If Hillary is the Democrat nominee, who might her VP be? Does it really matter?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:04:29 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  If Hillary is the Democrat nominee, who might her VP be? Does it really matter?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: If Hillary is the Democrat nominee, who might her VP be? Does it really matter?  (Read 4896 times)
User157088589849
BlondeArtisit
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 493


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 20, 2014, 05:30:27 PM »

Possible nominees
- Mark Warner
- Martin Heinrich
- Sherrod Brown
- Julian Castro
- Steve Beshear
- Martin O'Malley
- Tim Kaine

All bring something different to the table but does it really matter?
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,976


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2014, 05:38:13 PM »

I think Tim Kaine would be a great VP pick, Beshear is way too old and too conservative for a national Dem ticket I don't know why people even include him.
Logged
User157088589849
BlondeArtisit
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 493


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2014, 05:44:22 PM »

I think Tim Kaine would be a great VP pick, Beshear is way too old and too conservative for a national Dem ticket I don't know why people even include him.

The demographics will be different in 2016. The democrats can't win with only 38-40% of the white vote as the minority vote will be less.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2014, 05:45:45 PM »

Possible nominees
- Mark Warner
- Martin Heinrich
- Sherrod Brown
- Julian Castro
- Steve Beshear
- Martin O'Malley
- Tim Kaine

All bring something different to the table but does it really matter?
I don't think the VP nominee will really matter unless he/she is a terrible campaigner or is Palin-esque.

But of those choices...
-Warner was sued for sexually harassing his female employee
-Julian Castro in inexperienced
-Steve Beshear, while good, is old and not progressive enough for today's base
-Martin O'Malley is boring and has no vision
-Tim Kaine is just off, I don't trust him
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2014, 06:03:21 PM »

Possible nominees
- Mark Warner
- Martin Heinrich
- Sherrod Brown
- Julian Castro
- Steve Beshear
- Martin O'Malley
- Tim Kaine

All bring something different to the table but does it really matter?
I don't think the VP nominee will really matter unless he/she is a terrible campaigner or is Palin-esque.

But of those choices...
-Warner was sued for sexually harassing his female employee
-Julian Castro in inexperienced
-Steve Beshear, while good, is old and not progressive enough for today's base
-Martin O'Malley is boring and has no vision
-Tim Kaine is just off, I don't trust him

What? When did this happen?
Logged
User157088589849
BlondeArtisit
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 493


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2014, 06:10:57 PM »

Possible nominees
- Mark Warner
- Martin Heinrich
- Sherrod Brown
- Julian Castro
- Steve Beshear
- Martin O'Malley
- Tim Kaine

All bring something different to the table but does it really matter?
I don't think the VP nominee will really matter unless he/she is a terrible campaigner or is Palin-esque.

But of those choices...
-Warner was sued for sexually harassing his female employee
-Julian Castro in inexperienced
-Steve Beshear, while good, is old and not progressive enough for today's base
-Martin O'Malley is boring and has no vision
-Tim Kaine is just off, I don't trust him

you forgot to add the reaction the insurance industry/wall street would have if Hillary selected Sherrod Brown
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2014, 06:13:23 PM »

Mark Warner, Martin Heinrich, Sherrod Brown, and Julian Castro would all be good choices for different reasons.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2014, 06:24:48 PM »

Possible nominees
- Mark Warner
- Martin Heinrich
- Sherrod Brown
- Julian Castro
- Steve Beshear
- Martin O'Malley
- Tim Kaine

All bring something different to the table but does it really matter?
I don't think the VP nominee will really matter unless he/she is a terrible campaigner or is Palin-esque.

But of those choices...
-Warner was sued for sexually harassing his female employee
-Julian Castro in inexperienced
-Steve Beshear, while good, is old and not progressive enough for today's base
-Martin O'Malley is boring and has no vision
-Tim Kaine is just off, I don't trust him

What? When did this happen?

It didn't.

Warner, like Kaine or Gary Locke, is a safe pick. She'll probably go safe in a close race. If her lead is as big as it now is, she can pick a woman (like Murray or Klobuchar) and she'll still win.

VP doesn't matter much.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2014, 07:01:33 PM »

Toying with a Top 16...

16) John Hickenlooper-
The main negatives are that he's older, divorced and in a surprisingly tough reelection fight. But a swing state Governor is always going to be considered.

15) Sherrod Brown-
Also over 60, but the base likes him, and he's the Democrat's best bet in Ohio.

14) Charlie Crist-
If he wins another term as Governor of Florida. He helps in a crucial swing state, and allows Hillary to hammer a message about how Republicans have gone too extreme.

13) Anthony Foxx
Former Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina. Secretary of Transportation.
Can help with African-American turnout, campaign in North Carolina, and be a surrogate on an issue that's important to voters: smart infrastructure spending.

12) Martin O'Malley
Bland, but ready Governor.

11) Gavin Newsom
A western male under fifty who backed Hillary in '08. Progressive bona-fides as former Mayor of San Francisco. Practice as the #2 as the Lieutenant Government to Jerry Brown.

10) Martin Heinrich
Young western Senator.

9) Terry McAullife
One of Hillary Clinton's best political allies became the Governor of a swing state. Why on Earth wouldn't she consider him a potential veep?
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2014, 07:18:22 PM »
« Edited: August 21, 2014, 12:42:33 PM by Mister Mets »

And the top half...

8 ) Steve Bullock-
Youngish western Governor. Had the political chops to win an election in a state Obama lost by over 13 points. Montana is a very small state, but at least he'll be in the end of a full term.

7) Xavier Becerra
He's a qualified Hispanic politician who can help Hillary with the Congress, and is comfortable in front of cameras.

6) Cory Booker
Young media-savvy Senator. Can excite younger voters, and help with African-American turnout.

5) Tim Kaine
Has won three elections in a key swing state. Executive experience as former Governor. Already been a party surrogate as former DNC Chairman. And he'll have four more years as Senator (meaning he could help Hillary's relationships with Congress, considering all the Senators who have served after she left.)

4) Julian Castro
By making him HUD Secretary (a position held by a former Republican VP candidate) Democrats basically built a potential running mate for Clinton, taking Castro's top liability (limited experience as part time Mayor) off the table. He's a young Hispanic guy who is also the protege of Clinton buddy Henry Cisernos (another San Antonio Mayor/ HUD Secretary.)

3) Mark Warner
Has many of the strengths of Tim Kaine, but greater political gifts and private sector experience. And he's more popular in Virginia.

2) Anthony Brown
An African-American who backed Clinton over Obama in 2008, and is likely to get elected Governor of Baltimore. His civil rights background can impress progressives, and his military background pleases the center. He also has practice being in the #2 spot as O'Malley's veep.

1) Michael Bennet
Hillary Clinton's ideal running mate would be a younger male Senator (Senators are more familiar with national issues, and can help govern later) from the west with policy chops on a major issue. Bennet will be in his early 50s, and has been the Superintendent of the Denver Public School System. And he comes from the state where Hillary Clinton has the most trouble. And he proved his political chops getting elected to a full term (difficult for appointed Senators) in a bad cycle for the party. I think he has a slightly better shot at being the running mate than anyone else.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,252
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2014, 07:24:51 PM »

I question whether Castro will be seen as inexperienced after a couple years at the cabinet level. Besides, the mantra about Palin is she had "executive experience" which is what really counts for a (Vice) President. Well, Castro served as chief executive twice as long as Palin of someplace with twice the population of Alaska. After Obama was elected with only 4 years as senator, I doubt experience is going to be an issue to many swing voters.
Logged
daveosupremo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 468
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.32, S: -2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2014, 08:40:27 PM »

1. Gary Locke- Breaks another glass ceiling. Former governor. Fluent in Mandarin. Beautiful family. Geographic diversity. Amplifies foreign policy experience, while taking the spotlight off of Hillary's missteps.

2. Mark Warner- For all of the reasons listed above. Could be problematic having the richest man in the senate run for VP with today's Democrat party.

3. Michael Bennett- Helps in Colorado, where she's weak against Paul. As a former superintendent, he provides a stark contrast to Walker, Kasich and Christie, and will focus on that in Wisconsin and Ohio. Youngish senator, etc. Overall would be a great pick for her, but she might not want to take a relatively safe senate seat and give the Republicans another shot at picking it up.

4. Sherrod Brown- Progressive senator from Ohio. Helps calm the nerves of people who think she's too far to the center. But, like Bennett, would potentially pass him over to keep his senate seat safe.

4.5. Russ Feingold- He has all of Brown's advantages, minus being from Ohio. He also adds more successful foreign policy experience than Hillary, and a vote against the Iraq war to the ticket. He would be higher on the list, but I suspect he's considering a run of his own. He might also be a contender for Secretary of State if Clinton wins.

5. Gavin Newsom- I'm not sure why he's not considered more of a Democrat rockstar. He's got plenty of executive experience, he's handsome, young, articulate, and progressive. If he's not on Hillary's short list in 2016, I'd be very surprised. Also, he was married to Kimberly Guilfoyle, which, besides bringing to light his questionable taste in women, would make for hilarious television if he gets the nod.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2014, 08:45:35 PM »

1. Gary Locke- Breaks another glass ceiling. Former governor. Fluent in Mandarin. Beautiful family. Geographic diversity. Amplifies foreign policy experience, while taking the spotlight off of Hillary's missteps.

2. Mark Warner- For all of the reasons listed above. Could be problematic having the richest man in the senate run for VP with today's Democrat party.

3. Michael Bennett- Helps in Colorado, where she's weak against Paul. As a former superintendent, he provides a stark contrast to Walker, Kasich and Christie, and will focus on that in Wisconsin and Ohio. Youngish senator, etc. Overall would be a great pick for her, but she might not want to take a relatively safe senate seat and give the Republicans another shot at picking it up.

4. Sherrod Brown- Progressive senator from Ohio. Helps calm the nerves of people who think she's too far to the center. But, like Bennett, would potentially pass him over to keep his senate seat safe.

4.5. Russ Feingold- He has all of Brown's advantages, minus being from Ohio. He also adds more successful foreign policy experience than Hillary, and a vote against the Iraq war to the ticket. He would be higher on the list, but I suspect he's considering a run of his own. He might also be a contender for Secretary of State if Clinton wins.

5. Gavin Newsom- I'm not sure why he's not considered more of a Democrat rockstar. He's got plenty of executive experience, he's handsome, young, articulate, and progressive. If he's not on Hillary's short list in 2016, I'd be very surprised. Also, he was married to Kimberly Guilfoyle, which, besides bringing to light his questionable taste in women, would make for hilarious television if he gets the nod.
If he's the choice, I hope his divorce with Guilfoyle doesn't come up on TV. Guilfoyle is very popular on TV and is a was a tough prosecutor.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,976


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2014, 11:06:22 PM »

Bennett will be running for re-election the same with Bullock in likely competitive races it would be like Republicans picking Ayotte for VP when she would be in a competitive race. Kaine and Warner have already been on the national stage and vetted I think it will come down to both of them. Castro has little accomplishments and doesn't even speak Spanish while Kaine does fluently with a far more impressive record.
Logged
Vega
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2014, 06:59:05 AM »

I'm going to go to the opposite end of what Mister Mets wrote.

Julian Castro becoming HUD Secretary, assuming he stays the rest of Obama's second term, kinda damages him in my opinion. Being a Cabinet secretary isn't exactly a very shining position (depending).

To be honest, I'm not sure if Hillary would want another Obama Cabinet member in addition to her on the ticket. Especially if she's trying to distance herself from him.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2014, 07:45:10 AM »

9) Terry McAullife
One of Hillary Clinton's best political allies became the Governor of a swing state. Why on Earth wouldn't she consider him a potential veep?

Maybe if he sets the world on fire with his governing, but HRC is probably wise enough to avoid McAuliffe like the plague. He basically got the job by accident - no primary challenges - and still barely managed to eke out a win against the Cooch in extremely favourable conditions to Democrats.

He is also known as a slippy mofo. If the common perception of Hillary is that she's a corrupt Washington insider who relies on an incestuous inner circle, why emphasise these flaws by picking McAuliffe?
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2014, 08:33:02 AM »

VP doesn't matter that much unless the VP (to the political positive) fends off a possible rift or (to the negative)

(1) has no experience in high public office (US Senate, state governor strongly preferred. Does "mayor of a large city" count?) Congressional representatives do badly as political assets (William Miller, Geraldine Ferraro, Jack Kemp, Paul Ryan)

(2) has a problem -- see Thomas Eagleton, 1972.

(3) is grossly unqualified  -- Sarah Palin.

(4) is an incompetent campaigner

The VP nominee rarely swings a state. Ideological consistency has far greater significance. Bill Clinton could have chosen some Northern pol as his running  mate in 1992, but he selected a Senator from a neighboring state (Tennessee) with demographics and political heritage similar to that of Arkansas. He still won a raft of states that no Democratic nominee had won after the LBJ blowout of 1964.  

Here I discuss Julian Castro because he would bring an unusual experience and new political characteristics to national politics:

If Hillary Clinton selects some Democratic Rep from Florida just to win Florida -- such will either be irrelevant or fail. Selecting a big-city mayor (Julian Castro) would be daring because it just has not been done. The strengths of a big-city mayor (San Antonio) are obvious -- top official of a populous entity. Mayors have administrative experience that legislators do not have. Mayors must deal with local issues.

He would be the first Hispanic nominee of any major Party, and even if he does not swing Texas he might help in Colorado and Nevada  by encouraging the large Mexican-American populations in both states to vote. Who knows -- he could conceivably swing Arizona, a state with some affinities to Texas. The GOP nominee really must win at least one of Colorado and Nevada to get elected President. Such could solidify the Obama coalition, and the Obama coalition is enough for winning the Presidency.

The negatives? First, the city is San Antonio, a city with big problems. It's a nice place to visit but statistically an awful place in which to live. San Antonio has below-average economic conditions, poor statistical measures of educational achievement, and a high crime rate. Count on Republicans using that against him. (Democrats would have probably used that against former Cleveland Mayor, Governor of Ohio, and Senator Voinovich -- who I concede might have been a fine President had he been elected). Just about any big city has much the same problems.

Second, San Antonio is no microcosm of America. Like most other giant cities in Texas it has incorporated land that might have formed suburbs, so it has some sections with suburban qualities.  But it is not at all rural. Its ethnic mix is uncharacteristic of America. What works in San Antonio might not be so attractive in Wisconsin.  Julian Castro has never shown any ability to appeal to rural voters. Rural voters did not decide elections of 2006, 2008, or 2012, but they did decide the election of 2010.

Third -- the surname. It will be terribly unpopular in Florida even if he is no relation to someone  infamous to many Floridians.  If he must spend much time distinguishing himself from Fidel, then the adage "if you are explaining you are losing" applies.  

 

    
Logged
dmmidmi
dmwestmi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2014, 12:30:23 PM »

Someone not controversial, with an impressive resume, who may very well make a good President, if it weren't for a crippling lack of charisma/gravitas.

Mark Warner.
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2014, 03:20:27 PM »
« Edited: August 21, 2014, 03:25:27 PM by eric82oslo »

Possible nominees
- Mark Warner
- Martin Heinrich
- Sherrod Brown
- Julian Castro
- Steve Beshear
- Martin O'Malley
- Tim Kaine

All bring something different to the table but does it really matter?

What about her stealing Charlie Christ's small business-owning (language school), fluently Spanish speaking Miami resident Lieutenant Governor candidate, Annette Taddeo-Goldstein, in case he were to lose the Governor election this fall? Tongue

Would come in handy in the crucial battleground state of Florida, as well as in other crucial battleground states with a high latino population including Colorado (!), Nevada and Arizona.

   

From YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yGHgOpA9EQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPiKVpS8v3I (from 1 minutes on)

Perhaps not? But it would certainly be a very bold, daring and interesting choice. Not just because she's a woman, or having started a small business herself, but also because she can potentially reach the millions of currently non-voting latino population (especially in states like Arizona and Texas where hardly any latino vote) due to her, as a teacher in Spanish speaks Spanish fluently herself, unlike Julian Castro. There's a huge difference between knowing a little bit of Spanish, like Tim Kaine (who has an awful accent on top of that) to having a natural relationship with the language like Annette. Tim would never be able to convince millions and millions of non-voting latinos to turn out to the polls. Annette possibly would, although there are never any guarantees, as this is, after all, completely unchartered territory.

Would she be "un problema grande", in her own words, for the Republican ticket?

If she were to win the LG job, she might turn out even more attractive though. Tongue I just thought it would be a little bit crude to steal her away from Christ lol.
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2014, 03:31:34 PM »

Third -- the surname. It will be terribly unpopular in Florida even if he is no relation to someone  infamous to many Floridians.  If he must spend much time distinguishing himself from Fidel, then the adage "if you are explaining you are losing" applies.  

Or all PR is good PR lol. Tongue

I don't see how something completely irrelevant like that could be a net negative. People, and particularily active voters, are much smarter than that.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2014, 03:33:14 PM »

I'd love it if Hillary Clinton picked someone who doesn't currently have a wikipedia page as her running mate, especially if they don't do anything in the next two years to become more prominent.

That would be a rare case in which the Veep nominee matters a lot.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2014, 03:38:10 PM »

Sherrod Brown or Mark Warner would be her best choices for opposite reasons.
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2014, 03:49:22 PM »

I'd love it if Hillary Clinton picked someone who doesn't currently have a wikipedia page as her running mate, especially if they don't do anything in the next two years to become more prominent.

That would be a rare case in which the Veep nominee matters a lot.

Yeah, it would be fun to see unravelling actually. Smiley
She did try out for the congressional house seat currently occupied by the Cuban voters-flirting Ileana-Ros Lehtinen in 2008 (I know she is Cuban American herself, though her rethoric has always been over-the-top talking about how she wanted to kill Castro and what not). This was Ileana's narrowest electoral win since she first won her seat in 1990! She beat Annette by only accumulating 57.87% of the vote. Usually she's won with about 70% (or close to it) of the vote.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2014, 04:15:08 PM »

The last part of the thread question hasn't been touched on. How much does it matter who is chosen to be the veep?

Veeps mainly matter in close elections. If Clinton/ Castro win by eight points in the popular vote, Clinton/ O'Malley would still have won.

Even in close elections, a running mate isn't always significant. If Bennet helps Clinton narrowly win Colorado, but she loses Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, it won't change the outcome of the presidential election.

The main effect a veep could have is negative. If vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine starts talking about reparations, Democrats would get very nervous. If vice presidential nominee Paul Davis thinks Isis is a country in Europe, that would be an awful news cycle.

There are other campaign considerations. If Clinton gets along well with the running mate, that can make a small difference, but there will be much more important factors.
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2014, 04:41:36 PM »

-Martin O'Malley is boring and has no vision

I think O'Malley has more vision than most actually. He's one of the very few Democratic Governors who's got a lot progressive stuff done in his state during the past decade or so actually. Executive action always trumps visionary ideas anyways, in my view at least.
However I do agree that he's not all that great in interview situations. He's much better when he's prepared his stuff/speech.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.093 seconds with 13 queries.