Who are the best and wrong VP choice for Clinton and Christie?

[Ogre Mage]

Mark Warner, but Tim Kaine can't be taken seriously as a Vice President candidate. Hillary's opinion of Kaine as a candidate is well known.

Not all that well-known, considering I just did a google search on it and I still have no idea what you're talking about

Okay yeah, I'm curious about this too. I realize Kaine endorsed Obama in 2008, but I'd like to hear an elaboration on this?

Maxwell may have another source, but this was from the book Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.  The source is deep background, but they claim Hillary said this shortly after she conceded in 2008 and was musing about who Obama would pick as a running mate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If this is correct, Hillary correctly forecast Biden's selection as VP and we can surmise from her lack of criticism that she thought it was at least a decent choice.  Her thoughts about Kaine and Sebelius as running mates are crystal clear.

[Ogre Mage]

Clinton's wild card would be Sen. Mark Pryor. provided he wins re-election.  He's a friend, he could bring Arkansas back into the fold, and he'd be loyal.  Hillary has never been personally popular in Arkansas.  She's not Southern, and she is considered to be one of the reasons Clinton lost re-election in 1980.  

Take it from a Democrat -- Pryor is too conservative to be Hillary's running mate.  The base would revolt.

[Ogre Mage]

Clinton's wild card would be Sen. Mark Pryor. provided he wins re-election.  He's a friend, he could bring Arkansas back into the fold, and he'd be loyal.  Hillary has never been personally popular in Arkansas.  She's not Southern, and she is considered to be one of the reasons Clinton lost re-election in 1980.  

Take it from a Democrat -- Pryor is too conservative to be Hillary's running mate.  The base would revolt.

They would not revolt. There'd be some grumbling, then in a few weeks everyone would be back to only caring about beating the (R).

Now, Christie/Martinez on the other hand, would have solid potential for a third party Tea Party candidate.

You really think a pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-LGBT rights senator with a poor environmental record is going to pass muster with the base?  Do you realize how many constituencies within the party would be hugely pissed off? 

[Ogre Mage]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If this is correct, Hillary correctly forecast Biden's selection as VP and we can surmise from her lack of criticism that she thought it was at least a decent choice.  Her thoughts about Kaine and Sebelius as running mates are crystal clear.

At that time, Obama was a first term Senator, and Kaine was a first term Governor with no Washington experience.  Kaine's inclusion on the short list at all, back when he was so inexperienced, raised a lot of eyebrows here on Atlas, among other places.  In 2016, it's a totally different set of circumstances.

It is possible her view of Kaine may have evolved since that time.  Perhaps other posters have more recent information.

[Ogre Mage]

Clinton's wild card would be Sen. Mark Pryor. provided he wins re-election.  He's a friend, he could bring Arkansas back into the fold, and he'd be loyal.  Hillary has never been personally popular in Arkansas.  She's not Southern, and she is considered to be one of the reasons Clinton lost re-election in 1980.  

Take it from a Democrat -- Pryor is too conservative to be Hillary's running mate.  The base would revolt.

They would not revolt. There'd be some grumbling, then in a few weeks everyone would be back to only caring about beating the (R).

Now, Christie/Martinez on the other hand, would have solid potential for a third party Tea Party candidate.

You really think a pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-LGBT rights senator with a poor environmental record is going to pass muster with the base?  Do you realize how many constituencies within the party would be hugely pissed off? 

And what will the base do? Vote Nader? The Democratic base tends to take whatever is given to them. Just an example: the base enthusiastically supports the Heritage Foundation's/Bob Dole's/Mitt Romney's healthcare plan.

It wouldn't be Nader this time, but as someone who was around for and voted in the 2000 election, we should not tempt fate.  And the base won't take just anything -- note the recent torpedoing of Larry Summers.  You do not consolidate your base by putting a candidate on a national ticket who disagrees with large swaths of the party platform.  Just Pryor's pro-life position alone is a deal-breaker.  There is a reason why there has not been a pro-life Democrat on a national ticket in over 20 years -- it is a litmus test.