Choosing a VP is a strategic election decision.

[MineralMan]

Regardless of who we would like to see picked, the reality is that it all has to do with about 10 swing states, really. Hillary Clinton will be having discussions with all sorts of strategists on this choice, and their primary interest will be in picking someone that will help swing a couple of key states, not the politics of the choice.

Bottom line is that the VP is a lousy job, unless you're hoping to run for President afterwards. It lacks power and influence, which people like Senators already have and are loathe to lose.

Look at the swing states. Find the two or three that could easily swing Republican and pick a VP nominee who can help prevent that. That's the nature of the discussions, really.

Forget about sitting Senators in states where a Republican Governor would appoint the successor. We need EVERY Democratic Senator, starting in January.

[msongs]

1. vp is a great job! good pay and bennies, nice place to live, job security for 4 yrs w/chance of

advancement. what's not to like?

[Txbluedog]

2. Yes and that's why I don't see Hillary picking a VP until after the republican convention

She needs to see if Trump decides to quit and who the replacement would br

[thesquanderer]

4. Yes. And even if it remains Trump, it could be good to know his VP pick before selecting yours (nt)

[thesquanderer]

3. On the other hand...

Biden appears to have a welcoming ear in Obama, and so he arguably has more influence over important decisions than he did as a Senator. Cheney had tremendous power. You could even say that Hillary had a pretty significant role as VP. So I don't think it's that VPs have no power/influence, it's that they only get as much as the president is willing to give them. So then you'd need to think about who Hillary may have that kind of respect for, too.

Also, between Hillary's age and her legal issues, there is some small additional chance that her VP could actually end up as president, compared to most VPs of the past.