Will Candidates Pick VP From Other Candidates?

In My Humble Opinion
1

What do you think the chances are than the candidates who win the primary (both Dem and Rep) will select one of the other candidates running from their party as their VP?

Do you, for instance, see Hillary choosing one of the other Democratic candidates, or would she go with a totally new person? Would Obama take someone like Hillary or would he go for Joe Biden?

Same for the Republicans. Would Rudy pick Mitt?

I think the advantage of choosing one of the other candidates would be the security of knowing there are fewer chances of that huge skeleton falling out of the closet two days before the General Election…the candidates currently running have all pretty much had their mud slung so far.

And do you think any of the candidates running now are secretly planning to volunteer to be the VP anyway?

2

There’s no way in hell Clinton will agree to be anybody’s VP. She wants to be number one and won’t settle for less. My gut feeling is that if she does loose the nomination the winner will select a woman his running partner. If she wins the Republican candidate will do the same.

3

It’s hard to see Joe Biden catching a break any time soon, but I will say that neither Obama or Clinton seem like they would much like John Edwards as a running mate.

4

Edwards brought nothing to the Kerry ticket, not sure why they’d try it again.

I’d put serious money on Bill Richardson. The Republicans have beaten the anti-immigration drums pretty loud and having Richardson on the ticket could solidify Hispanic support for the Democrats for years to come.

5

That’s what I’m saying. Among his other problems, his line of horseshit about how he’s struggling to find a place in his heart for same-sex marriage, but OTOH he doesn’t want to force his religion on people, won’t get him too far in either the Democratic primary or in any attempt to win the heart and mind of whoever drives the bandwagon.

That’s an interesting perspective. I, for one, would like to see him play a serious role in the governance of this nation at some point, so I hope you’re right.

6

None of the one term (give or take) senators will pick another for a running mate. So neither Hillary, Obama or Edwards will pick each other as VP.

I could see Richardson as a good choice for any of the above candidates, as he has a good resume, will help get votes in the west, etc. That said, there will also be an open senate seat in NM in 2008 which he would have a good chance at if (when) he gives up on being Prez. So I guess it would depend on his own ambitions.

Huckabee would be a good running mate for any of the Repub frontrunners, all of whom have problems with evangelical voters in their party, and he is seen as the most socially conservative of the electable GOP candidates.

7

The issue with Huckabee isn’t whether he’ll get an offer to be VP but whether he’s going to be able to wrestle the nomination away from the big three. A strong second in Iowa would do wonders for him in New Hampshire and then make him a possible favorite in South Carolina. I could see it happening.

On the democratic side I don’t think that any of the big three would be willing to accept any of the others as VP. That leaves the second tier of Richardson, Biden, et al as the likely choices. But there are others in the wings. Wes Clarke or even an old warhorse like John Breaux of Louisiana would make strong VP choices for either Hillary or Obama due to their perceived weakness on foreign and military affairs. I think it’s more likely to have Clarke end up as SecState, though. He’d be good in that role.

I agree that Richardson being chosen would help shore up the Latino vote. While it wouldn’t move all of them having him run around giving speeches in Spanish and challenging his opponent to a debate on Univision in spanish would be one hell of a thing to see.

8

Hillary has been heard on mic saying to Edwards, “Our people should talk.” :slight_smile:
My fear is that Clinton would pick Obama, totally screwing the possibility of a victory which will depend upon a crossover vote.

9

I don’t see Clinton accepting second place. If she misses the nomination, she’ll stay in the Senate. Edwards will probably pass as well - if he runs for VP a second time, it’s going to look like he can’t make it at the top. Obama will probably not get the offer - he’s too likely to overshadow whoever’s on top of the ticket. Clinton might be able to get away with Obama on the ticket but the Democrats aren’t going to run a woman and a black man on the same ticket.

In the second tier of the Democrat field, you’ve got Biden and Richardson, both of whom would be excellent VP choices. They’d add to a ticket and would be putting themsleves in a good place for a futre Presidential run. Dodd and Kucinich aren’t going to be asked because they’d swing the ticket to the left. Gravel will be passed over because of his age (trivia note - Gravel sought the Vice Presidential nomination in 1972). Vilsack has a chance - he’s close to Clinton - but he didn’t get much attention during his own run and he’s virtually an outsider.

On the Republican side, it’s going to be more of a quest for ideological balance. If Guiliani gets the nomination, he’ll be looking for a conservative like Huckabee. If Huckabee gets it, he’ll be looking for a moderate like Guiliani. I don’t know if Guiliani would be willing to take a VP spot - he might on a McCain ticket if he thinks McCain might not run for a second term. I think McCain would pass on a VP spot - he’s too old to consider a future run. I also see Romney and Thompson as questioning the idea of taking the number two spot on the ticket. I think Huckabee would be willing. I also think the minor candidates like Brownback, Hunter, Gilmore, and Tommy Thompson would take it, but like Vilsack their campaigns drew them virtually no public attention. I don’t think any candidate’s going to be asking Paul or Tancredo - both have too much controversy. Keyes has an outside chance if Obama doesn’t run and some candidate takes a longshot attempt at black voters.

10

I’ll have to change my sig. :slight_smile:

11

Bill Richardson is a decent guy, but I doubt whether he’d do much to attract Latrino voters.

The Texas Democrats tried that approach a few years ago and made Tony Sanchez the nominees for governor. The result? An even lower turnout among Hispanic voters than usual and a comfortable victory for Republican Rick Perry.

I’m well aware that the Hispanic vote is a sleeping giant, but it’s a VERY difficult giant to wake up. If Tony Sanchez didn’t excite Hispanic voters, I can’t see Bill Richardson doing better.

12

Might as well flush those votes down the toilet? :wink:

13

Now Gilmore’s an interesting choice there.

Virginia, and it’s 13 electoral votes, has been going from red to blue for a few election cycles now. The increased population of the left-leaning Washington, DC suburbs of Northern Virginia have had a large impact on the candidates the state elects. Toss in the victories of Webb and Kaine recently and it’s clear there’s something going on there.

And then the astonishingly popular Mark Warner gets into the Senate race to replace John Warner (no relation) and that’s one HELL of a lot of voters, of both sides, heading to the polls already predisposed to vote democratic. And make no mistake, Mark Warner will WIN that Senate seat and he’s likely to do so with coattails for the Presidential nominee.

Gilmore, on the other hand, might be able to impact that. He’s still reasonably popular from his term as Governor of Virginia and he’s socially quite conservative. He’d at least give the Republican ticket a fighting chance to maintain those electoral votes. But they’ll have to spend time and money to do it.

14

Rudy and Mitt, but who’s the third, IYHO? (I say it’s a two-man race, with Huckabee still having a remote shot at making it three.)

Don’t forget that Michigan’s in between NH and SC - and MI is in play on the GOP side. Unlike the Dems, they haven’t ruled it out of bounds, though MI may wind up with fewer delegates than otherwise. (Which won’t matter - the early primaries are about perception, not numbers.) And Romney’s the most likely beneficiary there (and Rudy second most likely), while the Huckster’s probably not going to even have a campaign organization in Michigan unless/until his strong second in Iowa gets him a boatload of contributions to enable him to have a presence there.

So it’s hard to see him getting a real strong bounce going into SC. And once there, SC isn’t just a fundy-friendly state, it’s also the home of dirty-trick campaigning. Rudy and Mitt already have their local attack dogs on staff; Huck won’t.

And of course all this is assuming NH is on January 8. We don’t know that for sure yet, and there’s reason to believe they might go with December 11, which would shake up everyone’s calculations, but would really hurt Huck, as he’s polling in single digits there.

I see Huckabee as being a credible running mate for Mitt, one who would be sufficiently philosophically compatible to be believable, and who would shore up Mitt’s cred with the evangelicals. (I’m not saying it’ll happen if Mitt’s the nominee; just that it’s a reasonable possibility.)

Other than that, I don’t see any possible pairings of announced candidates on the GOP side. Tancredo, Hunter, Keyes, and Paul are a nutcase squad. Rudy and McCain aren’t interested in being anyone’s second fiddle. Giuliani’s penchant for surrounding himself with yes-men suggests that he’s not going to pick someone who has his own base of support. Unless Gramps Thompson shows a spark of life sometime, it’s hard to see anyone being interested in nominating him for anything ever again. Mitt would probably accept the veep position, but it’s hard to see either Rudy or Huck offering him the position.

On the Dem side, no way Hillary’s gonna be second fiddle. Edwards (without saying it in so many words) has been standing up for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and that won’t work well with Hillary. And Edwards is all about "take on the bad actors’ while Obama’s about uniting everyone, so Edwards will be neither Hillary’s nor Obama’s running mate.

There’s a slight chance, IMHO, of a Hillary-Obama ticket. There’s not that much philosophical difference between them, really. The problem is that when Obama finds his moral footing, he’s capable of giving speeches that outshine anyone else in American politics nowadays. Nobody wants a #2 that will upstage them.

Kucinich and Gravel are right out. That leaves Biden, Dodd, and Richardson.

I think Biden and Dodd are possible, but unlikely. They don’t add much to the ticket (hey, a Northeastern white male who’s been in the Senate forever without making many waves!) Edwards could conceivably pick Biden (to shore up his foreign policy cred) or Dodd (to reinforce the point that he’s willing to stand up for habeas and the Fourth Amendment), and Obama too might pick Biden for the foreign-policy cred.

Richardson, OTOH, is primo veep material for anyone. The GOP’s busily chasing the Hispanic vote away, but the Dems haven’t nailed it down yet. Nominating Richardson would go a long way there. Plus he’s been a Congressman, a governor, and served in Clinton’s cabinet.

Doesn’t mean he’ll be picked, of course. But IMHO, he’d be a very good pick, as well as a very plausible one.