When will the candidates start vetting potential running mates?

[Mr. Morden]

In 2012, Mitt Romney named Beth Myers to head his running mate search as early as mid-April:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/04/16/mitt-romney-taps-longtime-aide-beth-myers-lead-running-mate-search/TBsilHHmMnYDW2ppVqGpkL/story.html

This was four months before he announced Ryan as his running mate.  By mid-May (three months before he picked Ryan) the campaign had contacted some of the people they were vetting, in order to get more information:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=153778.0

This year the conventions are in the second half of July, so the timeframe is compressed.  Yet it seems very unlikely that either nomination will be decided before the first week of June.  And in the Republican case, there’s a strong chance that it will go beyond that.  So when are they actually going to start this process?

I would think that the Clinton campaign, at least, would start this earlier than June.  Though actually contacting people who you’re vetting may come off as presumptuous if not every state has voted yet, and Sanders is still in the race.  On the Republican side, it’s a bit different, since the vice presidency could be used as a bargaining chip in a contested convention.

[SillyAmerican]

I would think serious vetting would begin around mid June, but that's just a gut feeling, I have no evidence to back that up. But late July just seems a bit too late, no?

[The Other Castro]

This is part of the reason why I feel a strong possibility is a Cruz/Kasich ticket. What politician is more vetted than one of the final three themselves?

[Mr. Morden]

I would think serious vetting would begin around mid June, but that's just a gut feeling, I have no evidence to back that up. But late July just seems a bit too late, no?

So the vetting will all be done in a month (since the conventions are in July)?  That's a much tighter window of time than we've seen for any recent VP selection.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

This is part of the reason why I feel a strong possibility is a Cruz/Kasich ticket. What politician is more vetted than one of the final three themselves?

Many because Kasich has never been serious so the media has yet to bring up his weaknesses as AAD has discussed. Not they exact type of guy people will want #2 with that Adderall story which cracked me up!

[Kleine Scheiße]

I doubt Trump will do much vetting. He'll probably just go with his gut on a big gamble like, maybe Paul LePage?

[dax00]

Watch Trump put names in a hat and pull out - Omarosa! (You're hired)

[SillyAmerican]

Watch Trump put names in a hat and pull out - Omarosa! (You're hired)

Say what you will, I think Trump is smart enough to know what kind of VP he'd like to see on the ticket, and he's pretty much already indicated that it will be someone in politics. My bet would be a sitting/former governor, and he'll probably be especially interested in having a woman running mate. Again, this last speculation is just my gut talkin'...

So the vetting will all be done in a month (since the conventions are in July)?  That's a much tighter window of time than we've seen for any recent VP selection.

Yet another reason why I think we'll be seeing known quantities in the slot - folks that have already been run through an initial vetting process. And I think that'll be true on both the Dem and GOP tickets.

[PeteB]

Interesting question, especially because this election cycle has been so different.

On the Democratic side, I imagine that Clinton already has a vetting process going on quietly (and unless she is facing Kasich, my bet is her choice is someone like Sen. Kaine). I am guessing that Sanders has not even gotten to thinking about it. If he does get the opportunity, he may have to agree to a "brokered" establishment VP candidate.

On the GOP side, with the contested convention, all bets are off. The VP candidate may well be forced onto the ticket, or a convention deal between a couple of candidates may determine the VP slot.

If the GOP candidates have a choice,Trump will definitely want someone politically experienced - as Silly American said, the ideal "fantasy candidate" would be a woman Governor (as long as it is not Palin ). Similarly Cruz would need an experienced person who would alleviate mainstream concerns (someone like Scott Walker, but with some charisma). If he has the choice, Kasich has the "luxury" to get someone young and telegenic (Gov. Martinez, Gov. Haley or even Sen. Rubio come to mind).

But other than Clinton, I doubt any of the others have started serious vetting.

[Frodo]

Interesting question, especially because this election cycle has been so different.

On the Democratic side, I imagine that Clinton already has a vetting process going on quietly (and unless she is facing Kasich, my bet is her choice is someone like Sen. Kaine).

If Hillary is to have any hope of reuniting the Democratic Party and reconciling Sanders' supporters to her nomination, she will more likely pick a progressive (not a moderate) as her running-mate.  

By this point, that should be a given.  

[PeteB]

Interesting question, especially because this election cycle has been so different.

On the Democratic side, I imagine that Clinton already has a vetting process going on quietly (and unless she is facing Kasich, my bet is her choice is someone like Sen. Kaine).

If Hillary is to have any hope of reuniting the Democratic Party and reconciling Sanders' supporters to her nomination, she will more likely pick a progressive (not a moderate) as her running-mate.  

By this point, that should be a given.  

That really depends on circumstances. Note that I said "unless she is facing Kasich (i.e. a more moderate opponent)". If she is running against Trump or Cruz, she will NOT need a "progressive" VP pick to energize the base. Could you really see any Bernie supporters vote GOP or even abstain in a Clinton-Cruz or Clinton-Trump matchup for example? And with someone moderate as VP, she could just scoop up the votes in the middle as well.

[Frodo]

Interesting question, especially because this election cycle has been so different.

On the Democratic side, I imagine that Clinton already has a vetting process going on quietly (and unless she is facing Kasich, my bet is her choice is someone like Sen. Kaine).

If Hillary is to have any hope of reuniting the Democratic Party and reconciling Sanders' supporters to her nomination, she will more likely pick a progressive (not a moderate) as her running-mate.  

By this point, that should be a given.  

That really depends on circumstances. Note that I said "unless she is facing Kasich (i.e. a more moderate opponent)". If she is running against Trump or Cruz, she will NOT need a "progressive" VP pick to energize the base. Could you really see any Bernie supporters vote GOP or even abstain in a Clinton-Cruz or Clinton-Trump matchup for example?

There is no better way to lose an election than to give your supporters (especially those who supported someone else in the primaries) the impression that you are taking them for granted.  I can easily see some of Sanders' supporters abstaining or voting third party.  Why not minimize the possible defections by picking a running-mate whom they regard as being one of them? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary already represents the moderate and conservative (i.e. older) elements of the Democratic Party.  She needs a running-mate who represents those she hasn't been able to win over during the primaries. 

[This account no longer in use.]

Out of the people who have actually endorsed Sanders, Grijalva, Welch, and Peterson are nobodies, Ellison will lose votes because of his religion, Gabbard is far too similar to Palin, and Grayson is dangerously insane. Kaptur could help out in Ohio, but that's the only place that I know of. She should instead go with a progressive who's stayed neutral, or endorsed her.

[Frodo]

Out of the people who have actually endorsed Sanders, Grijalva, Welch, and Peterson are nobodies, Ellison will lose votes because of his religion, Gabbard is far too similar to Palin, and Grayson is dangerously insane. Kaptur could help out in Ohio, but that's the only place that I know of. She should instead go with a progressive who's stayed neutral, or endorsed her.

Like Hilda Solis?  

[This account no longer in use.]

Out of the people who have actually endorsed Sanders, Grijalva, Welch, and Peterson are nobodies, Ellison will lose votes because of his religion, Gabbard is far too similar to Palin, and Grayson is dangerously insane. Kaptur could help out in Ohio, but that's the only place that I know of. She should instead go with a progressive who's stayed neutral, or endorsed her.

Like Hilda Solis?  

Solis doesn't have the name recognition. Elizabeth Warren could work.

[Frodo]

Out of the people who have actually endorsed Sanders, Grijalva, Welch, and Peterson are nobodies, Ellison will lose votes because of his religion, Gabbard is far too similar to Palin, and Grayson is dangerously insane. Kaptur could help out in Ohio, but that's the only place that I know of. She should instead go with a progressive who's stayed neutral, or endorsed her.

Like Hilda Solis?  

Solis doesn't have the name recognition. Elizabeth Warren could work.

Hilda Solis is admittedly a dark-horse candidate, but once people get to know her better, she will work wonders for Hillary.  

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Out of the people who have actually endorsed Sanders, Grijalva, Welch, and Peterson are nobodies, Ellison will lose votes because of his religion, Gabbard is far too similar to Palin, and Grayson is dangerously insane. Kaptur could help out in Ohio, but that's the only place that I know of. She should instead go with a progressive who's stayed neutral, or endorsed her.

I don't see what's so bad about picking Welch. Joe Biden wasn't exactly a household name in 2008, either.

[PeteB]

Interesting question, especially because this election cycle has been so different.

On the Democratic side, I imagine that Clinton already has a vetting process going on quietly (and unless she is facing Kasich, my bet is her choice is someone like Sen. Kaine).

If Hillary is to have any hope of reuniting the Democratic Party and reconciling Sanders' supporters to her nomination, she will more likely pick a progressive (not a moderate) as her running-mate.  

By this point, that should be a given.  

That really depends on circumstances. Note that I said "unless she is facing Kasich (i.e. a more moderate opponent)". If she is running against Trump or Cruz, she will NOT need a "progressive" VP pick to energize the base. Could you really see any Bernie supporters vote GOP or even abstain in a Clinton-Cruz or Clinton-Trump matchup for example?

There is no better way to lose an election than to give your supporters (especially those who supported someone else in the primaries) the impression that you are taking them for granted.  I can easily see some of Sanders' supporters abstaining or voting third party.  Why not minimize the possible defections by picking a running-mate whom they regard as being one of them? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary already represents the moderate and conservative (i.e. older) elements of the Democratic Party.  She needs a running-mate who represents those she hasn't been able to win over during the primaries. 

Because if you are running against extreme right wing candidates, you do not want any left wing presence on your ticket, to dilute your appeal to the center (and vice versa). And no, I do not think Sanders supporters in that scenario would abstain or vote third party, if they understand that the end result could be President Cruz!

[This account no longer in use.]

Out of the people who have actually endorsed Sanders, Grijalva, Welch, and Peterson are nobodies, Ellison will lose votes because of his religion, Gabbard is far too similar to Palin, and Grayson is dangerously insane. Kaptur could help out in Ohio, but that's the only place that I know of. She should instead go with a progressive who's stayed neutral, or endorsed her.

I don't see what's so bad about picking Welch. Joe Biden wasn't exactly a household name in 2008, either.

Welch has more use in the House, where he's part of the Democratic Party leadership. And Joe Biden wasn't a house name, but he had given decades of service representing the people of Delaware. Welch has been around for a while, but not long enough to justify a nod as running mate.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Out of the people who have actually endorsed Sanders, Grijalva, Welch, and Peterson are nobodies, Ellison will lose votes because of his religion, Gabbard is far too similar to Palin, and Grayson is dangerously insane. Kaptur could help out in Ohio, but that's the only place that I know of. She should instead go with a progressive who's stayed neutral, or endorsed her.

I don't see what's so bad about picking Welch. Joe Biden wasn't exactly a household name in 2008, either.

Welch has more use in the House, where he's part of the Democratic Party leadership. And Joe Biden wasn't a house name, but he had given decades of service representing the people of Delaware. Welch has been around for a while, but not long enough to justify a nod as running mate.

The last thing Hillary needs is someone with "decades of service". She needs someone more fresh.

[Mister Mets]

It would make sense for the party to vet potential candidates, given the possibilities of someone new emerging in a brokered convention.

[President Johnson]

In the weeks before the conventions. If we end up with contested convention on the Republican side, only at the convention floor.

[Mr. Morden]

If we end up with contested convention on the Republican side, only at the convention floor.

Waiting until the week of the convention to start looking into the background of your potential running mate seems like political malpractice.  (Granted, we've already seen lots of political malpractice in this cycle.  )

If you're in a contested convention scenario, then I look at the VP nomination like an NFL team going into draft day.  Because there could be some horse trading, you don't necessarily know which picks are going to be available to you.  But you still want to be prepared.  You want to look into the background of all of your options, and come with a ranked list of your choices, so that you can be prepared for any scenario.

[Mr. Morden]

The Washington Examiner has a story on this very problem:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-veepstakes-could-spawn-contested-convention-chaos/article/2588097

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

This story looks at the potential VP selection pathways at a contested convention, and even offers a longshot possibility of the delegates voting to delay the decision, in order to give the presidential nominee more time to decide who they want:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-craziest-thing-about-a-contested-gop-183303354.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.