Yep, and it’s certainly not a scientifically precise process. They may even get it wrong. But their sole objective had better be determining who adds best to the chances of the ticket winning.
I’m sure most voters evaluate VP choices, to some extent, on how comfortable we’d be with that person in the big seat. Factor that into the decision—but just to the degree that people value it relative to other factors, and not an atom’s worth more.
I would absolutely think so, and I suspect that it’s part of why the decision wasn’t made overnight. If nothing else, Harris, her campaign leadership, and DNC leadership can (and likely have) looked at the mistakes that the GOP has made in recent elections, with unqualified and controversial VP choices (Palin, Vance), and are learning from those.
Also, FWIW, my understanding is that presidential campaigns conduct their own polling, which is often more detailed than the “public” polls shared in the press.
Finally, speaking as a professional market researcher, who has conducted hundreds of focus groups, as well as quantitative surveys, in my career: focus groups are great for uncovering the “why” behind how people think, but they represent a small sample size. Focus groups are not a replacement for actually conducting quantitative research (surveys/polls) among a large sample of your target, to understand what proportion of your target feels X, versus Y.
She may be getting on in years, but E. Jean Carroll has an impressive track record and the wherewithal to contribute generously to the campaign.
Qualified and uninspired is also a pitfall. See Kane 2016.
Boy howdy.
Absolutely.
It falls into the what the choice signals about sort of president the top of the ticket aims to be.
I’m not sure what I believe about how much difference a not toxic level choice makes (although of course any difference in a tipping point state may be the vote that matters). Silver going from calling it 3% for a sitting Senator or Governor in his ‘16 analysis to less than 1% in his current article speaks to me that it is a bit WAG. BUT I think the effect it has on branding who the top of the ticket is and aims to be is very hard to quantify.
Each of the top choices sends different signals. Are they a team of rivals team builder leader? A team of same minded pulling in the same transformational direction? Wanting to heal divides? Effective steady hand?
Maybe we ought to have a poll as to when we think she’ll announce! 
I think I can add that to my Poll thread.
What should the date options be in the poll?
Please reply in this thread: Poll for Harris's VP pick for 2024 election
I’m less convinced by this. The issue in 2016 was Clinton was qualified and uninspired, I’m not convinced an inspiring VP would have helped.
This year you have an inspiring presidential candidate but who may be a little “unconventional” (back and female) for some old white men in the swing states (not the out and out , self confessed racists and misogynists, screw them, they have their guy. The old white guy who’s just a little disconcerted the candidate doesn’t look like he’s used to). Having the most conventional boring white male old guy stand next to her may help that.
It’s probably not a big factor and certainly doesn’t have the cachet it would have had in the 60s and early 70s, but there’s still some public perception that the path to becoming an astronaut is intensely competitive and the ones who make it are “the best of the best”. Just another feather in Kelly’s cap that sure doesn’t hurt. And when you have the best of the best in direct competition with a hillbilly like J D Vance, well …
I believe the proper term for Vance is hillwilliam. I can’t take credit for it.
Moderating:
Please keep the Vance specific stuff in the Vance thread. He is clearly not a Harris VP choice.
Apologies.
But if she really wants to “reach across the aisle…” 
Just got a text from the Harris campaign asking for money. The person doing the asking? Mark Kelly. I wonder if they’re testing out which of the finalists can encourage the most giving.
Next up Walz?
Most people (even if they don’t know the technical electoral difficulties) know having a VP pick from the candidate’s home state is a non-starter. It has nothing to do with Newsom’s popularity or nonpopularity.
Remember, the insider info says that Harris has it down to just three possibilities- Kelly, Shapiro, and Walz.
I’m putting my marker down for this Thursday!
Then a week to the virtual roll call.
And then the convention not long after.
Keeps possession of the news cycles as much as possible.
ETA Cooper has apparently removed his name from consideration.
I say Walz has already done his duty for America. He gave us the “Republicans are Weird,” meme. Go with god. Pick Kelly, seal up the he-man’s club.