Nah, he’s a Cabinet secretary now, former mayor of a major city, he has more and better and more relevant experience than Dan Quayle had in 1988.
Hilary Rodham Clinton will not be the nominee.
And you base that on what?
Yeah, I would prefer for her not to be the nominee, and Sanders still has a non-negligible chance at it, but as of right now, she’s still the odds-on favorite. Rather odd to be so confident in the opposite.
she will be indicted!
Nonsense. The Republicans don’t actually want to indict her. If they did, they’d have to pony up evidence and make their case in a court of law. They just want to waste millions of dollars throwing shit at her, so that their moron followers will blame her for everything the Republicans do wrong in the next eight years. It’s going to be Special Prosecutors all the way down.
BG, HUD secretary for year is not much top level experience for stepping in to the job. Mayor of San Antonio? Sorry but in that city the position is not the one that runs the city … the city manager has the executive power and responsibilities there - the mayor has very little to do.
Texas is unlikely flip on Hispanic turn out alone, even with unprecedented voter share of that turn out. Then again Hispanic turn out would help solidify Nevada and Colorado. Now mind you, it is not impossible if his Texan roots also pulls some additional White Texans out of the GOP share … and again there would be benefit down ticket in Texas and long term to the building of an infrastructure that could flip Texas in the future as the demographic transitions advances.
How about we back up though? What should a Presidential nominee be hoping to accomplish with a VP choice?
Helping carry a home state? Many here follow Silver and remember his downplaying that home state advantage. But he did not say it did not exist, just that it was not huge. On the order of 2 to 3 points compared to how the state would likely have otherwise gone. So it would matter in a real swing state and not matter otherwise. Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado? 2 points more or less than the national vote may be the bit that decides a near 50/50 popular vote election.
Bringing expertise or gravitas to a ticket in an area that the Presidential nominee might be lacking.
Appealing to a demographic more than the Presidential nominee would on his or her own. Be it Hispanic voters, or rural ones, or regionally, or whatever. Maybe as part of this helping downticket.
Grooming a future Presidential candidate.
And a prereq is that the idea of candidate suddenly stepping in as President is not a scary prospect to too many.
So before selecting who, which of those are the most important aspects or is it who hits the most of them?
I’d say that if one thinks the election is a likely squeaker going with that small but real home state advantage in a swing state is most important and appealing to some broad demographic and extra expertise tied for next most. Want someone who can do all ideally.
If not close then hoping to groom the next generation of nominee moves up the list and so does the broader appeal with its downticket help and building future infrastructure.
There is no potential VP candidate for either party who can flip a single state. So, Hillary should just pick someone she feels comfortable with and who she thinks could make a good president in case of her death.
Astorian nailed it, and I’d add that Clinton values loyalty. She will pick someone she has a long relationship with and who has supported her over the years.
I see these as the frontrunners:
Tom Vilsack
Terry Mac
Wesley Clark
I see these as dark horses:
Erskine Bowles
Bill Richardson
Howard Dean
It will not be Julian Castro. Just stop, people. And media. Hillary Clinton can count, and she lost in 2008 for failure to understand the process. She has to know that the Latino vote will not decide the 2016 election. It’s going to be all about women and African-Americans, so if she does make a direct play for a demographic, it’s going to be Cory Booker or Deval Patrick. And if she did want a Latino she’d just pick Richardson(assuming he could pass vetting), who is ready to be President on Day 1 and is a longtime Clinton loyalist.
This should be in your predictions thread. 
It might be a good one, though I wouldn’t count out Castro. It’s not just about winning this election. If the Republicans nominate someone with little chance to win (Trump or Cruz), she might make a pick based on helping the party in the long term. Which could be Castro. Then, in 2024, Castro picks Booker. 
Richardson would be a great choice. I hadn’t even thought of him.
Then she should go with Booker. Booker’s got the better resume, he’s a more known quantity, and he represents a more important demographic for the next few elections.
Note to Sec. Clinton: Do NOT pick Booker.
Besides, is there anyone out there saying that Castro has been an amazing HUD Secretary? Is his “future star” label based on anything other than his ethnic identity? Does anyone even know if he’s a liberal or a conservative Democrat?
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were also sitting VPs when they were elected President. Of course, they were elected prior to the passage of the 12th Amendment, so the election process was different.
The doesn’t affect your point, just wanted to point it out. Adams and Jefferson were both the first members of their party to be president (if we accept that Washington was an independent and not a Federalist).
It’s working for Rubio and Cruz, isn’t it?
It does mean though that picking a VP with an eye on the future may be overrated. Just pick Vilsack, and be confident that he can be President should something happen to Clinton.
Rubio and Cruz won statewide elections and everyone who is into politics has a pretty good grasp of who they are. Not even Castro’s admirers know who he is other than an attractive photo. And he’ll never win statewide unless he’s the kind of Democrat that the activist base would never even for a moment consider nominating as President.
Well and Gore …
Vilsack would be a good choice. Not anyone who’d reassure the progressive side that she means her progressive banter but a solid centrist with good cred on rural issues. I am personally convinced that addressing income and wealth inequality is an issue that desperately needs focus and that it matters even more in rural districts than in urban ones. And he’s done some actual work in that regard. It is an issue that urban progressives and rural voters even a bit right of center can agree on: hard working Americans should not have to getting government hand-outs. The loss of jobs that pay well enough to live on, and the loss of hope that it is going to change, is part of what drives the anger in rural districts that some in the GOP have done so well in exploiting. Addressing those issues is required to make inroads in that demographic (which matters even more down ticket than at the top.)
I don’t see much of a chance for the others on that list though.
I’m not opposed to that, but I think experienced Presidential candidates generally choose younger “future leaders” of their party as VP, just as Kerry picked Edwards, McCain picked Palin, Romney picked Ryan, and similar. So I’d bet on Hillary following that trend.