Who should Hillary pick as her VP choice?

[Mister Mets]

I suspect she'll go with Newsom. The base likes him. A younger candidate is a good match. He's been a loyal #2 in California, and his mayorality gives him strong executive experience. He also supported her in 2008.

Her best choices are probably Schweitzer or Warner. Schweitzer can be a strong campaigner in a region Hillary Clinton isn't associated with. Warner is qualified, and immensely popular in a crucial swing state.

Martin Heinrich could also be a solid choice as a younger western Senator.

Xavier Becerra could her with both the Congress in the presidency and Latino voters in the election.

Really shows you how terrible the bench is for vice presidential candidates. Gillibrand should be a shoe-in for any non-Hillary nominee, but for Hillary... I can say any of them would be that fantastic.

Still, I voted Patrick.

I don't think the bench is all that bad.

Geographic considerations probably take out a few of the potential national candidates, as does the likelihood that Hillary Clinton won't want another woman on the ticket.

That still leaves her with solid choices among the senators, governors and prominent politicians who hold other offices (Becerra, The Castro brothers, Newsom.)

[Mister Mets]

Her qualifications are impressive, and she would get some excitement as the first female major-party nominee for President, so what she should look for is a candidate who won't harm the ticket. That's more important than anything else.

This would have to be someone whose resume stands up to scrutiny, and who won't make her look bad. The perception is that Clinton is politically craven, so if anyone has a reputation for political shamelessness, it may be best to avoid them. It's also best to avoid anyone who is too liberal, as that might convince swing voters to opt for Christie or Rubio. It's also probably best to pick a man. The ticket's already groundbreaking. Hillary Clinton/ Martin O'Malley is an inspiration to your daughters. Hillary Clinton/ Tammy Baldwin can be painted as radical feminists.

After looking at the people who won't cause harm to the ticket, then it's time to look at balance (in terms of experience and region) and swing states.

There will be other circumstances in 2016 that will affect her choices. If President Obama is more popular, Anthony Foxx might be a stronger running mate. If everyone in Washington is immensely unpopular, a Governor would be a stronger choice. If she has just defeated Cory Booker in a hard-fought primary, a unity ticket may be in order.

[Mister Mets]

Kaine isn't that popular in Virginia

He won an open Senate election by a nice margin (slightly more than Obama's margin against Romney in the state) against a well-known and qualified opponent. This was his third successful bid for statewide office.

[Mister Mets]

Haha, can you imagine if she picked Oprah?  It would be a landslide!

Ya, for the Republicans.  Oprah would be a political joke.

You don't understand America very well do you?

Also, she knows about 10 times as much as GW did when he ran for president.

A fun thing about celebrity is that no matter how popular something is, a majority of Americans don't care for it.

Take the Avengers. Massive box office hit, but a lot more Americans didn't see it than saw it.

Oprah's the same way. A lot of housewives enjoyed that show. But the majority can be convinced that she's unqualified, and a little bit weird (in terms of her spiritual beliefs.)

[Mister Mets]

Safe Choice, Mark Warner. Out of the box choice(s)- Amy Klobuchar or Elizabeth Warren.

Honestly I like the women on the list better than the men.  Instead of picking a man to balance the ticket I could see her pulling a page out of Bill's playbook and doubling down by picking a VP similar to herself (In Bill's case picking another young white southerner.)   

One difference is that Clinton doubled down with a group that had gone pretty big for Reagan and Bush.

Women already support the Democrats, so adding another woman to the ticket could come with diminishing returns.

[Mister Mets]

I've actually started to think that Jeff Merkley may not be a bad choice.  Obviously Oregon isn't a swing state, but two factors that Hillary may have to consider for her VP choice is that she is weak in the West and may do well to shore up her populist credentials, especially if a leftist challenge is able to gain some traction in the primaries.

Merkley satisfies both those credentials. Bennet and Heinrich are more often mentioned as far Western possibilities are concerned, but some downsides to consider are that Bennet will likely be facing a fairly competitve re-election bid and we'd probably lose Heinrich's seat due to gubernatorial appointment unless Martinez goes down next year.

While that is true, anything that helps in a presidential election/ administration is worth an additional loss in a Senate seat, especially since a Hillary presidential win would probably have some coattails in 2010.

[Mister Mets]

I suspect she'll go with Newsom. The base likes him. A younger candidate is a good match. He's been a loyal #2 in California, and his mayorality gives him strong executive experience. He also supported her in 2008.

Her best choices are probably Schweitzer or Warner. Schweitzer can be a strong campaigner in a region Hillary Clinton isn't associated with. Warner is qualified, and immensely popular in a crucial swing state.

Martin Heinrich could also be a solid choice as a younger western Senator.

Xavier Becerra could her with both the Congress in the presidency and Latino voters in the election.

Really shows you how terrible the bench is for vice presidential candidates. Gillibrand should be a shoe-in for any non-Hillary nominee, but for Hillary... I can say any of them would be that fantastic.

Still, I voted Patrick.

I don't think the bench is all that bad.

Geographic considerations probably take out a few of the potential national candidates, as does the likelihood that Hillary Clinton won't want another woman on the ticket.

That still leaves her with solid choices among the senators, governors and prominent politicians who hold other offices (Becerra, The Castro brothers, Newsom.)

I take back what I said about Schweitzer. He's less valuable without a Senate bid in 2014. And some of his recent statements make him a potentially risky pick, when Hillary wants someone safe.

Warner's still a great pick, due to his popularity in what may be the most important state in the election and his qualifications as a Governor and Senator. It would still be a ticket with two people in their 60s, which could be problematic.

Bennet in Colorado looks great on paper. He's young, comes from a western swing state, has major credibility on education and has been in the Senate long enough that he seems qualified for national office. I'd imagine he'd do pretty well in the vetting process.

[Mister Mets]

What about Mark Udall or Hickenlooper instead of Bennet?

We'll see how their reelections go.

Both are in their 60s. That could be an issue. I really don't see Hillary Clinton selecting an older running mate unless he brings something incredible to the ticket.

Voted Biden, Kerry, Napolitano, Rice. Gore wouldn't accept.

You think Biden would want to be VP again? Or that Kerry would accept? They'd both be well into their 70s in 2016, have the baggage of their entire political careers and wouldn't energize the base at all. Rice is also still a Republican and tainted by the Bush administration. I think that considering Hillary is carrying the baggage of Benghazi, she should be looking for someone outside the Obama administration.

Most importantly and absolutely essential..........
NOT A WOMAN!

I agree with this also. I don't get why people would think another woman would be a realistic choice. Or someone even older than Hillary. Or has-beens like Biden and Kerry. Or city mayors and lieutenant governors.

In most cases, I agree with you.

Castro does bring something unique to the ticket, even though it would be a major distraction to have the Democrats forced to debate whether he's qualified for national office in a way that wouldn't apply to Steve Bullock (who has been Governor for less time for a state with a smaller population.)

I don't think Newsom's a great choice, but I can't see Hillary completely ignoring one of the few current officeholders who backed her over Obama in '08.

Both mayors have somewhat high profiles, which may make it an easier sell to the people who care about that stuff. Giving a national address in 2012 or gaining national attention in 2004 make the mayors seem like plausible candidates for national office.

[Mister Mets]

Regarding age…..keep in mind that 73 year old Bob Dole picked 61 year old Jack Kemp to be his running mate in 1996.  So no, I don't think it's out of the question for Clinton to pick someone over 60.  If there's a really compelling reason for her to do it, she would do it.  But over 70 (that is, as old as Biden is now, or older)?  Yeah, that's not going to happen.

Dole/ Kemp lost, and Democrats have a preference for younger candidates, as well as a good record with them (Presidents JFK, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) so that party's more likely to go younger.

Even older Republicans tend to pick younger running mates. Ike went with a Senator who wasn't even 40. Ford dumped Rockefeller for a guy 15 years younger. McCain had Palin. Romney had Ryan.

There would have to be a compelling reason to go with someone older.

56 year old George HW Bush had great foreign policy/ national security/ business experience, a good fit for a celebrity turned Governor. Kemp had a following on economic issues, and a national reputation from his decades in Congress/ previous presidential bids. Hickenlooper would still be older, and Mark Udall would be elderly.

Democrats may end up nominating two people in their 60s. But the other person would have to bring something big to the ticket, to make them a better choice than a younger generic Democrat.

[Mister Mets]

Tim Ryan, a 40 year old Ohio Congressman has given keynote speeches for Ready for Hillary fundraisers. He was elected to Congress at 29, and is a member of the appropriations committee.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/you-can-never-be-too-ready-for-hillary/282354/

I'm wondering if he's trying to establish himself as the Democratic version of another Congressman Ryan, one who was just on a national campaign.

I don't think Hillary should pick him, but I could definitely see it.