Multiple ones of them. The question is always which items on the checklist are most important.
I don’t see a 2-woman ticket happening right now.
No idea who Hillary will pick. For Bernie, someone like Feinstein might work pretty well…big state, woman, maybe a wee bit more liberal than he’d want as a running mate, and she brings her own baggage, although a lot of that is in the distant past.
I remember briefly reading some kind of weird article (a slideshow with notes below the pics) on who Trump might pick…including Ivanka or Melania. That was when I stopped reading it.
Hillary is a fairly conventional candidate, other than being a woman. She’ll pick a conventional Veep, and almost certainly one who balances the ticket geographically. Maybe the outgoing Kentucky governor - I forget his name. Though I would love to see Cory Booker.
Beshear. Another awesome pick if you want a President ready to lead on Day 1. I think he’s an old man though, wouldn’t be able to succeed her. The attraction of a Cory Booker or Julian Castro is that eight years later you have a frontrunner for the nomination assuming all goes well. Booker almost certainly would be the frontrunner in 2024 if he got the nod. Castro could be, or he could be the next Dan Quayle.
Is this the consensus?
Clinton-Clark
Cruz-Fiorina
Kasich-Rubio
Ryan-Kasich
Sanders-Warren?
Trump-Webb
Who would Sanders’ mate be? Prob’ly not Warren.
The only cross-party ticket likely is Trump and a Demo, e.g. Webb. By fracturing the Demo Party, Trump rolls to victory in November. (I never said Trump didn’t want to be President. I jsut said he didn’t want to pursue a humiliating losing campaign.)
(I thinks blacks and browns will vote for Sanders. It’s not too late to ditch Hillary, the bad-omen girl.)
Why the hell would Webb accept?
Agreed. That’d be asking a lot of older Dem and independent voters who may already be a little leery of voting for the first female President. Hillary will pick a dude as a running mate (and I still like Perez for the gig: Tom Perez - Wikipedia).
Webb ends up a grumpy has-been, as he already is, or becomes an influential Vice Pres. He’d jump at the chance. His goal? Victory, the V.P. job, with much influence on The Don (who’d be way over his head). Webb is the V.P. pick I fear most: Many or most Republicans and independents will support Trump-Webb over Hillary. Plus many red-dog Democrats will vote Webb.
And if not Webb, who (XX, among those who’d accept) would be most likely to make Trump — XX the White House-winning ticket? Christie???
Feinstein? Liberal? It is to laugh. She’s one of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate.
I also can’t imagine two Jews on the same team.
Feinstein is conservative for California, but actually pretty standard as Democrats go. She’s right around where Clinton is ideologically.
Pro-Keystone pipeline, pro Iraq war. Pro NSA surveillance. Pro-PATRIOT ACT. Opposes allowing domestic partners of legal US citizens/residents to stay in the country after their visas expire. Pro-capital punishment. Opposes giving free speech rights to flag burners (she actually wanted a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning). Pro-Internet censorship.
So she’s on the authoritarian side of the progressive movement. I don’t recall any Democrats standing with Rand when he gave his long speech against surveillance. She is well within the mainstream of her party, and almost identical to Clinton in her views.
Neither Clinton nor Sanders would tap Warren (God lover her). Her age alone is disqualifying for either ticket: who in their right mind would offer up a ticket of two septuagenarians? Bernie’s already there and the other two will turn 70 during the next president’s first term.
Not that it matters much decades later, but Franken graduated cum laude from Harvard with the BA in Government. So at least he didn’t start from scratch.
Clinton needs to not only consider who will help her win but needs to find someone groomable for a later Presidential run. Which means someone not in their 60s.
Nope.
How about returning to checklists?
Clinton:
Push pull between to desire to shore up the turnout and support of the self-identifying progressive wing and not pushing away moderate swing voters.
Appealing geographically, perhaps in a particular possible tipping point state.
Appealing geographically, perhaps where downtickets need the most help.
Appealing demographically, perhaps Hispanics to raise turnout.
Appealing demographically, perhaps to rural voters to break into what has become GOP strength.
Grooming a next generation bench.
Reassuring voters that there is someone qualified and ready to take over the job if something was to happen to her.
Obviously one ring does not bind them all. Hitting several at a time is good though.
Sanders? Not too much different of a possible list with the first slightly different. (Do you excite with an all-progressive ticket or reassure with someone who has strengths where you do not?) The relative importance of each might not be the same though.
Trump? Would need someone who helps him pivot into the plane of the sane and who makes nice with the voters who usually vote GOP in presidential elections but are thinking of sitting out or crossing over against him.
Cruz? No idea.
Cruz/Kasich could happen simply because together they will probably have enough delegates to win a majority and it makes the convention much less complicated. Second ballot win for that ticket.
Plus the convention is in Kasich’s home state, which (if history is any guide) the GOP must win in order to win the White House.
No way either of them would be willing to play second fiddle to the other.
No. Way.
Hmm. Dunno. I’ve followed Kasich’s career for quite awhile, and actually could see him taking the VP post. He’s term-limited as Ohio’s governor and would be a heartbeat away, if elected. It just might happen.
Here’s some speculation on other possible Cruz running mates. FWLIW, Kasich isn’t even mentioned: Who will Ted Cruz pick as his running mate?