Who should each candidate chose as their running mate?

If Guilani is the Republican candidate:

He is weak with the religous groups.
He has a scandal waiting to break that will make voter's question his thoroughness.
As a New Yorker, he will be a weak conservative in the south.
While he has name recognition, he doesn't have enough of the republican groups buying into him to win an election. If those outside his supporters are not motivated to vote or worse yet, splinter and deft to clinton who they see as MORE CONSERVATE!!! he could lose in a landslide. His choice of running mate is crucial.

If Clinton is the Democratic candidate:

She had the highest negative opinion rating in the election in the early days of the race.
She is seen as a pant-suit wearing, feminazi ball-breaker who looks down on housewives. (If I ran her campaign she'd be weaing dresses almost every day from here on out and the media would "luck on to" Chelsea getting a carepackage in the mail of cookies baked by mom.)
Her "inner harpy" emerges in close races.
She is capable of rallying the Republican regligious faithful against her if she pushes too many liberal agendas in the campaign.
She should do well in Kerry's states and might be somewhat strong in the mid-continent corridor (Arkansas, Missouri).
She might be able to pull +5-10% of the voting populace on their "chance to be a part of history".

Clinton Vs. Guiliani

Clinton's running mates:
1) Richardson - The governor of New Mexico would be an ideal running mate for Clinton. Like Clinton, Richardson will draw votes because of his unique status --- a Mexican American. Mexican Americans are, to some degree, a tough sell as voters. They have not committed to a party. They generally vote as a block on issues or local candidates, but rarely national ones and often don't vote at all. But they haven't been offered a Mexican candidate at this level. If they have a chance to vote for a Mexican VP though, IMO they will organize and vote in blocks. Politics aside, he could be good for a gain of +3-5% nationwide just on his status as a Mexican American. That would be enough to swing states that could go either way and more importantly really helps in large states with large mexican populations that can singlehandedly decide the election --- Florida and Ohio. He would deliver New Mexico and might deliver a state or more in the southwest. Great resume. Grateful to President Bill Clinton for his career. Good team player. Delivers exceptional political value. An optimal VP choice. I don't this ticket losing barring a major Hillary gaffe.

2) Obama - I don't know campaign finance law, but if Hillary can take in Obama's money, it might be worthwhile to bring him in as a VP candidate so you can advertise more, but if I were advising Hillary, I would tell her not to do it. Bill Clinton delivers the black vote better than Obama can. Obama would be an anchor dragging her down in the deep south and would kill any push she has in Arkansas and Missouri. Obama can only deliver states Hillary already has.

3) Edwards - Once the Primaries are over, the motivated liberal base will flock to whoever wins the nomination. Right now that is edward's core. In that respect he doesn't really give Hillary a bounce from his current constituency --- those people were definitely going to vote and were definitely voting for Democrat. That said, Edwards might help Clinton in smaller southeastern states by recruiting new voters. He'd help in Arkansas and possibly Missouri. With Rudy being a true yankee, an Edwards Vice Presidency might swing southern independents to clinton. That said, most beleive this election is about change. Thowing out Kerry's failed VP says "business as usual". Additionally, while it isn't a given, Edwards might pull Hillary too far left. Could be a workable VP candidate, but far from optimal.

4) Biden - I think with more face time, Biden would sell well in all regions -- even if he is a northeasterner. He is very personable and seems to carry himself with the dignity of a president or vice president. That said, he doesn't deliver any state Hillary isn't already favored to win and he does have a knack for putting his foot in his mouth every 3-4 months. The risk to reward measure is just not there.


Guiliani's running mates vs. Hillary
1)Gingrich - Gingrich would solidify Guliani in the midwest and south by roping in corporate and christian conservatives, but would cost Rudy on the west coast. Loyalty means a ton to corporate and christian conservatives and they have a ton of loyalty to Gingrich. Gingrich might be able to sell them Guilini based on Rudy's loyalty to the party as well. That would be a winning continuation of RudyG's recent "you have noting to fear from me" speil. Gingrich would be a combination of Dick Cheyene and Bush political mastermind Karl Rove. He would be a ruthless and brilliant pit bull in attacking Hillary. (On the flip side, telling America, "if you vote Guliani you are a heartbeat away from having Newt Gingrich as President" is a chilling thought to most of America, but come on --- these are the Democrats. They probably wouldn't think of that, and if they did, would not have a clue how to get that concept out there without shooting themselves in the butt.) The Guliani/Gingrich team would once more divide America decisively red and blue and that alone might be enough vs. a candidate with high negative numbers --- especially if she choses a bad VP.

2) Huckabee - Huckabee is coming on strongly and the religous rank and file adore him. He would dramatically strengthen Guliani accross all states, especially the deep south. He is a very clever and personable guy who can be an attack dog and slip the return fire. He again makes the election quite similar to the last one in how the states would likely fall.

3) Romney - not a good choice. That would be two guys who are very recent and dubious converts to conservative beleifs. Additionally, I think he makes a good presidential candidate, but would be a poor Hillary attack dog --- what Rudy needs from his VP.

4) Tancredo - I don't think he helps deliver the corporate or christian conservative.

5) Paul - I think he is a freak and may be unyokable, but he could be a workable VP.