Talk Elections

Assuming that Hillary will end up, unsurprisingly, as the Democratic primary voters' Choice for president in 2016. Who do you think she should choose as her running mate? Should she make considerations as to sex, age, race, Hispanic/non-Hispanic, sexual orientation, religion, region/state, executive experience and (conservative/moderate/liberal) ideology of the candidate? And what should be more important in her decision?

I wanted to add Madeleine Albright as well, but as she was not born in the US, I realized she is not electable to vice presidency either.

I've thrown a couple of celebrities in there as well, for the fun of it. At least they've been somewhat politically active. Ellen With mostly With gay and animal rights (+ being very engaged in the aftermath of Katrina), while Clooney and Winfrey campaigned for Obama, among other activities. :P

The names, as you will see, are listed in alphabetical order.

You may vote for as many candidates as you'd like!

What about Tim Kaine?

Welcome to Atlas!  However, on this thread, all those choices, and you didn't include one of the most obvious ones (Tim Kaine)?

excellent choice.

I like Mark Warner.

He certainly has presidential ambitions of his own, and a successful VP candidacy in 2016 sets him up nicely to be the nominee in 2020 if HRC doesn't run for reelection. 

HRC, hillary rodham clinton or human rights campaign? xD

I think someone like Bill Nelson of Florida or Kay Hagan of North Carolina, John Hickenlooper of Colorado or Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. If she chooses someone from a very blue state she will loose.

Sorry about not including Tim Kaine! Another one I should have added is Hilda Solis, Obama's first Secretary of Labor. As the very first female latino Senator elected in California, and the youngest state senator serving at the time, she made a name for herself when she single-handedly made sure that the minimum wage of California would be raised in the mid-90ies. The Republican Governor at the time vetoed her bill, which made her all the more determined to let the California voters decide its fate instead. She sponsored the ballot initiative herself With money from her own campaign coffin, and it eventually received majority support from state-wide voters.

Anyone else I've missed out on? I'm sure there should be a few more.

I see Kay Hagan and Bill Nelson have also been suggested. Keep 'em coming. :)

Ron Wyden.

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.

Brian Schweitzer or Elizabeth Warren, or any Blue Dog Democrat.

Among those on this list, I would say Schweitzer, O'Malley or Warner.  O'Malley would be my number one choice if Bill Clinton could give him some charisma lessons. 

What about Jon Tester?

Brian Schweitzer. 

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.

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.)

Villaraigosa or Castro. It's a bit racist, but a woman plus a Hispanic will energize voters and recapture the magic of Obama's candidacy. It would be very, very hard for any Republican to beat that ticket. And if the vp was attacked for only being a mayor, They could point out that they represented at least twice the number of constituents as the Gop's last vp candidate. It's not quite that simple, but in the soundbite wars of the day I imagine it could be convincing enough for many voters.

Ron Wyden, for Oregon! :)

No.

Bloomberg is ineligible, only if Hillary change its registration to Arkansas once more.

Dean for the Progressives

Schweitzer and Landrieu for the Blue Dogs

Hickenlooper, Kerry and Warner for the cool tall guys :P

She should pick a solid liberal to balance out the ticket. Baldwin, Dean, Franken, Patrick, or Warren would do.

Hillary Clinton/Al Gore Vs. Jeb Bush/Ben Quayle Vs. Ross Perot Jr./Colin Powell
Throwback election season :P

What is she too conservative on that other legitimate running mate possibilities aren't?

Hillary will play it safe. She isn't so conservative or liberal to need 'balance' nor (like Obama and Bush Jr.) does she have an experience gap that needs to be filled. Hillary isn't going to try for a 'game changer' so she will go with a male senator or governor. Someone like Cuomo, Warner, Kaine, maybe Patrick.

But in the end her VP wont make much of a dif.

I voted Franken, Patrick, & Sebelius. I agree with Likely Voter that her VP won't make much of a difference; however the Republican nominee's VP choice will have an impact on the overall race in turn

Baldin, Klobuchar or Schweitzer.

Ellen DeGeneres and Oprah Winfrey? I really can't see that happening.

Brian Schweitzer would definitely be the best choice of all of these.  If he insists on remaining in the Senate (assuming he wins Max Baucus' Senate seat next year), Hilda Solis would also be an excellent choice. 

So after 45 votes cast, this is the current top 10:

1. Brian Schweitzer - 26 votes (more than half have picked him, impressively!)
2. John Hickenlooper - 15 votes
3. Mark Warner - 14 votes
4. Deval Patrick - 11 votes
5. Martin O'Malley - 10 votes
6. Tammy Baldwin & Julian Castro - 9 votes
8. Al Franken & Elizabeth Warren - 7 votes
10. Cory Booker & Kathleen Sebelius - 6 votes

Happy with that?

Btw, what's so amazing with Schweitzer? I'm not sure if I get it. That he's a moderate cowboy from a very rural state? I'm not sure that what Hillary needs is a moderate/semi-conservative to complement her.

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.

Definitely Julian Castro.

Americans would love to have a Vice President named Castro. 

I think Kaine makes a lot of sense. Has a good resume, from a swing state, and I think the optics of picking an early Obama supporter would look good.

I agree that Schweitzer would be good as well. Similar resume as Kaine, but also brings populist energy to the ticket and comes from a region the Clintons have struggled with.

I think those two, along with Booker, will wind up being her shortlist.

Kaine isn't that popular in Virginia

Schweitzer is a moderate/conservative only on gun rights, on other issues he is quite liberal.

Kaine would be one of the worst picks Hillary could make. Doesn't build up any appeal in Virginia, and his only very notable performance is his disastrous performance as the Party Chairman. Besides, he's the Tim Pawlenty of the Democratic Party: so dull. He's never excited a single person in his life.

I think Tammy Baldwin would be a good pick to console any issues with liberals in the base, as there may seem to be some, and she would be qualified enough to battle any concerns that she's "too radical". Personally, it would also make me more considerate to vote for Hillary, though I mostly have no intentions of doing so.

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.

Chances of 2 women on the ticket, exactly 0%.

Booker or Castro

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

Hehe, it would certainly make for an interesting campaign. :) And a very high rating for the VP debate. :P

Guess I should have added Wendy Davis (Texas) to the poll as well. Apparently she's been one of the most prominent Democratic politicians in Texas for several years now. :) Here's her interview on Face The Nation yesterday: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/30/wendy_davis_rips_politicians_using_abortion_to_boost_their_own_political_aspirations.html
She was also interviewed on Meet The Press after what I gather.

Bill Clinton. :P

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.

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

Considering that there is way more than ten times as much to know as when George Washington ran, that isn't saying much.

That's a lot of names. Some are serious contenders and others aren't Colin Powell would do the best job.

I doubt America would want a talk show host a heart beat away from the Presidency.

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.)

Hickenlooper or Villariagosa.  Gillibrand would obviously be great for anyone else, but two women from NY is an obvious non-starter.

I like Schweitzer, but we need him in the Senate.

What are her spiritual beliefs?

How about one of the Colorado Senators? I believe that's Bennet and Udall?

Udall would be a strong choice to defuse some of the Glenn Greenwald crowd. Bennet would be a dreadful choice.

It's a shame we can't engineer a Julian Castro style politician in a Colorado U.S. Senate seat.  That person would almost be an auto-pick.

An all-woman ticket would be quite interesting. I wouldn't expect that though. I think she should go for someone that reinforces her message (which obviously is not known as of now). I'd prefer Schweitzer on the merits, but I would rather have him in the Senate where his presence would be of more significance.

I think John Kerry could be a dark horse running mate who could work quite well with Hillary. I don't think there is a precedent for a failed presidential nominee becoming Vice President (post 12th Amendment, obviously).

Two (former) Secretaries of State would certainly be an interesting novelty. :P

What about Eva Longoria as a VP candidate? :P

Longoria's convention speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NltTF4Ofo6M

She is also from Texas actually. :D From Corpus Christi, one of Texas' main latino cities.


()

()

()

She will likely pick whoever polls want her to pick the same as how her husband governed.

Evan Bayh would be a safe pick.

Experienced, capable, respected, former Governor, former Senator, could help immensely in Indiana, comes from the Midwest.

Most importantly and absolutely essential..........

NOT A WOMAN!

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.)   

An excellent article on Elizabeth Warren called "Elizabeth Warren Tackles Wall Street: The reform-minded senator talks tough, and she knows where the bodies are buried.": http://www.thenation.com/article/175084/elizabeth-warren-tackles-wall-street#axzz2YIa1sWjk

I didn't know she was a Hardvard law professor. :) Reminds me of Obama's background btw.

The article explores how Warren is introducing her very first Senate bill where she proposes that students should be offered student loans at the same rate as banks get, which is currently at 0.75%. That instead of what Republicans are proposing; to double the student loan interest rate to 6.8%. :)

How is that possible?

I guess you don't know she was born in Oklahoma and got her first degree from the University of Houston and used to be a Republican.

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.

Colin Powell is an interesting option

A 69 year old presidential nominee is going to pick a 79 year old running mate?

What does everyone think of Hilda Solis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilda_Solis) as Hillary Clinton's VP pick?

()

I'm almost certain that if Hillary is nominated she will chose a male as her vp. 

One major problem, she's a woman.

Why does anyone on this forum seriously believe there is the slightest chance in the universe that Hillary picks a female VP?

Three words.....

Ain't      gonna      happen!

Funny how it's the Republicans who seem to say/hope Hillary doesn't pick a woman.

I could really care less if Hillary (if she even runs) picks a woman running mate.

All I'm saying is there is no way she picks a woman running mate.

You could?  Because I couldn't.

Tipper Gore

Sadly, not the worst choice in this thread. (The kid who said Eva Longoria, seriously bro?)

Don't have a particular choice, but it needs to be someone young and/or vibrant.

QFT......I do miss Bubba sometimes.

I'm going to throw out an idea that not many people (including myself until recently) have discussed: what about Sherrod Brown? I was always in the camp of Clinton running with Schweitzer or Warner, but with Schweitzer's decision not to run for Senate and my realization that the last thing Hillary needs is a boring moderate, I had to reconsider. Brown is from a crucial swing state and swing region, and would excite liberals who still don't think Hillary is liberal or exciting enough. Though he's only five years younger than Hillary, he has a much more youthful appearance and flair, and has decades of experience without coming off as a tired career politician. Thoughts on a Clinton/Brown ticket?

I'm not a big Sherrod Brown fan, but he would be a fairly strong pick if Hillary really needs liberals. Plus, he would double down on a populist image that can win very swingy areas like Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where the right kind of Demcorat can win, and the wrong kind of democrat can lose by 20 points or more.

I think Joe Manchin would be perfect.

Exactly- he is way on the liberal end of the Democratic Party, but at the same time he has a populist appeal due to his work with jobs in the Rust Belt that could allow him to appeal to states like AR/KY/WV/MO (states where Hillary already appeals a hundred times more than most Democrats). This would be a VERY formidable ticket.

Tammy Baldwin: No
Joe Biden: No
Michael Bloomberg: No
Cory Booker: Maybe
Julian Castro: No
Steven Chu: No
George Clooney: No
Andrew Cuomo: No
Howard Dean: No
Ellen DeGeneres: No
Rahm Emanuel: No
Dianne Feinstein: No
Al Franken: No
Heidi Heitkamp: No
Mazie Hirono: No
Kirsten Gillibrand: No
Al Gore: No
Jennifer Granholm: No
Christine Gregoire: No
John Hickenlooper: Yes
Ashley Judd: No
Joseph P. Kennedy III: No
John Kerry: No
Amy Klobuchar: No
Mary Landrieu: No
Joe Manchin: No
Jack Markell: Maybe
Bob Menendez: No
Ernest Moniz: No
Janet Napolitano: No
Jay Nixon: No
Martin O'Malley: Yes
Deval Patrick: Maybe
Nancy Pelosi: No
Colin Powell: No
Susan Rice: No
Bill Richardson: No
Ken Salazar: No
Chuck Schumer: No
Brian Schweitzer: No
Kathleen Sebelius: No
Eric Shinseki: No
Antonio Villaraigosa: No
Mark Warner: Maybe
Elizabeth Warren: No
Oprah Winfrey: No
Someone else: Tim Kaine, Sherrod Brown

Honestly she should pick Becerra, Heitkamp or Heinrich.

She shouldn't be nominated in the first place

Tim Kaine

One more for the list: Gary Locke, who's about to leave his post as Ambassador to China, has foreign policy experience without association with the reviled United States Congress. He was also a governor for 8 years, Secretary of Commerce, and a Hillary 2008 co-chair,

He also has regular guy appeal, because he buys his own coffee:

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/08/15/new-china-envoys-airport-antics-rile-chinese-internet/

Either Mark Warner or Julian Castro, depending upon which direction she chooses to go in.

I agree. The main contenders for a VP spot right now seems to me to be:

*Julian Castro (Could put a couple more latino states in play, at least Arizona, Texas and possibly North Carolina, while simultaneusly securing the all-important Florida, Colorado, New Jersey & Virginia - at the same time it'll enable him to get groomed for the inevitable big crowning of 2024.)
*Marc Warner (One of the most popular Senators the US has seen for the past decade or two, and possibly the single Senator with the highest approval rating right now in his own home state. Will almost certainly secure Virginia for Hillary on his own. Is almost as popular with local Republicans as with Democrats which implies he's also the closest the Democratic party has of a Chris Christie kind of cross-over appeal politician. Will be very well received in other battleground states as well I think, due to his moderate, folksy & likeable nature. His Southern base could be crucial in Hillary's efforts to secure victories in Florida, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee & Missouri.)
*Elizabeth Warren (Will be a controversial choice due to her high age and her partisan nature, but will certainly fire up the Demcratic base as well as securing a populist message to infiltrate traditionally working class areas of important battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, plus Hillary-strong working class states like Kentucky and West Virginia.)
*Kirsten Gillibrand (Possibly the most talented female politician the country has ever seen, and just like Julian Castro, most definitely a strong presidential contender in the future, 10-20 years on from now. Hillary is likely to have the future in mind and think cross-generational. Kirsten will bring a lot of fresh, youthful energy to her campaign, perhaps elevating Hillary's spirit and physical-emotional health as a direct consequence.)

An interesting article on the rise of female power within the Democratic party: http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/191675-juan-williams-dems-are-now-party-of-women

Xavier Becerra is certainly an overlooked choice. Probably #1 for me. The Castro brothers are unlikely but I'd go Joaquín Castro over Julian, simply cannot make the jump from Mayor of a smaller city to VP.

Sherrod Brown would be an interesting pick. Gary Locke would also have my support.

I agree that neither Castro should be VP, but San Antonio is NOT a "smaller city," it's the 7th largest in the entire country.

It's a bit small to me :D

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.

Well let's remember, according to this forum, Sherrod Brown should be Hillary's VP. I started with list polls of every Senator and Governor, and it all came down to him. So let's see how true the collective wisdom of this forum in 2013 turns out to be.

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.

Bennet would also allow the birther nonsense to continue, given his birthplace.

What about Mark Udall or Hickenlooper instead of Bennet?

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.

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.

Six people voted for Joe Biden?! >_>

Anyways, Hillary should pick Mark Udall. He won't be that old in 2016, and damn, he LOOKS presidential. But that's just my biased obsessing.

Erm...Captain Brewer? :P

Also, looks do have a part to play even if you're running for Vice President. It's not a major part, obviously, but it's still there. Without looking at their backgrounds, I'd probably rather vote for someone like John Thune or Martin O'Malley as opposed to say... Barney Frank.

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.

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.

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.

I agree and I think Rice is on track to becoming Secretary of State in a Clinton administration.

I just don't see Hillary taking that kind of risk with Castro. I think Newsom would be under consideration if he had won the nomination for Governor.

Speaking of Hillary 2008 supporters, what do you think about Joe Sestak? He was a three-star Navy Admiral and was Bill Clinton's Director for Defense. He served two terms in the House representing Pennsylvania. He's currently considering running for the Senate in 2016 so he's still interested in national politics. The downside is that he'd be 65 by the end of 2016.

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.

John Hickenlooper. He's a popular governor whose domestic experience balances Hillary's experience in foreign afffairs. He's also a Washington outsider so there's less baggage there.

If Hillary is picking anyone from Ohio it's Sherrod Brown definitely it's been proven that people from the House do not make good picks for VP's Hillary will pick someone who's won statewide before.


I would've said Hickenlooper maybe a year ago but he's certainty fallen from grace his approval rating has dropped dramatically and it's looking likely his race will be competitive next year. Also he's too old Hillary is probably gonna pick someone much younger than herself.

She needs to go left.

Brown, Fraken, Baldwin, Warren, Hirono.

Gore or Dean could work, too.

Maybe a couple others on that list (O' Malley? Schweitzer?) , I didn't carefully consider every one.

How about Martin Heinrich?

I thought Bennett would be the best solution but obviously he's got a Senate race to run in 2016.

From what I've seen, Martin Heinrich is unbelievably boring and robotic, but I could be wrong on this.

Jay Nixon

I think Hillary should pick a Governor but the question is who? The Dems Governor bench is pretty weak the only good potential candidate is Steve Bullock of Montana. And what if Clinton picks Heinrich and Christie picks Martinez?

This. I said Hickenlooper earlier, but if Clinton wants to gain rural votes, than this will help.

Another possible option is Gov. Steve Beshear of Kentucky. 

Age would be an issue, but of course the healthcare rollout in KY was very successful, so who knows what way that would go. I probably wouldn't support the ticket, however. :P

I think that Evan Bayh or Dick Gephardt would be good choices. They may provide a huge boost to the Midwest, and they are relatively safe choices. O'Malley would be good and Sherrod Brown could help in Ohio, Kentucky.

These choices are all terrible

Do you think that Bernie Sanders would be a bold choice for Hillary?

Also think Klobuchar would be a great VP pick for Clinton she would help her in the Midwest/Rust Belt especially if Walker is the nominee. Clinton seems weak in Iowa and Wisconsin could be in play with Walker, Klobuchar has farm connections and would play well with the rural population.

I think Hillary needs a westerner in order to be compete. She won't need to worry about the north east and should do decent in the south depending on who the GOP picks. I would love for her to run with Schwietzer but I think we all know that won't happen. Next up would be Hickenlooper who I think would be a good choice. Beyond that I think either Michael Bennet (CO) or Martin Heinrich (NM) would be good choices. They may be relative unkowns but they could be the blank (western) canvas she needs. I would say go with a Udall but they are both too old to balance with Clinton at this point.

I agree with this.

A gay.

Wow.

No one really picks a running mate based on geography or swing state. The most likely profile would be a younger, male governor but at the same time, there are plausible scenarios where she picks a female senator in her 60s: needs to pick Warren to energize the base, has a double-digit lead and picks Murray, etc.