A presidential ticket should not be built around who is most popular. It should be built around who makes the ticket most difficult to defeat.
This is the Wantam Weekly Edition, The politics behind the politics.
Political Commentary and Analysis on the United Opposition Strategy
Presidential elections are rarely won by one politician or party alone.
Behind every serious presidential campaign is a coalition of interests, personalities, regions, generations, ideologies and political networks. At the centre of that coalition is the presidential candidate. Beside that candidate is the running mate.
And that second name on the ticket can be far more consequential than it appears.
The conventional approach to selecting a running mate is often straightforward: reward loyalty, balance the regions, accommodate another powerful faction or select another popular politician.
But there is a more strategic way to look at it. The central question should not be:
Who is the most popular politician available?
It should be:
What does the presidential candidate lack, and who can provide it?
That distinction could determine whether an opposition coalition merely produces an impressive-looking ticket, or produces a ticket capable of defeating an incumbent like President William Ruto.
Don't just Build a Ticket. Build a Winning Coalition.
The strongest presidential ticket is not necessarily made up of the two strongest individual politicians. That may sound counterintuitive, but consider this logic.
If the presidential candidate already has strong support among a particular demographic, region or ideological constituency, selecting a running mate who appeals to exactly the same people may add little to the ticket.
Two politicians can be individually powerful but collectively redundant. So, the smarter approach is to identify the candidate's weaknesses and deliberately fill those gaps.
For example, if the presidential candidate (Kalonzo) has experience but struggles to excite young voters, the running mate (Sifuna) should bring youthful energy.
If the candidate has a strong regional base but limited reach elsewhere (Kalonzo), the running mate should expand the geographical footprint (Sifuna).
If the candidate appeals strongly to the political base but struggles with a section of the population (Gachagua), the running mate should be capable of reaching the political centre (Sifuna).
If the candidate is a formidable policy thinker but not a natural campaigner(Matiang'i), the running mate should be an exceptional communicator and mobiliser (Gachagua).
The objective is simple:
Make the whole greater than the sum of its parts.
The First Question: What Does the Candidate Lack?
Before a coalition begins negotiating positions, it should conduct an honest assessment of its presidential candidate.
What are the weaknesses?
What constituencies remain unconvinced?
Which regions are difficult?
Which age groups are missing?
Which voters could potentially be persuaded?
What does the candidate struggle to communicate?
Where is the campaign machinery weakest?
And perhaps most importantly:
What can another politician bring to the ticket that the presidential candidate cannot bring alone?
These questions should guide the entire running-mate conversation. A running mate is not simply a political accessory. The running mate should be an electoral multiplier.
Political Geography: Expand the Map
Geography remains one of the most important realities of presidential politics.
A candidate may have a powerful political base in one part of the country but face difficulties elsewhere. A strategically chosen running mate can change that.
But geographical balancing should go beyond simply checking where politicians were born. The real question is whether the running mate has political reach in that geography.
Can they mobilise voters?
Do they have established networks?
Can they speak credibly to communities beyond their traditional supporters?
Do they possess relationships with local political leaders?
Can they campaign effectively in areas where the presidential candidate is weaker?
The best geographical combination is therefore not merely about two different birthplaces.
It is about creating a larger electoral map or bases.
Ideological Balance: Keep the Tent Open
A presidential coalition must also consider ideologies. Every political movement has a core. But elections are rarely won by the core alone.
The ticket must eventually reach voters outside the traditional political base. That includes professionals, civil servants, youth, undecided voters and people who may dislike the incumbent without necessarily identifying with the opposition.
A running mate who can reassure these voters can be enormously valuable. The objective is not to dilute the coalition's principles. But to prevent those principles from becoming a political ceiling.
A winning ticket should be able to say:
These are our supporters, but they are not the only people welcome here.
The Independent Voter: Don't Lock the Door
Independent voters can become decisive when an election is closely contested.
They may not attend political rallies, they may not belong to political parties, or they may not identify strongly with either side. But, they do VOTE.
And their question is often different from that of the partisan voter. They may be asking:
Who can govern?
Who can unite the country?
Who can manage the economy?
Who can restore confidence?
Who can move beyond political divisions?
This is why a running mate should sometimes be chosen for their ability to build bridges, not merely reinforce existing political loyalties.
A ticket that is too narrowly defined may energize its base while simultaneously frightening away everyone outside it. That is not expansion. That is political enclosure.
Youthful Energy Is Not Simply About Age
Young voters are another crucial component of modern elections.
But selecting a young politician does not automatically guarantee the youth vote.
Youthful energy is about much more than age. It is about communication, it is about political imagination. It is about understanding contemporary culture. It is about social media.
It is about the ability to make politics exciting. It is about persuading first-time voters that their participation matters. And, most importantly, it is about converting enthusiasm into turnout.
The ideal running mate should therefore not simply represent young people. They should be capable of mobilizing them.
Experience Matters: Can They Survive the Presidential Battlefield?
There is another consideration that cannot be ignored.
Once the running mate is announced, that person becomes part of the presidential campaign.
The opponent will investigate everything. Every controversial statement, every political alliance, every past decision, every contradiction, every weakness, every old interview and every unresolved controversy.
The question is therefore not simply:
Can this person attract voters?
It is:
Can this person survive the full force of a presidential campaign?
A candidate may be enormously popular within a particular political movement but insufficiently tested at the national level.
That can become dangerous. The presidential campaign is a different battlefield.
It requires stamina, discipline, communication skills, crisis management and the ability to withstand an opponent's entire political and communications infrastructure.
A running mate should be an asset, not a vulnerability.
Build a Communication Monster
Modern presidential campaigns are communication wars. The ticket needs people who can speak without blinking. But more importantly, it needs people who can connect.
The presidential candidate and running mate should ideally complement one another.
One might be better at policy. The other might be better at mass mobilisation. One might excel in formal debates. The other might dominate grassroots rallies.
One might appeal to older voters. The other might connect naturally with younger audiences.
One might explain the numbers. The other might explain what those numbers mean for ordinary families.
Together, they become a communication monster.
That is powerful because political campaigns are increasingly fought across television, radio, social media, podcasts, rallies and community networks simultaneously.
The ticket needs a voice for every audience.
Fundraising Is Part of Electoral Strategy
A presidential campaign is also an enormous organisational undertaking.
Money matters, networks matter, professional campaign teams matter, grassroots structures matter, and donor relationships matter.
A running mate who brings a strong fundraising network can significantly strengthen the campaign.
But fundraising should not be viewed only in terms of money. A politically connected running mate may also bring:
- Grassroots organisers
- Regional campaign structures
- Volunteers
- Influential political networks
- Community relationships
- Professional campaigners
- Media relationships
- Fundraising networks
A powerful campaign is therefore not simply two politicians standing on a stage. It is an organisation capable of converting political enthusiasm into votes.
The Turnout Test
There is one question every potential ticket should answer:
Will this combination make people vote?
Being popular is not enough. A candidate can have high approval ratings and still struggle to mobilize voters.
Another candidate may have fewer admirers but an intensely motivated political base.
The strongest ticket should ideally do three things:
Protect the existing base.
Persuade undecided and independent voters.
Mobilize supporters to turn out.
That third component is often underestimated. Elections are not won by people who say they support you or line up for handouts in your rally, they are won by people who actually show up on election day.
The Opponent's Narrative: Who Gets to Define the Ticket?
This may be the most overlooked aspect of ticket building.
Presidential elections are partly contests over who gets to define whom.
The moment a ticket is announced, the opponent will attempt to create a simple narrative around it.
They will identify its weaknesses, highlight contradictions, find its most vulnerable candidate, and they will attempt to associate the entire ticket with its least popular characteristic.
Therefore, before announcing a running mate or a presidential candidate, the campaign should ask:
If we were the opponent, how would we attack this ticket?
If the answer comes too easily, there may be a problem.
A strong ticket should make the opponent's job of defining it much harder.
The Complementarity Test
Every potential flagbearer and running mate should pass several tests.
1. Geography
Does this person expand the electoral map?
2. Coalition
Do they bring a new constituency?
3. Ideology
Do they broaden the political tent?
4. Youth
Can they energize younger voters?
5. Independents
Can they attract voters outside the core base?
6. Leadership
Do they have credible leadership credentials?
7. Experience
Can they withstand national scrutiny?
8. Communication
Can they communicate effectively?
9. Fundraising
Can they strengthen the campaign machine?
10. Mobilisation
Can they convert support into turnout?
11. Resilience
Can they survive sustained political attacks?
12. Complementarity
Most importantly:
Do they add something the presidential candidate does not already possess?
The Most Popular Combination May Not Be the Best Combination
This is where political coalitions can make their biggest mistake. They may look at two popular politicians and assume that putting them together creates an unbeatable ticket.
Not necessarily. If both politicians have the same strengths, the same weaknesses, the same geographical base and the same voter demographics, the combination may produce very little additional electoral value.
Meanwhile, a less obvious politician might bring something transformative.
Perhaps they can unlock a new region, attract independents, energize young voters, reassure business communities, appeal to voters who distrust the traditional political establishment, or can communicate in a way the presidential candidate cannot.
The strongest running mate may therefore not be the most obvious one.
Don't Ask Who Deserves the Position. Ask Who Wins the Election.
This may be the hardest political conversation for any opposition coalition.
Every major politician will have supporters, every faction will have expectations, every region will want representation, and every political figure will have a legitimate argument for why they deserve a place at the top of the ticket. But, electoral strategy demands a more ruthless question:
Which combination gives the coalition the greatest probability of victory?
Not:
Who has waited longest? (Kalonzo)
Not:
Who has the loudest supporters? (Sifuna)
Not:
Who commands the biggest rally? (Gachagua)
Not:
Who is most competent within our own camp? (Matiang'i)
But:
Who can help us win voters who are not already ours?
That is the difference between political accommodation and electoral strategy.
The Ultimate Objective: Expand, Don't Shrink
The purpose of a running mate should be to expand the presidential candidate's coalition.
If the presidential candidate already has one region, find another.
If the candidate already has older voters, find younger voters.
If the candidate already has the party base, find independents.
If the candidate already has political experience, find energy.
If the candidate already has money, find grassroots machinery.
If the candidate already has a strong ideological identity, find someone who can widen the appeal without destroying the coalition's principles.
The running mate should open doors, not close them.
The Winning Formula
Ultimately, presidential ticket-building is a strategic exercise in combining strengths while neutralizing weaknesses.
The ideal ticket should possess:
Experience + Energy
Resources + Organisation
Base + Expansion
Ideology + Pragmatism
Geography + National Reach
Leadership + Communication
Popularity + Electability
Enthusiasm + Discipline
And above all:
Complementarity.
Because the objective is not to assemble the two most powerful politicians.
It is to assemble the most powerful political team.
Complete the Candidate
A presidential ticket should never be built merely to satisfy political egos or balance factions.
It should be built with the election in mind.
The presidential candidate is the centre of the ticket, but the running mate should complete the picture.
If the presidential candidate is strong where the running mate is weak, and the running mate is strong where the presidential candidate is weak, the coalition becomes greater than either individual.
That is the essence of political complementarity.
The best running mate is therefore not necessarily the politician who looks most impressive beside the presidential candidate.
It is the politician who makes the presidential candidate more electable.
Someone who expands the map.
Someone who widens the coalition.
Someone who attracts independents.
Someone who energizes young voters.
Someone who strengthens fundraising and organisation.
Someone who can communicate.
Someone who can withstand political attacks.
Someone who can turn enthusiasm into turnout.
And ultimately, someone who makes it harder for the opponent to define the ticket.
Because in a presidential election, the question is not simply:
“Who is on the ticket?”
The bigger question is:
“What does this ticket make possible that neither candidate could accomplish alone?”
That is where winning coalitions are built.
That is the politics of complementarity.
In today's WanTam Weekly Edition, I explore the politics of complementarity and why the most popular combination may not necessarily be the most electable one. This article has implications for Kenya's 2027 United Opposition. I'll leave that conversation for the next article😂
Read it, share it, disagree with it, then tell me what I got wrong.
