Clinton aides already talking about VP options

[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.)

[Mister Mets]

Bennet.  - Mike Coffman would make it Leans R; Cynthia Coffman, Scott Tipton, or Scott Gessler would make it a Toss-Up.

Coffman makes it Lean R? Nope. Maybe tossup.

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.

Nope. Wrong again. You aren't doing so well in this topic - you're batting 0 for 2.

1. Bennet is nowhere near popular in Colorado, and Coffman just won reelection by 9 points against a very strong challenger, significantly outperforming Gardner in his district. He also won narrowly in 2012 despite Obama winning his district 52-47. He has real crossover support in his district, and I fail to see why you think Bennett, who wouldn't be in the senate if Republicans hadn't nominated a nutjob last time around, would possibly start with an edge over Coffman.

2. Considering the democrats spent money in the OREGON and MICHIGAN senate races last cycle (actually true) even though they ended up being nowhere near competitive, I won't be surprised if they do throw money at California if the republicans put up someone who can poll within 10 points or so, which the four candidates I mentioned can definitely do.

The midterm electorates are more favorable to Republicans, so unless there's a disaster, 2016 is probably going to better for Democrats.

While Ken Buck was a flawed candidate for Republicans, he's not a complete nutjob. He was elected to Congress later, and was designated the freshman class President by the US House.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2014/11/13/ken-bucks-freshman-class-president/115220/

I'm sure Republicans will run against Bennet, but several of his 2010 problems won't apply. Historically, appointed Senators do poorly, so he's better-positioned now that he has won an election. Then there's the 2016 electorate. There is an open question of what turnout wll be like without Obama on the ticket, although we also don't know what the political environment will be like in Colorado when Hillary makes her decision for Veep. If Bennet is leading a no-name Republican by twelve points, the calculus is different than if the race were tied and Republicans nominated a top-tier contender.

[Mister Mets]

Brian Schatz is a white male, but he's also Jewish.  So he does have the 'minority thing' covered.

Other possibles not previously mentioned
1.Martin O'Malley if he runs well
2.Jack Merkl
3.Tom Vilsack
4.Elizabeth Warren
5.Maggie Hassan
6.John Lynch
7.Anthony Foxx
8.Sherrod Brown
9.Jack Reed
10.James Webb if he runs well
11.Gary Locke
12.Kirsten Gillibrand
13.Maria Cantwell
14.Sally Jewell
15.Sylvia Burwell
16.Ken Salazar
17.Janet Napolitano
18.Jeh Johnson
19.John Kerry for the ultimate ticket.

Considering that Jews are overrepresented in the Congress, I'm not sure they count as minorities.

As for your picks.

O'Malley's bland, but if he runs a solid campaign, he'd be a relatively safe choice.
Vilsack will be an elderly guy who also served in the Obama administration. I really don't see Hillary picking anyone elderly without extraordinary circumstances. That'll exclude Jack Reed as well.
Warren doesn't seem interested in national office, and doesn't add anything demographically (Northeastern elderly woman) although it's plausible that they'll add an advocate for populist policies. It would be a major risk.
Democrats want Hassan to run for Senate in New Hampshire, and her qualifications aren't that impressive. If she picks a woman, it would likely be someone impressive in soem way.
John Lynch is a bit old, but an immensely popular former Governor isn't the worst pick.
Foxx is plausible.
Brown would be great if he were ten years younger. It would be a ticket of people who have been in politics for decades which has some negatives.
Webb's gone pretty negative against Clinton, and might not have the ideal family life (twice-divorced with a much younger third wife.) He's also pretty old.
Jewell and Burwell haven't face elections.
Jeh Johnson has a strong defense record, but that's an area where Hillary's strong. He could help with African American turnout, and seems qualified. He is a New York trial lawyer though.
Kerry doesn't add anything to the ticket, and is an elderly guy with plenty of baggage.

I have no idea who Jack Merkl is.