The most important aspect of the VP is to take the Presidents job after his/her demise. With that perspective, LBJ and Truman are very good examples. Each of who went on to do great things for the world and the nation. Andrew Johnson, a very flawed and bad example, who essentially dismantled most things Lincoln did and took the nation backward. Dick C. didn't get the opportunity, but could have done a lot of harm to the world, if given the power.
6
A great V.P. for Clinton would be Joe Biden, if they find one another compatible.
10
I strongly suggest that Hillary choose Senator Brown. I also suggest that the reason Warren was so high on the list was actually reverse psychology by the opposing party. This would not be a good pick for several reasons, but I'll just give a couple:
Picking Warren would harm the ticket and the party, because it would be transparently manipulative rather than unifying, and it would probably not be a good governing partnership. They wouldn't get along.
Brown is definitely popular for his pro-labor views, and this is what is sorely lacking in the Clinton history. They're not pro labor at all, in fact Bill seems downright anti-labor. The fact that he's from Ohio is just a bonus.
Who is that other person they recommended? Nobody knows anything about that person. Again, I suspect undermining from the opposition.
Brown is the right pick.
Picking Warren would harm the ticket and the party, because it would be transparently manipulative rather than unifying, and it would probably not be a good governing partnership. They wouldn't get along.
Brown is definitely popular for his pro-labor views, and this is what is sorely lacking in the Clinton history. They're not pro labor at all, in fact Bill seems downright anti-labor. The fact that he's from Ohio is just a bonus.
Who is that other person they recommended? Nobody knows anything about that person. Again, I suspect undermining from the opposition.
Brown is the right pick.
5
If Trump wants someone to best reflect his values, he should nominate the Godfather.
13
it is a matter of choosing who will be president in 2019.
clinton is apt to stroke out, and trump resign after two years, realizing that washington does not work with quick, decisive, movements.
clinton is apt to stroke out, and trump resign after two years, realizing that washington does not work with quick, decisive, movements.
2
Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman would be the obvious choices, as they proved themselves with honor and distinction. Teddy Roosevelt apparently wasn't included in the survey, even though he could be categorized as the first modern president.
Joseph Lieberman was, seemingly, a perfect strategic choice because he concentrated on Florida and won it for his ticket, though voting irregularities took it away.
Either candidate who can persuade Robert Gates (or Bill Gates or David Petraeus) gets my vote. Clinton could also try for Kasich; that would be a unity ticket.
The ticket that should have been made that wasn't was Reagan/Ford, when Ford lost to Carter. Ford would have been the best qualified VP in history.
Joseph Lieberman was, seemingly, a perfect strategic choice because he concentrated on Florida and won it for his ticket, though voting irregularities took it away.
Either candidate who can persuade Robert Gates (or Bill Gates or David Petraeus) gets my vote. Clinton could also try for Kasich; that would be a unity ticket.
The ticket that should have been made that wasn't was Reagan/Ford, when Ford lost to Carter. Ford would have been the best qualified VP in history.
3
I wish Clinton would pick Martin O'Malley. But then, I'm one of perhaps eight people in the entire nation, other than O'Malley's immediate kin, who noticed he was running and bothered to check out his positions on the issues.
He was the grown-up in the room, and therefore was ignored by the media, who focused on creating a 'horse race' between two colourful characters - the potential 'first woman POTUS', a familiar figure with a charismatic spouse, and a colourful eccentric demagogue.
I think O'Malley would lend gravitas as well as additional intellectual substance to Clinton's campaign.
Trump won't deign to pick a VP. Maybe he'll run with a mirror.
He was the grown-up in the room, and therefore was ignored by the media, who focused on creating a 'horse race' between two colourful characters - the potential 'first woman POTUS', a familiar figure with a charismatic spouse, and a colourful eccentric demagogue.
I think O'Malley would lend gravitas as well as additional intellectual substance to Clinton's campaign.
Trump won't deign to pick a VP. Maybe he'll run with a mirror.
32
The thought here is that Hillary Clinton, with eons of experience in the political arena, has to make the right decision in choosing her running mate.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, running a campaign driven by ignorance, and resentment, won't want by his side anyone who will challenge him. His preening narcissism and scratchy defensiveness will force him to recruit someone to ride shotgun to his bumpy stagecoach, someone more in the mold of who he is himself. Trump isn't a man given to trust; his quotations as to how he keeps his own counsel are testament to that. He's looking for someone who's strictly a back-up; that person is more likely to be Chris Christie who now has no future after his time in Jersey runs out. Christie's negatives will dovetail with Trump's; that this ticket will be unbalanced geographically will not occur to Trump.
Secretary Clinton, meanwhile has the greater task with her experience. She cannot be seen to have accommodated a gender or an ethnic group or a slice of the political spectrum. And although it's seldom been front and center, she's 69 [I know, Trump's 70 but the dynamic is different; consider a President Christie!]. She should hopefully consider someone who'll be ready to assume an awesome responsibility in the face of an awful catastrophe. Youthful Julián Castro would seem to be a natural here, given the dynamics of demographics and Trump's stance on immigration, his racist targeting of Hispanics.
This year, No. 2 *really* matters.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, running a campaign driven by ignorance, and resentment, won't want by his side anyone who will challenge him. His preening narcissism and scratchy defensiveness will force him to recruit someone to ride shotgun to his bumpy stagecoach, someone more in the mold of who he is himself. Trump isn't a man given to trust; his quotations as to how he keeps his own counsel are testament to that. He's looking for someone who's strictly a back-up; that person is more likely to be Chris Christie who now has no future after his time in Jersey runs out. Christie's negatives will dovetail with Trump's; that this ticket will be unbalanced geographically will not occur to Trump.
Secretary Clinton, meanwhile has the greater task with her experience. She cannot be seen to have accommodated a gender or an ethnic group or a slice of the political spectrum. And although it's seldom been front and center, she's 69 [I know, Trump's 70 but the dynamic is different; consider a President Christie!]. She should hopefully consider someone who'll be ready to assume an awesome responsibility in the face of an awful catastrophe. Youthful Julián Castro would seem to be a natural here, given the dynamics of demographics and Trump's stance on immigration, his racist targeting of Hispanics.
This year, No. 2 *really* matters.
10
I'm not sure any republican presidential candidate has actually "chosen" their running mate. Seems that in the years since the brutal murders of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy BIG democracy-destroying money masters have selected the biggest crooks they could dig up.
1
Pray that Trump picks someone competent to lead the nation--(fat chance.) But if Trump is elected, he'll be impeached within a year, with even the Republicans voting to throw the bum out.
What a clown show this election is turning out to be!
What a clown show this election is turning out to be!
11
PE, NP:
One can't predict the future, of course, but I can't now imagine that Trump would be impeached (especially if Congress ends up Republican-controlled, as appears likely – can't imagine a Republican President would be convicted by a Republican House). What grounds?
Trump is quite old, though (as is Hillary), and so the odds are much higher than usual that he'd die or step down before his term is up. For that reason, being his VP would be more important than usual, and I hope he picks someone able to step in.
Clinton is no spring chicken herself, of course, and has had health problems (she collapsed at home just before Christmas in 2012). So I hope she too picks someone able to step in.
One can't predict the future, of course, but I can't now imagine that Trump would be impeached (especially if Congress ends up Republican-controlled, as appears likely – can't imagine a Republican President would be convicted by a Republican House). What grounds?
Trump is quite old, though (as is Hillary), and so the odds are much higher than usual that he'd die or step down before his term is up. For that reason, being his VP would be more important than usual, and I hope he picks someone able to step in.
Clinton is no spring chicken herself, of course, and has had health problems (she collapsed at home just before Christmas in 2012). So I hope she too picks someone able to step in.
1
Trump:
Kasich insists he doesn't want the job, but he also notes that Trump hasn't talked to him about it. If Trump picks Kasich, he wins. If he picks Christie, he loses. Others? Not so clear.
Clinton:
Warren would yield more votes from Sanders supporters. Clinton would nearly eliminate two alternatives they now have: vote for Trump; stay home. It would be a master stroke for Clinton. She'd sideline Warren after the election, of course.
Kasich insists he doesn't want the job, but he also notes that Trump hasn't talked to him about it. If Trump picks Kasich, he wins. If he picks Christie, he loses. Others? Not so clear.
Clinton:
Warren would yield more votes from Sanders supporters. Clinton would nearly eliminate two alternatives they now have: vote for Trump; stay home. It would be a master stroke for Clinton. She'd sideline Warren after the election, of course.
3
As VP Garner once said the job of VP was not worth a jug of warm spit.
That was some while ago.
But that is what it will be again with Mrs Clinton. It would be hard for her not to poll all her cabinet, then go to Bill, for a final assessment, then go with that.
That was some while ago.
But that is what it will be again with Mrs Clinton. It would be hard for her not to poll all her cabinet, then go to Bill, for a final assessment, then go with that.
5
Biden and Cheney were both horrible picks base on the criteria of stepping up to actually be the president, although for totally different reasons. Biden, similar to Trump speaks and then later thinks. Biden's thinking fortunately isn't racist, xenophobic, ignorant, denying of factual, logic information like Donald's, it's just delayed. Cheney was just pure ignorant evil who thought bellicose and foreign policy were synonymous words. In any case, Americans and the rest of the world have a lot more to worry about than Trump's VP if Trump is elected.
13
You're not going to hear Al Gore's terms as Vice President as very important. He burned tons of fuel flying to California to campaign twice a month for the entire eight years.
If we ever start seizing personal property to pay the government back for theft, Gore would be a great place to start. At least Joe Biden can tell a joke.
If we ever start seizing personal property to pay the government back for theft, Gore would be a great place to start. At least Joe Biden can tell a joke.
2
Gore's (and Bill Clinton's) many trips to California weren't to campaign for votes (CA has been reliably Democratic in Presidential races for a long time, by large margins). Those trips were fund-raisers. A President or a Vice President can always think of some "official" reason, though, to justify charging US taxpayers for fund-raising trips. Clinton and Gore did. George W. Bush did. Obama did. So would Hillary Clinton. So would Trump.
2
I have always thought Dems need more candidates like Jon Tester so please add him to your vp list along with Tim Kaine. Tester is a former teacher, rancher, preservationist. He's from a western state, Montana, that may not be crucial like Ohio/Florida but sends a different image of Democrats as solid middle class people and an outdoorsman. I'm sorry that people always want someone super liberal. He may not have endorsed Hillary yet.
From : The Missoulian: Tester a champion of access to outdoors (see full text on his website) Montana only has one true champion of public lands in Congress and that is Sen. Jon Tester. As the former chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, Tester isn’t afraid of a fight and he’s got the track record to prove it. This year, Tester worked closely with allies on both sides of the aisle to consistently push for permanent reauthorization and full funding of the popular Land and Water Conservation Fund. .. Jon Tester ... is now on the verge of securing protection of the Badger Two-Medicine area near Glacier National Park—some of the world’s most beautiful public land. Also the Rocky Mountain Front, a sportsmen’s paradise.
From : The Missoulian: Tester a champion of access to outdoors (see full text on his website) Montana only has one true champion of public lands in Congress and that is Sen. Jon Tester. As the former chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, Tester isn’t afraid of a fight and he’s got the track record to prove it. This year, Tester worked closely with allies on both sides of the aisle to consistently push for permanent reauthorization and full funding of the popular Land and Water Conservation Fund. .. Jon Tester ... is now on the verge of securing protection of the Badger Two-Medicine area near Glacier National Park—some of the world’s most beautiful public land. Also the Rocky Mountain Front, a sportsmen’s paradise.
4
I have spoken to a number of people who think Hillary should stick with Joe Biden. Couldn't be more thoroughly vetted, tested, etc., by all accounts people like him, etc, etc. What's not to like?
7
In an ideal world, any VP pick should be able to be a president, if necessary.
Check the GOP choices in recent history: awful.
Check the GOP choices in recent history: awful.
6
How to be a great Vice President?
Just ask Joe Biden.
What a wonderful, intelligent man.
Early on, I was saddened by the fact that he chose not to run for President.
He had his reasons and I respect that.
Still, cant help but think that the losse is all ours.
Just ask Joe Biden.
What a wonderful, intelligent man.
Early on, I was saddened by the fact that he chose not to run for President.
He had his reasons and I respect that.
Still, cant help but think that the losse is all ours.
17
To be perfectly honest, Donald Trump is so singularly unfit to hold any public office, let alone the nation's highest, I could care less about whom he selects as his running mate. That's like wondering whom a skunk will bring as his date to one's dinner party. Maybe it is just me, but I'm not inviting a skunk to my dinner parties.
22
It is hard to imagine Hillary Clinton using her VP as more than a door stop once she is in office. Bill Clinton will be hovering and Hillary never takes advice from anyone who isn't presenting poll results. I'm sure her selection will be 100% based on an attempt to attract voters who otherwise have no interest in supporting her candidacy, except as a foil to Trump.
What a shame that a terrific VP, Joe Biden, chose not to run for President this year. He would have won it all. I don't think many voters think he could not step in if anything happened to Pres. Obama, being his own man, but continuing the Obama legacy without question, with grace, humility, and skill.
What a shame that a terrific VP, Joe Biden, chose not to run for President this year. He would have won it all. I don't think many voters think he could not step in if anything happened to Pres. Obama, being his own man, but continuing the Obama legacy without question, with grace, humility, and skill.
10
I vote for Joe. Mr. Biden has seemed perfect to me.
14
VP Joe Biden has been exemplary. Hillary Clinton should consider him for her VP as well, if he would be interested. Constitution does not limit VP to two terms.
14
I remember when Dan Quayle was chosen that a number of people in print referred to him as "impeachment insurance". In other words, the prospect that he might actually become president in such an event would make people think twice about impeaching Poppy.
I don't think Mrs. Clinton will pick Senator Warren because she would upstage Mrs. Clinton simply by being on the ticket. The same goes for Senator Sanders. Xavier Becerra would be a safe choice in that he has no real presence or national exposure, but he is from California, which makes him unnecessary from a vote-delivering standpoint.
My bet would be Sherrod Brown from the perennial battleground state of Ohio.
As for Trump's pick, quite frankly it doesn't matter. He's going to lose - badly - no matter who he picks.
I don't think Mrs. Clinton will pick Senator Warren because she would upstage Mrs. Clinton simply by being on the ticket. The same goes for Senator Sanders. Xavier Becerra would be a safe choice in that he has no real presence or national exposure, but he is from California, which makes him unnecessary from a vote-delivering standpoint.
My bet would be Sherrod Brown from the perennial battleground state of Ohio.
As for Trump's pick, quite frankly it doesn't matter. He's going to lose - badly - no matter who he picks.
9
How about choosing a President who is ready to govern, not just get elected?
7
Tim Cook. Bridges the divide between government and tech. Has real international business experience way beyond Trump's boasting. Has proven he can serve as a loyal and effective second in command, but also step in and take charge in a crisis. Obviously the FBI data fight and the off-shore earnings will be smudges to some. That he is openly gay will matter to some. Still, the CEO of the world's most admired corporation might add a little excitement to the Clinton campaign.
3
Castro and Warren would be horrible picks for Clinton. One is a secretary of a small cabinet agency and the other better serves both her constituents and the country by remaining in the Senate. If you a Sanders fan, you want him with Warren in the Senate to keep Hillary in check.
10
For Clinton, Warren is only useful for motivating the Sanders base. She is a great senator and gives speeches like few others can. Imagine her as treasury secretary or attorney general instead. Massachusetts holds a special election to fill vacated senate posts, so a Republican replacement would not be for long. She is only two years younger than Clinton and would not be a great candidate for president in 2024 for that reason. It would be best to select a successor.
Brown gives Clinton both a leg up in Ohio and creds with the Sanders people. At 63, he would be 71 in 2024 -- barely young enough to be considered as a presidential candidate.
Castro has the liberal background, the youth (age 41) and energy, and the ability to get those Hispanics that form such a large and growing part of the Democratic party to get out and vote. GOTV will be very important this year.
On Trump's side, it matters little what anyone thinks, except for Trump. He will pick someone HE likes. Period. But, does he actually like anyone? Will he pick the sycophantic Christie? Doubt it unless he can find no one else. The experts chosen for this article like Rubio, Haley, Kasich, and Martinez. In each instance, either Trump or the politician will nix the choice. They may be able to help Trump, but to help Trump you must be willing to work for Trump and Trump must be willing to hire you. In each instance, "You're fired" even before you're hired.
He may choose a conservative general.
Brown gives Clinton both a leg up in Ohio and creds with the Sanders people. At 63, he would be 71 in 2024 -- barely young enough to be considered as a presidential candidate.
Castro has the liberal background, the youth (age 41) and energy, and the ability to get those Hispanics that form such a large and growing part of the Democratic party to get out and vote. GOTV will be very important this year.
On Trump's side, it matters little what anyone thinks, except for Trump. He will pick someone HE likes. Period. But, does he actually like anyone? Will he pick the sycophantic Christie? Doubt it unless he can find no one else. The experts chosen for this article like Rubio, Haley, Kasich, and Martinez. In each instance, either Trump or the politician will nix the choice. They may be able to help Trump, but to help Trump you must be willing to work for Trump and Trump must be willing to hire you. In each instance, "You're fired" even before you're hired.
He may choose a conservative general.
13
How ironic that the NY Times graphics department used two men to illustrate this article rather than a man and a woman, as if this was 1966, rather than 2016.
Note to self, always click through the slide show before commenting on the graphics and have that extra cup of coffee before writing drivel.
13
Oxymoron
LBJ was the only smart VP. He must have known Kennedy would not do 2 terms. Of course we all marched against LBJ about the vietnam war, so we got rid of him. Presidents choose VPs for their incompetence. Look at Biden and Ford, omg.
Hillary needs to choose a smart black or smart hispanic who can become president after she does her 8 years in office. Unless Bernie keeps running and allows Trump to win. Trump will not last one term, so his VP would if Trump were to be elected, omg, get defeated in 2020.
LBJ was the only smart VP. He must have known Kennedy would not do 2 terms. Of course we all marched against LBJ about the vietnam war, so we got rid of him. Presidents choose VPs for their incompetence. Look at Biden and Ford, omg.
Hillary needs to choose a smart black or smart hispanic who can become president after she does her 8 years in office. Unless Bernie keeps running and allows Trump to win. Trump will not last one term, so his VP would if Trump were to be elected, omg, get defeated in 2020.
Why would LBJ know Kennedy would not do two terms?
You need to adjust your tinfoil hat.
We marched against LBJ and the Vietnam War because JFK was dead. But it was JFK's administration that sent the CIA to engineer the assassination of Diem and install the Thieu/Ky puppet government which, under the 'you break it, you bought it' rule, we were then obliged to prop up. Not long before his death, he actually told advisors he had to stay in Vietnam; he couldn't afford to look 'soft on Communism' going into the 1964 election.
On civil rights, JFK might have acted in his second term, when he didn't need to worry about re-election. But it's doubtful a Massachusetts liberal would have been nearly as effective an advocate as good ole boy LBJ; as the Vulcan proverb has it, 'only Nixon could go to China'.
The bullets in Dallas guaranteed JFK's place in history as the great president he wouldn't necessarily have been, had he lived; but with him conveniently prematurely dead, we can drape all kinds of woulda-coulda-shoulda-might've been on his catafalque.
LBJ - and his VP, Hubert Humphrey, who would have made a great liberal president - are, with Adlai Stevenson, among the most tragic figures of 20th C. American politics. Next to them, JFK was lucky: far worse than to be killed is to live but be frustrated.
I don't get your beef with Biden and Ford. Neither was incompetent. Supporting evidence, please?
You need to adjust your tinfoil hat.
We marched against LBJ and the Vietnam War because JFK was dead. But it was JFK's administration that sent the CIA to engineer the assassination of Diem and install the Thieu/Ky puppet government which, under the 'you break it, you bought it' rule, we were then obliged to prop up. Not long before his death, he actually told advisors he had to stay in Vietnam; he couldn't afford to look 'soft on Communism' going into the 1964 election.
On civil rights, JFK might have acted in his second term, when he didn't need to worry about re-election. But it's doubtful a Massachusetts liberal would have been nearly as effective an advocate as good ole boy LBJ; as the Vulcan proverb has it, 'only Nixon could go to China'.
The bullets in Dallas guaranteed JFK's place in history as the great president he wouldn't necessarily have been, had he lived; but with him conveniently prematurely dead, we can drape all kinds of woulda-coulda-shoulda-might've been on his catafalque.
LBJ - and his VP, Hubert Humphrey, who would have made a great liberal president - are, with Adlai Stevenson, among the most tragic figures of 20th C. American politics. Next to them, JFK was lucky: far worse than to be killed is to live but be frustrated.
I don't get your beef with Biden and Ford. Neither was incompetent. Supporting evidence, please?
6
The suggestion of Bill Gates as Ms. Clinton's running mate is a really fascinating outside-the-box choice at first blush. Something to consider. How good Mr. Gates would be at campaigning and why he would want to be VP, I don't know. It would be very pleasant to hear an actual successful businessman explain Mr. Trump's incompetence in that field. Sen. Brown is a proven political winner, though. If only there were a Democratic governor in Ohio to appoint at Democrat to fill the seat temporarily. Gov. Kasich may despise Trump, but he's still a Republican. Is there someone besides Sens. Sanders and Warren who could impress Sanders supporters with progressive bona fides? One thing Ms. Clinton really must do is wait until Mr. Trump makes his choice and gets it ratified at the convention. It's hard to imagine any of the former GOP candidates being asked by Trump. He has mocked nearly every one of them personally, and most of them did their ineffective best to return the favor. Clinton ads would be filled with the video proof. How about former Gov. Gilmore, who ran such a imperceptible campaign that he never mixed it up with Mr. Trump? Or could Trump pluck some obscure Republican out of Congress a la William Miller or Dan Quayle? Since I hope he's back doing some dumb TV show again next year, I am hardly going to give him advice.
6
LBJ has to be considered the best VP in history. He wasn't much while in office, but he took the reins of power competently when called upon. Isn't that the no 1 job of a VP? Say what you want about the guy, he led a White House transition at a time that things could have gotten out of hand.
If I were Hillary, I would convince Bernie sanders to be my VP. And, NO, I haven't thought about how the whole Bill thing would work...or how to keep Bernie quiet when the Clinton administration ran to the right of where Bernie campaigned.
Kasich is the obvious Trump choice, but little Marco has to be a consideration. He could play the Apprentice. If I were Trump, I would beg plead, cajole--do whatever I had to do to convince Nikki Haley to be my running mate.
This race will be closer than people suspect. The VP choices will matter. If the candidates don't recognize this, they don't deserve to be President.
If I were Hillary, I would convince Bernie sanders to be my VP. And, NO, I haven't thought about how the whole Bill thing would work...or how to keep Bernie quiet when the Clinton administration ran to the right of where Bernie campaigned.
Kasich is the obvious Trump choice, but little Marco has to be a consideration. He could play the Apprentice. If I were Trump, I would beg plead, cajole--do whatever I had to do to convince Nikki Haley to be my running mate.
This race will be closer than people suspect. The VP choices will matter. If the candidates don't recognize this, they don't deserve to be President.
3
Kasich is said to still be smokin' mad at Trump. In Ohio, adults just don't speak of each other the way D.T. does.
7
62-38, biggest defeat in recent history
Barbie is the obvious answer for Trump! Hillary would be thinking more about finding new ways to "keep" America great by advancing the interest of humans and decreasing the worship of mammon and self.
8
The number one criteria in the voters' minds should be whether the person could assume the presidency if the president is incapacitated or dies in office. That is the main thing I look for and it gives me an idea of the president's judgment. Is the presidential candidate picking someone like Sarah Palin to appeal to his base or add some sizzle in the campaign or is the president more concerned about chemistry with his or her vp and the person's ability to run the country if need be? Of course there are other concerns. Hillary needs someone like Biden actually who is experienced, has some name recognition, and can appeal to the middle class and Blue Collar workers. She does not need someone too liberal, like Sanders. She will already get most of those votes. Trump needs someone who can run the country on Day One while he sells the Trump brand.
Unlike some past elections where the vp was a lightweight who attended funerals, now we need someone who is an advisor who helps with major national problems. In this article, you go vs. your own advice when you suggest niche candidates who represent an ethnicity or liberal bias or state the candidate needs to win.
Unlike some past elections where the vp was a lightweight who attended funerals, now we need someone who is an advisor who helps with major national problems. In this article, you go vs. your own advice when you suggest niche candidates who represent an ethnicity or liberal bias or state the candidate needs to win.
14
I'm surprised so many political science scholars would suggest Senator Warren as a good choice for Mrs. Clinton. To much of the country, these two would resemble two peas in a pod, indistinguishable, and worse yet, both from the same region of the country. Anybody who would be excited by a VP nod to Senator Warren is going to vote for Mrs. Clinton anyway. I think it would be a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to pick a member of congress for VP, given the demonstrable desire of the electorate for someone outside of the political establishment. Certainly there must be a Governor, or even a Mayor, possibly of Hispanic heritage and a Spanish speaker, that she can find instead?
As for Mr. Trump, being outside the political establishment is his brand. He should continue with that theme, and select a leader who comes from another sector of the economy than he does. His only chance to win this election will be to hammer on the economy (stupid), and how he is going to bring opportunities for those who feel closed out of it. Fluency in economic matters will be important for his pick. I don't think political experience is that important for his VP. There are plenty of people in the Republican shadow government that will come forward to run the executive departments in the case of a Trump victory, and to help with legislation.
As for Mr. Trump, being outside the political establishment is his brand. He should continue with that theme, and select a leader who comes from another sector of the economy than he does. His only chance to win this election will be to hammer on the economy (stupid), and how he is going to bring opportunities for those who feel closed out of it. Fluency in economic matters will be important for his pick. I don't think political experience is that important for his VP. There are plenty of people in the Republican shadow government that will come forward to run the executive departments in the case of a Trump victory, and to help with legislation.
14
It doesn't matter whom we think would be the best pick for Trump as I cannot fathom this narcissist picking ANYONE. Who among us can imagine the Donald sharing the spotlight with ANYONE? How does he allow bumper stickers and campaign buttons to be printed with his name next to ANYONE else's? How does he stand on a stage and clasp raised hands with ANYONE?
The Republican 2016 presidential campaign doesn't merit these typical articles of a typical campaign cycle. Everything about the DT campaign is simply an enigma.
The Republican 2016 presidential campaign doesn't merit these typical articles of a typical campaign cycle. Everything about the DT campaign is simply an enigma.
10
it would be wonderful for Trump to pick Clarence Thomas. that guy needs a job.
But Trump said he wouldn't choose a woman or a minority because that would be "pandering." Elsewhere, that would be an EEO violation, but in the catalog of the sins of Donald Trump, that one is all but insignificant.
But Trump said he wouldn't choose a woman or a minority because that would be "pandering." Elsewhere, that would be an EEO violation, but in the catalog of the sins of Donald Trump, that one is all but insignificant.
3
Hillary Clinton -> Thomas Perez
Little Fingers -> Susan Martinez
Jill Stein -> Bernie Sanders
#I'mWithJill
Little Fingers -> Susan Martinez
Jill Stein -> Bernie Sanders
#I'mWithJill
3
I am not a political science expert but from my perspective the most important attributes for a VP is to fortify the President's weaknesses and also be very nationally popular. I can't think of a VP for Trump because his VP will just be mopping up the mess, his President has made. No one in their right senses would want that humiliating job. As for the Democrats we have Elizabeth Warren. She would be the yin to Hillary Clinton's yang - a really dream team.
1
HRC needs someone exciting and Warren has everything she needs: the independent votes, the tough-on-Wall-Street stance, the sisterhood which someone who has gotten their career via marriage (HRC) doesn't have as much of for that glass ceiling shatter sound. Trump needs unexciting but that's not his way. If he picked Romney that would be interesting.
1
Sen. Sherrod Brown would be a great pick for Hillary were it not for the fact that Gov. Kasich would appoint his successor in the Senate. If the Democrats want to regain control of the Senate they can't give a seat away to the Republicans.
12
With the two presumptive nominees, the most unpopular in history, a tribune of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE could launch ihr candidacy for the Vice Presidency, independent of parties. Originally they were independent candidacies and if there is a move to introduce a third or fourth ticket as has been widely speculated, the election will be resolved in the Congress anyway.
The American Political and Science Association seems to lake historical perspective. Without a doubt Harry Truman was the greatest Vice-President.
2
That's an intriguing possibility, but I wonder if Bernie would accept the #2 slot. He's now established himself as leader of a movement, and if really cares about it -- and it appears that he genuinely does -- he might be better off in the Senate, working with people like Sen. Warren to bring about change.
5
It would be a mistake for Hillary Clinton to choose for Vice President a Senator from a state that has a Republican governor. Such a governor would appoint a Republican to fill the vacancy, thus damaging or even scuttling the chances of the Democrats' retaking the Senate. This lets out Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown from the list. Also, in Vermont current Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin is not running for re-election. A Republican could win there, and that lets out Bernie Sanders. Tim Kaine is the only current Senator that Hillary Clinton should consider.
10
Someone else just pointed this out to me and it makes complete sense.
2
I think it makes a difference who the nominee picks for a vice president when the decision to vote comes along. I was ready to vote for John McCain but when he picked Palin for VP, I immediately recognized how dangerous she would be to the country if something were to happen to the President.
6
The Epitome Of Hilarity
Probably the next-to-worst thing political "scientists" do is conduct surveys ... far-and-away, the worst thing they do is use so-called social "science" methodology to extract information from their raw survey data.
But, when you have a political "scientist" surveying other political "scientists" ... whew!
My favorite "statistic" was "The choice for best strategic selection was dominated by Lyndon B. Johnson, with more than 70 percent support." That 70% support is from the 40 "scholars" who responded, giving Professor Vaughn "enough [data] to get a handle on where consensus does and does not exist."
Okay, New York Times, here's my suggestion ... whenever you get a "research study" by a political "scientist" who collected his raw data from a collection of political "scientists," don't even bother to read it. Immediately forward it to "The Onion."
Probably the next-to-worst thing political "scientists" do is conduct surveys ... far-and-away, the worst thing they do is use so-called social "science" methodology to extract information from their raw survey data.
But, when you have a political "scientist" surveying other political "scientists" ... whew!
My favorite "statistic" was "The choice for best strategic selection was dominated by Lyndon B. Johnson, with more than 70 percent support." That 70% support is from the 40 "scholars" who responded, giving Professor Vaughn "enough [data] to get a handle on where consensus does and does not exist."
Okay, New York Times, here's my suggestion ... whenever you get a "research study" by a political "scientist" who collected his raw data from a collection of political "scientists," don't even bother to read it. Immediately forward it to "The Onion."
8
How about our Royal-Insider Media choosing our VP nominees for us, as they’ve done in determining our presidential nominees?
The crowning step in their doing so was less than a week ago. Our Royal-Insider Media’s determination that Queen Hillary would be the Dem nominee, before The People had voted in our most populous state and five others, six weeks before the voting to choose the nominee.
That usurpation of the voters’ role was terrible for both candidates – obviously for Bernie, but also for Hillary by undermining her nomination’s legitimacy.
In California and the other states, it was Voter Suppression: telling their voters for Bernie “No need to vote. Your choice is fixed.”
For the delegates to choose in late July, it drowned their ability to think and nominate the candidate of The People, who would upset the Royal-Insider Media’s world of Insider Royalty.
It was the crowning step in a year of "news" warped to retain our Money-Insider Royalty’s domination and subjugation of The People. Goal #1, smother the candidate who represented the greatest threat to upset the Royalty and return America to The People; Goal #2, make Queen Hillary of the Royalty the Dem nominee; Goal #3, make Trump the repuglican nominee, in the mistaken notion that he would surely lose to Queen Hillary. Execution was a year of giving max publicity to Trump and none to Bernie, misdirecting millions of The Unhappy People to Trump instead of Bernie.
What a choice they've left us: Queen or Trump.
The crowning step in their doing so was less than a week ago. Our Royal-Insider Media’s determination that Queen Hillary would be the Dem nominee, before The People had voted in our most populous state and five others, six weeks before the voting to choose the nominee.
That usurpation of the voters’ role was terrible for both candidates – obviously for Bernie, but also for Hillary by undermining her nomination’s legitimacy.
In California and the other states, it was Voter Suppression: telling their voters for Bernie “No need to vote. Your choice is fixed.”
For the delegates to choose in late July, it drowned their ability to think and nominate the candidate of The People, who would upset the Royal-Insider Media’s world of Insider Royalty.
It was the crowning step in a year of "news" warped to retain our Money-Insider Royalty’s domination and subjugation of The People. Goal #1, smother the candidate who represented the greatest threat to upset the Royalty and return America to The People; Goal #2, make Queen Hillary of the Royalty the Dem nominee; Goal #3, make Trump the repuglican nominee, in the mistaken notion that he would surely lose to Queen Hillary. Execution was a year of giving max publicity to Trump and none to Bernie, misdirecting millions of The Unhappy People to Trump instead of Bernie.
What a choice they've left us: Queen or Trump.
5
An overlooked recommendation for Hillary's running mate is Joe Biden. Did your experts even consider him? The 22nd amendment does not limit the terms a VP can serve. After 8 years, the public doesn't doubt his ability to serve as President, if need be.
Even if just for her first term, it would work strategically and for governance. He'd again be an experienced superior campaigner (especially for labor and the for "white guy" vote as a contrast to Trump) and be great to preside over a Democrat-majority Senate. What do you say Joe? What do you say Hillary.
Even if just for her first term, it would work strategically and for governance. He'd again be an experienced superior campaigner (especially for labor and the for "white guy" vote as a contrast to Trump) and be great to preside over a Democrat-majority Senate. What do you say Joe? What do you say Hillary.
10
Interesting facts and factoids. Cheney, by hijacking the presidency (upon electing himself to the post), was the most abusive of any vice-presidents in recent memory. He lied, repeatedly, to drag the U.S. into the Irak war, knowing that Saddam Hussein (a thug too) had nothing to do with 9/11/01. And in spite of the ravages caused, with thousands of killings, and treasure still being drained, witness his ultimate insult to the American people, impunity.
16
This is a very short history ==Agnew I believe is the most historical - -which says a lot about why US professors and scholars are regarded as terrible historians.
1
Why would anyone be surprised that Dick Cheney was chosen as one of the better VPs? He would have been. Unfortunately he was acting as President and at this he was a miserable failure.
6
I guess it shows that academicians often live in a separate world from the real one in recommending Senators Brown and Warren. Both are from states with Republican governors and as the Democrats will probably need every Senate seat to gain control of it, it is unlikely they would be willing to give up one.
And as to Spiro Agnew, unlike Quayle who was considered a joke to begin with, he was considered a very good choice. He had supported Nelson Rockefeller for president in 1968 and was elected governor of a state that often went Democratic (albeit he won the office against a weak Democrat).
It just shows that what could be seen as a good choice can turn out to be very bad one.
By the way, what's with the low rating of Henry Wallace? In what way was he a worse VP than Nixon or LBJ or Garner or Barkeley? Probably if conservative Democrats hadn't forced Wallace from the ticket in 1944 and he instead of Truman had become president, we would have been spared the idiocy of the cold war and all those battle deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
And as to Spiro Agnew, unlike Quayle who was considered a joke to begin with, he was considered a very good choice. He had supported Nelson Rockefeller for president in 1968 and was elected governor of a state that often went Democratic (albeit he won the office against a weak Democrat).
It just shows that what could be seen as a good choice can turn out to be very bad one.
By the way, what's with the low rating of Henry Wallace? In what way was he a worse VP than Nixon or LBJ or Garner or Barkeley? Probably if conservative Democrats hadn't forced Wallace from the ticket in 1944 and he instead of Truman had become president, we would have been spared the idiocy of the cold war and all those battle deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
11
History never reveals the alternatives, but with Truman being remembered as one of the better Presidents, I have my doubts. The idea of all of Korea being under the control of Kim Mah-Jongg Un is unsettling. I admit that the Vietnam War accomplished nothing but this occurred long after Truman was gone.
1
Dick Cheney as the greatest vice president?
I often despair that I live in a country where enough of the population qualifies as "low information" citizens that Ronald Reagan is considered a great president and Cheney is viewed as anything but a war criminal.
Of course the corporate media shares a large part of the blame for this situation, because it fails to provide the people the information they need to BE intelligent citizens.
Whatever its causes, the general ignorance in our country bodes ill for the future.
I often despair that I live in a country where enough of the population qualifies as "low information" citizens that Ronald Reagan is considered a great president and Cheney is viewed as anything but a war criminal.
Of course the corporate media shares a large part of the blame for this situation, because it fails to provide the people the information they need to BE intelligent citizens.
Whatever its causes, the general ignorance in our country bodes ill for the future.
49
Trump should pick Nikki Haley, never a Marco Rubio or Chris Christie
Clinton should pick Sherrod Brown, not Julian Castro or Elizabeth Warren
All this depends on the candidates and respective parties thoughts, both positive and negatives, for choices.
Clinton should pick Sherrod Brown, not Julian Castro or Elizabeth Warren
All this depends on the candidates and respective parties thoughts, both positive and negatives, for choices.
1
I'm not at all happy voting for Hillary Clinton as the lesser of two evils, but if Elizabeth Warren is on the ticket for Veep, I would find that extremely exciting.
Watch me run to vote for Clinton/Warren! I'll have to push my way through all the other devoted Sanders supporters rushing to get there, but so be it!
Watch me run to vote for Clinton/Warren! I'll have to push my way through all the other devoted Sanders supporters rushing to get there, but so be it!
2
Because I consider them both to be fraternal twin white privileged corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch war mongering welfare royalty, I don't really care who Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton or Mr. Donald John Trump pick to be their running mate. The only duties of the Vice President are to preside over the Senate, fill in for an incapacitated President or to succeed a dead one. If elected President America will be damaged and damned by either Clinton or Trump.
And there is no more any "science" in politics than there is in history. There are way too many variables and unknowns to create any controls for reflective real representation. Assassins have been the ultimate arbiters of the quality of any American Presidential running mate selection. Alice Roosevelt Longworth and Robert Todd Lincoln witnessed that reality.
And there is no more any "science" in politics than there is in history. There are way too many variables and unknowns to create any controls for reflective real representation. Assassins have been the ultimate arbiters of the quality of any American Presidential running mate selection. Alice Roosevelt Longworth and Robert Todd Lincoln witnessed that reality.
3
Walter Mondale, a true public servant, created the modern Vice Presidency. His is the very best model of the Vice Presidency and I might add the best model of a true public servant.
Dick Cheney's Vice Presidency was a disgrace and did not reflect the vision of what the modern VP should be as the adviser to the President. Dick Cheney ran his own intelligence and threatened anyone who disagreed. He lied to the President. He was a terrible VP.
If the criteria for a VP is the advocacy of the President's agenda then Dick Cheney's selection as a quality VP by Political Scientists is a very scary thought. Recall this VP's lies: threats of mushroom clouds of destruction as the rationale to invade Iraq and that we will be greeted within weeks as liberators.
No, Dick Cheney is an example of what we don't want nor ever consider as an example how to carry out the duties of this very valuable position in the modern Executive branch of government.
Dick Cheney's Vice Presidency was a disgrace and did not reflect the vision of what the modern VP should be as the adviser to the President. Dick Cheney ran his own intelligence and threatened anyone who disagreed. He lied to the President. He was a terrible VP.
If the criteria for a VP is the advocacy of the President's agenda then Dick Cheney's selection as a quality VP by Political Scientists is a very scary thought. Recall this VP's lies: threats of mushroom clouds of destruction as the rationale to invade Iraq and that we will be greeted within weeks as liberators.
No, Dick Cheney is an example of what we don't want nor ever consider as an example how to carry out the duties of this very valuable position in the modern Executive branch of government.
6
Newt Gingrich may be the crossover consideration for either candidate. The ability to manuever through the inner workings of capitol hill and K street are a plus for either party. A lenses into his thinking through Newt's Idea Lab in the Washington Times, regular appearances on radio, t.v. and oped's tell a story of pragmitism, practality and positiveness. Those qualities would serve either party well.
1
Elizabeth Warren. Best person anyway and we need her to counter Clinton's worst policies: warmongering, fracking, corporate power, TPP, blind support of Israel, indifference to Palestinian rights, feudal arrogance.
Trump is a zero. Not worth mentioning.
Trump is a zero. Not worth mentioning.
1
Was Bernie Sanders mentioned to these scholars as a possible VP for Hillary Clinton?
Let's see those 4 categories again:
1) campaign politics? - check
2) governing experience? - check
3) relationships with the president? - (depends on how mature Hillary wants to be)
4) communication skills? - check, and duh.
Bernie could certainly deliver his supporters, and robbing Trump of any terrain among independent voters focused on fighting establishment corruption.
And Bernie's fund raising mechanism would be an enormous contribution as well.
Of course, then the question becomes, 'whose campaign is it?'. Can Hillary tolerate Bernie continuing to soak up the spotlight?
Won't Hillary need to be the star, even if it means completely ignoring the underlying issues that elevated Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in this cycle?
I think we know the answer. Hillary needs to win as "the leader", is unable to admit short comings or mistakes, and would rather deny, deny, deny, than give in an inch on the question of public corruption.
Get ready for a typically uninspiring choice by Hillary, and an Admiral Stockdale type from central casting from Trump.
Let's see those 4 categories again:
1) campaign politics? - check
2) governing experience? - check
3) relationships with the president? - (depends on how mature Hillary wants to be)
4) communication skills? - check, and duh.
Bernie could certainly deliver his supporters, and robbing Trump of any terrain among independent voters focused on fighting establishment corruption.
And Bernie's fund raising mechanism would be an enormous contribution as well.
Of course, then the question becomes, 'whose campaign is it?'. Can Hillary tolerate Bernie continuing to soak up the spotlight?
Won't Hillary need to be the star, even if it means completely ignoring the underlying issues that elevated Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in this cycle?
I think we know the answer. Hillary needs to win as "the leader", is unable to admit short comings or mistakes, and would rather deny, deny, deny, than give in an inch on the question of public corruption.
Get ready for a typically uninspiring choice by Hillary, and an Admiral Stockdale type from central casting from Trump.
1
Sherrod Brown.
1
The premise is true: that's why Elizabeth Warren would be a great V-P. Choice.
1
There is only one choice for Mrs.Clinton - its spelled Bernie Sanders.The country needs a civilized politic that includes all Americans,not only the superrich.And ofcourse,Clinton has to depend on Sanders votes.
1
Do these people listen to the news? Trump would choose Little Marco after their "hands" debate which everyone will remember? The three governors mentioned next have all come out against Trump, and he has attacked Martinez back for not supporting him.
Likewise, "political reasons" really includes the choice of LBJ, which is acknowledged to be the one time that the VP choice made a difference in the outcome. The problem with Palin and Quayle was that they were rightly seen as unready to risk having so close to the top job. It's not that "political reasons" are bad--all these suggestions are political--but that the choice should show that the presidential candidate has good judgment (and, ironically, better judgment than the electorate that chose him!).
Likewise, "political reasons" really includes the choice of LBJ, which is acknowledged to be the one time that the VP choice made a difference in the outcome. The problem with Palin and Quayle was that they were rightly seen as unready to risk having so close to the top job. It's not that "political reasons" are bad--all these suggestions are political--but that the choice should show that the presidential candidate has good judgment (and, ironically, better judgment than the electorate that chose him!).
2
I'm astonished that in the list of great vice presidents, two men who became president were not mentioned: Harry Truman and Gerry Ford.
The supreme test of a veep is his ability to take over, which if necessary will be in a time of crisis. Truman ended WWII, and had an opportunity to grow into a near-great president. Ford restored decency to the office, even though it took a generation to realize he was right about the pardon.
I wish we had leaders like Truman and Ford available to us today.
The supreme test of a veep is his ability to take over, which if necessary will be in a time of crisis. Truman ended WWII, and had an opportunity to grow into a near-great president. Ford restored decency to the office, even though it took a generation to realize he was right about the pardon.
I wish we had leaders like Truman and Ford available to us today.
1
What a sad comment on our democratic process. It is also sad that the GOP, among its 117 million declared Republicans, could not find a suit6able candidate to represent them and still represent the USA. Now the GOP needs to, in the view of several prominent leaders, find a running mate for the Donald who has the knowledge and experience to run the country? Who is left?
Seems there are few who remember that we already had a puppet-president for 8 years, and look how well that went! In the attempts to preserve the GOP, the leaders appear willing to try anything. Despite Trump's similarity to the authoritarian fascism to both Hitler and Musolini, Paul Ryan will still supports him because "the party must survive".
Almost half the Democrats wanted Bernie for the Dems. And the press urged Bernie to bow out. So wouldn't it be nice if the GOP just bowed out for this election? The devastation that he would wreak on American democracy would shatter us for generations to come. I don't think he really wants to be President...he just wants to win. And if the only lifeboat the GOP has to offer is a surrogate leader in the VP slot, forget it. The President's signature is the one that matters - and Donald is highly unlikely to respond to the puppet strings a la GWB.
Seems there are few who remember that we already had a puppet-president for 8 years, and look how well that went! In the attempts to preserve the GOP, the leaders appear willing to try anything. Despite Trump's similarity to the authoritarian fascism to both Hitler and Musolini, Paul Ryan will still supports him because "the party must survive".
Almost half the Democrats wanted Bernie for the Dems. And the press urged Bernie to bow out. So wouldn't it be nice if the GOP just bowed out for this election? The devastation that he would wreak on American democracy would shatter us for generations to come. I don't think he really wants to be President...he just wants to win. And if the only lifeboat the GOP has to offer is a surrogate leader in the VP slot, forget it. The President's signature is the one that matters - and Donald is highly unlikely to respond to the puppet strings a la GWB.
1
Bill Richardson !
Richardson won Times columnist Kristof's contest to pick the veep candidate in 2008, but Obama picked Obama instead. He has experience that might even be greater than Hillary, serving as Governor of New Mexico, congressman, and a variety of critical foreign missions including ambassador and negotiator with Saddam Hussein to secure the release of hostages.
And he has been bashing Trump with the best of them recently.
Richardson won Times columnist Kristof's contest to pick the veep candidate in 2008, but Obama picked Obama instead. He has experience that might even be greater than Hillary, serving as Governor of New Mexico, congressman, and a variety of critical foreign missions including ambassador and negotiator with Saddam Hussein to secure the release of hostages.
And he has been bashing Trump with the best of them recently.
4
And of course there are guiding principles offered by John Nance Garner.
https://www.cah.utexas.edu/news/press_release.php?press=press_bucket
But of course he was VP with FDR, a person of consequence.
https://www.cah.utexas.edu/news/press_release.php?press=press_bucket
But of course he was VP with FDR, a person of consequence.
The wrong vice resident selection can lose you the election. Sarah Palin?
2
I believe that Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the country would be well served if she asked our current Vice President, Joe Biden, to serve as her running mate. Not only does he have the experience and necessary skill set for that office -- as well as on the campaign trail -- but polls consistently rank him as one of the most respected politician around, someone with a demonstrated history of being able to work with people in both parties, a valuable attribute in this highly-partisan era. I suspect that given his expressed regret in not having been able to jump into the race, it would not be a hard sell to convince him to join the ticket.
3
I favor Xavier Becerra as Hillary Clinton's vice presidential choice, and Newt Gingrich as Donald Trump's. Just as the ACA was the greatest achievement of the Obama administration, Becerra could help make substantial immigration reform a great achievement of the Clinton épouse administration. As for Gingrich, I think he is certainly mean-spirited enough to be a good match for Trump, plus he has the ability to frame their shared malevolence in a convincing faux-ideological manner that I believe could serve to persuade those right-wing voters and members of Congress who might otherwise be put off by Trump's nastiness.
1
Elizabeth Warren will be Secretary Clinton's choice as a running-mate.
Ms. Clinton's biggest challenge is to bring in the Bernie contingent. It would have the same effect that the JFK/LBJ partnership accomplished.
Bernie would not be interested in the job.
Elizabeth Warren was probably the 'first choice' of those who supported Bernie. They would have preferred to see Ms. Warren over Mr.Sanders in the presidential primary process.
This would also represent the type of 'triagulation' that the Clinton's made famous.
Ms. Clinton's biggest challenge is to bring in the Bernie contingent. It would have the same effect that the JFK/LBJ partnership accomplished.
Bernie would not be interested in the job.
Elizabeth Warren was probably the 'first choice' of those who supported Bernie. They would have preferred to see Ms. Warren over Mr.Sanders in the presidential primary process.
This would also represent the type of 'triagulation' that the Clinton's made famous.
Secretary Clinton should choose Julian Castro or Warren, both noted liberals, and both noted fighters.
Trump should choose himself, as he has a great brain, the best brain.
Trump should choose himself, as he has a great brain, the best brain.
3
Didn't Trump just insult Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico? Unless she is also a Christie type sycophant, why would she a, be considered, and b, agree to accept the nomination?!
5
Trump and Clinton have very different needs related to their VP picks. Trump needs someone experienced in legislative relations at the federal level, someone who will settle the apprehensions of Republicans and independents regarding his ability to govern. Martinez and Haley might add a bit on the electoral side but they lack the federal experience. John Kasich is obvious, Rice less so though she might challenge Clinton for a key voter demographic among mature black women. Rubio is too much of a lightweight and Rice clearly beats him on foreign policy and security expertise. The challenge for Trump is a strong VP candidate inevitably encourages some Republicans to think of a Trump impeachment in favor of a more maleable replacement.
This is Hillary Clinton's show and she would not want a more charismatic rival to compete for top billing. Besides Warren is more effective in the Senate than where Clinton might muzzle her. While Julian Castro might be a good next generation pick for this election Thomas Perez, Labor Secretary, might be a way to reach out to the labor movement, underscoring a commitment missing in recent Democratic administrations. Or someone from outside politics, e.g., Bill Gates as someone identified with technology and innovation but with interests in the health arena as well. And Gates would go a long way toward smoothing relations with moderate Republicans looking for a rationale to dump Gates. Would that convince Bernie Sanders and his supporters?
This is Hillary Clinton's show and she would not want a more charismatic rival to compete for top billing. Besides Warren is more effective in the Senate than where Clinton might muzzle her. While Julian Castro might be a good next generation pick for this election Thomas Perez, Labor Secretary, might be a way to reach out to the labor movement, underscoring a commitment missing in recent Democratic administrations. Or someone from outside politics, e.g., Bill Gates as someone identified with technology and innovation but with interests in the health arena as well. And Gates would go a long way toward smoothing relations with moderate Republicans looking for a rationale to dump Gates. Would that convince Bernie Sanders and his supporters?
4
Could you have at least provided a list -- at least 10 worse and 10 best. That would have been helpful. Or a link to the list. How about it?
This independent, old age, feminist isn't voting for Clinton no matter who she picks for VP. And I doubt it would assuage any Sanders supporters who haven't already decided to hold their noses because Trump is so vile. I'm going for Jill Stein or leaving my choice for Pres/VP blank. This is the worst pair of major party choices in my lifetime.
As Muhammed Ali wisely demonstrated, life is better if you don't compromise your principles.
As Muhammed Ali wisely demonstrated, life is better if you don't compromise your principles.
1
No choice, but something that must be taken into consideration:
What if a possible selection is a senator? Will the selection of that senator open up the possibility that his/her seat may be taken by the opposing party? Alternatively, will that selection remain in the hands of the the selectee's party?
This must be weighed as well.
What if a possible selection is a senator? Will the selection of that senator open up the possibility that his/her seat may be taken by the opposing party? Alternatively, will that selection remain in the hands of the the selectee's party?
This must be weighed as well.
17
I was planning to make a joke about who Mr. Trump should name as running mate by suggesting someone nearly everyone could agree was truly disgusting and then say something like, "he should run with (fill in pariah here) to add a bit of class to his ticket.
But I honestly couldn't summon anyone I thought was more disgusting than Trump to make the point of my lame little joke.
But I honestly couldn't summon anyone I thought was more disgusting than Trump to make the point of my lame little joke.
4
This whole discussion legitimizes Trump as a reasonable Presidential candidate, which he isn't.
55
Then there is the third unspoken requirement for selecting a VP: that the VP not be so comparatively favorable nor so significantly preferred by the opposing party or a major faction from within their own party to the said Presidential candidate. This is to prevent the possibility of a conspiracy to impeach, disable, or assassinate.
Hillary Clinton may, as outlandish and bold as as it may seem, choose her husband as her VP. As the twofer candidates and Yale trained lawyers, they may argue "selects" vs. "elects" as Bill had argued "that depends upon what your definition of 'is' is" or what sex is. More likely she'll select a relative unknown with, possibly but not that important, identity positives such as Latino, qualified but not overshadowing her own "most qualified ever" qualifications, and somewhat of a policy wonk (ivy leaguer?) buddy so that they can talk OR just someone strategic to win the Presidency but who she can ignore when in office. Governor Tim Kaine?
Donald Trump will likely choose the one person he can get along with: Donald Trump, no, I meant Chris Christy. OR Since he's had major differences with many of the possible candidates yet he is focused on doing whatever it takes to win, he may choose Cruz or Rubio to bring in the Latino vote. OR I think that an attractive, non-white woman like Governor Nikki Haley might disable the current accusations of misogynist and xenophobic. This would be more in line with his normal hiring practices in his business.
Hillary Clinton may, as outlandish and bold as as it may seem, choose her husband as her VP. As the twofer candidates and Yale trained lawyers, they may argue "selects" vs. "elects" as Bill had argued "that depends upon what your definition of 'is' is" or what sex is. More likely she'll select a relative unknown with, possibly but not that important, identity positives such as Latino, qualified but not overshadowing her own "most qualified ever" qualifications, and somewhat of a policy wonk (ivy leaguer?) buddy so that they can talk OR just someone strategic to win the Presidency but who she can ignore when in office. Governor Tim Kaine?
Donald Trump will likely choose the one person he can get along with: Donald Trump, no, I meant Chris Christy. OR Since he's had major differences with many of the possible candidates yet he is focused on doing whatever it takes to win, he may choose Cruz or Rubio to bring in the Latino vote. OR I think that an attractive, non-white woman like Governor Nikki Haley might disable the current accusations of misogynist and xenophobic. This would be more in line with his normal hiring practices in his business.
5
Donald Trump is a proven dilettante. A President Trump could lose interest in the job altogether, or focus on doing only the things that interest him. Or he could be rendered completely ineffectual because he had been politically quarantined or because he did not know how to do the job. Or he could be overwhelmed by its demands.
Donald Trump may want a vice president who is nothing more than a glorified aide. But the country needs a vice president with the maturity, experience and skill to be a strong co-president should the need arise.
Donald Trump may want a vice president who is nothing more than a glorified aide. But the country needs a vice president with the maturity, experience and skill to be a strong co-president should the need arise.
1
Like Cheney?
Extending your comments, what the country really needs is for Donald Trump's running mate to be superfluous, as Mr. Trump spends 2017 revving up a new TV show, which is where he belongs, acting like he is important instead of actually being important.
It’s a surprise how fast Senator Warren has risen in name recognition and developed such a following. by being a law professor for almost all of her career and by serving three years in the Senate (and while there, working on relatively low profile committees), never serving in any elected capacity before joining the Senate, and never having run a business. It requires some pretty savvy maneuvers to get to a position where she’s being listened to by so many with such a thin resume.
Democratic leaders who have lots of experience and could be a real force on the ticket with Hillary include Christine O'Grady Gregoire, John Kerry, Amy Klobucher, Evan Bayh, Claire McCaskill, Jeanne Shaheen, and Kirsten Gillibrand. Hillary will need to provide some geographic balance to the ticket, and that might leave Jeanne Shaheen, and Kirsten Gillibrand off the ticket, but the others noted above have years of executive and legislative experience, years of working with both sides of the aisle to get things done, and the ability to step in if necessary as our nation’s leader.
Democratic leaders who have lots of experience and could be a real force on the ticket with Hillary include Christine O'Grady Gregoire, John Kerry, Amy Klobucher, Evan Bayh, Claire McCaskill, Jeanne Shaheen, and Kirsten Gillibrand. Hillary will need to provide some geographic balance to the ticket, and that might leave Jeanne Shaheen, and Kirsten Gillibrand off the ticket, but the others noted above have years of executive and legislative experience, years of working with both sides of the aisle to get things done, and the ability to step in if necessary as our nation’s leader.
1
Another consideration: to make the president assassination-proof by having a VP that's even more hated. For Trump, finding somebody more vile, loathsome, and unqualified would be a challenge, but no doubt, lying under some rock somewhere, there must be somebody.
38
Oh, I don't know, Pete: I'd say the entire horrifying troupe of charlatans, frauds, ignoramuses and liars who were campaigning against Trump in the GOP primaries offer very stiff competition for someone more "vile, loathsome, and unqualified."
1
That would have been Trump's lawyer, Roy Cohn. No one was more low than him, be it his association with Joe McCarthy or heads of the Mafia's five families.
2
Dick Cheney is still around, still acting like the All High Everything Else, and Veeps don't have a term limit. I'm sure he'd like to run the government for another four years.
4
Clinton-Sanders 2016! If you want a wave election that retakes the Senate and significantly decreases the gerrymandered Republican House majority and if you want to see Sanders debating whoever in the Vice Presidential Debate, if you want to have progressive influence in the White House, this would be the best ticket. With a unity ticket, the Democrats will have the support of many voters who might otherwise stay home (let alone vote Trump). Think bold, think big tent, think unity.
62
does this combination get more electoral votes or more votes in states that hillary will win anyway? does bernie help down ticket democrats.
4
I'm baffled by some of these scholars' choices. Why is Dan Quayle down there with Sarah Palin? He, at least, was part of a winning team, Palin, not so.
Agnew tops the list as the worst (Assuming we've forgotten about the two traitorour VPs, Aaron Burr and John C. Calhoun) but he helped Nixon win twice. And he sure gave us some comic relief! Walt Kelly's "Pogo" had years of fun with Agnew.
Cheney, Mondale, Gore and Biden were/are ALL important partners to their President. But even the extremely intelligent and experienced George HW Bush didn't have much influence on Ronald Reagan, who merely picked him to unify the party and Bush remained loyal to that purpose, while shunted to the side. And he was a far better President than Reagan (in my humble opinion).
I really really, REALLY hope Hillary Clinton does NOT ask a Senator to be her VP. Taking control of the Senate is too critical to Clinton's accomplishing anything in the WH. And I hope Trump does, for the same reason.
Agnew tops the list as the worst (Assuming we've forgotten about the two traitorour VPs, Aaron Burr and John C. Calhoun) but he helped Nixon win twice. And he sure gave us some comic relief! Walt Kelly's "Pogo" had years of fun with Agnew.
Cheney, Mondale, Gore and Biden were/are ALL important partners to their President. But even the extremely intelligent and experienced George HW Bush didn't have much influence on Ronald Reagan, who merely picked him to unify the party and Bush remained loyal to that purpose, while shunted to the side. And he was a far better President than Reagan (in my humble opinion).
I really really, REALLY hope Hillary Clinton does NOT ask a Senator to be her VP. Taking control of the Senate is too critical to Clinton's accomplishing anything in the WH. And I hope Trump does, for the same reason.
20
And how did Joe Liberman not make the list of Worst Strategic Selections?
3
Based on my reading of history it seems that Cheney picked Bush as his running mate. Not the other way around. The Shrub was out of his league from the get go.
107
Not only did George H W Bush insult our intelligence with Dan Quayle he picked Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall as a justice on the Supreme Court, on the premise that American minorities wouldn't know the difference. He's also responsible for W., in the long run. Helluva Vice President though.
35
We never had a great vice president, unless he became president.
Yet, more NY Times misdirection! Vice Presidents are chosen for what they bring to the table to get the President elected. Money, power, votes are needed to win a national election and once the VP provides and the President is elected we end with a lame VP, everything ducky and nothing left for a VP to do, but attend State and political functions and open his big fat mouth to eat and speak.
Yet, more NY Times misdirection! Vice Presidents are chosen for what they bring to the table to get the President elected. Money, power, votes are needed to win a national election and once the VP provides and the President is elected we end with a lame VP, everything ducky and nothing left for a VP to do, but attend State and political functions and open his big fat mouth to eat and speak.
4
Trump's list of potential running mates has unfortunately been culled by the untimely passing of John C. Calhoun and Alexander Stephens.
Clinton has one choice for a vice president and surrogate who will allow her to sip toddies in the shade while he makes Trump Cower: Al Franken.
Remember, he's good enough, he's smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like him!
Clinton has one choice for a vice president and surrogate who will allow her to sip toddies in the shade while he makes Trump Cower: Al Franken.
Remember, he's good enough, he's smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like him!
64
Mr. Vaughn's possibilities for Trump's vice-president pose definite problems for the presumptive nominee. South Carolina governor Nikki Haley endorsed Marco Rubio in her state's primary. She reprimanded Trump for his negativity and divisiveness and called for a return to affirmative Republican values. John Kasich dislikes Trump so much he is saying he may not attend the Republican convention. Kasich was also ridiculed and belittled by Trump throughout the primaries. Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico also was a target of Trump's derision when she failed to appear at his rally in Albuquerque. It's really difficult to think of anyone Trump could name for his running mate. It seems every possibility either desperately wanted another nominee or was torched by Trump as an unworthy individual.
41
Does anyone see a pattern here when it comes to picking Vice Presidents? The Republicans have picked some real losers: Agnew, Quayle, and Palin. It was only a matter of time before they put at the head of their ticket a candidate who rivaled those three in their qualifications. The Democrats on the other hand have always seemed to choose VP candidates of stature.
50
Bernie Sanders should pick Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii! That would shock the Democrats and pretend feminists. An independent woman candidate without a former President as a husband. Do it Bernie!!! It's a news cycle at the very least.
9
Trumps such a bad candidate that Hillary has great freedom to choose a Vice President and because the sitting Vice President is the front runner after Hillary's two terms, she has the opportunity to select the president for 2024 to 2032. She could keep the line moving -- Obama, Clinton, and her choice. She might want to pick somebody now in their late 40s so they can groom for the presidency.
1
Whomever the picks are on either ticket, they will have instantly sacrificed their integrity by accepting. Aside from that, it will prove to be the most unrewarding, humiliating job imaginable; perhaps the position should contracted it out on a monthly basis.
16
Stan Continople - how insulting! The Hillary ticket should be great to serve the 98% of us!
3
HOW in the world can anyone possibly judge the lying, war mongering, manipulative vice president who controlled a dimwit president and got us into a senseless, unnecessary war as one of our best vice presidents??? The man should be in prison. I don't think I need to mention the name.
141
Don't talk about Joe Biden that way!
Dick Cheney, a potential felon for his role in the the outing of Valerie Plame,was an arrogant, despicable, draft dodging, chicken hawk.Spiro Agnew was a political thug. Sarah Palin is the reason John McCain should never be taken seriously. Al Gore was a sanctimonious, pompous bore. Only George H.W. Bush and Joe Biden performed with some distinction. Julian Castro lacks gravitas and intellectual depth. Elizabeth Warren may be a little to intense for a laid back role. Anyone who accepts the V.P. nod from Donald Trump should be disqualified because they were nominated by an ignorant, unstable, racist, narcissist. My suggestion would be NYT columnist Tom Freidman, whose intellect,objectivity, and knowledge is obvious to all.
19
Julian Castro did a stupendous job as mayor of San Antonio!
3
Why only the "modern era?"
Was PoliSci invented in 1945?
Isn't PoliSci for guys who couldn't pass history?
How about Lincoln's choice of Johnson in 1864? Or McKinley's choice of Teddy Roosevelt in 1900? Both veeps were lightly regarded at the outset, but exerted major influence on the nation when they succeeded to office.
Cheney both best and worst? Make up your mind. (Hint: it's not best).
Was PoliSci invented in 1945?
Isn't PoliSci for guys who couldn't pass history?
How about Lincoln's choice of Johnson in 1864? Or McKinley's choice of Teddy Roosevelt in 1900? Both veeps were lightly regarded at the outset, but exerted major influence on the nation when they succeeded to office.
Cheney both best and worst? Make up your mind. (Hint: it's not best).
4
A Hillary/Michael Bloomberg combo makes sense to me. I don't know if the country is ready for it, but I think two grownups would be good for it.
35
A Hillary/Bloomberg ticket would make Wall St. think it had died and gone to heaven. Terrible idea.
22
Mike Bloomberg isn't going to take a backseat to anyone.
2
Did you read the excerpt from Bloomsberg's commencement address in today's Times where he equated Democratic attacks on Wall Street as the equivalent of Trump's attacks on immigrants.
Just what we need: another candidate defending those poor, suffering 1%ers.
Between Clinton and Schumer, it seems the Democrats already have enough of those.
Just what we need: another candidate defending those poor, suffering 1%ers.
Between Clinton and Schumer, it seems the Democrats already have enough of those.
2
It seems to me that Chris Christie may be Trump's running mate by default. Although there will always be those willing to stand for this powerful position, most in the GOP who want to have a career after November will not want to be Trump's number 2. Christie however has already drunk the Kool Aid and has no future in NJ.
88
Christie may also be the only person in America willing to accept it. How does any rational politician go about his/her day making campaign stops spewing out "talking points" that either do not exist in the campaign or change on an hourly basis. I can imagine the VP candidate at a campaign event avowing Trump's position an a given issue while The Donald is simultaneously on TV suddenly on the opposite side of said issue.
Who could possibly want the job?????
Who could possibly want the job?????
3
He could also be useful should any bridges need shutting down.
3
Christie should have been impeached for his role during the intentional "shutdown" of the George Washington Bridge in New Jersey as revenge against a local politician who wouldn't endorse him in his reelection bid several years ago. He let underlings who worked for him take the fall for his actions. For this and so many other reasons, he is pandering to Trump, who is crazy but not stupid. He will never be VP, and hasn't the ethics necessary to represent anyone in this country ever again.
1
Joe Biden was the best Vice-President in my lifetime. As a campaigner, he connected viscerally with voters, where Obama hit the cerebral. He was also a brilliant debater, first having let Sarah Palin embarrass herself trying to reach his level, then by putting away Paul Ryan. With his long CV, he was masterful at legislation and has an impressive knowledge of foreign affairs. And what a way of connecting with people! The day the ACA was signed into law, he captured the magnitude of this milestone (can't print it, but it was succinct). The most poignant image of Biden is him going to South Carolina to meet the loved ones of the church shooting victims. Having just lost his own son, he identified with the grieving families on a deep human level. His presence at the White House will be missed, just like President Obama. What decent men.
241
The funniest comment on this topic is surely Meg Whitman's. The media is full of the anonymous reports that she compared Trump with Hitler at some meeting of Republican donors. When asked subsequently if she would support Trump, she said this would depend on who he picked as his vice presidential candidate. Wasn't this what they said about von Papen?
40
Will Trump make his choice cool Chris Christie?
The notion makes these old eyes misty,
So loyal, so humble,
Yet eager to rumble,
A Trumpian VP two fisty.
The notion makes these old eyes misty,
So loyal, so humble,
Yet eager to rumble,
A Trumpian VP two fisty.
37
Perfect Larry!
2
A thoughtful piece, but the only person we can imagine consenting to be the GOP'er presumptive's Veep choice is Alfred E. Neuman, and even he would only say ' yes ' in order to gain fodder for Mad magazine; no other GOP'er we can imagine would deliberately tank their political career and risk the personal insanity that would surely await them at the end of 4 interminable years as co-pilot to the GOP'er presumptive.
65
Gingrich would. Gingrich has no shame.
2
"In the end, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump should select people who are capable of doing something everyone hopes they’ll never have to do: step in and become president of the United States."
That, of course, is a very standard platitude, BUT should Trump actually win in November, there are a whole lot of us who hope this would happen ASAP!
(Mind you, ONLY hoping!)
That, of course, is a very standard platitude, BUT should Trump actually win in November, there are a whole lot of us who hope this would happen ASAP!
(Mind you, ONLY hoping!)
23
In that event maybe the good Christians at the Faith & Freedom Coalition's Road to Majority would have a prayer for a President Trump. Just thinking...
1
Not only that, but given the state of Mr. Trump's campaign, there's plenty of reason to believe that even if he wins, his time in office could be rather short. Between the likelihood of serious scandal, impeachment, and resignation (Trump could quit on day 2 once he sees the low-paying mess he's gotten himself into), Trump's Vice President is going to need to be ready to go on day one.
2
I’d submit that this election is unique in our history, and the ability of a VP pick to add to the electability of the overall ticket will be more important to the headliners than usual. Accordingly, I believe both will consider their running mates very carefully in light of how they offset perceived weaknesses of those headliners, and less on how well they would govern as president.
Mrs. Clinton is perceived by many as devious, willing to do anything to be elected. I would expect her to pick a man as her VP nominee, as the electorate might consider two women on the ticket too much of a good thing; and she’ll be looking for someone whose integrity is beyond question. He’s likely to be perceived as more liberal than she is, in order to seek to co-opt the Bernie supporters some project may vote for Trump. There are so many possible people who fit this bill that tossing out names is useless.
Trump is perceived as a policy gadfly, a tyro at governance and holding dangerously excessive views on immigration and trade. He also has problems with women. He’d do well to consider a woman VP pick, and if he could find a suitable African American, it would be a heaven-sent choice. Condi comes to mind as a top contender. But the pick would need to be experienced in government and a commodity proven to be steady. Her (or his) political views could be as generally moderate as Trump’s or even more conservative.
Mrs. Clinton is perceived by many as devious, willing to do anything to be elected. I would expect her to pick a man as her VP nominee, as the electorate might consider two women on the ticket too much of a good thing; and she’ll be looking for someone whose integrity is beyond question. He’s likely to be perceived as more liberal than she is, in order to seek to co-opt the Bernie supporters some project may vote for Trump. There are so many possible people who fit this bill that tossing out names is useless.
Trump is perceived as a policy gadfly, a tyro at governance and holding dangerously excessive views on immigration and trade. He also has problems with women. He’d do well to consider a woman VP pick, and if he could find a suitable African American, it would be a heaven-sent choice. Condi comes to mind as a top contender. But the pick would need to be experienced in government and a commodity proven to be steady. Her (or his) political views could be as generally moderate as Trump’s or even more conservative.
6
As Harry Reid said, we've had two-man tickets for centuries. Perhaps THAT was "too much of a good thing." Why be coy or snide when you really mean to point out the misogyny of the electorate? (one assumes.)
19
RDeanB:
I had no intention to belabor the manifestly obvious misogyny of the electorate; but merely Hillary's astuteness in recognizing it.
I had no intention to belabor the manifestly obvious misogyny of the electorate; but merely Hillary's astuteness in recognizing it.
8
Condi was the first person I though of about a month or so ago when it appeared Trump was cruising to the nomination. She looks good on paper, however, she (or should I say Trump) presents three problems: first, there is little chance she would accept as it would mean sullying her brand running on a ticket with someone who is utterly shameless: ("Here is my choice for VP America: MY African American Condi..."; and if she is likely to turn him down, he would not be able to bring himself to asking for someone who would surely reject him. Second, she has an even less friendly public demeanor than Trump. Two seeming misanthropes on one ticket is a bridge too far. Third: she is not down with Trump's foreign policy, if you can call it policy. She is easily more aligned in this respect with Hillary Clinton.
6
Hillary's email server scandal shows that she's not interested in listening to other opinions than her own. When she was told that she shouldn't have her own email system, she ignored the advice. She might as well have a robot for VP for all the effect her VP will have on her.
Elizabeth Warren is no mindless, servile robot. Warren needs to stay in the Senate as the progressive counterweight to Hillary's inevitable drift to center right. Warren will also be needed as Hillary's primary opponent in 2020, something Warren can't do as VP.