Rank the Vice Presidential Candidates of the last 20 years form best to worst:

[Alben Barkley]

Unpopular opinion: Tim Kaine was one of the worst VP picks in recent years. He brought nothing to the table and didn't complement Clinton's shortcomings at all. As much as I hate Pence, he destroyed him in that debate.

Totally & completely agree (here are my thoughts that I've previously shared on this matter):

Kaine was a highly qualified pick, but he was NOT a good pick. Sure, he by no means single-handedly doomed Hillary's campaign, but his choice was emblematic of why Hillary lost. Her number one challenge was convincing the Obama coalition & voters in general that she represented real change in a year when the electorate wanted an outsider. The VP pick was the one big chance for her to signal that, even though Hillary herself was the consummate establishment politician, she had heard the message loud & clear and was ready to shake things up.

And Hillary had a number of strong choices to pick from, including Warren (who clearly wanted the job), Sanders (politically unthinkable but he would've unified the party & supercharged millennial turnout), Brown (Sanders-lite), or even somebody like Castro or Booker who at least would've added charisma to the ticket & helped to keep the Obama coalition engaged.

So what happened? Hillary chose not just another insider, but one utterly lacking in charisma, apparently for no other reason than that she just felt more comfortable with Kaine than with somebody like Warren, who would've been a disruptive presence in Clintonworld. To be fair, I know Tim Kaine is a nice guy who's highly qualified & would've helped with Senate outreach, but the VP doesn't necessarily need to fulfill that role or any particular role from a governing standpoint.

It was surreal seeing Democratic Party insiders & the Washington press all sing Kaine's praises, while meanwhile it was obvious to many young &/or left-leaning voters that he was a terrible choice for the reasons I mentioned above.

If you could go back in time and recommend a VP to Clinton, who would you choose? I think she needed a Tester/Manchin-type personality (obviously not actually them, just someone like them) who came across as blue-collar and, to put it frankly, masculine. Kaine was too earnest and timid to properly reach out to men who, like it or not, were probably put off by having Clinton at the top of the ticket. They should've found a Ron Swanson-esque person to fill those shoes.

Sherrod Brown is the obvious choice. He comes across as blue-collar and masculine, kinda gruff for lack of a better word, but sharp and progressive at the same time.

[SWE]

The thing about Clinton/Kaine is that the 2010/2014 midterms left the Democratic party with not much of a bench to choose from, and most of the more compelling choices, like Sherrod Brown, would mean handing off a precious senate seat. I'd probably say Tom Wolf would have been the best choice out of a bad lot. He was a fairly popular governor in a must win state and was clearly more liberal than Hillary enough that he might stop some of the bleeding from Bernie or Bust types without going so far as to scare off donors, and since he was a governor, you're not giving a senate seat to the GOP. Far from perfect but I don't see it getting much better.

[Alben Barkley]

The thing about Clinton/Kaine is that the 2010/2014 midterms left the Democratic party with not much of a bench to choose from, and most of the more compelling choices, like Sherrod Brown, would mean handing off a precious senate seat. I'd probably say Tom Wolf would have been the best choice out of a bad lot. He was a fairly popular governor in a must win state and was clearly more liberal than Hillary enough that he might stop some of the bleeding from Bernie or Bust types without going so far as to scare off donors, and since he was a governor, you're not giving a senate seat to the GOP. Far from perfect but I don't see it getting much better.

If Hillary had won, even Kaine’s seat may have been lost. Hell, let’s not forget that Ted Kennedy’s seat ended up going to a Republican and Jeff Sessions’s seat ended up going to a Democrat. I’m not big on these games about trying to predict what will happen to a future Senate seat. Just pick whoever helps the ticket the most. Plus, in 2016, it looked like we had several pick-up opportunities (among them WI, PA, FL, MO, and OH itself) that would have made Brown’s seat unnecessary. And who knows? A Clinton/Brown ticket might have saved those downballot races too.

[brucejoel99]

Unpopular opinion: Tim Kaine was one of the worst VP picks in recent years. He brought nothing to the table and didn't complement Clinton's shortcomings at all. As much as I hate Pence, he destroyed him in that debate.

Totally & completely agree (here are my thoughts that I've previously shared on this matter):

Kaine was a highly qualified pick, but he was NOT a good pick. Sure, he by no means single-handedly doomed Hillary's campaign, but his choice was emblematic of why Hillary lost. Her number one challenge was convincing the Obama coalition & voters in general that she represented real change in a year when the electorate wanted an outsider. The VP pick was the one big chance for her to signal that, even though Hillary herself was the consummate establishment politician, she had heard the message loud & clear and was ready to shake things up.

And Hillary had a number of strong choices to pick from, including Warren (who clearly wanted the job), Sanders (politically unthinkable but he would've unified the party & supercharged millennial turnout), Brown (Sanders-lite), or even somebody like Castro or Booker who at least would've added charisma to the ticket & helped to keep the Obama coalition engaged.

So what happened? Hillary chose not just another insider, but one utterly lacking in charisma, apparently for no other reason than that she just felt more comfortable with Kaine than with somebody like Warren, who would've been a disruptive presence in Clintonworld. To be fair, I know Tim Kaine is a nice guy who's highly qualified & would've helped with Senate outreach, but the VP doesn't necessarily need to fulfill that role or any particular role from a governing standpoint.

It was surreal seeing Democratic Party insiders & the Washington press all sing Kaine's praises, while meanwhile it was obvious to many young &/or left-leaning voters that he was a terrible choice for the reasons I mentioned above.

If you could go back in time and recommend a VP to Clinton, who would you choose? I think she needed a Tester/Manchin-type personality (obviously not actually them, just someone like them) who came across as blue-collar and, to put it frankly, masculine. Kaine was too earnest and timid to properly reach out to men who, like it or not, were probably put off by having Clinton at the top of the ticket. They should've found a Ron Swanson-esque person to fill those shoes.

Knowing HRC, I'm guessing she would've gone with Vilsack had Kaine not been the choice, but they're basically political clones of one another (boring, white, moderate guys), so I'd very much recommend to her that she not do so.

At that point, for me personally, Booker & Brown would both be out of the question because Republican Governors would've immediately chosen their replacements in the Senate had they been elected.

So that narrows down my potential recommendations to either Warren or Castro. The former would've done more to energize the Bernie crowd & the party's base (& the Democratic supermajority in the Massachusetts state legislature would've seen to it that Baker would appoint a Democrat to succeed her), while the latter would've energized Hispanics, which certainly would've had an effect on Florida & - by putting a Hispanic face at the forefront of Democratic politics - probably would've cemented the Hispanic vote even further for Hillary (which - given how close the result was in real life - would've certainly been enough to pull them over the line).

Presumably, though, Hillary probably wouldn't wanna choose Warren for the same reason it'd be politically unthinkable to choose Bernie: the VP would be overshadowing their Presidency, which - as outspoken progressives who have major policy goals of their own & who articulate significantly different perspectives on problems with the current American power structures - both Bernie & Warren certainly would've done. (And as you allude to, given how poorly Hillary performed among men, an all-female ticket - because we continue to live in a sexist, cynical, & f**ked up world - probably would've hurt the ticket's performance come November.)

So I guess Castro it is.

[Alben Barkley]

Castro might have been even worse than Kaine, if he acted anything like he did in his 2020 campaign.

[brucejoel99]

Castro might have been even worse than Kaine, if he acted anything like he did in his 2020 campaign.

Over the course of his 2020 campaign, he eviscerated Beto in the 1st debate, spoke consistently & confidently, & expertly balanced policy specifics with platitudes. Sure, none of this gave him enough juice to do well in a presidential campaign, but as a running-mate, he would've been absolute magic when going up against Pence, especially compared to Kaine. And he would've undoubtedly furthered Hispanic & minority turnout, which is certainly more than Kaine would've ever been able to do.

[It’s so Joever]

Rank the candidates, both winners and losers from best to worst based on how much they helped/hurt the ticket. Mine would be as follows:

1. Biden
2. Cheney (not factoring in his Vice Presidency, just how the choice impacted the 2000 election)
3. Pence (Trump's other two finalists would've lost him the election, Pence brought enough "Never Trumpers for them to win)
4. Edwards
5. Ryan
6. Lieberman
7. Palin

Not including Harris as I feel it's too soon to do so, but you can include her if you wish.

1. Biden
2. Pence
3. Cheney
4. Probably Harris
5. Edwards
6. Ryan
7. Kaine
8. Lieberman
9. Palin

[morgieb]

Castro might have been even worse than Kaine, if he acted anything like he did in his 2020 campaign.

If anything I think his 2020 campaign made him look a lot better, though I concede that I'm coming from a more left-wing perspective than you. I thought in 2016 he was a complete empty suit, whereas the 2020 version of him made me think "he's not a superstar but he's at least somewhat substantive to work as a Veep and sufficiently progressive enough to appeal to at least some disaffected Dems".

[morgieb]

I would've gone for Merkley personally - he's admittedly pretty uncharismatic but would've been a solid gesture towards the Bernie wing of the party and he seems vaguely blue-collar enough to hold onto some rural Dems.

[dw93]

I would've gone for Merkley personally - he's admittedly pretty uncharismatic but would've been a solid gesture towards the Bernie wing of the party and he seems vaguely blue-collar enough to hold onto some rural Dems.

I was just about to say this actually. Picking the one Senator to openly endorse Sanders in the primary would be a good olive branch to Bernie voters and wouldn't be handing the GOP a senate seat on a silver platter like choosing Sherrod Brown would have.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

Unpopular opinion: Tim Kaine was one of the worst VP picks in recent years. He brought nothing to the table and didn't complement Clinton's shortcomings at all. As much as I hate Pence, he destroyed him in that debate.

Totally & completely agree (here are my thoughts that I've previously shared on this matter):

Kaine was a highly qualified pick, but he was NOT a good pick. Sure, he by no means single-handedly doomed Hillary's campaign, but his choice was emblematic of why Hillary lost. Her number one challenge was convincing the Obama coalition & voters in general that she represented real change in a year when the electorate wanted an outsider. The VP pick was the one big chance for her to signal that, even though Hillary herself was the consummate establishment politician, she had heard the message loud & clear and was ready to shake things up.

And Hillary had a number of strong choices to pick from, including Warren (who clearly wanted the job), Sanders (politically unthinkable but he would've unified the party & supercharged millennial turnout), Brown (Sanders-lite), or even somebody like Castro or Booker who at least would've added charisma to the ticket & helped to keep the Obama coalition engaged.

So what happened? Hillary chose not just another insider, but one utterly lacking in charisma, apparently for no other reason than that she just felt more comfortable with Kaine than with somebody like Warren, who would've been a disruptive presence in Clintonworld. To be fair, I know Tim Kaine is a nice guy who's highly qualified & would've helped with Senate outreach, but the VP doesn't necessarily need to fulfill that role or any particular role from a governing standpoint.

It was surreal seeing Democratic Party insiders & the Washington press all sing Kaine's praises, while meanwhile it was obvious to many young &/or left-leaning voters that he was a terrible choice for the reasons I mentioned above.

I can't recommend this post enough times. Kaine is a nice guy, but I harbor A LOT of resentment that he was the running mate. He didn't provide any positive contribution to the campaign, and in such a close election (in PA, MI, WI) that matters and made a difference in the election.

[Ferguson97]

Unpopular opinion: Tim Kaine was one of the worst VP picks in recent years. He brought nothing to the table and didn't complement Clinton's shortcomings at all. As much as I hate Pence, he destroyed him in that debate.

Totally & completely agree (here are my thoughts that I've previously shared on this matter):

Kaine was a highly qualified pick, but he was NOT a good pick. Sure, he by no means single-handedly doomed Hillary's campaign, but his choice was emblematic of why Hillary lost. Her number one challenge was convincing the Obama coalition & voters in general that she represented real change in a year when the electorate wanted an outsider. The VP pick was the one big chance for her to signal that, even though Hillary herself was the consummate establishment politician, she had heard the message loud & clear and was ready to shake things up.

And Hillary had a number of strong choices to pick from, including Warren (who clearly wanted the job), Sanders (politically unthinkable but he would've unified the party & supercharged millennial turnout), Brown (Sanders-lite), or even somebody like Castro or Booker who at least would've added charisma to the ticket & helped to keep the Obama coalition engaged.

So what happened? Hillary chose not just another insider, but one utterly lacking in charisma, apparently for no other reason than that she just felt more comfortable with Kaine than with somebody like Warren, who would've been a disruptive presence in Clintonworld. To be fair, I know Tim Kaine is a nice guy who's highly qualified & would've helped with Senate outreach, but the VP doesn't necessarily need to fulfill that role or any particular role from a governing standpoint.

It was surreal seeing Democratic Party insiders & the Washington press all sing Kaine's praises, while meanwhile it was obvious to many young &/or left-leaning voters that he was a terrible choice for the reasons I mentioned above.

If you could go back in time and recommend a VP to Clinton, who would you choose? I think she needed a Tester/Manchin-type personality (obviously not actually them, just someone like them) who came across as blue-collar and, to put it frankly, masculine. Kaine was too earnest and timid to properly reach out to men who, like it or not, were probably put off by having Clinton at the top of the ticket. They should've found a Ron Swanson-esque person to fill those shoes.

Hot take: I'd tell her to pick Bernie

[politicallefty]

If you could go back in time and recommend a VP to Clinton, who would you choose? I think she needed a Tester/Manchin-type personality (obviously not actually them, just someone like them) who came across as blue-collar and, to put it frankly, masculine. Kaine was too earnest and timid to properly reach out to men who, like it or not, were probably put off by having Clinton at the top of the ticket. They should've found a Ron Swanson-esque person to fill those shoes.

Sherrod Brown is the obvious choice. He comes across as blue-collar and masculine, kinda gruff for lack of a better word, but sharp and progressive at the same time.

I would've said the same thing had Ohio not had a Republican Governor that would've replaced him with a Republican. With a slightly stronger Democratic performance in 2016, it was very possible that the Senate could've ended up 50-50. Brown being forced to resign to take the Vice Presidency would've given control of the Senate back to McConnell on January 20th. The Scalia vacancy was still a major issue at the time and a President Hillary Clinton would've no doubt like to have filled it ASAP (although I suppose it would've been possible for President Obama to have Merrick Garland on the Court in the 17 days Democrats would've controlled the Senate in January 2017). Even so, she certainly didn't want to have an adversarial Senate as the House would be (only a Hillary landslide could've flipped the House in 2016).

At the time, I thought Hillary should've just doubled-down and gone with an all-woman ticket. In hindsight, I'm not sure the country was ready or willing to vote for that, unfortunately. Warren would've easily been the top choice there and could've potentially energized the most left-leaning parts of the Democratic base. I also thought maybe Klobucher if you wanted someone with Midwestern credentials.

One of the horrible truths of the 2016 election is that the result as it was was ultimately a blessing for the Democratic Party as a whole. The bench of the Democratic Party was devastated during the Obama years. If 2018 had been a midterm under a Democratic President, the party would've been a rump of the West Coast and Northeast (I'm thinking like the Jedi after Palpatine proclaimed the Empire). The 2018 midterm under Trump has breathed significant new life into the Democratic bench across the country.

As to the question asked above, why couldn't it have been Jon Tester? Very unconventional based on looks and style, but also a down-to-Earth blue-collar type liberal who says what he means and means what he says. He probably was the top person to fit that bill, even more than Sherrod Brown.

[morgieb]

Speaking of bad VP choices and how Kaine was one, I wonder what people think the losing Presidential candidate should've gone for instead out of the other losers?

For Gore, the choices are quite clear. Graham would've helped him win Florida, Shaheen New Hampshire. Rockefeller might've helped in West Virginia. Any of those states would've been enough for Gore to win. Given the high Nader vote, he also probably could've looked leftbound, though the 90's was a depressing time for genuine leftists.

For Kerry it's tough, I think Edwards did fine and it was a tricky election to win despite its closeness. Gephardt might've helped in the Midwest a bit more I suppose which could've swung Ohio.

For McCain, nothing he could've done would've flipped the election. Lieberman would've been a disaster bigger than Palin, though. Someone like Pawlenty I guess would've made sense at least he wouldn't have done any harm. But for all the direness that Palin created, she didn't really hurt and seemed to help with downscale conservative whites. If Huckabee was keen, McCain should've gone for him.

For Romney, while it's easier to find a better choice than Ryan, it's harder to find one that would've made a significant difference. Rubio was appealing on paper but he wouldn't have survived a debate with Biden. Portman seems a good one in that he had a lot of Ryan's strengths but fewer weaknesses (not as easy to smear as an economic extremist, actually got elected in a swing area). The big wildcard was Christie. His best bet would've been a Huckabee-type, but most of them would've been distractions for the ticket if they would've agreed to it.

[politicallefty]

Speaking of bad VP choices and how Kaine was one, I wonder what people think the losing Presidential candidate should've gone for instead out of the other losers?

For Gore, the choices are quite clear. Graham would've helped him win Florida, Shaheen New Hampshire. Rockefeller might've helped in West Virginia. Any of those states would've been enough for Gore to win. Given the high Nader vote, he also probably could've looked leftbound, though the 90's was a depressing time for genuine leftists.

For Kerry it's tough, I think Edwards did fine and it was a tricky election to win despite its closeness. Gephardt might've helped in the Midwest a bit more I suppose which could've swung Ohio.

For McCain, nothing he could've done would've flipped the election. Lieberman would've been a disaster bigger than Palin, though. Someone like Pawlenty I guess would've made sense at least he wouldn't have done any harm. But for all the direness that Palin created, she didn't really hurt and seemed to help with downscale conservative whites. If Huckabee was keen, McCain should've gone for him.

For Romney, while it's easier to find a better choice than Ryan, it's harder to find one that would've made a significant difference. Rubio was appealing on paper but he wouldn't have survived a debate with Biden. Portman seems a good one in that he had a lot of Ryan's strengths but fewer weaknesses (not as easy to smear as an economic extremist, actually got elected in a swing area). The big wildcard was Christie. His best bet would've been a Huckabee-type, but most of them would've been distractions for the ticket if they would've agreed to it.

I couldn't agree more about Gore. It should've been Bob Graham, easily.

I always thought Kerry did the right thing and picked Edwards. I'm not sure there's anyone that would've or could've changed things. Gephardt couldn't have changed that many votes in Ohio.

McCain certainly tried to pick right with Palin. She scared the sh-t out of me when I found out she was the pick. I remember seeing her on a news show sometime early in her tenure as governor. I found her pretty interesting and impressive. She had like an 85-90% approval rating as Governor of Alaska, so she had to have been doing something right. On the campaign trail, yeah, she definitely turned off swing voters. But I also think she helped the base a bit to keep things closer.I don't think McCain could've picked someone else that would've helped.

For Romney, I think it's the same as Kerry. The election wasn't close enough for the running mate to matter.

[dw93]

Speaking of bad VP choices and how Kaine was one, I wonder what people think the losing Presidential candidate should've gone for instead out of the other losers?

For Gore, the choices are quite clear. Graham would've helped him win Florida, Shaheen New Hampshire. Rockefeller might've helped in West Virginia. Any of those states would've been enough for Gore to win. Given the high Nader vote, he also probably could've looked leftbound, though the 90's was a depressing time for genuine leftists.

For Kerry it's tough, I think Edwards did fine and it was a tricky election to win despite its closeness. Gephardt might've helped in the Midwest a bit more I suppose which could've swung Ohio.

For McCain, nothing he could've done would've flipped the election. Lieberman would've been a disaster bigger than Palin, though. Someone like Pawlenty I guess would've made sense at least he wouldn't have done any harm. But for all the direness that Palin created, she didn't really hurt and seemed to help with downscale conservative whites. If Huckabee was keen, McCain should've gone for him.

For Romney, while it's easier to find a better choice than Ryan, it's harder to find one that would've made a significant difference. Rubio was appealing on paper but he wouldn't have survived a debate with Biden. Portman seems a good one in that he had a lot of Ryan's strengths but fewer weaknesses (not as easy to smear as an economic extremist, actually got elected in a swing area). The big wildcard was Christie. His best bet would've been a Huckabee-type, but most of them would've been distractions for the ticket if they would've agreed to it.

I couldn't agree more about Gore. It should've been Bob Graham, easily.

I always thought Kerry did the right thing and picked Edwards. I'm not sure there's anyone that would've or could've changed things. Gephardt couldn't have changed that many votes in Ohio.

McCain certainly tried to pick right with Palin. She scared the sh-t out of me when I found out she was the pick. I remember seeing her on a news show sometime early in her tenure as governor. I found her pretty interesting and impressive. She had like an 85-90% approval rating as Governor of Alaska, so she had to have been doing something right. On the campaign trail, yeah, she definitely turned off swing voters. But I also think she helped the base a bit to keep things closer.I don't think McCain could've picked someone else that would've helped.

For Romney, I think it's the same as Kerry. The election wasn't close enough for the running mate to matter.

Agreed with Gore. I also think even Kerry himself might've helped Gore in NH, given how close it was and given that Kerry was from the neighboring state.

With Kerry, of everyone else that had a chance of being piced, only Gephardt could've made it closer (his ties to labor could flip Iowa, New Mexico, or Ohio), but he to voted for the war, and IIRC, defended his vote in the primaries, so that could turn off the left.

With McCain, Huckabee or, as bad as he is, Brownback could've done what Palin did with the base and not scare off as many swing voters. Pawlenty or Romney also would've been safe choices that did no harm, but wouldn't have helped either.

With Romney, picking Portman could tip Ohio and possibly Florida, narrowing the overall result.