Unconventional #32: Will Trump and Joni Ernst ‘make ’em squeal’? The case for — and against — the Iowa senator as Trump’s running mate

Unconventional is Yahoo News’ complete guide to what could be the craziest presidential conventions in decades. Here’s what you need to know today.

Update: After this column was published, Joni Ernst all but removed herself from Donald Trump’s vice presidential shortlist. “I feel that I have a lot more to do in the United States Senate,” Ernst told Politico. “And Iowa is where my heart is.” Ernst will, however, address the GOP convention: According to CNN, “Trump has chosen [her] for one of the top speaking slots.” Her remarks will focus on national security.

1. The Trump Veepwatch, Vol. 7: Joni Ernst

In which Unconventional examines the presumptive Republican nominee’s possible — and not-so-possible — vice presidential picks. Previous Trump installments: Newt Gingrich, Jan Brewer, Bob Corker, Mark Cuban, Rick Scott and Chris Christie.

Name: Joni Kay Ernst

Age: 46

Résumé: First-term U.S. senator from Iowa, former Iowa state senator, former Montgomery County auditor, retired Iowa National Guard lieutenant colonel, Iraq War veteran

Source of speculation: How Donald Trump spent his Independence Day.

Amid reports that the presumptive Republican nominee has changed his mind about waiting until the GOP convention in Cleveland to unveil his running mate — he now plans to select a sidekick next week, according to an adviser — Trump summoned Ernst to meet with him Monday at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J.

They were not there to play golf.

Instead, as “one person briefed on the process” told the New York Times, the campaign has begun to consider Ernst in recent days as a possible vice presidential pick. Both Paul Manafort, Trump’s chief strategist and veepstakes ringleader, and Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman, attended the get-together as well.

The goal, it seems, was to convince Ernst to submit to a formal vetting. As a senior Trump adviser told CNN, “others” have said, “Thanks, let’s play ball” — but not Ernst, who had yet to express any definitive interest in the job.

So, did Trump’s powers of persuasion work? The mogul, at least, seemed pleased with how the meeting went — even going so far as to suggest that he and Ernst would be reuniting soon.

“It was great spending time with @joniernst yesterday,” Trump tweeted Tuesday. “She has done a fantastic job for the people of Iowa and U.S. Will see her again!”

Ernst’s response was equally positive — if slightly more reserved.

“I had a good conversation with Donald Trump today and we discussed what I am hearing from Iowans as I travel around the state on my 99-county tour, and the best path forward for our country,” the senator said in a statement. “I will continue to share my insights with Donald about the need to strengthen our economy, keep our nation safe and ensure America is always a strong, stabilizing force around the globe.”

Backstory: For months, Republicans have been mentioning Ernst — who has only been a senator for a year and a half — as a potential vice president, and both Iowa’s governor and senior senator have touted her for the gig. But until her meeting Monday with Trump, no one knew whether she was really in the running.

Now we do.

Ernst has never been particularly gung-ho about Trump. While the senator officially refused to endorse any of this year’s GOP candidates ahead of the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses, she was widely seen as favoring Marco Rubio. She appeared at one of his events. She described him as “a good friend” who is “very near and dear to [her] heart.” The two youngish Republicans even hired some of the same campaign staffers.

Then, on Iowa caucus day, Ernst questioned Trump’s commitment to conservatism in a breakfast interview with Bloomberg Politics, pointing to his past views on abortion and taxes as cause for suspicion.

“Judging from what he said just a few years ago, I would not have agreed that he was a conservative,” Ernst explained. “There’s no proof out there yet. … We don’t have a record that we can judge him by.”

Ernst remained neutral long after Rubio had left the trail, insisting in March that she would not be “endorsing a candidate prior to the nominating convention.”

Even when Trump effectively clinched the nomination with his May 3 victory in Indiana — both of his remaining rivals, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, subsequently suspended their campaigns — Ernst refused to back his bid explicitly.

“Whoever our nominee is coming out of the convention is who I’m going to support,” she said the following day.

Meanwhile, Ernst has been critical of Trump’s campaign. In December, she called his plan to ban Muslims from entering the country “ludicrous.” In April, she dismissed his remarks about women as “nonsense.” Last month, she pushed back on his Asia policy.

And yet, despite Ernst’s pronounced lack of enthusiasm for the presumptive nominee, Republicans have continued to promote her as a real veep possibility.

“She is a very well-respected person that I think can work with the other people in Congress, but she also has a background of having served in county government, having served in state government,” said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad in May. “She certainly was a team player that we enjoyed working with here in the state of Iowa. So, I think that if you want to put together an ideal profile of somebody who would be a great vice presidential candidate, she would be helpful to Republicans in Iowa as well.”

“What she brings to the ticket is that she is an outstanding messenger and has a lot of knowledge of military policy that Trump doesn’t have,” Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley added. “And she is also the first female combat veteran to serve in the U.S. Senate.”

“Joni Ernst would be tremendous,” concluded Arizona Sen. John McCain. “She is really remarkable.”

As recently as two weeks ago, Trump did not appear to be pondering Ernst for the vice presidency.

“I think he must have his eyes set on somebody else, and that’s OK,” she told reporters at the time. “If that was being considered, somebody, I think, would have reached out to me. Nobody has reached out.”

Since then, Trump seems to have taken notice.

Odds: Not bad.

The rationale for picking Ernst is clear. Of all the Trump short-listers, Ernst provides perhaps the tidiest yin to his yang; in many ways, she completes him.

At 70, Trump would be the oldest newly elected president in U.S. history; Ernst, 46, would be one of the youngest VPs ever. Trump has a long record of misogynistic remarks; his poll numbers among women are crippling. Ernst might be able to temper his chauvinistic image and prevent moderate suburban women from defecting to Hillary Clinton on Election Day.

Trump doesn’t have any military experience or foreign policy expertise; Ernst served in the National Guard and Army Reserve for 23 years, fought in Iraq and currently sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Trump was born rich; as a child, Ernst would slip plastic bread bags over her one good pair of shoes to keep them dry on rainy days.

Trump isn’t particularly religious or even conservative; Ernst is a rock-ribbed Evangelical tea partyer who nonetheless appeals to a broad spectrum of Republicans — both Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney endorsed her in 2014 — and could potentially help unite the GOP this fall. And while Ernst has shown a Trumpian knack for brash outsider politics — “I grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm. So, when I get to Washington, I’ll know how to cut pork,” she said in her famous “Make ’Em Squeal” ad — the senator has also proven to be a disciplined legislator.

Also, Iowa is a swing state.

So, why not add Ernst to the GOP ticket and be done with it? Two reasons. The first has to do with Trump. The tycoon has repeatedly said that he’s searching for a VP who knows Capitol Hill — a partner who could help him pass his legislative agenda. Ernst doesn’t have much of a résumé in that regard. In fact, a Trump-Ernst ticket would have less combined high-level elective experience than any other presidential pairing in U.S. history. And that, in turn, could scare off swing voters — even in an anti-establishment year.

The second reason why Ernst might not wind up as Trump’s running mate has to do with Ernst. She’s a rising Republican star at the beginning of her political career. Her Senate seat is safe until 2020. Regardless of how it might heighten her national profile — and regardless of how difficult it has been, historically, to refuse a VP offer — does she really want to tie her fate to Trump?

Everything Ernst has said and done for the past few months suggests that she would rather not. We’ll find out soon enough whether Trump has convinced her otherwise.

_____

2. Why conventions still matter: A conversation with the only guy who’s written two books on the subject

Finally: someone who is even more obsessed with conventions than we are.

By day, Stan Haynes is a lawyer who handles workers’ compensation cases for the Baltimore firm Semmes, Bowen & Semmes. But his real passion is presidential nominating conventions. In his spare time, Haynes has written two books about the subject: “The First American Political Conventions: Transforming Presidential Nominations, 1832-1872,” which was published in 2012, and “President-Making in the Gilded Age: The Nominating Conventions of 1876-1900,” which was published in 2016. In the New Yorker, Harvard historian Jill Lepore recently described Haynes as “the most exhaustive chronicler of the Conventions” and called his work “invaluable.”

On Tuesday, we caught up with Haynes to talk about why conventions matter — even now, when presidential nominations tend to be decided long before they even begin. Excerpts:

Unconventional: You’re a lawyer by day, correct?
Stan Haynes: I am. This is just a hobby. I’ve always been a presidential history nut.

Always?
I was a nerdy child. [Laughs]

Not every lawyer ends up writing books about presidential nominating conventions. How did you get started?
I read a lot of biographies of presidents. About 10 years ago, I was reading a lot of biographies about 19th-century presidents, and I kept reading in the books that they were nominated at conventions held in Baltimore. I work in Baltimore, so I kind of became curious about where these conventions were held. I wanted to find out more about them. I thought I might write a thing for a local history society or something.

Then I got into it and I realized there were a lot more. There were probably a dozen held in Baltimore in the 19th century, between the 1830s and the Civil War. So I got fascinated by the subject; my interest kind of expanded to all of the conventions.

You’ve written two books so far — both on the 19th century. Are you planning to continue into the 20th century?
Yes. My plan is to have another one come out in the next election year, 2020. It will take us up to 1944.

What’s so interesting about conventions?
They select the leaders of our nation. They have for all of two centuries, since the 1830s. And very important decisions have been made, sometimes by very narrow margins, at conventions — decisions that alter the course of history.

What are some examples of those decisions?
I’ll give you three. They were all decided by less than 20 votes.

One was the Democratic convention of 1844. The issue that turned that convention was the annexation of Texas. Martin Van Buren was a former president who had been out of office for four years and was looking for a comeback. He was against the annexation. The candidate of the Whig Party that year, Henry Clay, was also against the annexation of Texas. Just a couple of weeks before the Democratic convention, Andrew Jackson, another former president, had a secret meeting at his home in Tennessee at which he said the Democratic nominee had to favor the annexation of Texas, and for that reason he opposed Van Buren, who was his own former vice president. He then started a conspiracy to have a dark horse named James Polk win the nomination at the convention.

Polk wasn’t even running. But all these Polk guys cornered the delegates in Washington on their way to Baltimore and planted the seed. They wound up pulling it off; Polk won the nomination. And the reason he did was because of the Rules Committee, which refused to change the Democratic Party’s traditional two-thirds requirement. If a simple majority had been enough to win the nomination, Van Buren would have won on the first ballot. But he gradually lost support, and on the eighth ballot or so, they put Polk’s name forward and he won.

So, the rules do matter.
Yes. [Laughs]

What’s the second example?
The 1860 Democratic convention in Baltimore, on the eve of the Civil War. Stephen Douglas came in as the frontrunner — like Van Buren, with a majority of the delegates, but not two-thirds. The issue then was the slavery in the territories. Douglas was in favor of territories being able to prohibit slavery, through their legislatures, before they became states. The Southerners opposed this. They wanted the platform to reflect their views. The convention began in Charleston and adopted the Northern position. About 50 Southerners walked out, led by Alabama. It took, like, 57 ballots, and although Douglas was the frontrunner, he couldn’t get to two-thirds. So, after a week or so, they suspended the convention for six weeks. Then they came to Baltimore — and it got even nastier.

At that point, all of the Charleston delegates who had walked out wanted their seats back. Meanwhile, all of the Southern states had appointed replacement delegates. It was this big battle that went before the credentials committee. The convention blew up. The committee issued a compromise report — but this time 100 Southern delegates walked out.

Wow.
Twice the number as in Charleston. They went to a nearby meeting hall and set up their own party and their own convention. They called it the National Democratic Party. On the same day, in Baltimore — June 22, 1860 — there were two Democratic conventions that nominated two separate candidates for president. The Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas and the Southern Democrats nominated John Breckinridge, who was the sitting vice president under [James] Buchanan. And, of course, with the party split, Abraham Lincoln won the election easily with a minority of the vote.

And that was fairly consequential.
Yes. [Laughs]

How about the third example?
The third one was the 1880 Republican convention, which nominated another dark horse candidate. The key to that was President [Ulysses S.] Grant was coming back after four years out of office and trying to get a third term. That was very controversial, because George Washington had stepped down after two terms and so had all the two-term presidents who followed — even though there was no constitutional amendment prohibiting a third term at the time. Americans were afraid of a dictator or king taking over. So, the convention turned to [James] Garfield on, like, the 36th ballot.

So, the annexation of Texas was decided by about 20 votes — the votes that approved the two-thirds rule. If 20 delegates had changed their vote on that, Van Buren would have been nominated and Texas would not have been annexed at that time. In 1860, it was the same margin on the credentials committee: in the teens. If 17 or 18 delegates had changed their votes, perhaps the walkout would have been prevented and the Democrats could have settled on a compromise nominee — potentially denying Lincoln the presidency. Same thing in 1880: There were disputes over the seating of the delegates and the way certain states voted. A margin of less than 20 delegates on the Rules Committee would have changed the outcome. If they had changed their votes, you could have had a three-term president. What kind of precedent would that have set? Perhaps a constitutional amendment would have been passed earlier — and perhaps [Franklin D. Roosevelt] wouldn’t have been president during the second world war.

In other words, conventions are important.
Exactly

But are they still important? In the modern era, the nominee is chosen through popular voting in primaries and caucuses. The conventions have a lot less power.
I still think they have relevance. All you need is more than two candidates in the mix to prevent someone from winning a majority on the first ballot, and you’re right back to the 19th century.

Do you see any parallels between past conventions and the way this year’s conventions are shaping up?

The Republican race reminds me of the 1896 Democratic race. Grover Cleveland was in the White House. The big issue was silver or gold currency, and Cleveland supported gold. The establishment of the Democratic Party was really rejected that year, much like the Republican establishment in 2016. Usually, the party votes at the convention to praise the incumbent administration of the party. But when they offered a resolution praising Cleveland in 1896, it failed. Eventually, the party went with William Jennings Bryan instead — the anti-establishment insurgent candidate, much like Trump. Bryan gave his famous “Cross of Gold” speech and won the nomination out of nowhere.

Anything unprecedented about this year’s conventions?
Remember when it looked like Trump was not going to get a majority of delegates before the convention, and everyone said, “Well, if he’s got more than anybody else, he should just get the nomination”? There’s absolutely no precedent in history for that. There are so many presidents who were nominated after losing on the first ballot. You don’t just give it to the guy with a plurality of votes going in.

But most Americans today — in our modern primary system — would say that the voters should decide. Not the delegates.
That’s the job of the convention. If no one wins during the primaries, the convention’s job is to, in its wisdom, pick the person who can win the election. And that’s what has happened time and again — these dark horse candidates went on to win the presidency. Garfield in 1880 won the election. Lincoln won in 1860. Polk in 1844 won the election. Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 won the election.

So, you’re saying that conventions might be better at this whole “choosing a nominee” thing than voters.
[Laughs] Conventions have a pretty good track record of picking the guy who can win. Everyone today thinks a brokered convention should be avoided like the plague. But history says otherwise.

_____

3. Clinton campaigns with Obama — and continues to unify the Democratic Party without Sanders’ help

By Liz Goodwin

In their first joint campaign appearance, President Obama said Tuesday that he is “ready to pass the baton” — and the White House — to his former rival Hillary Clinton.

Standing at a lectern bearing the presidential seal, Obama made the case for Clinton as a brilliant, “level-headed” stateswoman who could lead the country in tumultuous times.

As Clinton watched, the president explained how he came to admire Clinton as the two competed in a bitter Democratic primary in 2008 and why he ultimately decided to make her his secretary of state.

“I saw again and again how, even when things didn’t go her way, she just stands up straighter and comes back stronger,” Obama recalled. “She just kept on going. She was the Energizer bunny. She just kept on.”

(Read the full version of this story here.)

Obama vouched for Clinton as a loyal hard worker who put her personal ambition aside to work for him. In a video released shortly before the appearance, Obama said Clinton acted like a “trooper” when she lost the primary to him eight years ago. In his speech, the president further praised her as “brilliant” and steady, telling the crowd in the Charlotte Convention Center that he’s “fired up” and ready to work to get her elected.

The Clinton campaign hopes Obama — whose approval rating is higher than at any time since he announced the successful conclusion of the operation to kill Osama bin Laden — can counter Clinton’s high unfavorable ratings and help unify the Democratic Party, which is still fractured after this year’s long primary campaign.

Clinton’s rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, has not conceded or endorsed her, even though she locked up the nomination weeks ago. Obama’s speech came just hours after FBI Director James Comey announced that his department would not be recommending charges over Clinton’s use of a private email server for official business while she was secretary of state. Neither Obama nor Clinton, who spoke before the president, addressed the news in their remarks.

Obama did, however, tackle some of the objections that have been made against Clinton, including the argument that she has been in politics for too long. He said he benefited from being a fresh face in 2008 and that the country likes novelty. “We’re a young country, so we like new things,” Obama said. That means, he said, that voters may take for granted those who have “been in the trenches,” like Clinton. “The fact is, Hillary is steady and Hillary is true,” Obama said.

“I’m ready to pass the baton,” he said at the end of his remarks.

Both candidates also took several swipes at Donald Trump. Obama said that knowing how to use Twitter does not prepare a person to become president. “A bunch of phony bluster doesn’t keep us safe,” he said. Obama also remarked that the presidency is not a “reality show,” a reference to Trump’s show “The Apprentice.” “When a crisis hits, you can’t just walk off the set,” Obama said.

Clinton joked in her introduction that Obama is “someone who has never forgotten where he came from. And Donald, if you’re out there tweeting — it’s Hawaii.”

One supporter, Mary McCray, 63, a retired teacher who had waited with her two grandchildren in 90-degree heat to see Obama and Clinton, said she understood the evolution in the relationship between the two. The transformation Obama described in how he viewed Clinton from 2008 to now was familiar to several supporters who were waiting to see the pair.

“I felt at that time [in 2008], she wasn’t ready,” said McCray, who backed Obama that year. “I felt like it wasn’t her turn yet.”

McCray said she is now enthusiastically supporting Clinton, in part because of her service as secretary of state in Obama’s administration.

_____

4. In the arena

Our roundup of the big names making convention news today

Pam Stevens, the House GOP’s director of media affairs and strategic initiatives, has been in Cleveland since April 1 serving as part of the convention’s communications team. This week she joins the Donald Trump campaign. Stevens will help oversee TV, radio, specialty media and media events for the presumptive Republican nominee for the duration of the convention.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is the first national Republican figure to confirm that he will be speaking in Cleveland. Among the things Walker will likely say: that a vote for anyone other than presumptive GOP presidential nominee Trump is a “de facto vote” for Hillary Clinton. Among the things Walker won’t say: that he “completely disavow[s]” Trump’s remarks about Judge Gonzalo Curiel or that “delegates are and should be able to vote the way they see fit” — even though he has said these things before. Earlier there was chatter about Walker putting himself forward as a last-minute Trump alternative. The hour seems to have passed.

Also likely to speak in Cleveland: former Arkansas Gov. and two-time GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. “Mr. Trump has asked, but I don’t know about day or time,” Huckabee said in a comment provided to CNN by a spokesman, Hogan Gidley. “I’m sure Gov. Huckabee would be honored to speak at the convention,” Gidley added.

One Republican who definitely won’t be speaking: Maine Gov. Paul LePage. Why? Because he won’t even be in Cleveland. LePage was slated to attend as a delegate, but his wife will now go in his place. “If I felt that [Trump] needed me there, I’d have gone,” LePage told WVOM radio. “But I think [the nomination is] pretty much established.”

At least one person on Trump’s VP short list has just taken himself off. Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, who was being formally vetted for the job, spent Tuesday afternoon with Trump in New York before appearing alongside the candidate at a North Carolina rally that night. “The reason you love him so much is because he loves you,” Corker told the cheering crowd. “He loves you, and he wants the best for you.” Trump returned the praise, calling Corker “a great friend of mine, somebody respected by everybody.” But in an interview the following day with the Washington Post, Corker revealed that he had removed himself from consideration. “There are people far more suited for being a candidate for vice president, and I think I’m far more suited for other types of things,” Corker said.

Next up on Trump’s Magical Mystery Veep Tour: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is scheduled to stump with Trump Wednesday night in Sharonville, Ohio.

_____

5. The best of the rest

_____

Countdown

For the latest data, make sure to check the Yahoo News delegate scorecard and primary calendar.