The white males who haven’t fallen for Trump’s racist and sexist shtick aren’t going to run to him just because Hillary might pick someone who’s not a white male.
No chance it would be Webb – he’s been strongly critical of Hillary (and Bernie too, for that matter), been supportive of the Confederate flag, and critical of BLM. Hillary knows she’ll need high minority turnout to have the best chance to win, and Webb would be probably strongly depress minority turnout.
Among governors, there had been some (probably wishful) thinking among Democrats here in Missouri that Jay Nixon might be a VP candidate. But his poor handling of the Ferguson unrest probably killed whatever chance he may have had. I could see him maybe getting a Cabinet position. He’s considered to be a pretty good administrator.
Scanning down the list of state governors, none really jump out at me. Louisiana’s governor, Jon Bel Edwards, is a Democrat, which is kind of interesting. But I don’t know anything about him. It’s pretty unlikely that his presence on the ticket would tilt LA for Clinton. I’ve heard John Hickenlooper mentioned as a possible VP pick
It’s hard to know for sure, but I think Tom Perez is pretty likely, as are Julian Castro and Cory Booker. If she wants a safe and boring pick it could be Tim Kaine or Mark Warner (probably not Sherrod Brown, since that would be a good likelihood of a lost Senate seat, and I think the Republican governor appoints an interim Senator).
I think it’s very, very unlikely she’ll pick a woman.
I’m thinking either Julian Castro or Mark Warner, myself.
Both present interesting dynamics. Castro is quite the lefty and an engaging speaker who could help lock down the Latino vote. Imagine his ads on Univision in Spanish. He’ll also cause at least SOME Texas agita for the other side.
Warner, on the other hand, is an impressive man. Pro-business democrat without being too far right. Hugely successful business owner. Popular former governor and current senator from a swing state. And if he wins a democratic governor gets to appoint his replacement.
Interesting that three current/former Virgnia senators/governors are mentioned in this thread.
It absolutely needs to be someone young. And a governor is probably better than a senator, for multiple reasons: We need senators more in the Senate, and she already has Senate experience, so a governor wold be a better complement for her.
I’d love to see Schweitzer, but given how strongly he reacted to the possibility of running for President, I doubt he’d be interested in VP, either.
Well it is a swing state, and the other two major swing states (Ohio and Florida) currently have Republican Governors. I guess Colorado is a swing state as well, but doesn’t have as many Electoral Votes as Ohio, Florida, and Virginia.
Mark Warner is, I think, the best of the Virginia bunch. Castro is a fascinating idea - young, great speaker, lefty but establishment, and it’d get Trump all in a huff. Though, the last pro may also be a con, as Trump may try to use that to scare more people when it comes to illegal immigration rhetoric.
That depends on how much the base whines that there shouldn’t be a white male on the ticket at all.
Anyway, I stand by my prediction of a longtime loyalist who is ready to be President on Day 1: Vilsack, MacCauliffe, Wes Clark. If you believe the book Game Change, Clinton doesn’t think much of Tim Kaine. She is quoted in Game Change as saying he would be a “terrible choice” if Obama picked him. Mark Warner is better qualified anyway.
This thread happened six months ago and I’m seeing a lot of the same names.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18886983
If she’s running against Trump her VP could be a border collie and she’d win in a landslide. That being said, she doesn’t have to make a bold pick in effort to win purple states. I don’t see someone like Franken or Sherrod Brown getting the nod. Warren? No way. Tim Kaine says it won’t be him, but I could see it.
Why not be bold and pick a Republican? She’s close to a lot of Republicans, some would make good matches for her at least in terms of being able to work together. And it gives Republicans who don’t like Trump(which is a lot) a reason to vote for her beyond the fact that she loves to kill bad guys.
heck, since Senate politics comes into play here, which is why Brown is an unlikely choice, why not turn the AZ Senate seat blue for sure and pick John McCain, as Democrats wanted to do in 2004? He’s so fed up with the Tea Party that he might say yes this time. Lindsey Graham is also pretty close to Clinton. His friendship with the Clintons was actually a bit of an issue in the campaign:
It’s an opportunity to pick anyone and I’d love to see some bold or interesting. But this is Clinton, she’s going to pick an extremely safe political choice, nothing that will make waves, she’s not going to buck past precident. No liberal heartthrobs will make the cut.
Franken would be awsome but it’s not happening.
Yeah, the issue with Franken aside from his past, which shouldn’t be a problem given that it’s known, but will give the cautious Clinton the willies, is that he’d be at risk of being the story as much as she is. I don’t think she’ll want anyone who might overshadow her.
Because she wants to turn out Democrats, and almost nothing could do more harm to Democratic turnout than this. She also wants to strengthen the Democratic party and increase the chances of future Democratic Presidents, and this would harm both. No chance of this, thankfully.
Ideally, yeah, but practically, that often doesn’t seem to be much of a consideration; and I don’t think I’ve ever heard a running mate touted as “…and he’d make a good president if anything happened to me.” If you’re a presidential candidate, you don’t want the electorate thinking about something happening to you.
True, but the only VP candidates that have been major issues in a campaign have been those perceived as unready. Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin come to mind. Julian Castro, I know a lot of Democrats are high on him, but putting him on the national stage at this point is a risk. Being pretty and young heightens the sense that a candidate is a dimwit if he gets off to a bad start or has bad interviews where he doesn’t seem to have a good grasp of national issues.
Whereas a guy like Tom Vilsack is boring and reassuring.
I don’t have any particular names in mind, but I strongly suspect that he will be male, since another female might make it look to some people like a Clinton was starting a war on men. I also think that he will be to the left of Clinton. having Trump as a nominee basically concedes the center to her, the only thing she has to worry about is placating disaffected Bernie supporters.
It won’t be Bernie himself, given the bad blood of the campaign, and I also can’t see Franken. Even though he has been a good senator his stint on SNL has made him difficult to take seriously, and given that one of Clinton’s main arguments over Trump is that she is more presidential, this won’t help her case.
Given the weakness of the Republican candidate it might be a good time to choose a running mate for long term strategic reasons rather than just the immediate election. Perhaps for example trying to win some of the working class whites back into the Democratic party by choosing a running mate with strong labor credentials.
I think the kind of people that worry about a “war on men” are probably not gonna be Clinton voters in anycase.
I don’t have a name in mind, but I think the closest she’ll come to choosing a minority will be a white-Hispanic male.
She will pick someone that doesn’t hurt her campaign (or even helps), and someone who would be a strong (as much as can be predicted at this time) Democratic candidate for 2024. Anyone who doesn’t fall into those categories can be written off, I think.
Bill Nelson? I 2nd Sherrod brown.
What she needs is a Senator or preferably a governor of a swing state. Terry McAuliffe might work.