Veepstakes

[HuskerNation1]

While the Democratic primary season is not over yet, it still appears Hillary will be the nominee, so I'm curious of what your thoughts are on the types of VPs that Hillary or Trump should pick, as well as who they will actually pick.

 

I'll start with Hillary. If she does succeed in beating Bernie, I believe she is going to need to pick a white male that embodies the spirit of Bernie, but someone younger than Bernie. With stories about Hillary's health challenges too, it needs to be somebody that can step in on Day 1 and be commander in chief. Ideally, this candidate would come from the rust belt or upper midwest to counter Trump's surprising success in this region.

 

For Trump, he needs to pick a solid conservative that the Establishment approves of, and that is highly fluent on foreign policy. The perfect candidate would be Rubio who is a minority from a swing state that is perhaps the most well educated on foreign policy of any candidate who ran this past election cycle. But, assuming Rubio does not want the job, there are a few other good options. One is Kasish who everyone seems to like, and will help in the rust belt and with moderate voters in general. I know Bob Corker is being suggested too, and he would be ok. I would not recommend Christie or Cruz, or Haley from South Carolina (I think she has a lot of upside but foreign policy strength is a must for Trump).

[HuskerShark]

For Trump, I'd like to see Rubio. I don't think that's who it will be but I was a big fan of his early on in the primary. I could see Kasich and that would be ok but I don't think it will be him either. I do believe that Trump will pick an established politician who will help him write and push bills through.

 

As far as Hillary, she would have to pick Jesus Christ as her VP for me to ever even consider voting for her.

[Moiraine]

For Trump, I'd like to see Rubio. I don't think that's who it will be but I was a big fan of his early on in the primary. I could see Kasich and that would be ok but I don't think it will be him either. I do believe that Trump will pick an established politician who will help him write and push bills through.

 

As far as Hillary, she would have to pick Jesus Christ as her VP for me to ever even consider voting for her.

 

 

Why would you consider Hillary if she had a socialist VP?

[zoogs]

Has anyone floated O'Malley's name around? He doesn't have a great national profile, but he seemed like a respectable, accomplished candidate with a solidly progressive but relatively mainstream platform. He's not currently running for or occupying any office, and being a VP could help him establish groundwork for a presidential bid in the future.

[Danny Bateman]

I'll take a crack at who I think is most realistic.

 

For Trump, I think Rubio is wishful thinking. He's publicly told Trump to choose someone else, so he'd have to do a complete about face. But he did call him a con man and now wants to support him, so who knows. Kasich likewise has personal reservations. He's cited his wife and daughters questioning him as a reason he's withholding an endorsement at this point. That doesn't exactly suggest he wants to be Trump's second fiddle.

 

His campaign manager openly said a minority or woman would be pandering, so we're looking at a white dude. Corker, Jeff Sessions, or Newt Gingrich seem most likely to me. Christie would be a disaster, but it's Trump-- you never know.

 

For Clinton, I think an appeal to moderates is in order, most likely from a swing state. Tim Kaine is most likely the guy IMO. Very Biden-esque guy, working class appeal, fluent in Spanish from his mission trips to Honduras. He was heavily vetted by Obama in '08 and IIRC was his next choice after Biden. As a bonus, he'd ensure Virginia would go blue in the fall. He would not mince words going after Trump, either.

 

The Dems seem very averse to picking a Congress member from a state with a GOP governor. Sherrod Brown from Ohio or Cory Booker from New Jersey would be great, but they'd forfeit a Senate spot to the Pubs.

 

Warren would appeal to the Bernie progressive wing, but most of them will come on board anyway. She offers no electoral advantage and would not appeal to moderates. She'd be a doubling down on the female vote, and I read that Biden was all in on her as his choice when he was still weighing a run.

 

Haven't heard anything about MO'M Zoogs. He polled so low nationally and Maryland is already blue. He's actually somewhat controversial there. I feel like he wouldn't add much to the ticket. I do find him likeable and think he could make some noise in the future.

[HuskerNation1]

Has anyone floated O'Malley's name around? He doesn't have a great national profile, but he seemed like a respectable, accomplished candidate with a solidly progressive but relatively mainstream platform. He's not currently running for or occupying any office, and being a VP could help him establish groundwork for a presidential bid in the future.

 

I wasn't impressed with O'Malley as a candidate, and based upon what I know of him, crime in Baltimore began to skyrocket after he was in charge there. I think Jim Webb would be a much better pick for Hillary and I think he has more crossover appeal.

[sho]

I know this is crazy, and I can't remember where I heard it, but there was some scuttlebutt about Linda McMahon being a possible veep candidate for Trump. Be true DC outsiders, fills in more blue collar male votes especially in the NE. McMahon's and Trump are friends and with Linda's failed attempts to win an election, she may be able to sneak in on Trump's tickets. Will also counteract the feminism talk of Trump by putting a female on the ticket.

 

 

For Clinton, in the same thought process bnilhome I was thinking Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio. Helps Clinton in a major swing state, and helps with the NE connection and unless I'm missing too much from him, seems like he would be a solid veep choice with decent Washington experience.

[Red Five]

Trump's VP pick is way more important than Clinton's IMO. Trump has no legislative experience and needs someone to fill in that gap. He needs someone that isn't so divisive, someone that can be inclusive.

 

And IMHO if Trump were to win, I could totally see him saying "F it, I'm done with this" after being in office for 8 or so months.

[HuskerNation1]

Trump's VP pick is way more important than Clinton's IMO. Trump has no legislative experience and needs someone to fill in that gap. He needs someone that isn't so divisive, someone that can be inclusive.

 

And IMHO if Trump were to win, I could totally see him saying "F it, I'm done with this" after being in office for 8 or so months.

 

I agree with you and think a Senator with foreign policy experience would be ideal. Given both candidates are near 70, I do think its important that both VPs are capable of stepping in to the Presidency early on should anything happen.

[TGHusker]

For Hillary - the Virginia connection is huge. Webb or Kane. I agree wt the above that Webb could pull over establishment repubs. He is respected by people in both parties and I don't see him has a polarizing figure - which helps Hillary's negatives. Don't rule out the current Virginia governor, Terry McAuliffe, (even with the Chinese donation investigation going on - Why are there always investigations surround Clinton and their friends?). He, being a long time friend, insider and advisor to the Clintons might be a consideration. Being elected governor may have set him up for the VP role.

 

Trump: I think Newt would have been a half way decent pic for the political experience he would bring but Newt brings nothing electorally. Newt has, it appears, waken up and smelled the roses by being critical of trump recently - I think he has proactively taken himself out of consideration. Rubio is too smart to be stained by being a VP on a loosing Trump ticket. He would be the ideal guy for the ticket. My bet is on Bob Coker. He's been a supporter for some time, has experience and is respected in the Senate.

 

And Red Five's comment has caught my attention and crossed my mind before. I don't know if Trump could sit still for 4 years as the president. I can imagine him coming in for 2 years, initiating a lot of change policies and then saying "Mr VP, I hand the reigns over to you to implement to completion". Not saying I predict this will occur but it wouldn't surprise me if it did. Or Trump may go the other route - call everyone in congress and the SC failures and try to do it all himself and die of a heart attach building the wall brick by brick all by himself.

[HuskerNation1]

I saw an article yesterday listing the 4 best candidates that could join Trump on the ticket (even though some are not willing to do that). The first three are not surprising (Rubio, Kasich, and Gingrich), but the fourth was surprising....Condi Rice.

 

Now Condi has turned down opportunities before, and she is so diplomatic in terms of her demeanor that I don't think she would consider. Plus, she is very loyal to the Bush family that Trump has beaten down. But, if she were to join, she would bring a lot to the table. She is a well respected female figure (unlike Hillary) that has much crossover appeal. And she definitely helped keep the country safe after 9/11, something this country is longing for again after the past 7 years of poor policies for fighting terrorism.

[Red Five]

[HuskerNation1]

 

As I said I didn't think she would consider but that doesn't mean she would be a good addition to the ticket. Unfortunately Trump has alienated those who are best positioned to help him win.

[Danny Bateman]

It's looking like Rubio wants to re-enter the race for his Senate spot in Florida. He was planning on not running for re-election.

I feel he wouldn't probably been the best overall addition to the ticket. I too think he wasn't realistic either, but I'd imagine this would take him off the table completely.

 

I am legitimately intrigued to see who he taps. I'd imagine one of Newt, Sessions, or Corker, which I think are very politically competent but poor picks. But it's Trump-- you never know. He could go with Christie or maybe even Ivanka.

[HuskerNation1]

For Hillary - the Virginia connection is huge. Webb or Kane. I agree wt the above that Webb could pull over establishment repubs. He is respected by people in both parties and I don't see him has a polarizing figure - which helps Hillary's negatives. Don't rule out the current Virginia governor, Terry McAuliffe, (even with the Chinese donation investigation going on - Why are there always investigations surround Clinton and their friends?). He, being a long time friend, insider and advisor to the Clintons might be a consideration. Being elected governor may have set him up for the VP role.

 

Trump: I think Newt would have been a half way decent pic for the political experience he would bring but Newt brings nothing electorally. Newt has, it appears, waken up and smelled the roses by being critical of trump recently - I think he has proactively taken himself out of consideration. Rubio is too smart to be stained by being a VP on a loosing Trump ticket. He would be the ideal guy for the ticket. My bet is on Bob Coker. He's been a supporter for some time, has experience and is respected in the Senate.

 

And Red Five's comment has caught my attention and crossed my mind before. I don't know if Trump could sit still for 4 years as the president. I can imagine him coming in for 2 years, initiating a lot of change policies and then saying "Mr VP, I hand the reigns over to you to implement to completion". Not saying I predict this will occur but it wouldn't surprise me if it did. Or Trump may go the other route - call everyone in congress and the SC failures and try to do it all himself and die of a heart attach building the wall brick by brick all by himself.

 

McCauiliffe is worse on the Dems side as Rove is for the GOP. I don't see that happening. I do agree that Webb would be great for HIllary, but he might be an ever greater pick for Trump. I've also heard Robert Gates (Sec of Defense under Bush and part of Obama's term) as an option, and he would give the experience on foreign affairs, but he would not have the political skills to navigate Congress.