Why doesn't the winner of the primary ever ask the loser to become their vice-president?

Usually they are looking for someone that will add new supporters to their campaign. A governor that will bring in a critical state or something like that. Opponents in the primaries tend to have opposing views on some of the issues and it’s hard to convince the electorate that their fully on board with your agenda. Still they are viable choices.

In 2004, John Kerry chose John Edwards.

Romney in 2012 pick Ryan as his VP and Ryan was not a candidate. Tonights Republican debate is for all the marbles and I expect we will see how they condcuct themselves as to whether or not Trump’s VP pick is on that stage. If either Cruz or Rubio has on their kid gloves and lays off attacking Trump then it is almost a given there is a deal for VP at hand.

Rubio to me is the obvious pick he is likeable, has the Washington experience Trumps lacks and also would play well with the Hispanics Trump could use a lot of help with there.

Cruz on the other hand could be strong with the Evangelicals but Trump proved in NC he does not really need Cruz’s help there and Cruz has really been coming across as a nasty ninny and I don’t think he and Trump could play well together in the White House.

It does happen. Reagan chose the first George Bush after the hotly contested “voodoo economocs” campaign.

Because who wants a loser on the payroll?

It does sometimes happen.

As I recall from American history classes ever so many years ago, this is exactly how it worked in the early days of the Republic: the top two vote-getters became president and VP. It was quickly seen that putting political rivals together on the executive team was bad psychology. Who wants to play second fiddle to the guy who just beat him for the top spot? What makes a person want to run for president does not necessarily best qualify the person to be a vice president.

Besides, the presidential nominee will want to choose a running mate who brings certain strengths to the ticket. Those might not be the traits they’ve just been pounding on in the person they’ve climbed over to reach the top of their party.

No two people could have been more dissimilar than JFK and LBJ and yet Kennedy did the smart thing in choosing Johnson to bring in much needed votes in the South where his Boston Brahman background didn’t play so well.

Also Johnson was the ultimate wheeler-dealer politician who really knew the ins and out of Washington style politics.

So, yes, sometimes choosing someone with different background and strengths can be critically helpful.

Because they said so many bad things about each other during the campaign. To now put him on the ticket is asking for those cries of hypocrisy.