Who will Clinton, Rubio, and Christie take as running mates?

[Blue3]

I say there's a much greater than 50% chance that Hillary will get the Democratic nomination, and the same for either Rubio or Christie getting the GOP nomination.

So, who do you think they would choose as a running mate?


They should each pick someone who won't overshadow them in any way (unlike Palin overshadowing McCain), or make them seem desperate. And the running mates should pass thorough vetting, and should be capable of becoming President on day one themselves if necessary. Also, as recent history shows, their homestate doesn't really matter.

[NHI]

Clinton:
Brian Schweitzer
Tim Kaine
Mark Warner
John Hickenlooper

Christie:
Susana Martinez
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
John Kasich

Rubio:
Rand Paul
Kelly Ayotte
John Kasich
John Huntsman

[Mr. Morden]

Christie:
Susana Martinez
Chris Christie
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
John Kasich[/center

Christie's apparently a big enough man to fill both spots on the ticket.  Kind of like buying two plane tickets, because you're too big to fit in one seat.

[PolitiJunkie]

Clinton:
Brian Schweitzer
Tim Kaine
Mark Warner
John Hickenlooper

Christie:
Susana Martinez
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
John Kasich

Rubio:
Rand Paul
Kelly Ayotte
John Kasich
John Huntsman

I think this list is very, very on point.

Clinton/Schweitzer, Christie/Martinez, and Rubio/Ayotte are the most likely combinations in my opinion.

[Del Tachi]

Clinton will need to pick someone relatively new to the national stage who can bring excitement to the Democratic ticket in what is bound to be a lull of a year.  Thus, I think its likely that Clinton (or any 2016 Democratic nom) to pick a new Democratic governor or Senator elected in 2014.  Alternatively, to generate the same kind of energy they could nominate another woman or a minority...

Which raises the question, will America 2016 be ready for a Democratic ticket that features two women or a woman and a racial minority?
 

[NHI]

Christie:
Susana Martinez
Chris Christie
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
John Kasich

Christie/Christie 2016!

Oopps!

[PolitiJunkie]

Clinton will need to pick someone relatively new to the national stage who can bring excitement to the Democratic ticket in what is bound to be a lull of a year.  Thus, I think its likely that Clinton (or any 2016 Democratic nom) to pick a new Democratic governor or Senator elected in 2014.  Alternatively, to generate the same kind of energy they could nominate another woman or a minority...

Which raises the question, will America 2016 be ready for a Democratic ticket that features two women or a woman and a racial minority?
 

I don't think that Clinton will pick another woman.

And I disagree that Clinton has to pick a newly elected Governor or Senator; she'd get hammered for picking a candidate with 18 months of experience. Schweitzer would be the perfect pick because he has 8 years of gubernatorial experience and, by then, presumably 2 years in the Senate, but is still a very exciting figure that hasn't been hugely exposed yet. Not to mention all the other advantages (regional, gender, populism, white working-class appeal, appeal to moderates/slight conservatives, etc).

[Horus]

Which raises the question, will America 2016 be ready for a Democratic ticket that features two women or a woman and a racial minority?
 

A woman and racial minority? Yes. Had Clinton won the nomination in 2008 there's little doubt she would've picked Obama for VP. That ticket would have easily won.

Two women? I highly doubt that.

[Mr. Morden]

Kaine seems like the most likely option for Clinton.  Schweitzer is another strong option if he runs for and wins that Senate seat in 2014, and can actually show that he's credible on national issues.  Booker will inevitably be included on the short list (assuming he wins that Senate seat in NJ, which appears all but certain), but I can't see him actually getting picked in the end.  Not sure who else might be in the mix.  Maybe one of those Western Senators who are under 60 (e.g., Bennet, Heinrich, Merkley....has any of them done anything of note to merit consideration?)?

Between Christie and Rubio, I assume that Christie would be more likely to pick a "rising star" type running mate, while Rubio would be more likely to pick someone with experience.  Rubio is younger, looks a *lot* younger, and will still be a one term Senator in 2016.  Christie will be in the back half of his second term as governor.  Christie's also more likely to make a "diversity" pick, whereas that's less relevant for Rubio.

So yeah, Martinez might be on Christie's radar, but maybe Ayotte as well.....more likely Ayotte as Christie's running mate than Rubio's, because she's another one term Senator.  However, I suspect she might take herself out of the veepstakes completely, because her seat is up in 2016.  Cathy McMorris Rodgers is another possibility, and I wouldn't rule out Jindal either.  Not sure if Rubio himself would even agree to be vetted as Christie's running mate, since Rubio's seat is up in 2016, and Florida law doesn't allow him to run for both.  Rubio will skip out of reelection if he can be the presidential nominee, but would he do the same for VP?  Or will he assume that Christie's going to lose to Clinton, stay in the Senate, and hope that the country will be sick of the Dems by 2020, so he can take another shot at the presidency then, when he's in his second Senate term?

For Rubio....I continue to think that Kasich is a very strong possibility for Rubio's running mate, assuming his reelection for governor in 2014.  Rubio, as a young one term Senator, will probably want something like an elder statesman as his running mate, but the GOP bench of elder statesman who would be plausible on a national ticket is actually rather thin at the moment.  Maybe Kasich is the closest thing there is.  Second term governor of a swing state who also has ample Washington experience from his nearly two decades in Congress.  Ticks all the relevant litmus test boxes, but isn't going to scare swing voters in the way the most extreme elements of the party might.

Portman's another option similar to Kasich (and is presumably more up on national issues than Kasich is, now that Kasich's been out of Congress for so long), but it remains to be seen whether the gay marriage issue might kill his chances, and there's the complicating factor that Portman's seat is also up in 2016.

And no, Rand Paul is not going to be considered for one second by either Christie or Rubio.

[Blue3]

Clinton will need to pick someone relatively new to the national stage who can bring excitement to the Democratic ticket in what is bound to be a lull of a year.  Thus, I think its likely that Clinton (or any 2016 Democratic nom) to pick a new Democratic governor or Senator elected in 2014.  Alternatively, to generate the same kind of energy they could nominate another woman or a minority.. 

Why does Clinton need someone to bring excitement? She'll have plenty of energy and excitement on her own. First female president, 90's nostalgia.

And picking a running mate for "excitement" only shows that you're losing and you're desperate, and it leads to the running mate overshadowing the presidential candidate.

She'd be criticized for bringing someone elected in 2014 onto the ticket, it would look like Palin. The running mate has to already be a governor or senator, right now.

[Mr. Morden]

Addendum to my previous post: Thune is another one who could plausibly be on the short list for both Christie and Rubio.  But again, you run into the complication that his Senate seat is up in 2016, so he might want to stay in the Senate, and not agree to be vetted.  (Not sure on whether SD law allows him to run for both.)  So many of the GOP's bench of possibilities for a national ticket are in the Senate, in a seat that's up in 2016.

[Bull Moose Base]

Christie and Rubio together may be the same body mass as Christie pre-stomach surgery but they're not combined equally likely to win the nomination as Hillary or close.  The Republican nomination has gone from being a foregone conclusion for years- Reagan, HW, Dole, W- to harder to predict years in advance- McCain, Romney- to this cycle, the cloudiest ever. It feels much more similar to a Democratic open primary contest of decades past.  It's still too hard to read who will even run. I personally wouldn't take 2 to 1 odds that one of Christie or Rubio will win the nomination.

If Clinton runs, her VP pick will no doubt factor in what happened in the Republican primary and what the issues of the day are.  Vilsack, O'Malley, Warner, Schweitzer all seem possible.

[They not like us]

Clinton/Kaine seems fair, or Clinton/Schweitzer

Christie/Martinez is unbeatable.

[TDAS04]

Clinton/Schweitzer would be the ideal ticket for Democrats. 

For Christie, Tim Pawlenty would be good.  Pawlenty is a boring but solid conservative, exactly what Christie would need.

Rubio/Kasich might make sense.

[Blue3]

Pawlenty is now a Wall Street lobbyist

[bballrox4717]

Knowing Clinton, most likely a centrist and/or someone that's prepared to be president. She will want no risk of her VP distracting attention. I don't think she would pick another woman or a minority. The only choice I could see her making is Patrick if she's worried about African-American turnout post Obama. Booker would be a bad choice, it's too early for him, as with any politicians elected in 2014. Warner seems like a good pick for her, he's dying to get out of the Senate. O'Malley would be a good choice if Hillary needs some liberal reassurance. Hickenlooper also seems like Hillary's type. If she's aiming for old Democratic territory in the interior, Nixon is a good pick. He doesn't have much of a future after he's done as governor anyways. Schweitzer is a home run sort of a pick, but he's not the type of pick Hillary makes, and I'm not sure he accepts anyway. If I had to make a guess it would be either Hickenlooper if she's worried about the west or Warner otherwise.

Christie's VP choice is narrow. He has to choose someone who is conservative enough to the base but not toxic to the general electorate. Rubio is a good choice. Martinez is as well. Thune makes sense if Christie is cruising. Ayotte and Kaisch are good picks but risky in terms of the base. Walker would face the same problems as Ryan. I don't think Christie would choose Rand out of principle. Sandoval is a big no in general because he's pro choice. I think Christie tries to convince Martinez at first, then goes for Rubio. If not, then Thune or Ayotte.

Rubio has bigger choice of VP candidates because he can go moderate. He won't go Huntsman-Portman moderate, but picks like Ayotte and Kaisch won't bat an eye from anybody. Christie wouldn't want to be VP. Rubio wouldn't pick Martinez, believing two Hispanics on the ticket would be pandering. Rubio would put Paul on the public shortlist but would never seriously consider him. In the end, I think Rubio goes with his heart over his brain and picks Walker over Kaisch. They seem like a natural match together. It would be a mistake though.

[Mister Mets]

Interesting question. Clinton probably won't pick a woman or a New Yorker, but otherwise, she has remarkable flexibility.
My impression of the Clintons is that they are kinda petty, so she'll be happiest with someone who backed her in 2008. But that list is rather limited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements
The only officeholders who backed her in 2008 are possible Virginia Governor Terry McAuffile, and California Lieutenant Governor (and former San Fransisco Mayor) Gavin Newsom.
She would probably pick Mark Warner over Kaine among the Virginia Governors turned Senators, as Kaine backed Obama early in 2008.
Brian Schweitzer is also a possibility as he would be a strong surrogate in the West, while Hillary has more ties to the South and Northeast.
New Senators Joe Donnelly and Martin Heinrich might also be considered, especially if Donnelly has a Romney-like conversion on abortion.
John Hickenlooper is a western swing state Governor, and Xavier Becerra is the most qualified Hispanic candidate, which could help with turnout,

Rubio would probably go for someone with more experience and/ or appeal to moderate voters. I imagine he would want to avoid a Southerner, although this isn't essential.
So Chris Christie and Jon Huntsman would be possibilities. Maybe even Condoleeza Rice. Terry Branstad would be very well known in a major swing state. If Bob McDonnell can get past the current investigations, he could be considered.
It might also be Tim Pawlenty's third unsuccessful go at the veepstakes, as Rubio could use a midwestern executive.

Christie won't get away with picking anyone too moderate, but he's experienced enough that he can go with someone new.
Susanna Martinez brings diversity to the ticket, is a strong surrogate in the West and has some similarities to Christie: prosecutors turned Governors.
Tim Scott excites the base, and avoids criticism of a two white guys ticket.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers is a qualified conservative woman. The only problem with Kelly Ayotte is that she also comes from the Northeast, although that's less of a problem for Republicans.
If Marco Rubio gave up his chance to run for reelection, he would be a possible Veep.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I don't really get why Clinton would pick a Schweitzer type... she already appeals to the folksier wing of the Democratic Party. She's a Clinton. Why not someone like Deval Patrick to bring out the African American vote?

[Mr. Morden]

I don't really get why Clinton would pick a Schweitzer type... she already appeals to the folksier wing of the Democratic Party. She's a Clinton. Why not someone like Deval Patrick to bring out the African American vote?

She's a woman, whose career in elective office was launched in New York.  And the gender gap in both her favorables and hypothetical general election matchups is enormous.  So the logic of picking someone like Schweitzer would be to run with a manly man who has rural appeal.

[PJ]

I agree with all the previous posts on VPs, but I don't know if Rubio will be really successful. Look at the thread, "Who Will You Vote For in 2016?" Rubio has a good chance, but in this poll, Christie, Paul, Ryan, Jindal, and even SANTORUM are beating him last time I checked.

[Ogre Mage]

I don't really get why Clinton would pick a Schweitzer type... she already appeals to the folksier wing of the Democratic Party. She's a Clinton. Why not someone like Deval Patrick to bring out the African American vote?

I think their work experience and geography balances nicely.  Clinton served as Senator and SoS.  She has a lot of foreign policy experience and is a creature of Washington, D.C.  Schweitzer was a very popular two-term governor in a place far, far away from D.C. and a region of the country that Hillary/Democrats have tended to do poorly.  

[Blue3]

I agree with all the previous posts on VPs, but I don't know if Rubio will be really successful. Look at the thread, "Who Will You Vote For in 2016?" Rubio has a good chance, but in this poll, Christie, Paul, Ryan, Jindal, and even SANTORUM are beating him last time I checked.

This forum probably isn't indicative of the GOP base.

[Reaganfan]

Christie/Martinez

[publicunofficial]

Clinton: Hickenlooper, Schweitzer, Castro, Heinrich, Bercerra, Warner, S. Brown, Heitkamp

Rubio: Kasich, Portman, Huntsman, Lee, McDonnell,

Christie: Martinez, Sandoval, Ayotte

[Mister Mets]

I don't really get why Clinton would pick a Schweitzer type... she already appeals to the folksier wing of the Democratic Party. She's a Clinton. Why not someone like Deval Patrick to bring out the African American vote?

There are several problems with Patrick.

He isn't that young. He'll be sixty in 2016.
It's easy to stereotype a Democrat from a very liberal state.
He may not be a particularly gifted politician. He was reelected with less than fifty percent of the vote in one of the five most Democratic-leaning states in the country.
Hillary Clinton represented a liberal northeastern state in the Senate. She may want a running mate from somewhere else.

I also don't see her taking someone who endorsed Obama over her in the 2008 primary.

If she comes to the conclusion that she'll benefit from an African-American running mate, Anthony Foxx, the likely Transportation secretary, would be a better choice. He's younger and comes from a more politically useful region. And it seems he has some impressive political talent, the first Democrat elected Mayor of Charlotte since the 1980s, and reelected with more than two-thirds of the vote.

I don't think she'll make that decision, though. She'll probably have tremendous support among African Americans for the same Rahm Emanuel did when he ran for Mayor of Chicago. She has a lot of credibility for serving honorably in the administration of the first African-American President.

There could also be some resentment, if another African American Democrat is chosen for a high spot. It could smack of tokenism, although I acknowledge the ridiculousness of the accusation, as Veeps are often chosen for geographic reasons. If some Democrat were elected Governor of Ohio in 2014, he would automatically be a contender for Veep, even if he's technically a token swing-stater.