Criteria followed in choosing a VP candidate after a lot of blood letting involved in party primaries ?

Question

In parliamentary democracies, the party bosses have much greater say. Is it a case that in US Presidential system, candidates enter the fray on their own, organize their campaigning for themselves, select their choiced person for running mate themselves; and when elected choose his / her own secretaries. There is no say of the party organization ? In can't be that much monarchial.

Answer 1

The normal strategy is to select someone as VP that is popular with legislators but does not overshadow the president, can win states that the president is not popular in or on the edge of losing and someone that has similar views with the president.

Answer 2

Usually the nominee tries to offer an olive branch to the losing wing of the party by choosing someone acceptable to them as the Vice Presidential nominee. And, there is often some regional balance involved in the decision-making. Ideological and regional balance along with choosing someone that the nominee feels he or she can get along with are the usual criteria in choosing the vice presidential nominee. This is one of the reasons that John Edwards would be on Hillary or Barack's short list.

Answer 3

Choose whoever balances the ticket, but didn't get attacked by the eventual nominee too much. One thing the nominee doesn't want is sound bites that show him or her attacking their running mate. I think the best matchups in the Republican Party would be Giuliani/Huckabee, McCain/Thompson (or vice-versa), Romney/(someone outside the nomination process). Any of the dems would be best advised to take Richardson. He's the only one with executive experience qualifications among any of them and he hasn't attacked much or been attacked much.

Answer 4

The winning candidate chooses whomever he wishes.

Answer 5

Hillary probably has a couple of people in mind already.