Think of an American president being inaugurated. What image comes to mind?
Almost certianly this one, eh?
This
picture embodies what is perhaps the essential difference between the
qualifications for the presidency and the qualifications for the vice
presidency. In a perfect world, we would all like a president who is
Ready on Day One (TM); it is not uncommon for a newly-elected president
to face a major crisis almost immediately upon taking office. But more
commonly, a president takes the Oath of Office under relatively calm
waters, allowing them something of a learning curve.
On the other hand, when a vice president takes over for a president, the nation is necessarily undergoing a crisis,
because the death (or resignation) of a president is perhaps as
traumatic an event as can reasonably be imagined (in the "best" case
resulting from a slowly-developing illness, and the worst, an attack by
terrorists or foreign adversaries).
From Lincoln though Clinton,
Americans have frequently been willing to gamble on a relatively
inexperienced President, exchanging some assurances of near-term
readiness for longer-term upside (what might be described as "vision").
But the optimal skill set for a vice
president is somewhat different. "Vision" hardly matters; a vice
president taking over for a president will not get to name his own
cabinet, and will initially at least be left to execute upon somebody
else's agenda. Instead, the readiness component is rendered more
important.
I suspect most Americans grasp this on a gut level, even if they aren't quite able to articulate it. Which is why, to my
gut instinct, I think Americans can feel sympathy for Sarah Palin, can
believe she's the sort of person they'd want to have a beer with -- and
still find her a detriment to McCain's case for the White House.
--Nate Silver