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

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[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.

[IceSpear]

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.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Democrats have been taking liberals for granted way too much. We will make sure to jump ship if Clinton chooses someone even more right-wing than herself.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Christie's best choice would be Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA).  He comes from a key swing state, he has experience sufficient for the job, and he's Jewish.  The GOP has missed some opportunities to make inroads in the pro-Democratic Jewish vote in a number of states.

Eric Cantor is very unpopular statewide in Virginia. That would be a very stupid pick.

And why would Hillary pick Mark Pryor? If she wanted to make inroads into Appalachia/Arkansas, it would be much better to pick the super popular Mike Beebe.

I understand why Democrats don't like Cantor.  I don't find him particularly likeable, and he comes off as a snot-nose at times.  But that's OK in certain contexts for a VP candidate.  I respectfully wonder if the idea that Cantor couldn't help the GOP in VA isn't a degree of wishful thinking

I think that Cantor could help in Virginia.  He's a powerful Congressman, the guy right behind the Speaker, possibly the next Speaker.  Because he's Jewish, the pick would be historic; the first Jewish candidate on a GOP ticket. 

The Jewish vote is slowly moving toward the GOP.  Jews are, for the most part, culturally liberal (the Hasidim and the Orthodox an exception), but the years of hearing "Obama's a Muslim!" and the growing perception that Obama, somehow, has "given radical Islam a free ride" hurts Obama with some Jewish voters.  Jews, as a group, were more hawkish on Iraq then many other Democratic constituencies, and they are somewhat less likely to support affirmative action policies.  The Cantor pick could exploit these shifts in opinion, and help the GOP in Florida, and in many of the key suburbs of Northeastern and Midwestern metro areas. 

[whanztastic]

Obama won 69% of the Jewish vote in 2012 and he isn't going to be the candidate in 2016 so I'm not sure what you are getting on about. And they are a small enough minority that picking Cantor as a 'token' over a Hispanic VP makes very little sense.

Edit: Furthermore - Cantor is not popular in Virginia and there isn't a large enough Jewish population to really swing the state and Florida is the only real swing state where the vote change may make a difference and he isn't from that state.

[pbrower2a]

Christie's best choice would be Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA).  He comes from a key swing state, he has experience sufficient for the job, and he's Jewish.  The GOP has missed some opportunities to make inroads in the pro-Democratic Jewish vote in a number of states.

William Miller, Geraldine Ferraro, Jack Kemp, and Pat Ryan all demonstrate the wisdom of never nominating for VP someone who has never won a statewide election. (Technically because the House seat of Wyoming is at-large, Dick Cheney did win a statewide election, even if it was 'only' Wyoming. But Dick Cheney was not chosen for his ability to swing a key state). Except for Cheney, none of those swung 'their own' states. Those were not bad politicians.  Does anyone suggest that Eric Cantor would be any different?

Florida, Ohio, and Virginia might be close enough that the Jewish vote could  swing those states. Even at that

(1) Joe Lieberman did not keep Florida in the Democratic fold in 2000, and his purpose was to energize the Jewish vote,

(2) the Democrats have plenty of potential Jewish nominees for Vice President (several US Senators) to offset that,

(3) Hillary Clinton isn't going to lose the Jewish vote unless she insults Jews or Israel,

(4) the Republicans still have a difficult time appealing to any non-white, non-Anglo, or non-Christian group.  

Does anyone think that Tim Scott would win over the black vote?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't say what would be the best.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They would also show Democrats and many independents why they are not hard-core Republicans. But unlike Sarah Palin they will be well known by 2016 -- if they aren't already. They would cause Christie to fail and set themselves up for 2020.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question may be whether Rick Scott will be Governor of Florida in 2016. He, and he alone, can give verbal orders to rig a statewide election. He is corrupt and despotic enough that such would be his choice if the election were close.

I would not have wanted the 2012 election to all depend on Florida.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's hard to assess someone on that basis. Joe Manchin would be a worse fit.  
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any Clinton-but-not-Obama state is iffy at best. We need to see how Congressional elections go in those states in 2014 to see whether any such state is reasonably in play.   


 

[ShadowRocket]

As far as a bad choice for either one, Hillary should avoid picking someone who is comes across as too "corporate" and leans more to the right than she does. For Christie, someone who is an unabashed Tea Partier who scares away moderates.