Which of these confirmed Clinton VP candidates would make the best president?

[Lyin' Steve]

So the New York Times dropped its bombshell article today where it confirmed 7 candidates Hillary is considering for VP.  I've included Elizabeth Warren because we know she's looking at at least one other woman, and the campaign advisers "refused to rule her out" when speaking under condition of anonymity, which seems like a pretty strong signal.  Apparently there are 15-20 total.

It's a bit of a disappointing list, no real surprises, these were all the eight people we figured would be in the hunt.  Of Atlas's favorite VP speculation candidates, all are included except Al Franken.

The question I think is worth asking is, of these seven gentlemen and one lady, if Hillary Clinton's debilitating tuberculosis finally gets the best of her, which would make the best president?  Consider their qualifications and leadership skills, preferably independent of ideology.

[Kingpoleon]

I'm sad neither Wyden nor Franken is on the list.

I'll go with Booker.

[Santander]

1. Warner
2. Booker
3. Kaine
4. Brown
5. Patrick
6. Perez
7. Warren
8. Castro

Warner is by some distance the best, but Booker and Kaine are also decent choices. The rest range from unlikely to be effective (Brown) to terrible (Warren). As for Castro, let's just say he's no Jack Kennedy.

[temmie b. <3]

1. Booker
2. Warner
3. Brown
4. Warren
5. Patrick
6. Perez
7. Kaine
8. Castro

[Virginiá]

Why do people want Virginia Senators? No Senators in any states but safe blue states with Democratic governors should be considered, as a Democratic Senate majority is critical and nothing should be done to chance it. On top of that, Mark Warner's net worth is hundreds of millions of dollars. Does Hillary really want to bring on someone that rich (and bland)? He would make her ticket even more vulnerable to the plutocrat label.

Anyway, I think she should really go with a minority or Warren. Perez, Warren, Patrick, Booker and Castro would be my picks, in order.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Warren, of course.

[Holmes]

I think Warner, Kaine or Patrick would be the most experienced and ready to take office day 1.

[Oak Hills]

Gonna go through the list and give my thoughts on all of the candidates.

Kaine: Seems like he'd do a decent job; he just wouldn't be super-inspiring to anybody.
Warner: I get the impression that he's overrated. He seems to me like he'd be a mediocre president.
Brown: Probably could do a decent job, but doesn't strike me as having a personality suited to the presidency for some reason.
Patrick: A lot like Kaine, but slightly more inspiring.
Perez: Don't know enough about him to comment.
Booker: Certainly would do well with the PR side of the presidency, and decent with the rest of it, too, even though I don't think I'd like his policies as well as the others.
Castro: Needs to get more experience first. Maybe he'd make a decent president down the road, though.
Warren: Decent senator, but I don't think she'd be a good executive. She seems like too much of a specialist and does better in a legislative capacity where she can spend more time focusing on her area of expertise.

So I guess it comes down to Kaine or Patrick. I'll go with Kaine.

[Santander]

Why do people want Virginia Senators? No Senators in any states but safe blue states with Democratic governors should be considered, as a Democratic Senate majority is critical and nothing should be done to chance it.

Well, the question was which one would make the best President, not necessarily who should be Clinton's running mate. Warner and Kaine are both experienced politicians who've won multiple elections in a purple state.

[Virginiá]

Why do people want Virginia Senators? No Senators in any states but safe blue states with Democratic governors should be considered, as a Democratic Senate majority is critical and nothing should be done to chance it.

Well, the question was which one would make the best President, not necessarily who should be Clinton's running mate. Warner and Kaine are both experienced politicians who've won multiple elections in a purple state.

Oh, whoops! You're right. Sorry, I got ahead of myself there. In that case, I'd go down to Patrick, Warren and Perez, in order. I'm not sure about Booker.

For the reasons I mentioned I won't consider the VA Senators, or Castro, because I don't think he is experienced enough to lead this country (yet, at least)

[Trump v. Wong Kim Ark]

I find it interesting that Perez was on NPR tonight. Not sure that he has the experience though.

Booker and Warren wouldn't be bad, maybe on par with Obama (decent, but not the best).

Brown wouldn't be bad, I don't think. Maybe a bit better than Warren or Booker.

Patrick was a two term governor and Warner and Kaine were governors as well. I'd say one of the two Virginians because they've both been senators and governors. I would lean Kaine because he can speak Spanish.

Castro is not qualified and I'm tired of hearing his name tossed around.


1. Kaine
2. Warner
3. Patrick
4. Brown
5. Booker
6. Warren
7. Perez
9. Castro

[pho]

Probably Mark Warner. He's centrist enough to work with Republicans and has both executive and legislative experience.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Perez or Warren. Patrick is an awful 'innovators'-ocrat.

[BundouYMB]

My thoughts:

Kaine: perfectly competent and able to do the job but milquetoast. Middle of the road, steady hand, ect., all around ok. I'd be satisfied with him being President but not jumping with joy or anything.

Warner: Same as Kaine, basically.

Brown: I actually have a protectionist streak so I've always had a soft spot for Brown. He also has a lot of political experience at a national level. I think he'd be a good President.

Patrick: I think "qualifications" are mostly overrated when discussing whether someone will be a successful President, so I don't place much weight on Patrick's admittedly huge and phenomenal list of past successes. Anyways, looking towards the future I like his vision, his charisma (the guy's speeches are barn burners), and have no reason to think he wouldn't be a very successful President in terms of both accomplishments and personal popularity.

Perez: I've already said I think qualifications are mostly overrated, but when the highest elective office you've held is state attorney general it leaves a big question mark. I mean, if you don't have a track record in elective office I don't think it means you'll fail, just that it's impossible to tell whether you'd succeed. I'm skeptical but who knows, maybe he's a spectacular wheeler and dealer and would be a huge success as President. I think it's hardest to say for Perez of any of them because his political skills remain a largely unknown quantity. Ideologically I have no issue with him.

Booker: I strongly dislike Booker. He's very enamored with vouchers and for most of his career that's been his number one issue. Outside of that his favorite things to talk about are obscure bureaucratic issues. At best, as President, I think he'd ineffective. At worst I think he'd be ineffective at most things but successful at dismantling the country's public schools.

Castro: I have no issue with Castro personally but I generally distrust young, charismatic politicians who haven't proven themselves yet. Maybe I'm a naturally distrustful person but I like to see politicians running for high office who have a long record I can examine and judge, not just words. That said, nothing I've seen from him makes me think he'd be a bad President. Like Perez, I have more of a question mark over him.

Warren: has a phenomenal vision and I think she has the tools to be a great President. Not much else to say.

So I guess my top picks would be Patrick and Warren (it's frankly hard for me to pick between them -- I think they'd both be truly spectacular Presidents) with everyone else trailing considerably behind (oh, and Booker way, way below anyone else.)

[BundouYMB]

Perez or Warren. Patrick is an awful 'innovators'-ocrat.

Where do people get this stuff? Is he an 'innovators'-ocrat because he has business experience or what? As Governor he was a mainstream liberal who didn't do anything 'innovators'-ocrat-y at all and on the campaign trail he's a roaring populist.

Now Booker is a great example of an 'innovators'-ocrat.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Perez or Warren. Patrick is an awful 'innovators'-ocrat.

Where do people get this stuff? Is he an 'innovators'-ocrat because he has business experience or what? As Governor he was a mainstream liberal who didn't do anything 'innovators'-ocrat-y at all and on the campaign trail he's a roaring populist.

Now Booker is a great example of an 'innovators'-ocrat.

He's an 'innovators'-ocrat in that that's how you govern as a mainstream liberal these days. He opened a slew of 'innovation schools' (id est charter schools), authorized hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and tax cuts to coax even more pharmaceutical and biotech companies into Massachusetts while Massachusetts industry kept decaying and Massachusetts geographic and class inequality continued apace, presided over the continuing transformation of the northern half of Boston into a commuter-centric city that's next to impossible to actually live in, insistently (and, alas, successfully) shilled to introduce casino gambling rather than doing the spade work to actually improve the economies and societies of the cities where those casinos are going to go, and is now the Managing Director of Bain Capital. I'm not going to get into his involvement with Uber because I know everyone under the age of thirty-five has a massive hard-on for that company so I don't want to bother.

I agree that Booker is worse, absolutely.

[Minnesota Mike]

Confirmed candidates?

As the old saying goes "those who know don't talk, those who talk don't know".