Now that Donald Trump is officially the presumptive Republican nominee, he's scratched a lot off his to-do list.
He installed new leadership at the Republican National Committee. His campaign is in talks with his former campaign manager to run the GOP convention. And his lawyers successfully delayed the most serious legal threat he faces while getting a nearly half-billion-dollar bond in his fraud case reduced to a more manageable $175 million.
Yep, everything is shaping up as well as can be expected for Trump's fourth run for president (including his widely forgotten, short-lived 2000 effort ). The last big thing on his list: Pick a running mate.
Picking a running mate is a lot like buying a car. The first question is, "What do you need it for?"
Veep picks are for shoring up weaknesses or reinforcing strengths. Trump picked Pence in 2016 because he needed to reassure social conservatives and evangelicals. Biden chose Kamala Harris because he believed (wrongly, in my opinion) he needed a Black woman on the ticket.
Sometimes the weaknesses have less to do with particular constituencies than perceived deficiencies of the presidential nominee. George W. Bush and Barack Obama respectively tapped Dick Cheney and Joe Biden to add political experience to tickets headed by relatively young, inexperienced nominees.
So what does Trump need? He needs to deal with the reality that a quarter to a third of the party backed Nikki Haley (and others) in the primaries.
One way to do that is to win those voters back. Another is to replace them with supporters who haven't traditionally voted Republican, including working-class Black and Latino voters. A third option: Cobble together A and B.
Can a running mate help? Trump is a known quantity, with 100% name identification. The idea a sidekick could change voters' opinions about him seems implausible.
Unlike in 2016, Trump may not have reason to shore up portions of the base. The voters Pence helped bring in are now for the most part loyal to him. Those who aren't won't change their minds based on a potential veep.
Hence my skepticism that picking a woman would shore up Trump's weaknesses with females. Women who don't like Trump, or who are highly motivated by the abortion issue, aren't likely to be swayed by a female running mate.
And Trump now values blind loyalty and even blinder sycophancy more than electoral appeal. He wants someone to hype his greatness, not highlight his weaknesses.
Fortunately for Trump, there's no shortage of candidates who meet those criteria. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who implored voters not to vote for a "con man" like Trump in 2016, now says he would be "honored" to be his No. 2.
Picking Rubio would make a lot of political sense. He's a gifted and extremely flexible politician who could appeal to college-educated suburbanites, working-class and Latino voters.
But I think Trump and his advisers understand if he is elected, he could very easily be impeached again. In that light, selecting a conventionally reassuring politician as his understudy is risky. If removing Trump from office would result in a President Rubio — or even a President Tim Scott — a lot of Republicans might take that bargain.
What I believe Trump wants is a toady wholly subservient to his desires. Such a creature — like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example — would not only campaign the way Trump wants but also would make the price of removing him from office too scary to contemplate.
Greene herself might be too much of a liability, but I suspect he will be drawn to a pliant enabler frightening enough to backstop his presidency while not so outlandish as to cost him the election. Nancy Mace, stay near your phone.