progressive beacon by Washington pundits. At least two-thirds don’t know anything about Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who is thought to lead Clinton’s short list.

It’s the same problem with Trump: Despite the reality-TV star’s reported desire for a running mate with star power, most of his VP prospects are state-level politicians who lack significant national profiles. And those who have established name-identification among voters — like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — would carry substantial baggage.

That means that national polling is limited for many of the top contenders — though some, like Kaine and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who sounded a lukewarm note about joining the ticket in an interview with POLITICO Wednesday — have more name-ID in key battleground states.

Monmouth University — the New Jersey school with an expanding public polling operation — asked voters last month whether a dozen different possible running mates would make them more or less likely to support each party’s ticket.

Most of the candidates didn’t move the needle — even those who are well-known in Washington.

“That’s usually what really happens,” said Monmouth pollster Patrick Murray. Voters, Murray said, don’t make the same calculus that strategists do when considering possible running mates.

“While pundits will belabor regional balance and ideological balance and personality and all of these things, voters don’t really look at that,” he said. “They look at: Did you make a solid choice?”

Here’s a look at where the most oft-mentioned candidates stand, according to public opinion:

Republicans

Newt Gingrich: Gingrich is probably the best-known candidate in Trump’s stable of possible running mates. But the former Georgia congressman’s image ratings have been historically poor since the Republicans took over the House in the 1994 elections and installed Gingrich as speaker.

Gingrich reached the peak of his unpopularity in the waning days of his doomed campaign four years ago. His favorable rating was just 25 percent in a CNN/ORC poll in mid-February 2012, with a whopping 63 percent viewing him unfavorably. (Gallup and CBS News/New York Times found similar splits.)

There’s some limited evidence the antipathy toward Gingrich is less intense now. The Monmouth poll found slightly more voters (26 percent) say they would be less likely to vote for Trump if he picked Gingrich than would be more likely to vote for him (24 percent). The other half of voters said Gingrich’s selection wouldn’t make an impact or didn’t know. (Among voters undecided between Trump and Clinton, it’s 19 percent more likely/29 percent less likely.)

Meanwhile, the online pollster YouGov quizzed voters about a number of candidates in a survey sponsored by The Economist and conducted over the Independence Day weekend. Surveys conducted over holiday weekends can miss voters who travel or are busy, but the results also showed a slight moderation in views toward Gingrich — though significantly more voters still view him unfavorably (48 percent) than favorably (32 percent).

Chris Christie: The New Jersey governor is the only other possible Trump pick with a substantial national presence, but it’s mostly a negative one.

The aggregation website HuffPost Pollster pegged Christie’s average favorable rating at only 30 percent, compared to an unfavorable rating of 48 percent; the polls that comprise those averages were conducted before Christie ended his presidential campaign in February. Recent surveys from CNN/ORC (32 percent favorable/44 percent unfavorable) and YouGov (34 percent favorable/48 percent unfavorable) were similar.

As for Christie’s effect on the ticket, the Monmouth poll showed a distinct negative tilt: 20 percent would be more likely to vote for Trump if he reached across the Hudson River to tap Christie, while 28 percent would be less likely to vote for him. It’s even more lopsided among undecided voters: 15 percent would be more likely to vote for a Trump/Christie ticket, and 36 percent would be less likely.

The others: Jeff Sessions has served in the Senate for nearly 20 years, but few Americans outside of his home state of Alabama know who he is. In the Monmouth poll, only 9 percent said picking the fourth-term senator would make them more likely to vote for Trump, and just 17 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for Trump. Nearly three-quarters said it wouldn’t have an impact or didn’t know. (It was similar in the YouGov poll, with more than six-in-10 online respondents unable to express an opinion about Sessions.)

Ernst all but removed herself from consideration Wednesday, but last month’s Monmouth poll shows she would be more or less a blank slate: Roughly eight-in-10 voters say picking the freshman senator wouldn’t have an impact on whether they would vote for Trump, or didn’t know enough to say.

Even in her home state of Iowa — where both Trump and Clinton will be fighting over the state’s six electoral votes — Ernst has a limited profile. She had a positive approval rating in a Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll in late February — 43 percent approve, 31 percent disapprove — but a quarter of Iowans couldn’t express an opinion about her job performance.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence met with Trump this past weekend, reportedly to discuss the job. But despite 10 years in Congress, the first-term governor hasn’t been tested in a national poll. Neither the Monmouth poll nor the YouGov survey included Pence as a potential running mate.

Pence’s home state isn’t a traditional battleground state, though President Barack Obama carried it narrowly in 2008. Still, polls indicate Pence faces a difficult reelection campaign if he isn’t Trump’s running mate, and he’s unlikely to boost Trump in the state if he’s on the ticket. A survey in April showed Pence with just a four-point lead over his Democratic opponent, and the Republican’s favorable rating (44 percent) was only marginally better than the percentage who viewed him unfavorably (41 percent).

Democrats

Tim Kaine: This is Kaine’s second time on a Democratic presidential nominee’s short list: In 2008, when Kaine was serving his only term as Virginia governor, he was considered by Barack Obama.

But despite that past exposure, Kaine has virtually no national profile. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they didn’t have an opinion of him in the YouGov poll, and a combined 78 percent of voters said he’d have no impact on whether they’d vote for Clinton or didn’t know.

Virginia is a key battleground state, and Kaine’s ratings there are positive, if lackluster. An automated-telephone survey from Public Policy Polling, a Democratic outfit, found Kaine’s approval rating at 42 percent, with 35 percent disapproving of Kaine. Only 32 percent of Virginians surveyed in a January Roanoke College poll had a favorable impression of Kaine, and just 26 percent viewed him unfavorably.

That’s lower than other, previous polls have showed for Kaine: His approval rating was 52 percent in a July 2015 Quinnipiac University poll, compared to only 30 percent who disapproved.

Elizabeth Warren: Inside Washington, Warren has been a star of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party — and a conservative bête noire — since she was elected to the Senate in 2012. She's been a frequent Trump target, with the presumptive Republican nominee derisively referring to her as "Pocahontas" on the stump and on social media.

But despite that attention, voters’ opinions of her are not well-formed.

A CNN/ORC poll last month showed roughly equal percentages of voters had favorable (31 percent) and unfavorable (29 percent) opinions of Warren. But, more significantly, 27 percent of voters said they had never heard of the Massachusetts senator, and another 13 percent had no opinion of her.

The YouGov survey found slightly higher name-ID for Warren — that's partially to be expected, since research shows participants in online-panel surveys tend to be more politically engaged than average citizens. But there's still a split in her favorability: 37 percent favorable/35 percent unfavorable/28 percent don’t know.

Like Kaine, the Monmouth poll suggests Warren would be a wash on the ticket: 24 percent said they would be more likely to vote for Clinton, compared to 21 percent who would be less likely. A 51-percent majority said picking Warren would have no impact, and another 5 percent were undecided.

Cory Booker: Booker has only been in the Senate for three years, but he has an established political persona and nearly two million Twitter followers. That persona, however, is little-known outside Washington and his home state of New Jersey.

Only 13 percent of voters in the Monmouth poll said picking Booker would make them more likely to vote for Clinton — the same percentage who said it would make them less likely. The vast majority of voters said it either would have no impact (64 percent) or they didn’t know (10 percent).

In the YouGov survey, a 55-percent majority had no opinion of the former Newark mayor.

The others: Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro didn’t register on either the YouGov (61 percent don’t know) or the Monmouth (74 percent no impact or don’t know) surveys. Same for Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), about whom fully two-thirds of YouGov respondents declined to express an opinion — more than any potential other VP hopeful in that survey.

Neither poll tested Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) or Labor Secretary Tom Perez, but they would likely be equally anonymous.

The only potential Democrat who moved the needle significantly in the Monmouth survey was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is unlikely to be selected by Clinton. But 39 percent of voters said last month that picking her rival for the nomination would make them more likely to vote for Clinton, compared to only 20 percent who said it would make them less likely to vote for her and 39 percent who said it wouldn’t have an impact.

Picking a candidate without an established profile isn’t risky in and of itself. Research shows few voters make their presidential choice based on who is sharing the ticket, and choosing a running mate from a battleground state doesn’t always help in that state.

But if a candidate with little experience struggles when introduced on the national stage — as then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin did in the closing month of the 2008 campaign — it can dog the ticket.

“She initially made a positive impact because of how surprising the pick was. But it was ultimately a negative impact,” said Murray. Polls showed Palin's favorable ratings skyrocketing after she was introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), but receding to a slightly net-negative position by Election Day.

“Voters look at this as the first decision this candidate makes as president," Murray added. "What does this say about their decision-making ability?”