Exactly one year ago, I offered my early thought on potential running mates for the plethora of candidates in the GOP field. Now that the field has winnowed down (for the moment), it seems logical to take another look at the field and envision some running mates for the various candidates. This time, I will also take a look at the Democratic field.

The Republicans

Donald Trump

Biggest Needs: Trump has so many weaknesses, it is difficult to know where to begin. Let’s start with governing needs.  His biggest deficiency is probably his need to run with a seasoned politician (particular on foreign affairs) who could give him the counsel he would so desperately need in the Oval Office. He needs someone who could serve as his liaison to Congress and the bureaucracy in order to make “great deals” on Trump’s behalf due to Trump’s complete ineptitude on policy matters and (however much Trump may deny it), his lack of a political network on Capitol Hill. Said politician would also need to be able to stand up to Trump when a harebrained scheme crosses Trump’s mind, but the VP would also need to know his/her place so that the West Wing does not become a battleground of dueling super-egos. It might also help him to have someone from a border state if he is remotely serious about building his wall.

Next, we turn to the personal and demographic characteristics Trump would need in a running mate. Trump already has a national brand, so he does not really need to worry about geographic balance, per se, but he needs a candidate who push him over the edge in swing states.  Trump’s ever-growing list of insults aimed at women, minorities, Muslims, the handicapped, and everyone in between, means that he would need, at the very least, a well-respected woman who could repair some of those bridges. Ideologically, Trump alienates both moderates and conservatives, so he would need someone who could bridge that particular divide.

Possible Matches: Former Governor Jan Brewer (AZ), Senator Kelly Ayotte (NH), Governor Susana Martinez (NM), Governor Brian Sandoval (NM)

Analysis: Trump has far too many boxes to check for any politician to satisfy.  Of the possible matches, Brewer might be the best choice since she actually supports Trump right now. On the other hand, her lack of Washington experience does not help Trump when one of his biggest needs is DC experience. Ayotte checks off many of Trump’s boxes, but she is in a tough re-election fight which will probably force her to distance herself from Trump as much as possible. Martinez, like Brewer, is a female governor of a border state who is popular with conservatives and moderates, but she endorsed Marco Rubio and has taken past positions on immigration that would be considered “liberal.” And Sandoval is a popular, moderate governor of a swing-ish state that would be impacted by any wall Trump would build, but his pro-choice stance would destroy any chance Trump would have of uniting the base.

Neither of Trump’s current opponents would make a good running mate. Cruz might deliver most of his base of supporters, but there is too much bad blood between them to forge a workable relationship. More importantly, a Trump/Cruz ticket effectively writes off a significant portion of the Republican Party who despise both figures. Trump would likely win many of Cruz’s supporters without adding him to the ticket, anyway, so there is little electoral benefit to picking Cruz. And should a Trump/Cruz ticket win, Cruz hardly represents a paragon of legislative success and would be the worst ambassador to Congress for Trump if Trump were actually interested in getting an agenda passed. Kasich, on the other hand, is too happy with his current position to accept the Vice Presidency and he would clash with Trump on everything. The West Wing would become a war zone of egos.

Verdict: Brewer is probably the most logical choice for Trump, but everything Trump has done so far in this primary cycle has defied the normal logic of campaigns.

Ted Cruz

Biggest Needs: Cruz is actually a lot like Trump with regard to the biggest needs of his campaign. Were he to become president, he would need a Vice President who could work on his behalf with Congress and other relevant political actors who hate Cruz on a personal level. It would also be nice if he had a more moderate VP to temper his ideologically-charged schemes (or at the very least, repackage them into something that Congress can pass). If Cruz wants to govern, he needs a lieutenant quite unlike him.

Electorally, Cruz desperately needs a running mate who can win states that Romney could not- Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida (a few others would be nice, as well). To make this an even-remote possibility, he needs a popular moderate running mate. And no, #CruzCrew, “moderate” does not mean “Marco Rubio,” it means someone actually close to the political center. Cruz has to rebuild bridges with the “mushy middle” to have any shot at winning these purple states- otherwise he can forget doing well in NOVA, Philly burbs, Allegheny County, the suburbs of Cleveland and Cincy, or the I-4 Corridor (ie: the places that matter in these swing states). It would also help if he picked a woman to neutralize some of the advantage Clinton will have on that particular dimension.

Best Matches: Ayotte, Governor Nikki Haley (SC), Representative Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (WA), Senator Susan Collins (ME), Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Carly Fiorina

Analysis: Ayotte would be a good match as a New Hampshire Republican, possibly giving Cruz a few electoral votes that not even Romney could get, but again, I think her Senate race is her top priority. Haley would be a great choice for uniting the Republican base, but might not be moderate enough to compensate for Cruz’s right-wing stances, and South Carolina is one of the safest red states in the country. Picking Cathy McMorris-Rodgers would be a great conciliatory gesture to the “establishment” that Cruz has vilified from the beginning, but I do not believe she is quite ready for the nastiness of a national campaign. There are also rumors that she is gunning for RNC Chairwoman to replace Reince Priebus, a role that I believe better suits her. If Cruz picked Collins, it would prove that he actually wants to win the general election. She is the definition of a centrist Republican and would balance him ideologically.  Even more importantly, she has a reputation for pragmatism that Cruz could actually use to govern. The problem? I bet she is one of the (many) senators who despise Cruz as a person. Condi Rice balances the ticket in many of the same ways, but she has the universal name-recognition that Collins does not have, and she has not had to serve in the Senate with Cruz, meaning that she might be more open to the job. Finally, we have Carly Fiorina who is campaigning with Cruz and launched a presidential campaign that exceeded expectations (by a lot). She is a great debater, but that’s about all she brings to the table. She will not win too many new votes for Cruz and she has no experience governing.

Like Trump, Cruz should not bother with either of his current opponents. A Cruz/Trump ticket would be a disaster- losing some Trump supporters and writing off mainstream conservatives, while a Cruz/Kasich ticket is not going to happen because Kasich does not want the VP slot.
​
Verdict: Condoleezza Rice would be the best choice Cruz could make. She checks off most of Cruz’s boxes and has an established national profile that would neutralize many of Clinton’s key advantages.

John Kasich

Biggest Needs: Kasich, unlike Cruz or Trump, actually needs a fairly conservative running mate. He does not need anyone to govern for him (in the way that Trump does) and he is far more popular on the Hill than Cruz is, meaning that the VP would get to be more of an apprentice rather than a second Chief of Staff.

Electorally, Kasich should look to win Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida (campaigning in a few other states should help, as well), but he would begin a race against Clinton or Sanders as the favorite. Thus, he only would only need to pick a rising star in the party who could appease the base and not derail the campaign.  Ideally, the person could deliver a swing state and then spend the next 8 years as his heir apparent. With Kasich at the top, the Republicans could have their most dynamic ticket since Reagan/Bush.

Best Matches: Haley, Senator Marco Rubio, Speaker Paul Ryan, Martinez, Senator Mike Lee, Senator Cory Gardner

Analysis: A Kasich/Haley ticket would be nearly flawless. It might lose some of the farthest right conservatives, but it would excite most conservatives.  Unlike Sarah Palin in 2008, Haley has a proven record of governing and a positive national profile. She would not be Palin 2.0 (or 3.0 if you consider, as I do, Michele Bachmann to be Sarah Palin 2.0), but rather an excellent outsider choice who could be groomed in foreign policy and the intricacies of DC politics for her own run in 2024. Similarly, Marco Rubio would be a great choice.  He could deliver much of the base to the Kasich camp and all but ensure Florida for the Republicans. The knock against Rubio this time was that he has no executive experience, but after 8 years as VP, he would be primed and ready to serve as president, in his own right. The only drawback is that he has indicated already that he does not want to be VP (but, on the other hand, everyone always says that). Ryan would be great, but he has already had one failed run at VP and I think he is quite happy as Speaker, for the moment. Martinez is a popular term-limited governor of a blue state, so she should also be on the short-list, even though her national profile is not as established as Haley or Rubio. As for Lee and Gardner, both are solid choices, although I see Lee as a future Supreme Court justice and Gardner as a future president.

As for his opponents, he could not pick Trump as a running mate. Trump would be so bored in that role and would almost certainly clash with Kasich on everything. In the election, Kasich and Trump’s differing approaches would be too great to be truly reconciled. As for Cruz, he and Kasich have not really fought bloody battles against each other, so they would not have that quagmire that each really hated the other. However, if Kasich is in a position to pick his running mate, he would have a slate of much safer choices.  Cruz might deliver more “courageous conservatives,” but he also risks losing some moderates. 

Verdict: A ticket of either Kasich/Haley or Kasich/Rubio would all but ensure a Republican victory in November. It would be the ideal ticket of a supremely qualified, likable, moderate governor at the top of the ticket, and a rising superstar on the bottom of the ticket. Either way, Hillary Clinton could not devise a ticket that could beat him.

The Democrats

Hillary Clinton

Biggest Needs: As president, Clinton would merely need a competent placeholder she could trust in the event that she would pass away (her age is a slight concern) during her time as president. She has the experience and party connections to govern with little difficulty. A VP functioning as another advisor would be all she really needs.

Electorally, it is a little more difficult. She would have to decide whether or not the threats from progressives, like Susan Sarandon, to not vote for her are credible enough to justify picking a running mate from the far left. If so, she should pick someone more liberal than herself. If not, she should focus on securing the center. Bernie has forced her to move away from the center during this primary season and that introduces some danger in the general election. Especially if she ends up facing anyone but Cruz or Trump, she runs the risk of losing independents.  To me, the wiser course is to pick a centrist. She also needs someone with a reputation for honesty, integrity, and likability, all of which are in short supply with Secretary Clinton. Finally, the ideal running mate would secure one of the four major toss-up states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida).

Best Matches: Senator Tim Kaine (VA), Senator Sherrod Brown (OH), Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), Senator Bernie Sanders (VT), HUD Secretary Julian Castro (TX), Former Governor Ed Rendell (PA)

Analysis: Kaine is easily the best choice, here. He is wildly popular in a swing state, he has both legislative and executive experience (being also a former governor), speaks fluent Spanish, and has a reputation as a likable moderate. Brown is too liberal and does not have enough of a national profile to really boost Clinton (but he could deliver Ohio if Kasich does not run). Warren is beloved by the progressive left, but Massachusetts is a safe blue state, already, and she could galvanize Republicans against Clinton. Adding Bernie to the ticket could placate most of his supporters, but runs the risk of losing independents.  Plus, both Sanders and Warren would prevent Hillary from moving to the center, which should cede ground to the GOP. Julian Castro is the popular name that has floated around the internet for years now, even with a comparatively-thin resume. He reminds me a lot of Matt Santos from The West Wing, and I think many Democrats see the same in him. I do not think he is ready yet; we have no idea of his foreign policy chops, for example, but he could inject some youth and progressive energy into Clinton’s rather lackluster campaign. Finally, Governor Rendell would be a logical choice for Clinton, being the (still popular) former governor of a critical state and a longtime Clinton ally and friend. He has been out of politics for a little while and may be seen as “too centrist” by progressives, but he would be a loyal and effective attack dog for her.

Verdict: If I was advising Clinton, I would suggest Kaine without hesitation. He is a safe, exciting choice who would make Clinton more palatable to independents and moderate Republicans fleeing from Hurricane Trump and Cruz. Castro would probably be the backup choice- he is young and, by all accounts, smart and dynamic, but I just do not think he is quite ready. Rendell would follow Castro, with Bernie, Warren, and Brown bringing up the rear.

Bernie Sanders
​
Biggest Needs: As a long-time legislator, President Sanders would benefit from a VP with governing experience. Ideally, he would also have a VP strong in foreign policy, since that seems to be his weakest area (which, unfortunately for him, is also the president’s primary realm of responsibility).
In the election, Sanders’ biggest needs are youth and centrism.  Sanders’ allegiance to socialism jeopardizes some states that Democrats traditionally win and make it difficult to expand the map. Sanders needs someone who can keep Blue Dog Democrats in the party and command the support of independents and even moderate Republicans.

Best Matches: Senator Joe Manchin (WV), Kaine, Former Governor Brian Schweitzer (MT)

Analysis: Manchin checks most of the boxes for Sanders, especially domestically. He is the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, especially on issues of regulation and environmentalism. Manchin could potentially put West Virginia in play for the Democrats, since he is the extremely popular remnant of a once-dominant breed of West Virginia Democrats, and he would ease some of the concern over Sanders’ extreme leftism. Manchin also has executive experience, being the former Governor of West Virginia.  Kaine pretty much brings the same things to the table, even if he slightly more liberal than Manchin. Brian Schweitzer is an interesting wild card-  a guy who is the quintessential Montana Democrat- somewhat of an economic populist and somewhat centrist on other issues, he would bring some regional diversity to Sanders’ campaign and mollify some centrists.

As for Hillary Clinton, I guess she would accept if the offer was made to her, but being dragged to the left by Sanders would probably cost them some moderate voters she might have won a year ago. I think many Democrats would rather have a fresh face in the VP slot, but Hillary would be acceptable, even if unexciting, to the majority of Democrats.

Conclusion

I think the best ticket for both parties, assuming that both parties nominate someone still running, would be John Kasich and either Marco Rubio or Nikki Haley against Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. But we still have a long way to go. 

Dear Mark Levin,

I will preface this open letter by disclosing that I have never really been a fan of yours. I have read some of your writing and occasionally listened to some of your radio clips and podcasts or clicked on links summarizing your views, but when I tuned in to talk radio and punditry, it was usually to the likes of Sean Hannity and Michael Savage, and to a lesser extent, Rush and Glenn Beck.  I never harbored any ill will towards you, or anything like that, but I just paid more attention to the aforementioned figures. So, you should not read this (on the infinitesimally small chance that you do) as you losing a devoted fan. But you have lost the respect of someone who has a few of your books among my collection of political books and who once valued what you had to say.

That said, let us move on to the purpose of this post. Two days ago, you stated that: “Now those people out there, those people out there who are saying ‘stop Trump,’ I can understand ‘stop Trump’ in a primary process, but stop Trump or you’ll vote for Hillary? Stop Trump or you won’t vote at all? These people are not conservatives. They’re not constitutionalists. They’re frauds. They’re fakes. They’re not brave. They’re asinine. They’re buffoons.”

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and to vote for whomever you like in November, but what you have said is demonstrably false. Let us look at your charge line by line.

“I can understand ‘stop Trump’ in a primary process, but stop Trump or you’ll vote for Hillary. Stop Trump or you won’t vote at all?” Mr. Levin, you claim to be an Originalist thinker, in the tradition of Antonin Scalia, but that is clearly not the case if you cannot understand that #NeverTrump means “Never Trump.”  “Never” means “never,” regardless of who Trump’s opponent would be in a general election context. The founders of this movement did not intend for #NeverTrump to end if he won the nomination at the RNC, it meant that we would not vote for Trump in the general election under any circumstances. Otherwise the movement would be something like #NeverTrumpPrimary.  At least you recognize that #NeverTrump supporters will not necessarily be voting for Hillary, but I am willing to do that if it saves Virginia from falling to Donald Trump. More likely, I will just write in Vermin Supreme or Marco Rubio or even the “Sweet Meteor of Death” or vote for Gary Johnson.

Those who have committed to never voting for Trump recognize that there is nothing Hillary can do that Trump will not do worse. With Hillary, we will get an unpopular liberal who, at the end of the day, is a political realist who can be counted upon to act in her rational self-interest. The Republican opposition, united against her, will be able to counter her moves because they know exactly what they are going to get with her. But with Trump, a man who has a lifelong record of supporting progressivism until his convenient and recent switch to pseudo-conservatism, we really do not know what we will get. The man’s policy platform is essentially random and he is just as likely to stake out far-left positions as he is to stake out conservative positions.  If he is the con man that I believe he is, Republicans on Capitol Hill will be stuck trying to figure out whether to support him or not for the next four years.  I believe conservatives will be more powerful united in opposition to Hillary than divided in ad hoc support for Trump’s latest inane scheme.

With regard to the Supreme Court, we know that Hillary will appoint center-left jurists (another Merrick Garland or two), but we have no idea who Trump will appoint (and I suspect, neither does he). Picking a justice is always a risky endeavor, even George H.W. Bush, a brilliant man with a lifetime of political experience, failed to thoroughly vet David Souter and blew a chance to make the Court more conservative.  Why should we expect Trump to do any better?

On foreign policy, Trump is a complete novice and has shown this throughout the campaign. Hillary, for better or worse, has a full presidential term’s worth of experience as Secretary of State and will almost certainly be more judicious and realistic about foreign policy than Trump will.  Trump, one of the most insecure people I have ever seen, has no plan to do anything to stop ISIS that can actually succeed and would probably drop nukes on countries if someone remotely insults him. He is about the last person I would ever entrust with a nuclear arsenal at his tiny little fingertips.

On fiscal policy, Hillary Clinton is probably the more fiscally conservative of the two. Her husband managed to achieve the last fiscally responsible federal budget this country has seen, and I imagine she would retain many of her husband’s economic advisors. Trump, on the other hand, has launched numerous failed business ventures and has only talked about building his wall (which, as John Oliver shows, is a hefty investment), while also cutting taxes drastically. In other words, making the budget deficit and national debt even worse. Hillary is also more of a conservative on trade policy, supporting free trade agreements and trade partnerships, while Trump wants to return to protectionism, tariffs, and trade wars! To me, this indicates that Hillary is the more fiscally conservative option.

Trump might be the more socially conservative of the two, but again, we just do not know where he really stands on abortion, guns, and other such issues.  I do think it is a sign of the Religious Right’s dying influence that a thrice-married philanderer who sexualized his infant daughter and his other daughter and talked about the size of his genitals in a presidential debate is now the standard-bearer for so many social conservatives, like Jerry Falwell, Jr. Hillary’s positions on these topics are well-known and represent, essentially, the status quo. But Trump has taken every side of every position publicly, even as recently as last week where he changed his position on abortion four times! Social conservatives will not win with Hillary, but Trump is essentially a crapshoot for them, as well.

“These people are not conservatives. They’re not constitutionalists.” Okay, maybe I am no longer a “conservative” because I support gay marriage, believe in evolution, and have softer stances on immigration than conservatives nowadays do. But on abortion, gun rights, fiscal policy, and other issues I consider myself to be fairly conservative. I believe the Constitution to be the law of the land, and I certainly believe that I have more respect for it than Trump does. Trump will see the Constitution as a mere list of suggestions that prevent him from making “great deals” or he will disregard it entirely! How does not voting for Trump make one not a “constitutionalist!” To me, those who vote for Trump are the ones who cannot call themselves “constitutionalists” for they are the ones voting for a man who will have more contempt for checks and balances even than Obama had.

“They’re frauds. They’re fakes. They’re not brave. They’re asinine. They’re buffoons.”  I do not believe I am any of these things, nor do I believe any fellow #NeverTrump warriors are.  By not supporting or voting for Trump, I will have a clear conscience for expressing my genuine belief that he is not the best person for the job. And I think it is far braver to vote against the party you grew up supporting rather than voting for a wolf in wolves’ clothing who happens to have an (R) next to his name. As to whether we are “asinine,” that is a matter of personal taste, but I patiently tried to explain why Trump could not be trusted for months. Potentially voting for Hillary Clinton is a last resort born of necessity. Finally, I do not believe myself to be a “buffoon,” but rather a serious philosophical conservative who will not allow Trump to scam me with his new-found conservatism. Historians will, I believe, look upon this movement and speak favorably of the genuinely courageous conservatives who resisted Trump until the very end.  People like you, Mr. Levin, who surrender to Trump and endorse him out of this misguided belief that he is somehow better than Hillary Clinton, will be the ones called “frauds, fakes, not brave, asinine, [and] buffoons.” You will be the Vichy Republicans who sold out to him.  Not I.

In conclusion, I will never, ever value anything you say ever again, Mr. Levin. I genuinely believe that Trump will wreck this country, his (current) party, conservatism, and the dignity of his office if he is nominated and (God forbid) elected. The country will be ruled by a mad tyrant, the party will be stained for a generation, conservatism will be redefined as “white nativism” and the Oval Office will be a joke under Donald Trump. The last nine months have been one unending nightmare for conservatives and Republicans, as Donald Trump has made a mockery of everything both groups stand for. Why on Earth would we want this nightmare to continue for another four years? If there has been one silver lining it has been that this election cycle has shown the true colors of people- those who actually have political principles and those who have no principles beyond hating Democrats. Mr. Levin, you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too, and that will not work this time. Among those conservatives opposing Trump, you are either a #NeverTrump Republican willing to go into the political wilderness for principles (like Sir Winston Churchill) or you are an appeaser in the mold of Neville Chamberlain. You, sir, have chosen the latter path and proclaimed your choice loudly.