The Veepstakes: Who Should Clinton Pick?

The Clinton campaign finds itself today at a juncture it only dreamed of reaching in 2008. The primaries have come to a close, the convention is upcoming, and the VP speculation is mounting. This time, the ball is in Hillary's court. It's said that she is seeking a vice presidential pick with foreign policy and national security experience, possibly to counter Trump's focus on security, law and order, and defense. She also should look for a VP who will bring the Sanders wing of the party to her side for sure. Democrats need party unity. Some pundits argue that vice presidential picks are not particularly important (so long as they don't become major liabilities like Sarah Palin did in 2008). However, Real Clear Politics' poll aggregate shows a particularly close race, with Clinton leading on average by just 2.7 points. In this scenario, even if vice presidential picks usually do not serve as panaceas for a candidate's weaknesses, the closeness of the race makes Clinton's VP pick especially important. I decided (on a bit of a whim), to provide some armchair analysis on Clinton's potential picks. I'll include some prominent names that have been floated and maybe even some wild cards! I'm aware that her shortlist has been narrowed, but here are my thoughts on the initial list CNN reported.

Senator Sherrod Brown (OH): A-
Political strategy says that Sherrod Brown is the potential antidote to Trump's rust belt path to victory. Brown is a popular swing state senator who enjoys decent approval ratings and a hypothetical 14 point lead over Ohio's current state treasurer. This kind of popularity can play well in Ohio, a swing state where many workers have been hit hard by unfettered free trade policies that Trump denounces. A microcosmic example of the rust belt Democratic exodus is underway in Mahoning County, Ohio. Youngstown was always a steel town, but has suffered greatly in recent decades thanks to 'free' trade, Chinese market manipulation, and mechanization. In Youngstown, countless Democrats have been defecting to Trump. This isn't just the story of Mahoning County. This is the story of Fayette County, PA, of Porter County, IN, and of countless blue collar industrial cities.Of course, there will be a shift to Trump regardless of VP selection. For Hillary, winning Rust Belt swing states will come down to appealing to minorities, college educated whites, and also stemming the hemorrhage of populist working Democrats to Trump. Sherrod Brown is the perfect candidate to fill this role. He spoke out strongly against NAFTA, CAFTA, and now the TPP. Brown was against the Iraq War from the beginning, and can potentially help Hillary outflank Trump on the issue. His fiery speeches are table thumping monuments to a beautiful Democratic populist tradition, a tradition that still plays well in the Rust Belt. Additionally, Bernie Sanders fans will love his progressive record and rhetoric, even though he was an early Clinton backer cozy with the establishment. Thus, Brown is probably the best VP for party unity as he doesn't really offend the sensibilities of any Democratic faction (minus hardcore free traders). Brown not only brings the party together, but he is also an attack dog, further constructing him as the potential ultimate anti-Trump.

Sherrod Brown has one major downfall, and I can see it preventing Hillary from picking him. If he is picked and Hillary wins, John Kasich gets to nominate a senate replacement for Sherrod Brown. In all likelihood, Kasich would name a Republican to the seat, which as with Cory Booker and to a lesser extent Elizabeth Warren, could throw the senate balance into play. If Democrats are feeling confident about their chances at taking back the senate, Sherrod Brown is a risk worth taking. A second, but more minor concern is that Brown's energy will outdo Clinton, specifically in regards to trade and foreign policies they butted heads on in the past. Perhaps it would be more likely that Clinton and Brown complement eachother, which would strengthen the Democratic ticket.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA): A- 

Judgement: Elizabeth Warren is one of my favorite senators. From her time at the CFPB to her experience in the senate, she has been a crusader for progressive goals and an expert on policy. These credentials play well to the Democratic base. Picking Warren  would bring disappointed Sanders supporters back to the Democratic ticket by demonstrating a commitment to moving the party left. Furthermore, Warren has already shown a propensity to be tough on Trump, which is precisely what Democrats need. They need somebody willing to go toe to toe with Republicans and call them out. The best part of this strategy is that Warren has more name recognition than other possible choices, making her even more effective as an attack dog. Elizabeth Warren is tough, aggressive, and goals oriented, making her a potentially exciting pick.

There are a cautions to heed for Clinton here though. First. Warren and Clinton enjoyed a notably fraught relationship. Warren refused to back Clinton throughout much of the primary season, but never endorsed Bernie Sanders. While both eventually campaigned together, there are still rumblings that Hillary isn't huge on her. Warren's selection could jeopardize Democratic outreach to moderates. Warren may lack appeal to moderate swing voters and donors. Depending on the campaign's strategy, this could be made up for by progressive excitement and targeting the base, but it is still risky. Hillary Clinton may be upstaged by Warren, especially considering rhetorical differences that make her more exciting to watch. Third, as sad as it is, sexism is a clear reality in America. Having two women on the ticket may harm Clinton's standing with male voters. In fact, studies show that having two women on the same ticket may lead to people viewing them in a more damaging, stereotypical lens. It remains to be seen how pervasive this effect is, but picking Elizabeth Warren may prove risky for this reason. At the same time, this could actually help increase margins among female voters. Elizabeth Warren would be a strong choice for vice president, but not as safe as some others. It remains to be seen whether or not Hillary Clinton will take this chance.

Senator Cory Booker (NJ): B+
Judgement: One of Hillary Clinton's biggest weaknesses is her lack of appeal to millennial voters. Bernie Sanders defeated her resoundingly among this demographic, as I discussed in a previous post. Young voters are not necessarily going to break for Trump, but many are unexcited about Clinton and are considering Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or staying home. This is worrisome for Democrats, as young voters make up a large part of the Obama coalition. Cory Booker is the VP candidate for millennials. Young, jovial, and social media savvy, he represents the next generation of politics. Booker has a particular affinity for selfies and an understanding of the millennial demographic. He's known for shoveling driveways as mayor and even saving somebody from a fire, like the superhero he may actually be. In the senate, he has shown willingness to be a leader on bipartisan criminal justice reform and other issues. Hillary really needs his charisma on the ticket. Beyond young voters, Booker would also improve appeal to Black voters. It's no secret that Trump is trying to reach out to Black voters, but recent polls show his support near zero. Thus, it's debatable whether or not Booker will make a huge difference among a group that has overwhelmingly backed Democrats in recent years. He complements Clinton's sometimes bland policy-based technocracy with energy and would be a great choice.

Booker's weaknesses are spread out but still exist. First, he hails from New Jersey, which is hardly a swing state. He would be temporarily replaced in the senate by an appointee of Chris Christie, handing Republicans a senate seat until a special election is held. This could be negligent because of its fleeting timeframe and potential Democratic control of the senate by more than a couple of seats. Another question involves experience. Cory Booker has only been a senator for three years, with about as much experience as Obama had when he won in 2008. On one hand, this could become a Republican attack. However, Booker's leadership and Trump's lack of political experience may stymie potential attacks. While he may appeal to young voters, he is not known to be a progressive firebrand. Therefore, he wouldn't be as good for Sanders-wing unity as Warren, but better than Kaine and Vilsack. Booker is probably one of Hillary's better picks, with no especially deep faults.

Senator Tim Kaine (VA): B

Judgement: Tim Kaine is probably Hillary's safest pick. She doesn't tend to take huge political risks, and picking Kaine would follow this trend. He carries a spotless record despite hailing from a state with major graft and corruption issues (see Bob McDonnell, Phillip Puckett, Phil Hamilton), which could potentially help mitigate attacks on Hillary as corrupt. He also tends to avoid gaffes, which can sometimes be the downfall of a VP pick. In fact, Kaine is the perfect VP for a suburban strategy-urbane, refined, calm, and technocratic. He also has foreign policy and executive experience, which would serve him well. 

On the other hand, Kaine could be seen as a vanilla cop-out pick. Kaine is awfully boring. His speeches don't rouse much excitement and his ability to reach out to disenchanted blue collar voters is nearly nonexistent. It could be argued that with increasing population, turnout, and diversity in NoVa counties where trump finished a distant second or third in the GOP primary, Virginia is no longer a swing state. These vast expanses of beltway suburbia are prime Clinton territory, with or without Kaine on the ticket. Thus, his effect may be overstated. Moreover, Kaine doesn't add many intangibles to the ticket from perceived political cleanness. His Spanish skills are a nice touch, but Trump is doing a wonderful job of handing Hispanic voters to Democrats. He won't be able to reach out well to the party's Bernie wing thanks to his moderate record and eschewing of populism. Kaine is safe, but doesn't deliver much to Clinton that her campaign doesn't already have. Clinton herself is a great candidate for the suburbs. She could do worse, but she could do better.

Secretary of Labor Tom Perez (NY): B-
Judgement: Who?? Tom Perez is the former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and the current Secretary of Labor. His major strength is his progressive appeal. If Hillary is looking to attract Bernie voters with a more wonky pick, Perez is ideal. He has investigated police brutality and hate crime complaints all across the country, which positions him as well researched on top current policy issues. Moreover, his challenges to voter ID laws make him a leader in the struggle for an open, accessible, and fair democracy. During his time as Secretary of Labor, Perez has shown a progressive streak, standing up for the rights of American workers and unions. On paper, he's a relatively non-controversial liberal. Moreover, he is Hispanic and thus could help boost Hispanic turnout, although once again, the argument could be made that Trump does a fine job of boosting Hispanic turnout for Democrats. Perez is quite charismatic too. His speeches are full of energy and many carry populist rhetoric backed up handily by data. He's a great mix of wonk and passionate activist.

Perez's main negative is a HUGE one, however. He's been completely anonymous to 99% of Americans. While people may have heard of Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren (they probably know her), or even John Hickenlooper, the chance most people have heard of Tom Perez is near zero. Of course, this can be overcome, but time is running short and Perez doesn't really have much political
experience. I'm not sure how well vetted Perez is, owing to his lack of media investigation and coverage. There probably aren't scandals in his past, but nobody really knows. While non-politicians have done well this year (see Trump), Tom Perez lacks the foreign policy experience Hillary Clinton is looking for. His economic and civil rights expertise are both invaluable, but Perez doesn't necessarily bring the political and campaign skills to the table that might be important in such a close race. I can see another cabinet spot for Perez, as Attorney General perhaps, but Tom Perez would not be the optimal VP choice.

Governor John Hickenlooper (CO): B-
Judgement: John Hickenlooper is notable for his executive experience, having been the mayor of Denver, the governor of Colorado. and a business owner. He has pursued a spate of progressive reforms in Colorado, from capitalizing on marijuana legalization to passing gun control laws. Hickenlooper's record is that of a steadfast Democrat achieving success both on the local and state levels. He is popular in his home state, even surviving the Republican wave of 2014 and consistent attacks on his passage of controversial reforms like gun control. Hickenlooper is clearly a smart, effective politician. Highlighting his record could help attract Sanders backers. Moreover, picking him could help deliver Colorado to the Democrats, although as with Virginia, it's debatable if the VP will make a difference in a blue trending state. Trump will not play well with the state's relatively high Hispanic population. Plus, Hickenlooper has a bit of 'cool factor' to him, having owned a brewery. He's a pretty good speaker and a decently energetic candidate compared to others on the shortlist.

Hickenlooper is another safe pick, but I don't know that he is vice presidential material. He would probably be most effective on Clinton's cabinet, as he lacks foreign policy and defense experience. He has even less name recognition than Kaine and hasn't stood out in the past like Cory Booker. Hickenlooper doesn't add an awful lot to the Democratic ticket and like Kaine, definitely doesn't appeal much to blue collar Democrats. He's also not too well known. However, the Colorado Governor is politically astute, which ought to count for something, either as VP, or in a cabinet position.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (IA): C

Judgement: If you know me, you know I'm huge on Democrats upping their rural outreach game. We continuously ignore rural communities, much to our detriment and the detriment of the country. This is what I perceive as the main benefit of a Vilsack selection. With higher name recognition in rural areas than other potential VP's, he could help Democrats gain support, especially where Trump is unpopular. Across the Midwest, moderate undecided voters may be more inclined to support Hillary with Vilsack on the ticket. Nobody knows how much of a factor this will be across the board, but Vilsack's impact would  be most pronounced in his native Iowa, where the two most recent polls show Trump leading. He could help deliver Iowa's 6 electoral votes, admittedly not many, but helpful nonetheless. 

Conversely. the nature of his current post could become a barrier to rural success, thanks to plummeting farm incomes under his leadership. Additionally, his technocratic centrism does not fit well with the sentiments of many disenchanted voters, particularly in exurban and rural regions. For that matter, he definitely wouldn't be great to unite the party, as he lacks liberal credentials. Worse yet for Hillary, Vilsack is somehow even more boring than Tim Kaine. His speeches are practically sleep-inducing. There's no way that Vilsack would be a formidable attack dog. Finally, his total lack of foreign policy experience means that picking Vilsack wouldn't be the best option for the Clinton campaign to counter Trump's security rhetoric. Vilsack would not be a major liability, but he definitely doesn't boost Clinton's fortunes much. 

Wild Card Blurbs
I figured I may as well write a little about the pros and cons of a few other picks who have been talked about (some unrealistic).

Senator Al Franken (MN): B+
Pro: Better known than most, funny, charismatic, attack dog, Midwesterner, popular, progressive credentials
Con: Maybe too brash/risky for Hillary

Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN): B
Pro: Midwesterner, strong progressive, party uniter, incredibly popular in her home state, great crossover appeal
Con: Unknown outside of MN, could face sexism

Martin O'Malley (MD): B-
Pro: Executive experience, attacks Trump, 'cool factor', can unite party, well-spoken
Con: Controversies as mayor and governor, may have burned some bridges with Clinton, may be better for cabinet, doesn't stand out enough

HUD Secretary Julian Castro (TX): B-
Pro: Young, charismatic, Hispanic, brilliant
Con: Unknown, inexperienced, not focused on FoPo, not the most exciting to Bernie fans

VP Joe Biden (DE): C+
Pro: Experienced, witty, attack dog, charismatic, popular
Con: Unprecedented move, almost definitely wants to retire (the biggie), not the youngest

Admiral James Stavridis (FL): C
Pro: Military experience, foreign policy expertise, damages Trump's defense credibility, from a swing state, appeals to moderates and independents
Con: Not the most energetic, beyond unknown, no political experience

Senator Bernie Sanders (VT): C-
Pro: Experienced, definitely brings Sanders fans to the ticket, populist, well known, energetic
Con: Animosity with Hillary, radically anti-establishment, would offend moderates, 'socialist' label, doesn't add youth to the ticket

Victory, Patriotism, and Community

Portugal's underdog Euro victory served as a beautiful counterpoint to the critics and doubters who derided the team. Many complained about Portugal's 'ugly' style of play, their seeming reliance on Ronaldo, and their 'luck'. It seemed like the world didn't want to acknowledge the tactical genius and skill of Portugal's squad. The team's vanquishing of tournament hosts and favorites France was a slap in the face to many, but more importantly, an uplifting moment for a community far from its ancestral home. 

The Portuguese community in Montreal, numbering about 40,000 was elated to see their team win their first major international tournament, celebrating every victory along the way too. After each win, fans gathered on the corner of Rachel and St. Laurent streets to celebrate. As early as Portugal's round of 16 win against Croatia, fans gleefully partied in the street and paraded. With each successive win, against Poland, and then against Wales, the crowds grew larger. After Portugal's narrow victory over France in the final, I arrived in Little Portugal to find St. Laurent closed off and full of celebrating Portugal fans. The atmosphere was remarkable. The crowd chanted, danced, and reveled in the glory of a victory against all odds. When the whole crowd began to sing the Portuguese national anthem, I swelled with pride and sang along. The patriotic jubilation of that moment was unparalleled and beautiful in a way words cannot do justice. Of course, there are countless critics of the linkage between sports, patriotism, and nationalism. This misguided New York Times article, for example. lambastes the 'Europhilia' of American soccer culture and brings up a few disgusting but isolated incidents of prejudice to decry the idea of soccer as a unifier. This article was incredibly flawed and written by somebody who even professes not to have a deep knowledge of soccer. Its generalized, weak criticisms of nationalistic soccer spirit don't hold up. Portugal's European Championship win instead demonstrates the value of sports as a vehicle for productive patriotism. 

Amidst the lively victory celebrations, at least here in Montreal, there was no violence, no vandalism, and no division. French fans walked the same streets that Portuguese fans rejoiced on. In fact, a few even surprisingly joined into the festivities. I observed none of the divisive reactions described by the NYT article's author. In fact, there was an unmistakable sense of unity about the celebration. We were all united by our heritage and its celebration despite our various differences. Each person has their own story and faces their own particular challenges. Within Montreal's Lusophone community, there are various different subgroups. Geographically, fans hail from the mainland, the islands, and even Portuguese speaking countries like Angola. There is a marked social class difference between the older blue-collar Portuguese community anchored in Little Portugal and the younger, more educated white-collar Portuguese who inhabit Laval and Anjou. In victory, however, the Portuguese proved to be one people under the same flag. This unity strengthens the fabric of a community thousands of miles away from its heritage. To some, sports may seem trivial. However, to immigrant communities, sports serves as a link to the homeland and a way of preserving culture. The Euro victory forged a connection even between the most assimilated Portuguese and the most traditional. In essence, winning reinvigorated national pride for a community that long has faced an uphill battle in staying active and connected. With an aging population, suburbanization, and gradual assimilation, it sometimes seems as if Montreal's Portuguese community is declining. However, victory brought the community together, showcased its pride, and made it stronger. 

There's no doubt that sports can be a constructive manner of rousing patriotic sentiment and building unity. It's time we acknowledge that patriotism can strengthen the fabric of communities. Something as seemingly basic as a sports victory can mean a lot more to a group of expats.