Clinton should pick Booker

[Mister Mets]

I haven't seen much indication that the Clintons are unpopular with the African-American community. Hillary served in the administration of the first black President. Bill campaigned hard for him.

And it would backfire if there was the perception that Hillary picked a running mate because of race rather than merit.

Booker makes sense for other reasons, given his youth, media savvy and mix of experience. But there is some bad blood between them.

He'd send the base into revolt. Clinton needs to shore up her left flank more than her center appeal. If she wants a black running mate, she'd be smarter to pick Deval Patrick.

A good chunk of the base likes Booker. He's relatively young and media-savvy.

But it certainly won't fit a Warren-approved populist anti-Wall Street narrative.

If Hillary wants an African-American running mate, Anthony Foxx may be a better choice. He's less known, which means there's less baggage. He has a wife and kids. And he's from a more useful state.

Not to mention picking a Democratic Senator who would be replaced by Chris Christie with a Republican reduces the already small chances of a Democratic Senate to nearly nothing.

Maybe. Keep in mind Booker only gets replaced if Democrats win.

So this only applies for an election in which Democrats are strong enough to win the White House, but not able to win 14 out of 34 Senate races.

[Mister Mets]

Also, a guy whose political experience adds up to mayor->half a term in the Senate is vulnerable to Palining. People will be asking "would I be comfortable with this person as president should Clinton die" given her age, much like with McCain.

I continue to be puzzled why "Mayor of a large city" isn't considered more of a credible stepping stone. Now, Wasila, Alaska - that's not all that great experience. But New York, like Giuliani could lay claim to? Newark, where Booker inherited a disaster zone and spent years turning it around? I'd much rather look at that executive experience than at time in a legislative body.

There may be the perception that being of Newark isn't as impressive. It's the 67th most populated city in the US. California has thirteen cities with greater populations: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside and Stockton.

That said, Booker is unlikely to be Palin-ed.

He has won two statewide campaigns, due to the structure of the special election. He has a mix of legislative and executive experience. Senators are more likely to be apprised of national affairs, so they're less likely to make serious gaffes. The media's known who he is for a while, so there's less of a chance of "Who the hell is this person?" resentment.

[Mister Mets]

It can be argued that being a woman is a setback.

Maybe in 2008.  The country has changed quite a bit since and people are getting used to the idea of a ticket without at least one white male.  Anyone who has a problem with such a ticket wouldn't vote for the Democratic candidate anyway.

Out of fifty Governors in the US, only five are women, in a country where women are a slight majority of the population. It's certainly reasonable to consider that it may be more difficult for a woman to get elected to executive office.

It's also possible that women can get judged in ways that male candidates wouldn't. A small percentage of the population might have these kinds of biases, and it would be enough to make a big difference.

I'm sure some would view a ticket with a woman and black man as pandering, although the effects of that argument are unknown. It could end up hurting the opposition, or it might cost votes with cautious centrists.

The main reason the Clintons are unlikely to back Booker is that they preferred other people to Booker as Mayor.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/sharpe_james_to_be_behind_bars.html

[Mister Mets]

I don't think the VP choice matters unless he/she screws up (like Palin), but people are overstating the Senate risk. When Lautenburg died, we only had a Republican Senator for 4 months, and no Republican, not even Christie, has a shot at winning a NJ Senate seat. There'll be an open seat in 2017 for governor anyway, so any Republicans with statewide ambitions are better off going for that instead.

Christie allowed for a special election quickly because it was in his political interests to do so.

The special election could be delayed until the midterms.

[Mister Mets]

I don't know.

It would make sense for Hillary to go with someone qualified, but acceptable to the left, to avoid a veep who causes problems.

Booker could work in that category. He's a Senator with executive experience and familiarity with and to the media.