For those unawares, Post Politics hosts a live chat every Tuesday at 2 p.m.

If you're reading this, that means you've missed this week's. What you can do, though, is put next week's chat on your calendar and head on over to check out this week's transcript.

A sampling:


Q: Assuming he wins in November, Everyone expects him to run for president in 2016. After seeing him cohost yesterday (and doing it well) a NYC sports show, I tend to think he may go the Ed Rendell rout, doing media and making money, rather than spending 2 years running for president. Agree or Disagree


A: For the record, I think Ed Rendell would have run for president if he thought he had a chance. I don't think he became a pundit because that was his first choice.

As for Christie -- he can always take that route later in life. He's a relatively young guy and his time is now. He clearly loves being a part of the game.

But that doesn't mean he takes the next step, either. Lots of things will play into that decision.


Q: Because Tom Tancredo did so well.


A: The two of them even LOOK alike!

In fairness to King, I think he might have broader appeal -- especially to evangelical Christians. A better analog than Tancredo might be Bachmann (who, let's not forget, was once leading in the polls).


Q: PRO: Appealing to young people who might not otherwise vote. Would drive up black turnout. Would raise tons of money. Would lend some star quality. CONS: Does nothing in the Electoral College. HRC will have all the money and star quality she needs. New on the national stage, and could easily go off message. More of a "base" pick than a pitch to swing voters. Not nearly as well-known as reporters assume. The Democrats will have the most potent driver of black turnout already sitting in the White House, who presumably will stump for Hillary.  What do you think?


A: Good summation.

I think Booker may wind up being a lot of people's favorites for vice president. Keeping black and youth turnout up would be huge for Democrats, and I'm not sure there's anybody who could help in that regard like Booker.

I tend to dismiss the idea that these guys are picked for their home states. Better to have the one that can help you win in a bunch of swing states than just one.

And as for being a "base" pick -- I think Booker crafts a more bipartisan image. He's not a liberal's liberal, by any means.