The rule in vice presidential picking usually is "do no harm", meaning that the vice presidential choice is not supposed to harm the ticket, only helping it by adding a state, or showing that they can govern. Some candidates pick the boldest choices meant to change the dynamic of the presidential race if it is not in their way (McCain picking Palin in Aug. 2008). While some candidates picking safe choices that don't excite the country, but show some type of governance (Cheney 2000 (unexciting), Biden 2008 (no-nonsense attack dog). Yesterday, I said why Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine would be a good choice for Hillary Clinton in 2016; he could add Virginia, he speaks Spanish, etc. They are other choices that are good such as New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich, etc. They are safer choices, while more bolder choices like HUD Secretary Julian Castro, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, and even Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren would change the dynamics of the presidential election.
The same goes with the Republican Party too. If Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, crazy Ted Cruz, Mike Pence or Chris Christie is nominated by the GOP, will they go for a safer choice (Tim Pawlenty, John Thune, Marsha Blackburn), or will they go more bolder like a New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, or a South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, etc.
However, some pundits, etc. feel the safest choice= dull, uninspiring, bland, etc.
Boldest choice= exciting, invigorating, game-changer.
So my question is this: Should the presidential nominees of all the parties in 2016, pick the safest choice, or the boldest choice?
http://articles.latimes.com/...
http://www.csmonitor.com/...
http://www.reuters.com/...
http://www.theguardian.com/...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...