Veepstakes 2016

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,928
So now that we have a certain nominee on the GOP side and an all but certain nominee on the Democratic side, we can start to think who might be in the running for the Veepstakes.

GOP
Trump has said a couple of times that he wants a politician, specifically someone who can help him with getting legislation passed, someone who is ‘friends’ with Senators and Congressmen. If we take that to mean someone who has themselves been (or is) a Senator or Congressman/woman, then there’s probably not much in the way of options.

Let’s start with those from a congressional background that he beat for the nomination – Rubio, Cruz, Paul and Santorum. It’s difficult to see anyone other than Rubio as someone he might want on the ticket. Rubio brings congressional experience (albeit only six years), is latino and comes from a swing state. Would Rubio want to be tied to Trump, though, and possibly jeopardise his chances in 2020 or 2024 if Trump bombs? I’m not so sure.

Beyond that, Trump could go for a Governor with experience of dealing with hostile legislatures – Christie fits the bill here, as a GOP Governor in a blue state. He has the advantage of having endorsed Trump early. His big downside is that it’s a double dose of big egos and big (some would say bullying) personalities which won’t endear him with moderates or women. But, if Trump wanted political experience AND wanted to double down on the no-nonsense, tells it as it is narrative, then Christie seems to be the best pick.

If Trump were minded to look to a woman or a minority, there isn’t much in the way of likely candidates in the Senate or the House – though it depends on how left field he goes. He could tap someone like Mia Love of Utah. Wildly inexperienced, but a black woman. There are a small number of other possible women candidates – Cathy McMorrow Rogers, Marsha Blackburn, Shelly Moore Capito. But most female senators seem unlikely. Many are moderate and would be clearly not well suited to a Trump candidacy (e.g. Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski) while others, like Kelly Ayotte, have their own battle for the Senate going on. If Trump wanted a female running mate, Governors like Suzanna Martinez or Nikki Haley could both be potential picks.

It’s possible Trump could go for someone outside politics, but I don’t think he will. My money would be on Christie.

Democrats

Clinton’s calculus is different to Trump’s. She’s slightly unusual as a candidate in having both legislative and executive experience, and in having a foot in different geographical regions (grew up in Illinois, first lady of Arkansas and Senator for New York). So she probably doesn’t need to pick someone based on geography or sectoral experience (though if a running mate helped her with a swing state, I expect that would be a welcome bonus). Given that Trump is the nominee, she probably has less need to appeal to latinos or black voters than if it had been, say, Rubio. So that might mitigate against candidates like Julian Castro, who had been rumoured.

So there are two – possibly conflicting – things that might shape her choice. Excitement, or steadiness. Clinton is considered probably one of the most experienced candidates in a long while – the downside is that she has something of an enthusiasm gap. So she could go with an exciting running mate who will enthuse her supporters, or she could go with a steady as she goes, dull but experienced choice who will not rock the boat. My initial instinct is that Clinton is ultra cautious and may be more inclined towards the latter.

If that is the case then I think Tim Kaine probably has it in the bag. A former Governor and a Senator, from a swing state (VA), a middle aged white guy. Pretty much as safe as safe picks get. If she wanted to be slightly less cautious but still avoid anything too exciting, Tom Perez, the Labour Secretary offers her a latino candidate who offers a flavour of the Bernie wing of the Democratic party (and so enthuses some of that crowd) without being too threatening or risky.

On the other hand, remember that Bill Clinton mastered the art of the double-down veepstakes in 1992. A young, southern Governor, he was widely expected to go with someone more experienced, more left wing, and from the North or West. Instead he picked another southerner of roughly the same age. Doubling down on that approach allowed him to deliver a very concentrated message about generational change. Hillary may have learned from that. So what does doubling down look like for Clinton?
Clinton’s narrative is, in part, that she’s running to be the first female President. Doubling down on that would be a woman running mate as well. The most obvious choice would be Elizabeth Warren – who meets the doubling down test as well as exciting the Democratic base (and enthusing Bernie supporters). Some other women have been mentioned – Janet Napolitano (might put Arizona in play, but not sure what she brings to the table other than that) and Amy Klobuchar (again, I fail to see any real advantages). Warren also has the potential to be an effective attack dog against Trump, allowing Clinton to stay more Presidential. I think she brings lots of risks. Her anti-Wall Street rhetoric might be problematic if you’re running against a GOPper who will go out to bat for big business, but Trump will want to play it populist, so Warren’s stance on the banks wouldn’t be a source of attack. She could undermine the message of Clinton as a sensible, pragmatic centrist though.

My gut feeling though is that Clinton’s caution will shine through, and Kaine will get the gig.

<Mod> This thread has been merged with "Veepstakes 2016 : stakes are higher than usual, could the right Veep swing it?" </Mod>
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
17,218
I think Clinton will go with Elizabeth Warren to appease some of the Sanders voters and double down on the Dems ultra PC credentials having a all female ticket , although Trump will have a lot of fun with the 'Indian' moniker no doubt been thrown about alot.

They were taking about it last night but they did not think it would come about as Warren is not really a fan of the Clinton's and also Hilary might not want to constantly remind a lot of the the grass roots that Warren was the one they really wanted to be the first female President and not her.

.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,339
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
It's still a long way to the Conventions; but — this far out — I'd have to say livingstone's original post ticks many of the boxes.

Just one thought: who remembers William E. Miller? Who he? Congressman for the New York 40th, and — more pertinently — Barry Goldwater's running mate in 1964. Which was the previous occasion the GOP went ape. My assumption would be that any Republicans harbouring a secret ambitions to be the nominee in 2020 will be seen to be "busy" during the autumn campaign, but make dam' sure their names are not on the ballot paper.

Bearing in mind that both front runners are New York-based, I think we'd need to Go West, Young Man to balance the ticket. With Trump and his "woman problem", XX chromosomes and a strong stomach would be advantages.
 

Rocket Man

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
355
Trump really has to go for a woman, and preferably one with plenty of political experience.

Not too many names spring to mind though... Nikki Haley or Susana Martinez?

Clinton on the other hand would be mad to pick another woman.

Whether we like it or not, some would have serious reservations about this!
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,436
Hillary needs someone to shore up her weak areas, millennials and white blue collar voters. Obama was very weak with white blue collar voters and weak on foreign experience, Biden helped balance him out on these issues.

Clinton should ideally pick a progressive, a younger person and someone who will appeal to blue collar whites. Warren by not endorsing has kept a nice perch for herself and will be able to freely criticize Clinton on her financial policies should Clinton win. Perez has issue with "disparate impact" that would frankly just haunt the campaign.

Last time in her presumptuousness she considered then Ohio Governor Ted Strickland but he is as old as she is and running for the Senate in Ohio. He also lost the Governors race in 2010 to Kasich.

She could go for Evan Bayh, former Senator from Indiana who was shortlisted the last three times, now that he is out of office for six years though he might be a bit stale.

I agree that Kaine would bring a lot to the table, a safe bet but an unexciting one.

Clinton also has the advantage or hosting the convention after Trump so she does get more time to pick.

For Trump, he does need someone to shore up his lack of political chops and has indicated that he would pick someone with legislative experience. Rubio and Cruz both have the change to run again in 2020 assuming Trump loses so wouldn't expect either of them to take it. He could try to unite the party and go for someone like Nikki Haley or Susanna Martinez, picking someone that didn't endorse him and a woman to help shore up the female vote. Trump, the same age as Clinton should also pick someone younger than him.

Some of the party elders are too scandal tarred but former Speaker Boehnor would be an interesting choice. From the crucial state of Ohio and has the legislative chops.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
54,524
In order of likelihood:
1. Sen Jeff Sessions
2. Rep Duncan Hunter
3. Sen Bob Corker (praised the FP speech)
4. John Kasich
5. Chris Christie
6. Ben Carson.
7. Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin
8. Ex Sen Scott Brown (supported Trump early - has Blue state appeal)
9. General Petraeus
10. Mike Huckabee (daughter involved with Trumps campaign).
11. Ivanka Trump
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
I think it would be unwise for Hillary to choose another woman, and in particular Elizabeth Warren. There are fewer "socialist" Democratic voters than swing voters who imho are more important for Hillary's success.

As for the GOP VP: I don't care who gets the nod from Trump, probably it will be a woman. I like Dame Enda's suggestion that it be Ivanka Trump, but afaik she is too young. I think a VP must be at least 35yo?
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 48908

Kaine for Hillary, I reckon. Safe choice who ticks boxes and won't steal her thunder.

For Trump? How about Condi Rice. A woman and a minority who just happens to have a ton of experience and is a very capable politician.

I've seen Nikki Haley mentioned a couple of times. She has Bill Clinton problems; can't keep it in her pants.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,928
Kaine for Hillary, I reckon. Safe choice who ticks boxes and won't steal her thunder.

For Trump? How about Condi Rice. A woman and a minority who just happens to have a ton of experience and is a very capable politician.

I've seen Nikki Haley mentioned a couple of times. She has Bill Clinton problems; can't keep it in her pants.
I can't see Rice being interested. She brings up too many memories of the Bush era, as well (though I imagine many Republicans are looking at the Bush days with pretty rose tinted glasses right now).
 

Prof Honeydew

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
5,184
Trump could pick Cruz who already picked Fiorino and the GOP would have a Veep Veep on the ticket just to be sure to be sure.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,436
Kaine for Hillary, I reckon. Safe choice who ticks boxes and won't steal her thunder.

For Trump? How about Condi Rice. A woman and a minority who just happens to have a ton of experience and is a very capable politician.

I've seen Nikki Haley mentioned a couple of times. She has Bill Clinton problems; can't keep it in her pants.
Does she really? I know it was brought up in her first run and she said she would resign if anyone had proof. No proof emerged.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

I can't see Rice being interested. She brings up too many memories of the Bush era, as well (though I imagine many Republicans are looking at the Bush days with pretty rose tinted glasses right now).
She'd tick a bunch of boxes, though...and, as you say, with Donald as the nominee, rosé tinted glasses might be the order of the day.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

OK but with Trump and Clinton as their respective party nominees, I doubt that anyone will be bringing up the issue of marital infidelity.
I would put nothing past The Donald.
 

Gin Soaked

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,099
OK but with Trump and Clinton as their respective party nominees, I doubt that anyone will be bringing up the issue of marital infidelity.
Actually, this is an interesting theme, How will the "family values" theme play out?

Trump, even if he picks a "God Fearin" bible basher, can't play that card.

And Hillary is utterly Toxic to many, in particular Blue collar White men.

So she needs a VP who appeals to that.

And Trump needs a nice, humane, woman, or man. But decency or perceived decency is key, Ethnicity would help too.
 

mr_anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
9,779
I think Clinton will go with Elizabeth Warren to appease some of the Sanders voters and double down on the Dems ultra PC credentials having a all female ticket , although Trump will have a lot of fun with the 'Indian' moniker no doubt been thrown about alot.
A double female ticket is probably too risky for the current race.
I'd much prefer a Warren-Clinton ticket than vice versa.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,436
A double female ticket is probably too risky for the current race.
I'd much prefer a Warren-Clinton ticket than vice versa.
I agree that an all female ticket would be high risk. Her position as the nominee is already historic, assuming she gets it.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
54,524
Reports on CNN that Ivanka has key role in vetting Veeps.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top