I guess this is vice president week. Election Betting Odds has begun a market in gambling on whom will be the running mates for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. If you’re looking for a short list, go back a page or two to find the picks of Nate and Goethe.

Briefly, here are the names, and odds of their being selected:


Tim Kaine, VA Senator, 21.5%
Julian Castro, HUD Secretary, 15.5%
Bernie Sanders, VT Senator, 13.0%
Thomas Perez, Labor Secretary10.5%
Sharrod Brown, IN Senator, 10.5%
Elizabeth Warren, MA Senator, 8.5%
Cory Booker, NJ Senator, 6.2%
Mark Warner, VA Senator, 5.5%
Deval Patrick, MA Ex-Governor, 3.5%
Al Franken, MN Senator, 3.5%
Evan Bayh, IN Ex-Senator 3.5%


Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker, 17.5%
John Kasich, OH Governor, 14.9%
Joni Ernst, IA Senator, 8.3%
Chris Christie, NJ Governor, 7.0%
Jeff Sessions, AL Senator, 7.0%
Mike Huckabee, AR Ex-Governor, 5.5%
Marco Rubio, FL Senator, 5.5%
Condoleeza Rice, Ex-Secretary of State 5.0%
Ben Carson, Ex-Neurosurgeon, 4.9%
Susana Martinez, NM Governor, 4.5%
Democrat Jim Webb, VA Ex-Senator, 3.5%

OK, so who WANTS to run? Marco Rubio, who’ll be out of a job in January, says he doesn’t want to run with Trump.

“While Republican voters have chosen Donald Trump as the presumptive GOP nominee, my previously stated reservations about his campaign and concerns with many of his policies remain unchanged,” Mr. Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, wrote in a Facebook post. “He will be best served by a running mate and by surrogates who fully embrace his campaign.

“As such, I have never sought, will not seek and do not want to be considered for Vice President,” he said. “Instead, I will focus my attention on representing the people of Florida, retaining a conservative majority in the Senate and electing principled conservatives across the country.”

Not that anyone asked, but Jan Brewer says she’d be really, really, really interested, according to NewsMax.

In an interview Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Brewer, who endorsed Trump in February, joked about not being on a list of 10 possible vice presidential picks, chiding host Jake Tapper, “Who made up that list? They didn’t put me on there.”
“Would you be willing to be considered?” Tapper responded.

“Of course I would be,” she shot back. “I would be willing to serve in any capacity that I could be of help with Donald on. But that’s a tremendous list of people to choose from, all very wonderful people, well qualified.”

On the Dem side, only one name comes up again and again: Bernie Sanders. And more than a little surprising, he says he’d consider running with Hillary.

Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer if he would accept a hypothetical offer to be Clinton’s running mate, Sanders said he would talk about it with her after the convention.

Of course, someone needs to explain to Bernie that the vice presidential nominee is chosen at the convention, not afterward—unless you’re Sergeant Shriver. If you’re Carly Fiorina, you can be picked for vice president, even if there’s no president to run with.


  1. Condoleeza Rice is both woman and black and she is actually a very capable intelligent and god-fearing woman and would attract both blacks and women. Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie are all also very capable intelligent and god-fearing people especially Mike Huckabee. I think though that they would represent the white male to many people too much and besides vice president is an opportunity that should be used for attracting other groups to the party. Carson would also be a great pick and he is definitely a very capable intelligent and god-fearing man who i think will be trump’s vice president.

    • Condeleeza Rice wouldn’t attract black people or women any more than Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina did, though she’s admittedly far more qualified than the two of them put together.

      • I disagree. Trump has far more support in the polls with blacks and hispanics than Romney or any Republican candidate perhaps ever- see link:


        Trump also did better than Ted Cruz even when he was still in with polls among women and evangelicals:


        I realize overall that Carson and Fiorina did zilch but its the primaries and one has to speculate on the message of Trump and the additional Carson support that likely is adding to attracting more blacks, other minorities, and evangelicals than romney ever did. Before iowa carson polling was going through the roof. Plus, some of those blacks, minorities and evangelicals are certainly women that Trump is attracting. As far as Condeleeza Rice she is both woman, black and evangelical so again i disagree with you and say that she would indeed attract black people.

        • I agree that it was amazing that Trump beat Cruz with Evangelicals, since Cruz pandered so shamelessly to them.

          But I checked out your American Mirror link about African-American support. The “recent poll” was almost nine months ago, Labor Day, 2015. And it was by SurveyUSA. They think they asked 900 registered voters, but it’s a totally automated, computer poll. It’s safe to say, only those who really agree will stick around to punch the buttons.

          The American Mirror offered this link to the poll:

          You’ll notice that they only ask about gender and age, not race. Apparently, American Mirror made up the African-American rate, and nobody bothered to check it.

          FactCheck says this about African-American polls:
          “Trump said a “recent poll” showed 25 percent of blacks support him in a hypothetical race against Hillary Clinton. That “recent poll” is actually from September. Six recent polls, all taken in February, show his support ranges from 4 percent to 12 percent.”


          I agree that Trump will do much better than anyone now thinks. Geraldo Rivera predicted in March (on O’Reilly’s show) that Trump will get 25% of the African-American vote, primarily because Trump is against free trade and immigration.


            • The question is whether people should work together or refuse to. That is, are African-Americans getting more for their community by identifying with the Democrats, or would they do better to negotiate and withhold their support?

              The same could be said about Evangelicals, or any other segment. In the 60s, there was a strong religious component in the Democratic Party–for civil rights and against war. Many priests were arrested in protests.

        • I think that the fact that none of the female or black candidates they’ve offered up during the nomination process have attracted any significant interest or support might be evidence enough. Or are you working under the assumption that black people will reflexively vote for anyone with dark skin, and women for anyone with a vagina, regardless of what their policy positions are?

          • Sour grapes makes the best whine. You still have no evidence is lacking. Goethe is eating your lunch.

            • Okay. If you think that black people will reflexively vote for a black candidate regardless of their views, or women will vote for a female candidate regardless of her views, then I’m not interested in trying to talk you out of your inane stereotyping. There’s no sour grapes or whining here. Just observations based upon a lifetime of political involvement.

            • At this point, I’m honestly flabbergasted, and admittedly at a loss for words, since you’re not actually responding to any of my points. I think we’re done here, don’t you?

            • I thought I made that clear in my last post to you that I was done talking to you. All you have are opinions and obsfucation that you can’t back up.

        • Also, attracting more black voters is nice for the Republicans, but it’s not THAT hard to work your way up from practically zero.

Comments are closed.