I recently posted speculation about who might run with Trump. But in this diary, I would like to discuss the Democratic race and it would be hijacking to do it in the other thread.
Who might be Sanders’ VP? Is this why O’Malley is still in? Is he willing to be either’s VP? If he doesn’t get the top or #2 is his political career over?
Who might run with HRC? My money’s on Rahm Emanuel. OK, if you are through barfing, what do you think?
I could put a poll in, but I want you to supply possible answers first.
It’ll probably be one of the Castro guys for either of them right now
I’ll go with Julian Castro. From what I know about him and his relationship with the Clintons and the Party, I think he would be a good choice as well as a likely choice.
No way it will be Rahm; the chances of that were already near zero even before this week’s video revelation. Emanuel would bring campaign money and nothing else; Hillary doesn’t need help with the fundraising.
Julian Castro has been the person I’ve heard mentioned most often, for sure.
Okay. Juaquin is a member of the US House. And Julian is a former mayor of a largish city and current Sec HUD.
VPs on the winning ticket since 1944 (losing VP):
’44 – Senator – (fmr Gov, Senator)
’48 – Senator – (fmr AG CA, Governor)
’52 – Senator – (Senator)
’56 – VP – (Senator)
’60 – Senator – (fmr Senator)
’64 – Senator – (House)
’68 – Gov – (Senator)
’72 – VP – (stand-in)
’76 – Senator – (Senator)
’80 – fmr House, GOP chair, UN, DCIA, ’80 POTUS candidate (VP)
’84 – VP (House)
’88 – Senator (Senator)
’92 – Senator (VP)
’96 – VP (fmr House (18 yrs), fmr Sec HUD)
’00 – fmr WH COS, fmr House(10 yrs), fmr Sec Def (Senator)
’04 – VP (Senator, one term)
’08 – Senator (fmr mayor (tiny town), Gov (small state)
’12 – VP (House)
Clinton always plays it safe — so, I’d put Sen Warner (VA) at the top of the short list.
Clinton-Castro does alliterate.
But one can imagine the beard-and-cigar oppo ads very quickly. Of course that can be fixed as well as a middle name of Hussein. But is the current Clinton campaign staff capable of that foresight.
Who Clinton would be most comfortable with is McAuliffe, but Warner or Bayh would do. She won’t be looking for a VP partner as Obama and GWB did, but someone that could fake it well enough for the public because a Clinton is always a “twofer.”
O’Malley as VP for either Clinton or Sanders is currently problematical. The Baltimore wounds are still too raw and he has yet to sufficiently distance himself from his actions as Mayor and probably as Governor as well.
Sanders needs a black-Latino-white-woman that’s a powerhouse.
Omigod! Sanders-Warren! Be still my heart! (NOT snark)
You misunderstood — didn’t mean a black, Latino, or white woman, but a black/Latino/white woman. Not sure she yet exists.
Oh! You mean a woman with:
Would it help if the white grandparent was a direct descendant of Robert E. Lee?
Possibly. Any direct descendant of RE Lee would also be a direct descendant of George Washington Custis, the step-grandson of George Washington.
So we are moving to a hereditary peerage system?
Looks that way, doesn’t it?
Let’s look at what prudence requires in governance. (I know that that is not often done.)
The first job of any Vice President is to not provide an incentive for assassination by being too attractive.
The second job for someone who is not in the national security establishment is to have a network that reaches into the national security establishment.
A recent trend has been to select Vice Presidential candidates who can take one White House portfolio of government or who can substantially advise the President in a topic or area of government in which the President has little expertise.
Ticket balancing likely is overrated, but it is political operators’ conventional wisdom. What would be required to balance Bernie Sanders? Youth, some geographical friends-and-neighbors alliance, temperament, ideological tension, but mostly the ability to attract more votes in a way that ups the states he can carry in the electoral college. And that requires an understanding of where Sanders is currently strong and where he needs some marginal shoring up.
Dave Leip has a crowd-sourced prediction map of Democratic confidence. Just for argument, let’s take these 257 electoral votes as a base vote even for Sanders as the candidate.
Strong Dem:
Vermont – 3
Maine – 2 + 1 = 3
Massachusetts – 11
Rhode Island – 4
Connecticut – 7
New York – 29
New Jersey – 14
Delaware – 3
Maryland – 18
DC – 3
Illinois – 20
New Mexico – 5
California – 55
Oregon – 7
Washington – 12
Hawaii – 4
Lean Dem:
Maine – 1
New Hampshire – 4
Pennsylvania – 29
Michigan – 16
Wisconsin – 18
Minnesota – 18
Nevada – 6
Toss-Ups:
Florida – 29
North Carolina – 15
Virginia – 13
Ohio – 18
Iowa – 6
Colorado – 9
The first criteria eliminates any bow to neoliberals and corporatists. The VP must be from the democratic wing of the Democratic Party or even more deeply committed to New Deal type of solutions (which were widely popular in their day).
The second criteria requires someone with deep networks and respect in the national security establishment, someone in their day like Sam Nunn or Al Gore, who both fail the youth test.
The third criteria requires someone with experience in state government either as a legislator or governor and someone with federal agency experience.
The fourth criteria requires someone 40-60, a compatible but emotionally counterbalance to Sanders, and able to move voters in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Iowa in that order. And using Leip’s GOP Lean states, possibly able to move voters in Georgia, Arizona, and Missouri in that order.
And they must have positive name recognition of be able to build it quickly in the face of the GOP Wurlitzer.
Note that “appeal to” or “geographical alliance” need not mean “resident in that state”, although native sons and daughters are obvious ways to move that vote.
Note also that the VP candidate does not have to be wildly popular himself or herself, just able to move enough votes to win a sufficient majority of several lean Dem, toss-up, and lean GOP states by a shenanigans-proof majority.
The candidate picked likely will fail to nail all of the criteria.
Here are some unlikely choices for you to vet with the criteria:
Rep. Ruben Gallego – AZ
Sen. Tim Kaine, VA
Rep. Patrick Murphy, FL seems to not yet be 35.
Rep. Alan Grayson, FL – he’s on the House Foreign Affairs Committee – wonder how his network from there is
That by the way is the national security bench in toss-up states in the current Congress who are under 60. Interesting that the Florida candidates for US Senator both went for national security committees.
Some observations. Anyone from the current Senate is going to be almost as old as Sanders or older. Probably half of the House Democrats have the same issue.
Here are your Democratic governors (minus the recently departed Beshear-KY:
Jerry Brown – CA
Kate Brown – OR
Steve Bullock – MT
Andrew Cuomo – NY
Mark Dayton – MN
Maggie Hassan – NH
John Hickenlooper – CO
David Ige – HI
Jay Inslee – WA
Dan Malloy – CT
Jack Markell – DE
Terry McAuliffe – VA
Jay Nixon – MO
Gina Raimondo – RI
Peter Shumlin – VT
Earl Ray Tomblin – WV
Tom Wolf – PA
Do you see a “rob Peter to pay Paul” dynamic in picking any of these– although a Bernie-Moonbeam ticket is an attractive way to troll the media.
The same problem appears in the US House and US Senate in a year to be concerned about down-ticket races and have sufficient power in legislatures to govern.
I believe that I said earlier that I am pessimistic about this election especially because of the focus on the top jobs without even considering what the candidates actually do on a day-to-day basis if they win. On the GOP side, we have demonstrable even of failure in that aspect from Fiorina, Trump, and others who have deep enough pockets and enough bull to keep going.
Shouldn’t you eliminate those on your lists that have already endorsed Clinton? And those like Beshear and Brown that are in their seventies?
Shumlin isn’t eligible on a Sanders’ ticket.
Those only came up in the list of governors. The bench is pretty sparse as it is. I doubt that either add additional votes to a Sanders or a Clinton ticket.
seems to me the 1st criteria for Sanders would have to be: not another white man.
if they put Andrew Cuomo on the ticket I will NOT vote for it.
Notice that there was not a palatability criterion. Or a screen against corruption. That reduces the bench in a hurry.
If not a white man, who would you pair with Sanders?
My first inclination was to put Keith Ellison on the ticket with Sanders.
I suppose there might be a rationale argued for putting John Lewis on the ticket with Hillary Clinton.
Do you have in mind some non-white Hispanics? Asian-Americans? Pacific Islanders? Native Americans?
A Socialist for Pres and a Muslim for VP. I can’t think of a better way to elect Trump or Carson, let alone the more palatable (R)’s.
They are about as “socialist” and “muslim” (dangerous) as the GOP candidates are “conservative” and “Christian”.
Iteresting how that works, isn’t it.
Oh, I agree, Tarheeldem. I agree completely. However, it’s politically toxic.
Well, until 1980, “conservative” was politically toxic. And then the young Reaganauts arrived.
And until 1964, “Catholic” was politically toxic. Now, it doesn’t seem to slow Santorum; other things do, but not the fact that he is a Roman Catholic.
Nothing in politics is forever. The intriguing question is when the changes occur.
My suspicion is that the GOP has gone off the deep end because they sense; (1) their “conservative” shtick has overstayed its welcome; (2) the conservative policies in both domestic and foreign policy are now proven failures; (3) future demographics are against their winning so long as they motivate their base with the Southern Strategy. The whole clown car looks to me like a massive “Hail Mary” pass to make it to 2020 and the chance to redistrict again.
Their base hasn’t got the message. They are still convinced that starving government (“getting government off our backs”), tax cuts plus balanced budget, stopping unions, banning immigration will bring them to the economic millennium. Since it hasn’t, the fault must be in the politicians not the program. Hence, they need more and better true believer politicians. The ones they have must be RINO’s. It’s RINO to vote for a budget at all, because Obama. etc etc etc That’s why you see wild cards like Trump and Carson leading.
Neither has our base. they still believe in the DLC because electable. You can’t be an economic populist because electability.
Jerry Brown, much as I like him, brings nothing new to the ticket, I can’t conceive of CA going for any announced (R). Kate Brown brings a woman and nails down OR so it doesn’t get lost like 2000.
Terry McAwful belongs with HRC, not Bernie. Tim Kaine is a maybe. Jay Nixon is no good for the black vote. I do like the idea of a Southern Liberal. But it should be someone who isn’t up for re-election this year.
Grayson is a maybe. I remember something bad about Hickenlooper but I don’t recall what. Another maybe.
From far out in left field (maybe right field): Brian Schweitzer?
There are age issues as well. But you have hit on some of the vetting issues with those folks.