Tim Kaine is the clear number one pick for Hillary in my opinion. Experience at all level of government , fair housing advocate , fluent in Spanish. Plus, Virginia has a Democratic governor so his election won’t cost a Senate seat.
If she picks a guy from Virginia, it’s Terry Mac, not someone who supported Obama over her in 2008.
If it’s a Virginian, Mark Warner seems more likely than Kaine or Macauliffe.
If they both weren’t so old, Hillary could just re-enlist Joe Biden.
No Virginians. Tim Kaine is a smug, self-entitled little prick. He almost makes Rubio seem likeable. McAuliffe has the charisma of Mike Dukakis. Warner always gets mentioned but never picked.
I agree. Wouldn’t this pair have won easily?
Instead, I fear Marco Rubio may be the next Leader of the Free World. :eek:
Brown is a lefty, that’s for sure, and a good guy, but she doesn’t need him (plus, as noted above, that would mean Kasich or his GOP successor would pick his replacement). Liberal Dems and Sanderistas won’t abandon Hillary for whoever the Republicans nominate.
Two previous threads on Hillary’s possible running mate:
Bush can’t pick Rubio since they are both from Florida.
I also think it likely the only “running mate” JEB! will need to pick in the future will be a jogging partner.
Yeah, but that wasn’t that long ago, so there’s still 21st century precedent. I expect we’ll see it again in the next few cycles. Maybe even this year on the GOP side.
Which is why it should be more about whether Rubio could pick Jeb. Which he actually could.
Dumb article. Nobody thinks that it’s not allowed. The question is whether he should. Maybe the advice is outdated/simplistic, but the general idea is that they want a foil or someone to draw different voters in, which is why Obama/Biden are Midwest/Northeast, and before that Texas/Mountain, Midwestsouth/upper south, far northeast/midwest, and west/far northeast. Or why the last elections had candidates from northeast/upper midwest and west/Alaska.
Nothing against Jeb, but he doesn’t really offer a lot for Rubio’s campaign. I don’t think he’d pick Cruz (or vice versa) either.
Yeah, but the Edwards pick was a mistake. It seemed like a great idea at the time due to his popularity, but the two didn’t really get along very well and Edwards was frustrated with the campaign.
What Obama did with Clinton was smarter. He passed her over for VP despite a lot of calls for them to join on the same ticket. That was smart, because he didn’t need that kind of drama in his campaign. But Clinton was valuable in his administration.
I agree that it was correct for Obama to pass on making Hillary his running mate, although I think Biden was a poor choice. But I don’t agree about Kerry - Edwards. The conventional wisdom is to cast that ticket as a failure. But to me, that shallow analysis is an egregious example of what poker players call “results based thinking”. I believe all the solid political science data shows that 2004 was an uphill climb for any Democratic ticket, and that they actually performed at the very upper range of what any Democratic campaign could have achieved.
Why do you think Biden was a poor choice? Obama likes and trusts Biden, and is comfortable working with him. That seems far more sensible then choosing someone for ideological and/or regional balance.
I think Biden was a good choice, Obama was a first term Senator, Biden had been in the Senate forever, plus had successfully blocked Robert Bork. Obama figured he’d need experience in negotiating with Congress, he didn’t probably expect the extreme obstruction from the Republicans, but he probably knew that Bill Clinton had trouble with a Democratic congress from 1992-1994
Biden was a poor choice because he’s only in the news for saying dumb things. The White House has had to do damage control on a regular basis, which is a distraction and hurts the President, if only a little. Who wants a VP who’s a late-night punchline?
He could, but he’d be foolish to do so. Why go looking for trouble, controversy and potential legal problems when there are so many other options for running mates? What VP would be worth that?
For Clinton to pick O’Malley, he’d likely have to endorse her before too long. Otherwise, she’d pick someone more loyal. I’ve heard Castro and Booker get thrown around a lot, though Booker is from New Jersey, which will go Democratic no matter what, so may not be an ideal state to choose from.
As for Sanders, all but one of the women you named are from the Northeast. Having 2 NE liberals on the ticket may be suicide.
I don’t think states for Veeps (and Presidents too, perhaps) matter much any more – Gore lost Tennessee, Kerry/Edwards lost NC, Romney/Ryan lost Wisconsin… and Obama/Biden was a Chicago “liberal” (I’d call him a moderate) with a mid-Atlantic (and solid blue-state) “liberal” Veep, and they did fine. Even if Rubio is the Republican nominee, Florida will probably still be in play, and it’s not like a Castro Veep pick would put Texas in play.
Was he known for gaffes before becoming VP?
And I do like the punchline, he’s made the Onion glorious. He’s at least less embarrassing than the spouse of the UK head of state.
Oh, yes: Joe Biden - Wikipedia
Trump vp pick will be a woman.
She’d be a disaster. Her campaign style consists solely of throwing red meat to the right, which doesn’t play in the general (it didn’t even play in the primary!); she doesn’t pass the sniff test of being ready to take over as president from day one; and the optics of a woman VP nominee on the Republican side against a woman Presidential nominee on the Democratic side seem poor. Kasich actually seems like a pretty good choice for anyone of the potential Republican nominees.