It’s far from the worst pick she could make. The only hesitation I would have is that it would be losing the opportunity to launch another Democrat. Not a major concern for a presidential candidacy, but the Clintons are very big on the party.
Otherwise, Biden is canny, likeable, and smart. If he and Clinton like each other (no idea if they do), then it could be a pretty sweet deal.
I also have zero idea how someone like Biden feels about being VP. Has it been a pleasure or a chore? He seems like the type of person who likely enjoys it, but I could be dead wrong.
Biden did endorse Hillary. Which isn’t to say that he likes her or wants the job. He’s a known quantity though, and in a society obsessed with brand, his brand is second only to Obama. She could do far far worse.
The other option is Bernie. Though that would be a cynical and obviously calculated choice. Exactly the sort of triangulation Clintons are infamous for. She could always give him a golden parachute 2 years down the road.
If I were Clinton, I’d steer well clear of Sanders. He’s not disciplined (it’s unclear if Biden’s couple of discipline problems were actually unstaged).
Biden has put his foot in his mouth too often to merit another stint as VP, and is also now a bit too long in the tooth to sign up for another four years. Hillary is no spring chicken either. I think it’ll be someone younger than she is.
Sanders wasn’t even a Democrat this time last year, and has shown zero talent in being “able to cross the aisle and make deals, [and] be an advocate for the administration,” as QuickSilver paraphrased Hillary as valuing.
Hillary will most likely try and get someone who can help her lock down some swing states that Trump will want and particularly someone who will appeal to blue collar whites.
Sherrod Brown of Ohio would probably be a good choice. Every Presidential candidate who’s won Ohio since the 19th Century, with the exception of Nixon in 1960, has won the Presidency.
Remember, while lots of us, myself included, are scared of the possibility of Trump winning, in 2012, Romney won just 206 electoral votes to Obama’s 332.
To put it another way, even if Trump manages to hold onto every state Romney won, which is questionable, he’ll need to win several other states that Obama won in 2012, which will be really difficult.
It will have to be someone who appeals to the Sanders supporters. She doesn’t need help with people who are already going to vote for her. Biden has that appeal, despite having endorsed her.
This would be a calculated move and while it would run counter to what she claimed to value, she’s no idiot. She want to win more than she wants to appear consistent on this point. She is, after all, a pragmatist above all else.
I’m not putting money down on her choosing Bernie for VP. But it’s not a terrible idea if she and Bernie can come to an understanding about it after she wins the party nomination.
Not so: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Van Buren in 1836, Polk in 1844, Taylor in 1848, Buchanan in 1856, Cleveland in 1884 and 1892, and FDR in 1944, all won the Presidency without Ohio.
But it’s true that no Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio.
Right or wrong, I think the prevailing wisdom in Washington is that VP selections don’t really tip their home states. And so you’re better off picking someone who demographically or ideologically appeals to your targets–if you pick for political reasons at all.
Hence, Cheney (WY), Palin (AK), Biden (DE). Romney picked Ryan, but still lost WI solidly in a year that people thought WI might flip.
It might also be that people with electoral success in close swing states make bad national candidates, because they tend to be people who have traded a lot of horses.
I never thought Elizabeth Warren was a good consideration for Hillary-- I love her, but I thought the two-woman ticket would be more of a liability than anything. Now I’m starting to think, with Trump’s apparent inability to do anything right, the gender of the Democratic ticket is becoming less and less relevant by the day. And Warren seems ready to do whatever it takes to defeat Trump, even join a ticket with someone she doesn’t necessarily like or agree with 100%. I mean she’s *aggressively *attacking Don, and I don’t think she would buckle under a heated national campaign; she’s got a pair of big brass ones. Plus she’s someone who could really, really fire up the left.
I had been a lover of the rural outreach and sheer competency of Vilsack, liked the next generation grooming of Castro, saw the appeal of a Kaine or a Warner or even of a Sherrod Brown, excepting losing a Senate seat, but Warren brings a wit for the Twitter battle and yeah, gender is less important than spine and intelligent bile.
Not loyal to Clinton. She’s a bit of a maverick and has drawn Obama’s ire a couple of times. She’s not the type to just salute and follow.
Too old to be a successor. After a Clinton administration the party would be essentially leaderless and would face what the Republicans did this year: a very large field of promising but unproven candidates. Actually, not that large since the talent pool has been depleted by recent elections losses. A younger VP sets up a clear heir apparent. Doesn’t even have to be that young, just not already a senior citizen as Warren is.
Special elections have gone badly for Democrats in recent years, even in Massachusetts. If you’re trying to maintain Senate control, you can’t risk taking ANY Senators unless it’s an appointed replacement and a Democratic governor is present. How many states are there like that left? Two?
Had been in my thoughts when I was cold on the idea, but the way this cycle is shaping?
Is a feature not a bug. Proves Clinton does not need yes men and women and is willing to incorporate people with strong other thoughts. Appeals to the being a bit more other than business as usual. Has both the intellectual chops and the skills to chop with them.
Other ways to develop leaders than the VP spot. Not too worried about the heir apparent eight years from now at this point in time any way.
A calculated risk to be sure and not a bad point.
Bottom line though is that I doubt she wants the job.
How about Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon? He’s the only Senator who has endorsed Sanders, so he builds a bridge to the left wing of the Party without actually, you know, being Sanders. He gives the ticket geographic balance and is relatively young at 50. My Oregonian friends and relatives all seem quite happy with him. It would trigger a special election (held “as soon as practicable” with the seat remaining vacant in in the interim), but Oregon is pretty reliably blue.
So was Massachusetts. Democrats don’t vote in special elections.
As for the merits of Merkley himself, he’s too liberal for my tastes but a solid guy from everything I’ve read. In the Presidency, I prioritize honor and competence over ideology. I’d actually prefer Wyden, but isn’t he old now?
If you just want to argue with yourself, you don’t really need the rest of us here to do it. Also, drawing conclusions from the Brown-Coakley election without noting how spectacularly poor the Coakley campaign was is a pointless exercise.
It’s not going to be Warren for reasons already noted; whatever she adds to the ticket as VP is of far less value than she can add staying right where she is. I still wouldn’t mind Schweitzer but I seem to be the only one interested (including Schweitzer himself).
Whatever happened to Bill Richardson? I know he’s another “old” choice (68) but wasn’t he well-regarded at one point? OTOH I’m guessing Hillary won’t want to bring in someone from Bill’s administration.
He’s not disqualified, but why would she pick someone under investigation if there are others to pick with equal/better qualifications and positions on the issues? Being under investigation is a negative – it makes things worse in politics. Hillary would prefer if she was not under investigation.
This is politics 101. Maybe even common sense 101.
