With Clinton's health issues and Sanders age their running mates choice will be critical. Who are the front runners and will they swing centrist or socialist? What should the demographic be? I guess Sanders and Clinton will both go young to counter health arguments, Clinton male and more socialist(or not, possibly Julian Castro?). Sanders seems a wildcard, what would be the best for him?
I think there is probably a pretty shore list for VP: Corey Booker, Deval Patrick, Mark Warner, Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro (though I think is a mistake) or maybe Martin O'Malley, though his poor showing in the national race is hurting his chances.
Elizabeth Warren is too old and you cannot have two women on a ticket. I actually think all of the names you mentioned are too old outside of Cory Booker and Julian Castro. Why is Castro a mistake? Wouldn't Sanders have to go with a woman that is potentially more centrist than he is?
Clinton can pick from anyone across the political spectrum, but Sanders would face some interesting quandries. He really can't go "moderate, typical politician" without tarnishing his brand. Seems like he would need to pick someone in sync with him. It's sort of like Trump can't go and pick a Rubio or Bush type. I don't think VP would be a good role for Warren at all, but I don't think she's too old, and she does fit with Sanders politically. That would also electrify the Democratic base, and while she's a progressive idol, I don't think she's viewed as harshly as Sanders by independents (ie, she's not socialist).
1) I don't buy that any of them are too old. 2) Julian Castro is too inexperienced in my mind to be Vice President, but it's just an opinion 3) If Sanders gets the Dem nomination it won't matter who he picks. He's a revolutionary. He's either going to convince people to support him or he won't. I don't think there is a single voter in America who would say "Well I wasn't going to vote for a socialist, but because he picked X as his running mate I guess I will. Let's assume it is Hillary for a moment. She only has one goal with her VP pick and she can accomplish it with 3 different picks; goose turnout from reliably democratic constituents. The more women, black or hispanic voters the better for her. The youth factor doesn't weigh into as much because I think Warren, Castro or Booker could all energize the youth vote.
VP is used for a counterbalance (only explanation for Biden) so interesting point about Sanders ruining his brand but I think he would still have to get that counterbalance. Warren isn't too old in a vacuum but with Sanders age and Clinton's health issues I think their running mate will face extreme scrutiny and the choice will be all the more important.
Sanders probably needs a minority, because he is like super white, not just normal white, but super white.
They always soften their views in the general election. just like Sanders did a reverse on his 2005 vote on gun liability he will make himself appeal to middle america. I think he is the least white of anyone outside of Omalley.
George Bush made a great decision when picking his VP not to bother "balancing." They don't balance you. The top of the ticket matters. The only reason Hillary has to pick someone interesting is because she is trying to hold together the Obama coalition. That's why I think ultimately it will be Corey Booker. He's young, good looking, "cool" and he's black. If there is any fear that the black vote could tail off with Obama off the ticket, maybe there's a chance Booker helps hold the line there.
Bernie Sanders isn't going to soften his views. What is an example of an EXTREME far end of the spectrum candidate on their party moving to the center?
I agree in normal circumstances, but this election seems far from normal. You don't generally get the revolutionary types winning the primaries. Cruz and Trump, for example, can't pick Rubio/Bush because they are running on this idea that traditional politicians suck and we have to shake up Washington. You can't then pick a traditional politician to campaign with you. Same applies to Bernie, I think - though maybe to a less extreme degree. But pretty much any traditional person he could pick would have gotten money from banks or have Super-PACs or other things that he argues are horrible.
All candidates soften their views. He changed his views for the primaries and will change them if he is nominated. It isn't like he is a shining beacon of independence. He took the NRA's money which is the political equivalent of ISIL to democrats.
Bernie needs to pick a minority and solely because he struggles to connect. Bernie/Booker is a good ticket for him. Clinton doesn't NEED to pick anyone, but I think she will likely go with whichever minority group she is the most concerned about turnout on.
How exactly is he going to soften on socialistic principals? This is like saying that if Ron Paul had won a nomination he would soften his views. It's one thing to soften a nuanced position, but he can't soften some of his positions without completely abandoning his entire appeal.
Has to be male, and I really think more liberal than her. Considering white voters are leaving her in droves for Trump and Sanders she might go with just a white dude.
If a VP moves the numbers at all, it is on the margins. A VP is not going to save Clinton with white male voters if they are abandoning her. Candidates make mistakes when they try so solve a weakness with a VP pick. What a black VP pick like Booker COULD do is keep the black turnout up for either. I don't think blue collar white males are going to feel any better about a Clinton ticket with a white guy on it than they would in any other circumstance, but there may be some black voters in key Obama states who could feel encouraged by a black VP. I think Dems have to wonder about a dip in the black vote due to perceived backsliding.
Assuming that Sanders doesn't make the blunder that McCain made, I agree. If Sanders were to run with someone as idiotic and vapid as Sarah Palin (he won't), then his age would really come into play. The idea that Sarah Palin would be one heartbeat away from the presidency changed a lot of minds as far as McCain went. McCain probably wouldn't have won no matter who his VP was, but his choice most certainly negatively affected his chances.
I think Castro is potentially a candidate for both Clinton and Sanders. While he is a bit on the inexperienced side, the experience angle is proving to be unnecessary. Plus, with the experience both Clinton and Sanders have, I don't see Castro as being a detriment. The reason he might not be considered is that he can't possibly carry his home state.
Agreed on Warren for Sanders, but not for Hillary. Ideally Hillary will try to pick someone to make it look like she stands for some sort of meaningful change from the status quo, but who? Castro might give that. An interesting quandary for Warren. Bernie's VP could lead to presidency, but Hillary and the corporate Dems will go all out to punish her especially if she endorses Bernie and helps him get the nomination. Not sure if Hillary can promise Warren enough to keep Warren in the fold. S. Ct? Treasury Secretary? Association with Wall Street gal Hillary would tarnish Warren's brand somewhat.
