Consider — Sarah Palin didn’t help, nor did Geraldine Ferraro or Paul Ryan. But then again, Dan Quayle didn’t hurt.
Whom one picks for a running-mate is supposed to indicate “something” and it certainly can dominate several news cycles.
We have for a while heard lists of possible running mates for Clinton — Tim Kaine, Julian Castro, Amy Klobuchar, Tom Perez, Patty Murray, Eilzabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Martin O’Malley, Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, Brian Schweitzer, Tom Vilsack, Mark Warner, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, even Bill Clinton are among the names mentioned.
Now look across the aisle to those mentioned with Trump — Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Joni Ernst, Rick Perry, Marsha Blackburn, Rudy Giuliani, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Joe Scarborough, Sarah Palin (AGAIN!!!), Jeff Sessions, John Bolton, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley, Scott Walker, Mary Fallin, Mike Huckabee, Condoleeza Rice, Scott Brown, Herman Cain,
Neither list is exhaustive of the possibilities.
Earlier in the campaign we saw Republicans bragging about the depth of their presidential field, most of which melted away in embarrassment at their inability to gain traction. That by itself is not necessarily disqualifying — after all, Al Gore had little traction in 1988 when he was picked the next cycle, nor did Joe Biden in 2008 when he was picked.
I look at the two lists, and I think of what the selection of a running mate might represent:
A. winning a key state
B. appealing to a key constituency
C. someone who is clearly qualified to be President and provides gravitas/experience to balance the person at the top of the ticket.
D. someone who at least knows the federal government and the Congress when the candidate may not
So let me consider both lists, in all three categories.
Let’s start on our side. Having been Secretary of State and a twice elected Senator from a major state, not to mention her 8 years as First Lady, Clinton does not have to look for gravitas/experience in the way Obama did as a first term Senator, nor does she need someone who knows the Congress. One can argue that she already covers several key constituencies, herself as a female and with her strong connections with the African-American community. One might argue that she might need to appeal to strong progressives, which might argue from that list for Sherrod Brown or Elizabeth Warren (and no, she is NOT going to pick Bernie Sanders). She could be ground-breaking in picking a Latino, which might indicate Castro, Perez, or even Hilda Solis. Were she looking to a key state she would look at Brown, Kaine, Vilsack and maybe Warner, with the last three having served as governors.
In fact, I think Clinton has a wide range of possibilities that would be considered credible. When she announces her pick, there will be all kinds of analyses as to her reasoning and the impact of the choice she has made. If it is another woman, if she picks someone for a key state, if she breaks historic ground with a Black or a Latino, she has a great deal of flexibility in choosing among people the vast majority of whom will be considered qualified and ready by the gatekeepers in the media.
But look across the aisle. You have a wealth of failed Presidential candidates — Carson, Cain, Rubio, Christie, Giuliani, Kasich, Fiorina, Huckabee etc.
So how might we qualify them?
A. Winning a key state — Kasich MIGHT give you OH. One could argue that Walker would help with WI, except it is not clear that those who turnout in a presidential year would be favorable to him. Martinez could if willing to run give you NM, but that’s only 5 EVs. Ernst MIGHT help in IA, but it is only 6 EVs. It is not clear that anyone else on that list could deliver a battleground, and it is arguable that many might not even deliver their home states — in that latter category I put Christie, Rubio, Brown (both NH and MA), and of course Giuliani in NY and Fiorina in either CA or VA (where she now apparently resides). I do not think Scarborough would necessarily appeal state-wide in FL, and he has resided in CT for some time now. And quite frankly, while he could be very effective in debates and has some recognition, it is not clear to me that he would be willing to forego his lucrative and influential gig at MS-NBC for what would be a long-shot attempt.
B. Appealing to a key constituency — in Trump’s case, on demographics it would be more like picking someone to offset the problems his mouth has created for him. That is an argument for a female. He is not going to win either the Black or Hispanic votes, and he surely knows that, but he might be able to limit the damage. Condi Rice has never run for office, but has some understanding of the Congress. Mary Fallin was in the House of Representatives in addition to her own service in various offices in OK. Marsha Blackburn is in the House, but not considered all that effective there. Probably the best choices would be the two other female Governors, Martinez to also help with Latinos, and Haley who gained some important stature with how she handled the Confederate Flag issue after the shooting in Charleston. Haley in particularly would be seen as a reaching out to those who had opposed Trump, given her strong support for Rubio.
C. someone who is clearly qualified to be President and provides gravitas/experience to balance the person at the top of the ticket — one name has to jump off the list in this category, and that is Newt Gingrich. One might argue that Giuliani and Christie are seen by many as being qualified and having gravitas. I would argue they do not, although both — and Christie in particular — would provide access to major money, particularly from Wall Street and related, that might otherwise sit out the campaign. I will come back to Gingrich later.
D. someone who at least knows the federal government and the Congress when the candidate may not — there are a number of people on this list, and of course again the name that most leaps out at you is Newt Gingrich. Jeff Sessions, the first Senator to endorse Trump, is simply not a major figure, and given some of his history on racial matters while it might appeal to the base of Trump’s support, would certainly not help in expanding his appeal, and if Trump can’t win Alabama without Session he is going to have trouble winning 100 electoral votes.
I look at the two lists, and the kind of analysis one can do on each side. It is hard for me to see a pick that Trump makes that can significantly help him. On paper the strongest pick he could make would be Gingrich. Except then you would have a ticket with two older white men each of whom is on his third wife. Both are more than a little polarizing.
In a sense, I think running against Clinton to prove he is not anti-woman (because he needs not to get blown out among Republican women) the best choice he can make is Haley. It would be a “safe” way to try to indicate that he is not antagonistic to minorities because she is of color, even if not from a group that Trump has previously attacked.
I recognize that all of this is speculative. Hell, Trump could decide to pick another billionaire like Carl Icahn for all I know.
I do not underestimate the possible difficulties of this campaign.
Simply put, I think the choices for a running mate are far more favorable for Clinton than they are for Trump.
One last thought. Given the implied platform on which he has run, and the people from whom he has gotten his strongest support, there is one name that really should be on Trump’s list, because he has inherited that person’s following from his own runs for President, and that is Pat Buchanan.
But even Donald Trump is not that stupid. Is he???