PredictIt Veepstakes Market - Latest: Kaine over 60

[This account no longer in use.]

Update: Thune is rising quickly, while Kasich has edged Ernst for second.

[Lincoln Republican]

I think Clinton/Sanders would be unbeatable, but unlikely. What would be the map for Clinton/Kaine vs Trump/Gingrich or Clinton/Sanders vs Trump/Gingrich?

Yes, because America has been waiting with baited breath for two old white men to save them.

[Gog]

The only good speaker (or tested one at least) that could possibly be Clinton's Veep is Booker I think, but it's obvious she's picking Perez. Not Castro since she said she wasn't going to, and she is going to pick a minority man so sorry Kaine, Sanders, warren and co.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Current standings:
Dem:
1. Warren
2. Kaine
3. Sanders
4. Julian Castro
5. Perez
6. Sherrod Brown
7. Booker
7. Becerra
9. Warner
10. Patrick
11. Bayh
11. Franken
All others at 1¢ or lower.
Rep:
1. Gingrich
2. Ernst
3. Sessions
4. Kasich
5. Christie
5. Fallin
5. Brewer
8. Carson
9. Portman
9. Rice
9. Huckabee
12. Martinez
12. Rubio
12. Cruz
12. Ryan
12. Love
12. Webb
12. Palin
12. Corker
12. Scott Brown
All others at 1¢ or lower.

[Gog]

Current standings:
Dem:
4. Julian Castro
6. Sherrod Brown
10. Patrick

4. Anyone got the memo? http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/julian-castro-vice-president-hillary-clinton/
6. I do wonder if they've heard of one John R. Kasich sitting in Ohio's governors mansion.
10. He works for ing Bain capital

If this says anything, the belt way sucks at predicting anything.

[This account no longer in use.]

For a while, the top three was made up of 2 empty suits and Sanders.

[Holmes]

I really think it'll be either Kaine or Warren at this point. Kaine is the safer choice, but doesn't bring as much excitement to the ticket as Warren would, who's more high risk, high reward. But people love her, she's passionate, and there's pretty much nothing on her other than that whole Native American thing that amounted to nothing. It would be easier and faster for America to get to know her (of those who don't) than it would be for Kaine.

[Lyin' Steve]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there's absolutely no reason for Hillary to pick Bernie Sanders when she could pick Liz Warren.  Warren will pull all the Sanders voters, provides Hillary with a bunch of other advantages rather than Sanders' baggage, and wouldn't be a pain in the ass for eight years (probably).

I see this Warren/Trump spat as kind of a Warren trial run, she's showing Clinton that she can take on Trump and stand her ground.

Either Warren or Kaine are perfectly fine choices.  I'm not a big fan of any of the others. 

[RJEvans]

Kaine is just boring. He brings no excitement to the campaign. Trump is eating up all the media attention. A Clinton/Warren ticket will be able to quickly unify the party and move on from the primary. Kaine will just cause the left of the party to distrust Clinton even more. A former DNC Chair, moderate establishment figure on Clinton's ticket is not the way to go in a year that is anti-establishment and saw a very sizable primary challenge on her left, who consistently and convincingly claimed the DNC was in the bag for Clinton. If anything 2016 has taught is is that this is an unconventional year. Warren is a perfect fit as Clinton's VP.

[Holmes]

Kaine is just boring. He brings no excitement to the campaign. Trump is eating up all the media attention. A Clinton/Warren ticket will be able to quickly unify the party and move on from the primary.

This is a good point. I think picking Warren would keep the ticket in the media more than a Kaine pick would (they'd spend a news cycle on him, but then...). Not that Clinton/Warren would need a lot of media exposure because Trump is his own worst enemy, but it wouldn't hurt.

[This account no longer in use.]

Kaine is an empty suit. End of story. It wouldn't help to pick him as a veep because 'he speaks spanish!!11!1!!!111".

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Standings as of May 14, 1 PM:
Dem:
1. Kaine (▲1)
2. Warren (▼1)
3. Julian Castro (▲1)
4. Sanders (▼1)
5. Perez (-)
6. Sherrod Brown (-)
7. Booker (-)
8. Warner (▲1)
8. Becerra (▼1)
10. Patrick (-)
10. Franken (▲1)
12. Bayh (▼1)
12. Gabbard (new)
All others at 1¢.
Rep:
1. Gingrich (-)
2. Ernst (-)
3. Sessions (-)
4. Kasich (-)
4. Fallin (▲1)
6. Christie (▼1)
7. Rice (▲2)
7. Carson (▲1)
9. Martinez (▲3)
9. Portman (-)
9. Huckabee (-)
9. Webb (▲3)
9. Brewer (▼4)
14. Cruz (▼2)
14. Scott (new)
14. Corker (▼2)
14. Thune (new)
14. Scott Brown (▼2)
All others at 1¢.

EDIT: I'm going to post a new one every day until each party's convention or when the presumptive nominees announce their running mates, whichever comes first.

[RightBehind]

Sanders on the ticket would make me more enthused.

[Lyin' Steve]

Standings as of May 14, 1 PM:
Dem:
1. Kaine (▲1)
2. Warren (▼1)
3. Julian Castro (▲1)
4. Sanders (▼1)
5. Perez (-)
6. Sherrod Brown (-)
7. Booker (-)
8. Warner (▲1)
8. Becerra (▼1)
10. Patrick (-)
10. Franken (▲1)
12. Bayh (▼1)
12. Gabbard (new)
All others at 1¢.
Rep:
1. Gingrich (-)
2. Ernst (-)
3. Sessions (-)
4. Kasich (-)
4. Fallin (▲1)
6. Christie (▼1)
7. Rice (▲2)
7. Carson (▲1)
9. Martinez (▲3)
9. Portman (-)
9. Huckabee (-)
9. Webb (▲3)
9. Brewer (▼4)
14. Cruz (▼2)
14. Scott (new)
14. Corker (▼2)
14. Thune (new)
14. Scott Brown (▼2)
All others at 1¢.

EDIT: I'm going to post a new one every day until each party's convention or when the presumptive nominees announce their running mates, whichever comes first.

Those rankings are pretty good although Carson has no chance, Sanders has no right even being in the top 12, and Gabbard?  WTF?

[Ronnie]

Condi Rice is on the list?!  LOL!

I wouldn't even suggest taking that list with a grain of salt, because it doesn't even deserve that.

[RightBehind]

Standings as of May 14, 1 PM:
Dem:
1. Kaine (▲1)
2. Warren (▼1)
3. Julian Castro (▲1)
4. Sanders (▼1)
5. Perez (-)
6. Sherrod Brown (-)
7. Booker (-)
8. Warner (▲1)
8. Becerra (▼1)
10. Patrick (-)
10. Franken (▲1)
12. Bayh (▼1)
12. Gabbard (new)
All others at 1¢.
Rep:
1. Gingrich (-)
2. Ernst (-)
3. Sessions (-)
4. Kasich (-)
4. Fallin (▲1)
6. Christie (▼1)
7. Rice (▲2)
7. Carson (▲1)
9. Martinez (▲3)
9. Portman (-)
9. Huckabee (-)
9. Webb (▲3)
9. Brewer (▼4)
14. Cruz (▼2)
14. Scott (new)
14. Corker (▼2)
14. Thune (new)
14. Scott Brown (▼2)
All others at 1¢.

EDIT: I'm going to post a new one every day until each party's convention or when the presumptive nominees announce their running mates, whichever comes first.

Those rankings are pretty good although Carson has no chance, Sanders has no right even being in the top 12, and Gabbard?  WTF?

Sanders should be on the very short list. Look past your bias against him.

[Lyin' Steve]

Standings as of May 14, 1 PM:
Dem:
1. Kaine (▲1)
2. Warren (▼1)
3. Julian Castro (▲1)
4. Sanders (▼1)
5. Perez (-)
6. Sherrod Brown (-)
7. Booker (-)
8. Warner (▲1)
8. Becerra (▼1)
10. Patrick (-)
10. Franken (▲1)
12. Bayh (▼1)
12. Gabbard (new)
All others at 1¢.
Rep:
1. Gingrich (-)
2. Ernst (-)
3. Sessions (-)
4. Kasich (-)
4. Fallin (▲1)
6. Christie (▼1)
7. Rice (▲2)
7. Carson (▲1)
9. Martinez (▲3)
9. Portman (-)
9. Huckabee (-)
9. Webb (▲3)
9. Brewer (▼4)
14. Cruz (▼2)
14. Scott (new)
14. Corker (▼2)
14. Thune (new)
14. Scott Brown (▼2)
All others at 1¢.

EDIT: I'm going to post a new one every day until each party's convention or when the presumptive nominees announce their running mates, whichever comes first.

Those rankings are pretty good although Carson has no chance, Sanders has no right even being in the top 12, and Gabbard?  WTF?

Sanders should be on the very short list. Look past your bias against him.

Why would Hillary want to have the most adversarial vice president in history?  Sanders would compromise her core image, damage her constantly in the general election, and be a huge pain to have in the white house; the only advantage is that she probably gets his supporters, but she'll get most of them anyway or all of them if she picks Elizabeth Warren.

[RightBehind]

Standings as of May 14, 1 PM:
Dem:
1. Kaine (▲1)
2. Warren (▼1)
3. Julian Castro (▲1)
4. Sanders (▼1)
5. Perez (-)
6. Sherrod Brown (-)
7. Booker (-)
8. Warner (▲1)
8. Becerra (▼1)
10. Patrick (-)
10. Franken (▲1)
12. Bayh (▼1)
12. Gabbard (new)
All others at 1¢.
Rep:
1. Gingrich (-)
2. Ernst (-)
3. Sessions (-)
4. Kasich (-)
4. Fallin (▲1)
6. Christie (▼1)
7. Rice (▲2)
7. Carson (▲1)
9. Martinez (▲3)
9. Portman (-)
9. Huckabee (-)
9. Webb (▲3)
9. Brewer (▼4)
14. Cruz (▼2)
14. Scott (new)
14. Corker (▼2)
14. Thune (new)
14. Scott Brown (▼2)
All others at 1¢.

EDIT: I'm going to post a new one every day until each party's convention or when the presumptive nominees announce their running mates, whichever comes first.

Those rankings are pretty good although Carson has no chance, Sanders has no right even being in the top 12, and Gabbard?  WTF?

Sanders should be on the very short list. Look past your bias against him.

Why would Hillary want to have the most adversarial vice president in history?  Sanders would compromise her core image, damage her constantly in the general election, and be a huge pain to have in the white house; the only advantage is that she probably gets his supporters, but she'll get most of them anyway or all of them if she picks Elizabeth Warren.

Many are Bernie or Bust. If you want to win over Bernie voters and unite the many of them have given him 19 states, that's how you do it.

Also, I doubt it's more adversarial than Adams/Jefferson or Kennedy/Johnson. Even Bush accused Reagan of voodoo economics.

[This account no longer in use.]

Sanders can't do anything that Warren or Franken can do better.

[KingSweden]

Warren, Franken or Becerra would all be great picks in no particular order.

[Lyin' Steve]

Also, I doubt it's more adversarial than Adams/Jefferson or Kennedy/Johnson. Even Bush accused Reagan of voodoo economics.

Johnson was adversarial with RFK (after JFK was shot he called RFK and claimed he had forgotten the words to the oath of office) but not with JFK.

Adams/Jefferson is so long ago it hardly counts; Jefferson didn't get to choose Adams anyway.

Bush was a pretty normal VP choice.  "Voodoo economics" is nothing and there was hardly any real animosity between the two.

Many are Bernie or Bust. If you want to win over Bernie voters and unite the many of them have given him 19 states, that's how you do it.

So Hillary should just let herself be blackmailed by his supporters into selecting him as VP?  I'm fundamentally opposed to that.  If Hillary lets that tactic work now then every future race will feature the second-place contender poisoning the well after the race is over so he/she can blackmail the winner into selecting him/her as VP.

[RightBehind]

Also, I doubt it's more adversarial than Adams/Jefferson or Kennedy/Johnson. Even Bush accused Reagan of voodoo economics.

Johnson was adversarial with RFK (after JFK was shot he called RFK and claimed he had forgotten the words to the oath of office) but not with JFK.

Adams/Jefferson is so long ago it hardly counts; Jefferson didn't get to choose Adams anyway.

Bush was a pretty normal VP choice.  "Voodoo economics" is nothing and there was hardly any real animosity between the two.

Many are Bernie or Bust. If you want to win over Bernie voters and unite the many of them have given him 19 states, that's how you do it.

So Hillary should just let herself be blackmailed by his supporters into selecting him as VP?  I'm fundamentally opposed to that.  If Hillary lets that tactic work now then every future race will feature the second-place contender poisoning the well after the race is over so he/she can blackmail the winner into selecting him/her as VP.

Johnson and Kennedy did have disagreements. It's unknown if Kennedy would've even kept Johnson on the ticket for '64 and that the man reason he was on the ticket was to carry the South.

Bernie also is very appealing to independents, who are a key demographic in the election.

[This account no longer in use.]

Like I said earlier, there's nothing that Bernie can do that Warren or Franken can't.

[BlueSwan]

Clinton is a fairly uncharismatic pragmatic policy wonk. She doesn't need a boring mainstream VP candidate like Kain. I don't believe she needs a minority VP either. Identity politics is BS anyway and all of the usually mentioned minority VP candidates are flawed in one way or another - there isn't an Obama amongst them.

As I see it, the only thing standing between Clinton and the presidency are the segment of the Sandernistas who will either vote Trump (because he's anti-elite, anti-fair trade or whatever lame excuse they'll use) or stay home.

Following this logic, there are only two good options for Clinton: Sanders or Warren. Of course getting either on board without making too dramatical political concessions (and in turn making the ticket less electable) is gonna be very tough. But this is the course I believe she should take. If she does get one of them on board and doesn't make huge concessions to them, things should go smooth, even if the Sanders people are gonna be shocked at the vitriol when the GOP takes him on (they laughably think that Clinton has gone hard negative on him).

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Standings as of May 15, 4 PM:
Dem:
1. Kaine (-)
2. Warren (-)
3. Julian Castro (-)
4. Perez (▲1)
5. Sanders (▼1)
6. Sherrod Brown (-)
7. Booker (-)
8. Warner (-)
8. Becerra (-)
8. Franken (▲2)
11. Patrick (▼1)
12. Bayh (-)
12. Rendell (new)
All others at 1¢.
Rep:
1. Gingrich (-)
2. Ernst (-)
3. Kasich (▲1)
3. Christie (▲3)
5. Sessions (▼2)
6. Carson (▲1)
7. Fallin (▼3)
8. Portman (▲1)
8. Haley (new)
8. Rice (▼1)
8. Huckabee (▲1)
8. Palin (new)
8. Corker (▲6)
14. Martinez (▼5)
14. Rubio (new)
14. Cruz (-)
14. Ryan (new)
14. Love (new)
14. Webb (▼5)
14. Brewer (▼5)
All others at 1¢.