Clinton aides already talking about VP options

[Mr. Morden]

RogueBeaver already posted this Politico story in the Tea Leaves thread, which says that Clinton's planning an April campaign launch:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/hillary-clinton-2016-elections-114586.html

But the interesting thing is that her advisers are already giving a preliminary VP short list:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Holmes]

Kamala Harris for VP?

A Clinton/Harris ticket would make my fiancé's head explode.

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Kaine's strategy of sucking up to her early may be paying off after all:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=191886.0

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm not quite sure what's so good about Bennet. He only won in 2010 because the repuiblicans nominated Ken Buck, he's not all that popular in his state, he's up for reelection in the same year (either meaning he'd be involved in two campaigns at once in a swing state, or would have to not run for reelection and hope that Clinton doesn't lose and therefore leave him (Bennet) out of a political job) , and it's not as if that senate seat is safe - Mike Coffman would make it Leans R; Cynthia Coffman, Scott Tipton, or Scott Gessler would make it a Toss-Up.

Kaine would be a solid choice - popular governor and senator, ran ahead of Obama in 2012, would lock up VA for the ticket, and can appeal to liberal republicans.

[IceSpear]

Of these, Kaine seems the best. Booker and Castro would also be good choices. I'd personally love Harris, but it might be too risky.

[moderatevoter]

Kaine would be a good pick. I don't think I'd pick Bennet, especially since he's up for re-election, and I'm not sure he'd be as big of an asset as Kaine.

[dmmidmi]

Someone with significant experience in multiple capacities. Someone scandal-free. Someone who isn't prone to screw up in front of the camera, or in front of a journalist. Doesn't have to be overly charismatic, but some likeability is desirable. Because the top of the ticket would be a woman, a white male would probably scare fewer people off.

Tim Kaine it is.

[Bull Moose Base]

Feels like it'd be harder for Democrats to keep Kaine's seat with either a McAuliffe appointee or McAuliffe himself running in a 17 special than Kaine running for re-election in 18, no? Even if it's equivalent, seems that risks control of the senate in her 2nd year. That doesn't rule Kaine out, but it seems like a pretty big drawback.

[retromike22]

Wasn't Michael Bennet born in India?

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Wasn't Michael Bennet born in India?

Yes, but his parents were US citizens. Bennet might be good for holding Colorado.

[Blair]

I'd go for Cory Booker, has experience in the senate and adds more diversity to the ticket. Don't think Castro would be a good pick

[Suburbia]

A Clinton-Kaine ticket is the best bet. Classic southerner, safe, won't embarass the ticket.

[henster]

Bennett is out of the question since he's running re election, Harris too even if she wasn't running for Senate she's only a statewide AG, Booker's not ready and no wife so gay rumors will persist. Like I've been saying for awhile Kaine is the likeliest choice but if Clinton is really struggling she might pick Foxx/Patrick/Castro to gin up turnout.

[henster]

Northam and Herring would be considered for Kaine's replacement out of the two I'd say Northam since he did best out of three Dems in 2013. Plus Northam has a military background and that helps in VA.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Acting openly like she's already a nominee is the worst possible strategy.

[IceSpear]

Acting openly like she's already a nominee is the worst possible strategy.

Agreed. She is the nominee of course, but there's no reason to openly acknowledge that. Her aides really need to learn when to stay quiet.

That said, it's not at all unreasonable to begin thinking of VP. I highly doubt Obama, Romney, etc. or anyone for that matter didn't give the subject any thought until they clinched the majority of delegates.

[Flake]

Clinton/Booker = the best ticket

[Maxwell]

Clinton/Booker = the best ticket

This is my opinion as well.

[Mr. Morden]

Bennett is out of the question since he's running re election, Harris too even if she wasn't running for Senate she's only a statewide AG, Booker's not ready and no wife so gay rumors will persist.

Of course, some of the "diversity" choices like Harris will end up on the short list solely for public consumption rather than because they're seriously being considered.

It would be kind of odd, though, for Harris to even participate in the vetting if she's in the middle of a Senate campaign.

[Mister Mets]

Glad to see Bennet mentioned since he was #1 on my list.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=199140.msg4309519#msg4309519

Although my #2 ended up losing an easy election in 2014. And my #3 came close.

I'm less bullish with Bennet recently because I haven't seen any indication that he stands out among Democratic Senators. He looks great on paper (younger male swing state Senator from the west with policy chops on education) but he seems to have kept a low profile, which would be unusual for anyone selected for a national ticket.

Kaine's a solid pick, especially with Warner's rep taking a hit post-2014.
Castro may be the likeliest, given his ties to the Clinton and efforts within the party to promote him to a plausible launching pad to national office.
Perez has a weak electoral record (his bid for Maryland Attorney General was rejected on residency grounds.)
Booker would be a solid choice, but has some history with the Clintons (who backed Sharp James for mayor over him during his first bid for the office.)
Harris would be surprising, but she's probably qualified given the scale of California's AG department, and she seems to be the top advocate for a strong potential message for Democrats: smart on crime rather than tough on crime.

It is kinda telling that so many of the listed names aren't the traditional Senators and Governors.

[Mister Mets]

Bennett is out of the question since he's running re election, Harris too even if she wasn't running for Senate she's only a statewide AG, Booker's not ready and no wife so gay rumors will persist.

Of course, some of the "diversity" choices like Harris will end up on the short list solely for public consumption rather than because they're seriously being considered.

It would be kind of odd, though, for Harris to even participate in the vetting if she's in the middle of a Senate campaign.

Democrats and Republicans recently ran for Veep and congressional office at the same time. See Paul Ryan, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.

The difference is that Harris would not have been elected Senator yet.

But I don't think that matters in Calfornia, where Harris would be the major frontrunner. A Republican opponent would be the underdog, and a Democratic opponent in a runoff would have a tough time bashing the presidential ticket.

The biggest question is whether the Attorney General of California is qualified to run for national office. I think they can make that argument, but it's easier with a Senator, Governor, top Cabinet official, or a member of the congressional leadership (IE- Xavier Becerra.)

[henster]

Bennett is out of the question since he's running re election, Harris too even if she wasn't running for Senate she's only a statewide AG, Booker's not ready and no wife so gay rumors will persist.

Of course, some of the "diversity" choices like Harris will end up on the short list solely for public consumption rather than because they're seriously being considered.

It would be kind of odd, though, for Harris to even participate in the vetting if she's in the middle of a Senate campaign.

Democrats and Republicans recently ran for Veep and congressional office at the same time. See Paul Ryan, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.

The difference is that Harris would not have been elected Senator yet.

But I don't think that matters in Calfornia, where Harris would be the major frontrunner. A Republican opponent would be the underdog, and a Democratic opponent in a runoff would have a tough time bashing the presidential ticket.

The biggest question is whether the Attorney General of California is qualified to run for national office. I think they can make that argument, but it's easier with a Senator, Governor, top Cabinet official, or a member of the congressional leadership (IE- Xavier Becerra.)

Both Biden and Ryan had safe re election bids where there was no threat of them even losing while Bennet is in a purple state where there will be a competitive race. When was the last time a VP had to run a competitive race in their own state while also being on a national ticket.

[Likely Voter]

Seems like they are debating whether to go geographic (swing state favorite son like Kaine or Bennett) or demographic (non-white like Booker, Castro, Harris). The decision will be tied with the GOP nominee. Unless the GOP nominates a non-whites welcoming candidate (ala Bush or Castro), Hillary will go with the safe white guy from a swing state.

[Mr. Morden]

Bennett is out of the question since he's running re election, Harris too even if she wasn't running for Senate she's only a statewide AG, Booker's not ready and no wife so gay rumors will persist.

Of course, some of the "diversity" choices like Harris will end up on the short list solely for public consumption rather than because they're seriously being considered.

It would be kind of odd, though, for Harris to even participate in the vetting if she's in the middle of a Senate campaign.

Democrats and Republicans recently ran for Veep and congressional office at the same time. See Paul Ryan, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.

The difference is that Harris would not have been elected Senator yet.

I'm saying that that feels like a significant difference to me.  It's one thing to have long been serving in the office you're trying to get reelected to, yet looking to move up at the same time, and another to already be looking past the Senate when you're running for it for the first time.  I know she'd still be the favorite regardless, but it's an awkward look.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Bennett is out of the question since he's running re election, Harris too even if she wasn't running for Senate she's only a statewide AG, Booker's not ready and no wife so gay rumors will persist.

Of course, some of the "diversity" choices like Harris will end up on the short list solely for public consumption rather than because they're seriously being considered.

It would be kind of odd, though, for Harris to even participate in the vetting if she's in the middle of a Senate campaign.

Democrats and Republicans recently ran for Veep and congressional office at the same time. See Paul Ryan, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.

The difference is that Harris would not have been elected Senator yet.

I'm saying that that feels like a significant difference to me.  It's one thing to have long been serving in the office you're trying to get reelected to, yet looking to move up at the same time, and another to already be looking past the Senate when you're running for it for the first time.  I know she'd still be the favorite regardless, but it's an awkward look.

Not to mention that if the republicans put up someone 'strong' for the seat (Faucolner, Issa, Valadao, Swearingen), they might be able to attack Harris over it bad enough to make the senate race competitive enough where democrats end up throwing some money there that should be going to some other race.