For my money:
- Foreign policy expert
- Demographic swinger
- Younger
The others are, to me, largely irrelevant.
My guess/hope would be that he wouldn’t follow the conventional wisdom of seeking ideological balance. Particularly given his advanced age, he’s going to pick someone who he can trust to continue his approximate policies if needed. I don’t think it’s crucial that he pick a younger person, since it’s hardly mathematically possible for him to be much more popular with young voters than he already is. So we’re looking at demographic and geographic balance as prime considerations.
Of those mentioned in this thread, I think Grijalva, Booker or Warren would all be fine choices. I think even better would be Sherrod Brown or Tammy Baldwin, both of whom offer demographic balance and also hail from large Midwestern swing states. None of them are really known as foreign policy mavens, though, and I do think that is an important consideration.
FWIW I’ve been a fan of Sherrod Brown for a Hillary VP choice for long time now.
He shouldn’t pick a younger person to appeal to young people. He should pick a younger person because, let’s face it, he’s old and might die. It’s literally the primary job of a VP to survive if the President dies.
He shouldn’t try specifically to appeal to any particular demographic. It probably doesn’t work, and trying it looks bad. He should pick the most qualified candidate, no matter what demographic that candidate turns out to be from.
Eh, Paul Ryan seems to be doing OK post-Romney. Palin and Edwards not so much, but they both self-destructed, I don’t think they were particularly hurt by their VP campaigns.
I doubt a Dem from a conservative state would want to tie himself to the Sanders ticket, but I don’t think its particularly damaging to be for someone to lose a VP campaign so long as their running mate isn’t super far to the left or right of the positions they’ve already taken. And its guaranteed to up your profile.
So if he picks an old running mate and then dies, the new President will just pick a new VP and the chain of life will go on. It’s not like there’s a danger the line of succession will break down. I suppose if Sanders is elected and the GOP still control both houses of Congress, they could refuse to confirm a new VP and leave the position open, but I think the chance of that scenario happening is basically zero.
There’s no objective way to determine who the “most qualified candidate” is. Just limiting it to current and recent Democratic Governors and Senators yields dozens of candidates who could be described by their supporters as highly qualified. If the candidate himself does feel that one possibility is head and shoulders above all the others, then certainly that should be the choice. But barring that probably unlikely case, there’s no reason not to take electoral considerations into account.
Bolding mine.
If the GOP controls Congress, the next in line after the vacant VP position is the Speaker of the House. A ta daaa! Republican.
We’ve seen the current Rs are willing to leave Scalia’s position open for a year on the roughly 50/50 chance they’ll get to pick his replacement. Leaving VP open only has real adverse impact on the nation in the 0.01% chance the Presidency opens a second time when Sanders’ VP & now President dies/is incapacitated.
I have to bet an R Congress that’s been wrassling with Bernie for a couple years before he died will be at least as radicalized against that Communist Trying to Destroy America as they are today against that Foreign Muslim Trying to Destroy America.
Leaving VP open is only a concern if you think the VP has vital duties to accomplish in the meantime. Objectively, an empty VP position has a lot less impact on the functioning of the Executive than an empty Supreme Court position has on the operation of the Judiciary.
Bottom line: IMO a radicalized R Congress would certainly drag its feet choosing a VP. If they did choose one, he’d be a Republican. And they’d be wildly popular with their supporters for doing so.
Okay, how about Chelsea?
WTF dude?!?!?!
Now I have coffee burns in my sinus cavity!:mad:
Yes, but my point is that there’s essentially no chance of Bernie being elected AND the GOP continuing to control both houses of Congress. This is a very favorable Senate election cycle for Democrats, and it’s entirely plausible that the Democrats could regain the Senate even while losing the Presidency. The opposite scenario is so unlikely as to be negligible.
The Vice Presidential replacement is chosen by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress, it’s not just a Senate confirmation.
How about Wasserman-Schultz?
I like the irony of that choice.
Uhhh, I’m going to say no on Debbie W-S.
A pity Frank Zappa aint alive Sanders could pick him.
At this point, I think Snuffalupagus would be a valid choice. “I will introduce my VP pick and, let me be clear, he really is here if you can’t see him.” 
Well, Martin O’Malley doesn’t seem to be doing anything…
Tulsi Gabbard, Tammy Baldwin, or Kirsten Gillibrand. All congressmembers and Senators. He should pick a governor, like Gov. Mark Dayton of Minnesota.
I would be doing a happy dance if:
a) Bernie got the nomination
b) Tulsi Gabbard was tagged as VP
She seems to be a good candidate.