Clinton's running mate?

[Ogre Mage]

My guess is that Clinton will put a high value on executive and/or legislative accomplishment.

I would agree with the consensus here that Mark Warner and Tim Kaine are the two obvious choices.  They would be relatively safe picks and Clinton is known for caution.  Both are former governors/current senators of a key swing state.  And Gov. Terry McAuliffe would appoint a successor in the Senate so no trouble there.  Warner has stronger political standing in Virginia but also carries more political baggage than Kaine.

My problem with a Sherrod Brown pick, although I like him a great deal, is that Gov. Kasich is likely to win reelection this November and would appoint his successor. 

If Clinton is willing to take a risk (doubtful) then I would say the best choices would be either Julian Castro or Kirsten Gillibrand.  Gillibrand has developed a solid record in the Senate, has gotten some media buzz and I suspect she would love to run nationally.  Clinton places a high value on loyalty and Gillibrand has been loyal from the start (she cut her teeth in politics working on Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign).  Her work for women's rights would reinforce Clinton's message, similar to what Bill did with Al Gore in '92.

I'm less familiar with Castro's record.  From what I've seen he has huge potential and the demographic appeal is obvious.  But I'm not sure he'll have had enough time to develop his credentials.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's constitutionally impossible for Clinton to select Gillibrand, or any other New Yorker for that matter.

[Ogre Mage]

If Gillibrand were selected I would assume Clinton would run as a Washington D.C. resident, as she does maintain a home there.  This issue has come up before.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122289

[Bull Moose Base]

If Gillibrand were selected I would assume Clinton would run as a Washington D.C. resident, as she does maintain a home there.  This issue has come up before.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122289

She doesn't even need to use her DC address. If they won, the Democrats would unquestionably control the senate which would solve the problem. Or if they won at least 300 EVs, which is also pretty likely, they don't even need the senate.

If it comes to a safe pick, I agree Kaine is more so than Warner. Also, again, Gary Locke, who was an ambassador to China, Secretary of Commerce, governor of Washington and Clinton 2008 campaign co-chair.

An offense pick played to change the race would depend on who she's facing and what else is going on in the race but people here are treating that like the most common kind of pick.  It's actually the least common. If she's tied or down, it's more likely, but I'll believe that when I see it.

[eric82oslo]

It's constitutionally impossible for Clinton to select Gillibrand, or any other New Yorker for that matter.

This is actually not true, the way I understand the 12th Amendment. What it says is that an elector of the Electoral College can not vote for both a presidential and vice presidential candidate from their own state, in this case the 29 electors representing New York. They might still cast their vote for Hillary as president, but might opt for a third party candidate as their choice for vice president. The 509 electors representing the 49 remaining states + DC, might still vote for two candidates from New York. You could say that this might be problematic for Gillibrand, as she wouldn't have to be satisfied with only 269 votes, but would instead need to raise her bar to 298, since the New York votes would go elsewhere. However, if Hillary would indeed win by a landslide, this would only happen to be a minor obstacle along the road. Yet, if Hillary is indeed as risk averse as people continue to claim all the time, she might not feel tempted to go there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[eric82oslo]

An offense pick played to change the race would depend on who she's facing and what else is going on in the race but people here are treating that like the most common kind of pick.  It's actually the least common. If she's tied or down, it's more likely, but I'll believe that when I see it.

Hillary is an offense type of candidate [despite many/most pundits trying to paint the opposite picture, especially during the 2008 campaign when she indeed tried to play it a bit safe], not a status quo type of candidate, so it would be only natural for her to choose a bold, offensive (as in not defensive) running mate who could contribute even more substance to her electoral message. A young (different generation), non-white running mate is such a non-status quo persona who could offset some of what is seen as her main liabilities (her wealth, her not modern enough approach to issues, her being too close to financial institutions, the whole Clinton dynasty critisism etcetera). A fresh, clean, white paper is what she might need/feel she needs to overcome these (already way too ingrained) stereotypes and prejudices being constantly (and unfairly I would say) labeled at her.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's constitutionally impossible for ClintonBush to select GillibrandCheney, or any other New YorkerTexan for that matter.

Fixed

[Mister Mets]

It's constitutionally impossible for Clinton to select Gillibrand, or any other New Yorker for that matter.

This is actually not true, the way I understand the 12th Amendment. What it says is that an elector of the Electoral College can not vote for both a presidential and vice presidential candidate from their own state, in this case the 29 electors representing New York. They might still cast their vote for Hillary as president, but might opt for a third party candidate as their choice for vice president. The 509 electors representing the 49 remaining states + DC, might still vote for two candidates from New York. You could say that this might be problematic for Gillibrand, as she wouldn't have to be satisfied with only 269 votes, but would instead need to raise her bar to 298, since the New York votes would go elsewhere. However, if Hillary would indeed win by a landslide, this would only happen to be a minor obstacle along the road. Yet, if Hillary is indeed as risk averse as people continue to claim all the time, she might not feel tempted to go there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The greater risk would be the media narrative. Gillibrand could harm the ticket that way.

[IceSpear]

If Gillibrand were selected I would assume Clinton would run as a Washington D.C. resident, as she does maintain a home there.  This issue has come up before.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122289

Eh, I doubt Hillary would want to deal with the negative optics of having DC as her "home".

[eric82oslo]

If Gillibrand were selected I would assume Clinton would run as a Washington D.C. resident, as she does maintain a home there.  This issue has come up before.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122289

Eh, I doubt Hillary would want to deal with the negative optics of having DC as her "home".

Do they only have homes in DC and New York? Seriously?!

[Bull Moose Base]

I don't think using the DC address changes the perception of Hillary as insider: it's there regardless. But again, she wouldn't need to. There's no realistic scenario where Hillary wins the White House without a Democratic senate so if Gillibrand were the running mate and they fell short of 299 EVs, the senate still elects Gillibrand VP. Mets is correct the bigger problem is optics. But if Hillary had a big enough lead to pick a woman, presumably another NY senator wouldn't matter either. Paradoxically, Hillary would only go with a risky pick if she had a big enough or a small enough lead. Or is losing.

[Ogre Mage]

One other name I might throw out there is Martin O'Malley.  If he does in fact run for President, look for Clinton to shrewdly assess how he handles the white heat of a national race and the media vetting process.  If he shows strong candidate skills, no big skeletons emerge and he doesn't go too negative on her, he might very well get serious consideration.  He's compiled a considerable record as governor of Maryland and the base will like him. 

[ShadowRocket]

Michael Bennett would be the best choice I think. Young, brings some decent experience, and comes from a part of the country Hillary may struggle in. The biggest obstacle being that he'll be up for reelection in 2016. But maybe he can still be an option if the GOP picks a weak candidate there.

Barring that I agree with the consensus that Mark Warner and Tim Kaine would be appropiate choices.

I still think Kaine's personality seems better suited to being a #2 guy than Warner's.  Warner's also a few years older (would be over 60 by election day 2016), and his extreme wealth, combined with the newfound extreme wealth of the Clintons, could be a mild electoral liability as well.

This is not to say that Kaine doesn't have his own liabilities, but I disagree with the notion that Warner is an obviously better choice than Kaine.

IMO, the one thing that hurt Kaine's chances is the fact that the Clintons have a tendency to hold grudges and Kaine was an early Obama supporter back in the '08 cycle. So I guess it would depend on whether they are willing to forgive him for that.

[7,052,770]

It's constitutionally impossible for Clinton to select Gillibrand, or any other New Yorker for that matter.

It's allowed, but NY's electors couldn't vote for them.

If Hillary won enough votes, the NY electors could leave the VP slot blank, or if she won a relatively close election, half could vote Hillary/blank, and the other half blank/Gillibrand.

If Hillary won 271-267 or something like that, I'd assume the electors would all vote Hillary and let the Senate choose the VP.

[President Johnson]

I still think Kaine's personality seems better suited to being a #2 guy than Warner's.  Warner's also a few years older (would be over 60 by election day 2016), and his extreme wealth, combined with the newfound extreme wealth of the Clintons, could be a mild electoral liability as well.

This is not to say that Kaine doesn't have his own liabilities, but I disagree with the notion that Warner is an obviously better choice than Kaine.

I agree with this 100%. Kaine would be one of the best options. He's not too old and brings experience, as he served as Governor and Senator.

Another option would be Missouri Governor Jay Nixon. He may help Democrats to win his home state. But his handling of the Ferguson protests might harm the ticket; especially among blacks.

[Mister Mets]

It's constitutionally impossible for Clinton to select Gillibrand, or any other New Yorker for that matter.

It's allowed, but NY's electors couldn't vote for them.

If Hillary won enough votes, the NY electors could leave the VP slot blank, or if she won a relatively close election, half could vote Hillary/blank, and the other half blank/Gillibrand.

If Hillary won 271-267 or something like that, I'd assume the electors would all vote Hillary and let the Senate choose the VP.

The problem isn't the electors, since Clinton can change her residency and has ties to numerous communities.

It would be a risky pick because of the strangeness of someone picking their successor to statewide office as their running mate. HRC could argue that the Vice-Presidency is so important she can only pick someone she knows well, and trusts. Republicans could say that it shows how insular the Clintons are, and I'm sure there would be saying it's proof of HRC's extreme feminist views.