Intrade - Democratic VP Nominee - leading contenders:

1. Evan Bayh 13.2

2. Kathleen Sebelius 10.2
   
3. Joe Biden 10.1
   
4. Hillary Clinton 10.0
   
4. Tim Kaine 10.0
   
5. John Edwards 7.0
   
6. Claire McCaskill 6.8
   
7. Jack Reed 6.3
   
8. Sam Nunn 6.0
   
9. Wesley Clark 5.1
   
10. Bill Richardson 5.0

Intrade - Republican VP Nominee - leading contenders:

1. Mitt Romney 33.0

2. Tim Pawlenty 15.7
   
3. Sarah Palin 10.0
   
4. Mike Huckabee 7.2
   
5. Bobby Jindal 5.7
   
6. Tom Ridge 5.0
   
6. Rob Portman 5.0
   
6. Charlie Crist 5.0
   
6. Eric Cantor 5.0
   
10. Olympia Snowe 3.0

Recently, I've thought it might be Biden, based primarily on his strong appearances as surrogate. Clinton obviously remains a possibility, but I really don't have a sense that it's more likely than not. Darker horses include Kaine, Schweitzer, and hell . . . Ray Mabus? Someone threw it out here recently and was universally dismissed. But, I think it actually made some sense. These last three names don't provide any obvious boost in the foreign policy department, but Mabus and Schweitzer do have some interesting experience and expertise in connection with Middle-east issues.

Sebelius remains possible, as well, but I think the campaign would only pick her if polling offer some assurance that no backlash from Clinton-supporters would result.

So, anyway, I'm going with Biden as my prediction.

Obama may be playing it safe on several fronts right now and doing the conventional run-towards-the-center thing, but I think he knows something the pundits don't concentrate on: VP choices tend to be most valuable when they're used to further substantiate the overall message of the top-of-ticket. It'll be a less-strategic pick than someone he's just really comfortable with who he feels is also qualified to be President and play for his team.

I'd probably split my money between Sebelius (Economic/Domestic/Change message) and Biden (Foreign Policy) at this point.

I actually think Reed would be a good choice.  He's not super-young and has some real time in to Congress, yet he isn't even 60 yet so he doesn't detract from the youth/change angle.  Reed also has real military cred.  My only concern would be that Reed seems a bit light on foreign policy, but then again, after Obamas trip and what I anticipate will be more good reviews, that may be less of a talking point for the MSM/GOP.

I hate to offend, but I just don't see Clinton really being an optimal choice.  She does bring a lot of supporters to the table, but she also brings a lot of drama and will really detract from Obamas overall theme.  Not to be sexist but Obama and Clinton are both alpha-males, and that is just going to make it tough for them to be on the same ticket.  Besides, Clinton really doesn't shore Obama up in the areas where there is the greatest concern, military experience and foreign policy.  Clinton claims to have strong foreign policy cred, but as was shown during the primaries that claim can be challenged fairly easily.  Clinton seems more like a fall-back choice in case the polling numbers really deteriorate before the convention and Obama would rather risk mitigating the additional drama of having Clinton on the ticket with the increased enthusiam from some demographics Obama may need.

However, since McCain is in much bigger need of a great VP choice to inject some energy into his flailing campaign, I suspect that a lot more energy should/will go into his choice.  Obama really just needs someone who doesn't distract from him and increases what is already a formidable enthusiasm gap.

I don't think McCain will choose Pawlenty. If he's going to choose a woman, he'd be smart to choose Carly Fiorina over Sarah Palin, but Fiorina has had too many fuckups as a surrogate I guess. I think it'll be Romney (about a 50% shot), Tom Ridge or Rob Portman.

symbolism and big events may just trump his counterveiling desire to play things safe and maintain a "drama" free environment.  I'll go out on the limb and say Clinton because she's the only choice that provides him with symbolism and the historic event in Harlem outside of Big Daddy's office.  Americans love a soap opera and drama anyway.

I'm not sure if she would take it unless she got some concessions from Obama as to the role she would have in his domestic and social policies.  Obama, of course, would handle all foreign affairs.

But note how the question is worded: not "which quality would you like to see the VP have" but "which do you think it's important for their choice to have."

In other words, the question is inviting the respondent to parrot back what they've heard the media saying about the choices. They're not asking the person if they, personally, would lean more toward picking a candidate based on the VP's strengths, but, in essence, whether they think that the candidate would do better in the race with a particular type of candidate. They're asking a race-handicapping question here, not a personal preference question.

The conventional wisdom says that you should pick a VP who is going to fill in the gaps on your resume, but the whole point of Obama's trip and his forceful statements on foreign policy is that he does not consider himself to be inept in this arena, that he is a trendsetter and has good judgment, not that he's a babe in the woods who needs and elder statesman to guide him around. To pick a foreign policy expert would be to shoot himself in the foot, to give in to McCain's "expertise" argument and admit his opponent is better in that arena -- rather than have a game-changing and potentially Democratic-Party-changing approach to strong but wise foreign policy. So there's a slim to none chance it'll be a military expert.

The biggest key to Obama's thinking is that he admitted that what he most wants in a VP is someone who's judgment he trusts who he can rely on to counsel him and keep him on a strong course. I'm not entirely sure that he's playing the game of paying attention to all the polls from minute to minute to see who he can peel off the most votes with a calculated choice. I could be wrong (he is, after all, a very skilled politician), but I think what he's looking for most is someone who's got his back. From what I've read, Sebelius and Obama seem to share a good relationship, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were her.

If he were going for pure calculation I think it'd be Edwards, based on polls that see him leap 5-10 points with Edwards on the ticket. I'd like to see Edwards personally. But Obama apparently was cold and unresponsive toward Edwards when he conceded the race, part of why the endorsement took so long; I don't sense much warmth there unless it's been developing behind the scenes.

That's my two cents.

I was never that excited about Richardson and was starting to get excited about Schweitzer, but in light of this poll, why is it that Richardson is unlikely? Also, in light of today's disappointing Ohio poll, Obama's firewall is Kerry + IA + CO + NM. Shouldn't Richardson be a big help in CO and NM? It's too bad he has such an un-Hispanic last name and I wonder just how much of a help he'd be with Hispanics who might otherwise not register or not vote, or vote for McCain.

Any insights?

...over the past week that Reed either took himself out of contention for the slot or said he wouldn't be V.P. recently. I went looking for the quote but couldn't find it.

I think if you stick with Clinton, Richardson, and Biden--in that order--you have shortest of the short-listers...and, perhaps in that order, too.

Biden's biggest problem is he's from a tiny state (Reed, is as well, of course), in terms of electoral votes.

That leaves Richardson and Clinton...and either's fine by me, with former FL Sen./Gov. Bob Graham being the quintessential dark horse.

All three are great choices, with Clinton--no surprise there--being my personal fave.

I have to think they're looking at the homestate figuring into the final decision, at least to a slight extent, and that deeply discounts the other two options: Reed and Biden; perhaps with both of them being cabinet choices after all's said and done. In fact, I'd say Reed, Biden, and Hagel are Defense, State and CIA/Nat'l Sec. Advisor, in no particular order, perhaps with a General (Clark, Zinni, Shalikashvili) replacing one of them for Sec. Def.

I don't know if I'll be more surprised or disappointed if HRC isn't the running mate at this point.  It would be really wonderful to see the Clintons and the Obamas working side-by-side for the same ticket.  I think it would do wonders to heal wounds within the party, restoring the Clintons' previously stellar rapport with the African-American community and sealing the fractures in the Democratic coalition that the McCain campaign could potentially exploit.

It seems more likely to me with each passing day, which is honestly not what I expected.  Hillary maintains a large following, voted the right way on FISA, and is still taking action on legislative issues and demonstrating every day why she is such an incredible civil servant.  I don't think there is anyone else in the Democratic Party who can bring the same kind of guns as Hillary--man or woman.

At least one semi-prominent Repub blog, Race 4 2008, has flat out said Romney will be the pick based on hearing it directly from insiders in the campaign.

Whether they are right or not, I'd be surprised if Romney wasn't the pick at this point. He will provide a big fundraising boost to the ticket and possibly help in the West, but probably go over like a lead balloon based on his performance in the primary. The funny thing is that movement conservatives still have trouble seeing that Romney is just basically unlikeable. Still, on balance, he may be the best option for McCain.

For Obama, it's much less clear. Even though I strongly opposed Clinton during the primary, I'd actually be thrilled to see him pick Clinton at this point. I think it would bring even more energy to the ticket and pretty much guarantee a win for Obama. The biggest impediment to picking her is not Bill but what to do with her once they are elected. There's a basic lack of trust there left over from the primary and the scorched earth tactics that were employed. If not Clinton, Biden is a strong choice based mainly on foreign policy expertise and has said he would take the job. Bayh is probably more of a team player/ blank slate has proved to be effective on TV but has less gravitas. In the end, I believe it will be one of these three, but I would love to see him surprise everyone and pick Edwards or Mark Warner.  

McCain:  Pick- Mitt Romney; Strong Possibility- Tim Pawlenty; Darkhorse- Lindsey Graham

I don't think McCain needs Romney's money to get through the next month.  Picking Romney is for Michigan, Nevada, Colorado and New Hampshire (and in that order) and he is a ready and willing attack dog.  Romney really wants it and he will do anything.  But McCain thinks he's a twit.

The dark forces have taken over the McCain campaign and they have stepped up the negative attacks on Obama lately.  The slight closing in the polls recently only encourages the Rove acolytes (and Rove himself) who infest the McCain campaign.  Rove's opinion will be a significant factor in this decision.   If Romney helps  McCain in their internal polling, he will get it.

Obama:  Pick- Brian Schweitzer; Strong Possibility- Kathleen Sebelius;  Darkhorse- Mark Warner

Warner's no has been pretty firm but I can't figure out why.  His ego won't let him be second banana?  He wants to be President and being Obama's VP is the fastest way to get there.  I appreciate that giving up a sure thing Senate seat is tough but how many chances do you get to get that close?

Guessing the VP pick is a mug's game because the campaigns know a lot more than we know.

Is Clinton "an expert in Military or foreign affiars"?

Seriously.  She didn't even have the sense to read her briefing on Iraq before voting to allow Bush to go to war there.

As long as Senator Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe remains a smashing success, John Edwards figures in to the VP equation more and more.  The voters are not going to focus exclusively on the economy, but it will ultimately be more important than foreign policy.  If Obama can shore up his foreign policy credentials on his own, that makes the economy more of a factor in his VP choice.

John Edwards can speak with total authority on what it will take to fight poverty and turn this country around.

no one in their right mind would look at Fiorina and think "ready to be president at a moment's notice."

Of course a lot of McCain's base is not in their right mind, so that may be a factor.

Plus I hear there is plenty of bad blood between her and people at Hewlett Packard to the point where some of them might actively campaign against her--thereby undercutting her "business experience" advantage.

I think that, despite what answers are offered on polls, the most crucial question voters ask themselves about a VP pick on a gut level is are they "ready to be president at a moment's notice."

Dems perceived as "Ready"

Clinton
Edwards
Nunn
Clark

maybe..
Biden
Bayh
Richardson

not ready
Sebelius
Kaine
McCaskill
Reed

Reps "ready"
Romney
Ridge

maybe
Pawlenty
Huckabee
Crist
Jindal

not
Palin
Portman
Cantor
Snowe
Fiorina

Reed's kind of funny looking.

I don't think he'd project authority, even if he actually has authority.

Sorry, but if perception didn't matter, we wouldn't have had two terms of Bush.

It matters alot.

I think it will be Clinton, Biden or Dodd.

A totally meaningless junk, or better still motherhood, type question. To which people answer in the mode of I'd like a combination of FDR, Reagan, Lincoln and Churchill, and just throw in a dab of Jesus Christ.  

I don't want too sound to provincial but, the choice of VP has very little real effect on the voters today! Look at Herbert Walker Bush's choice of Dan Qual, need I say more. The choice for VP is more a MEDIA EVENT than anything else. The most important factor in choosing a VP is the contents of that persons closet and propensity to never make gaffs. He or she has to look good, sound good and never upstage to candidate. Except possibly for McInsane no one expects the President to die or be killed in office when choosing who they will vote for.

decision by polling it.  

Top 5 in no particular order:

1.  Kaine

2.  Sebelius
   
3.  Richardson
   
4.  Biden
   
5.  Bayh

Edwards would have been there before this week.

The only thing I know is that it will not be Clinton. No way in hell. The right's hatred of the Clinton's is stronger than their disgust with their own party. I personally know Republicans planning to vote for Obama as long as Clinton is not on the ticket. This is about math: the number of Dems who would change their vote to Obama if Clinton gets the nod is far smaller than the number of Republicans who would switch to McCain. I'm really surprised by all the wishful thinking, but the polling numbers have been out for months - Obama does the worst with her on the ticket.

I think Obama will value loyalty highly, which is why McCaskill is still high on my list. However, I really do believe that it will be someone that we have never heard of.

Do you really think the voters really want a candidate to base their VP pick on what the polls say?  I think the voters know that it's the candidate's choice -- not their choice.

For Obama, 50 percent say someone who "is an expert in military or foreign affairs."

I see the usual people are talking Hillary up with the usual talking points. The only clear advantage Obama enjoyed during the primary was the Iraq war. I don't see how he would pick her if what these polls say is true. I'm all for a Obama/Clinton ticket but it looks like Obama's biggest weakness in polls right now is military and foreign affairs so it would be logical to choose a running mate who adds heft to the ticket.

My personal pick would be :

Clark
Biden
Bayh

This is just my opinion but I believe Kerry didn't get a bounce in the polls after the 2004 Democratic Party Convention because of how the convention played out. Remember how nice and kind we were at the convention? We didn't even attack Bush/Cheney. Yes, politics should be about the issues instead of negative attacks. Unfortunately, it's not. Then, 5 weeks later, at the GOP convention we got our faces ripped off. Kerry was slammed hard at the GOP convention. The Democratic Party was slammed hard at the convention. Kerry and Edwards were too nice and often delivered lackluster counterattacks. Obama can pick his VP now or wait until the convention, but doing so now won't really affect his convention poll bounce. If he delivers a powerful speech at the convention, crystalizes the differences between him and McCain, and bashes the GOP then I believe you'll see a nice size uptick in the polls.

It will be one of those two. Biden brings the foreign policy experience and attack dog value. Bayh firms up Midwestern moderates and has a good economic record.  He was also a Governor.

Didn't Fiorina bug the offices of HP's directors?  How could she possibly get out from under that as a VP nominee?

I think, hope, pray Sen. Obama chooses Sen. Clinton as his running mate with the clear mission that she will lead the charge in getting healthcare reform drafted and passed in the first year of their administration.

They need to start their work of crystalizing the vision of what universal healthcare would mean to the average joe like myself, focus the debate back into our sweetspot of domestic policy, and go into '09 with a clear agenda.

Hillary would be amazing and very successful in the that role.

However there is a political part to VP nomination process. If McCain goes with a purely political pick to neutralize Obama's/Democratic Party's natural advantage amongst suburban/city women he will go with Christine Todd Whitman or one of the two Maine Senators Snowe or Collins. Whitman pick will create havoc on the pro choice women vote especially in the NorthEast and mid-Atlantic States. This exploits the loophole of the bit of disenchantment that some of HRC supporters feel with Democratic Party currently. However that pick will definitely anger McCain far-right evangelical supporters. Sure to suppress his vote in the Deep South making Obama more competitive there. Another McCain choice is Liebermann who would successfully peel off some Jewish votes for him, but again a non-starter with the conservative Evangelical community. I still think Whitman is a dark horse in this process but unlikely to happen.