Bush-Walker vs. Clinton-O’Malley isn’t a terrible prediction, but I don’t think Jeb Bush would pick Scott Walker, for several reasons:
The illegal immigrant issue is PERSONAL to Bush. His wife is Mexican, he speaks mostly Spanish at home, and he loves Mexican culture. I don’t think he’d pick a running mate who, like Walker, has been an outspoken hardliner on immigration control.
Like all members of the Bush family, Jeb believes in personal ties and personal loyalty before anything else. Scott Walker doesn’t have any personal ties to the Bush family or any special bond with them.
Ah, you say, but what about Dan Quayle? He didn’t have any special ties to the Bushes! True, but he WAS their mkind of guy- a rich preppie. Scott Walker is many things, but he’s not a rich preppie. He’s not of the Bush’s class or social circles.
Walker isn’t an impossibility, but he’s not a guy I’d bet money on.
O’Malley is more plausible as a running mate for Hillary, but I still think she wants a Hispanic running mate. If she wants to gamble, there’s HUD Secretary Castro. If she wants an old reliable with Clinton ties, there’s Bill Richardson.
True, but not a deal breaker for the reason you mention next:
This. The Bushes are all about loyalty. Jeb will either pick a longtime friend or trusted associate of the family(Mitch Daniels would be an AWESOME VP choice and worked for his brother), or go with a new, young face as his father did. His father chose Dan Quayle. Jeb will have more options, such as Nikki Haley, whose star is rising, Susan Martinez, another rising star. He could even pick someone like Tom Cotton to appease the Tea Partiers, assuming he had confidence that Cotton wouldn’t be inflammatory.
Ah, well there’s that too. So maybe it will be Mitch Daniels. But I do believe that if Bush is the nominee, he will not pick someone from the current field of candidates.
I think O’Malley is unlikely because the Clintons also rely on personal relationships a lot, Hillary more than Bill. Bill was willing to go outside his circle sometimes, Hillary has never done so. O’Malley isn’t an FOH(Friend of Hillary).
Both astorian and adaher make valid points. I can’t say with conviction that either is incorrect, I believe much will depend on how the primary campaigns go.
If Walker is the last clown car candidate standing, Bush may weigh Walker’s perceived strength in Big Ten country. If not him, then who? Haley? Maybe, if he can train her to not open every statement with “It’s a beautiful day in South Carolina”. I can’t see him picking Cotton. Well, maybe if he has enough gin. (rimshot). Kasich? Maybe, that’s what he’s running for, anyway.
Hillary doesn’t have a track record of appointing people, so it’s tougher to read. I freaking love Julian Castro but he needs to pad his resume a bit. Richardson is an awesome possibility, but there are rumored skirt issues. If O’Malley ever gains any traction and proves to have any sort of following, it might make sense to pick him. Younger guy, liberal, also looks like central casting would have picked him.
No, Hillary isn’t going to choose a retread like Richardson or Clark.
And who’s this McCauliffe guy? Never heard of him. Maybe you’re thinking of Terry McAuliffe.
At any rate, I’m not sure what you’re basing your contention on that either one of them would stick to their circle of friends for the veep position. We’ve really only got one data point, and that’s Al Gore, 1992. (I have no idea whether he’d already been a FOB before then.)
The one thing I agree with is that if Bush wins the nomination, he won’t pick any of the other candidates as his veep. About the only one who seems like a decent fit would be Rubio, and the Bush campaign has already been overtly criticizing him. (Not to mention there’s the same-state problem, and I don’t see either Bush or Rubio taking up residence in another state to get around that like Cheney did in 2000.)
I think he’s more likely to pick a relatively fresh face like Martinez or Haley than someone like Mitch Daniels who’s got a longer track record to be scrutinized. As the GOP moves further from the center, the typical GOPer track record gets increasingly toxic to the general electorate when it is put under scrutiny.
Richardson and Clark are far from retreads. Biden was the ultimate retread by that logic, as was Cheney. But both had something more important than being fresh: they could be trusted with the Presidency. RIchardson, Clark, and McCauliffe share those traits as well.
I think O’Malley or any white guy would be a mistake. Hillary needs to pick a Latino running mate. If Castro’s too green and Richardson’s too risky, then how about Hilda Solis or Luis Gutiérrez?
Democrats are having problems with the white vote. If the buzz is that Clinton wants anyone but a white guy that’ll look bad and cost her another few percentage points.
Hillary herself brings the white vote. Latinos tend to have low registration and turnout numbers. If a Latino is on the ticket, that will change in a big way. And if Rubio is on the GOP ticket, she will need to do this just to play defense.
It’s absolutely fine to have a Latino on the ticket, but you never want to send the message that you’re specifically excluding white candidates. Or let that kind of buzz get out. Doesn’t mean much on the SDMB, but if the media got wind that she was looking for someone checking a racial box, that wouldn’t go over well. It would be worse if she was specifically looking for a Latino, as there are a couple of very talented black candidates available(Patrick and Booker), and we still haven’t had our first Jewish VP yet, ironically thanks to the incompetence of elderly Palm Beach voters. Democrats incidentally are also facing declining Jewish support.
BTW, Jim Webb’s support has increased to 5%. Doesn’t get him anywhere near the nomination, but you have to wonder how much of that is his more nuanced take on the Confederate flag controversy. Assuming that a lot of that 5% are Confederate flag supporters, should Clinton say that she doesn’t want their votes in the general election?
Well he sort of did, probably accidentally, possibly apocryphally. Here’s the exchange: [INDENT]RS: “What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?”
GB: “I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.”
RS: “Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?”
GB: “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”
RS: “Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?”
GB: “Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.” [/INDENT] Saying that atheists shouldn’t be considered citizens is a direct attack on the voting block itself. But again, this example doesn’t really count as it was probably a gaffe, assuming it happened.
Doesn’t sound like a gaffe, and that’s the closest example I’ve seen. But now that I remember him saying that, that was his sincere belief.
It’s also interesting that you can probably still say something that bad about atheists and still receive no real blowback except from atheists. It is a very socially acceptable prejudice.
This was (if it actually happened, which is not clear) in the 1980s. Nearly thirty years later, it is still a socially acceptable prejudice among older cohorts, but it is becoming much more mainstream with younger voters and I think politicians would tend to be more careful nowadays. President Obama even gave us a friendly acknowledgement in his first inaugural address (which didn’t go over well at FOX News–shocker).
Well, sure: that goes without saying. They need to have a dog and pony show in which they ostensibly consider all kinds of candidates, from all over the rainbow, including white dudes. But in the inner circle, they’ve got to focus like a laser on Latino prospects.
But that’s not good enough if “everyone knows” she’s going to pick a Latino. If that becomes CW then she most definitely will not pick a Latino.
If they do want a Latino, they should probably have McCauliffe do a head fake. Start leaking on background that it’s going to be him because of his closeness with the Clintons once she’s clinched the nomination.
BTW, according to Nate Silver’s article, you can’t blame the Tea Party, or even anti-immigration activists, for Trump’s surge. There is no consistency in which kinds of people support Trump. His support is entirely media driven.
But I do believe that if Bush is the nominee, he will not pick someone from the current field of candidates.