This conversation is drawn from Tuesday’s episode of The Editors podcast.

Rich Lowry: So Jim, just in terms of their possibilities for getting selected as veep, we’re going to go through a series of these candidates paired up. Who would you rather be? Katie Britt or Sarah Huckabee Sanders?

Jim Geraghty: I think Katie Britt. Yeah, everybody said she botched and did a lousy job with State of the Union response. She still represents youth, fresh face, a relative unknown on the political scene. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, I feel like is a known quantity or at least a remembered quantity from her days as White House press secretary. Neither one comes from a particularly important state. I don’t know if either one of them would move the dial dramatically.

Lowry: Ramesh, Britt or Sanders?

Ramesh Ponnuru: I still think Britt. And I just, how to put this? There’s no good way to put this, but I think that Trump, he has a vision. Like literally, there’s a set of characteristics he wants somebody to look like. And I think that Britt approximates that more than Sanders does.

Lowry: Charlie.

Charles Cooke: I actually think the other way around, there’s also no nice way of putting this. I think that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will be favored. I think she didn’t blow the State of the Union response. I think she’s less threatening than Katie Britt. . . . I think she also has proven herself to be loyal over time in a way that Katie Britt hasn’t even if she wanted to. I would much rather be Sarah Huckabee Sanders if I were hoping to be chosen.

Lowry: I’m totally with Charlie. I endorse everything he said, but I don’t discount obviously the look factor in terms of how Trump thinks about it.

Jim, long shots here. Byron Donalds or Elise Stefanik.

Geraghty: Can I just say it’s not gonna be either one of those? They’re not well known enough.

Lowry: Ramesh.

Ponnuru: Jim’s right, but I do think that there’s going to be a lot of Republicans around Trump and maybe Trump himself who think that he needs a woman on the ticket.

Cooke: Yeah, I think Romesh is right. Not that he would turn it down, but I think Byron Donalds wants to be governor of Florida. And I wonder how much work he’s doing to get Trump to put him in a good position to run for that.

Lowry: Jim is right and Ramesh is also right. It’s not gonna be either of them, but you’d rather be Stefanik.

All right, a more meaningful one, Jim. J. D. Vance or Marco Rubio?

Jim Geraghty: If you can deal with the residency issue, Rubio’s the better choice. If you’re Trump, J. D. Vance is a really useful ally, but I think you’d rather have him in the Senate. I think he actually is pretty good at advancing the Trump agenda. Rubio’s moved in a more nationalist, populist direction, but I think as a sheer campaigner and winning over kind of the Trump skeptic voters, the Nikki Haley voters that are out there, I think Rubio does more for that and increases Trump’s odds of winning the election.

Lowry: Ramesh, Vance or Rubio?

Ponnuru: Well, neither of them really balances him in that Vance just has an appeal to the harder-core Trumpists than Trump himself. And Rubio has the geographic lack of balancing. So between the two, I think Vance makes sense just because of the residency thing. And I can’t imagine Rubio moving to another state or declaring himself in another state. And I can’t imagine Trump doing that either.

Lowry: The ultimate Rubio change would be flipping-flopping on whether he’s a resident of Florida or not.

Charlie, Vance or Rubio?

Cooke: He has to move to Tennessee and he instantly becomes country music-loving and boot-wearing Marco Rubio.

I think that, Rubio residency issue, notwithstanding, he is far more likely than Vance. I don’t, other than that he is something of a Trump sycophant and is in line with him on policy, I don’t know why anyone thinks J. D. Vance would be in the running. He’s just too much of a Trump product. He is a recursive Trump.

Lowry: Well, if you’re a Trumpist, that’s a feature, not a, not a bug, right? I agree that Rubio would be a really good choice, arguably the best choice, but the residency thing is just a major complication. Even if you can find a way around it, it would be embarrassing and still contentious. If Trump’s convicted in this New York case, there may be further attempts to kick him off the ballot. So then do you actually want people saying your number two person is not eligible as well? And I just wouldn’t sleep on J. D. Vance. I think his odds of being picked are a lot higher than some of the other names we hear a lot.

Another meaningful pairing here, Jim, would you rather be Doug Burgum or Tim Scott?

Geraghty: Lately, I would say Burgum. It sounds like you’re hearing that buzz. It sounds like Trump likes him. And you’re talking about somebody who balances out the Trump persona. Doug Burgum is even-keeled and normal and boring in a good way. And I think that ends up being very reassuring for, as I said, all those Nikki Haley voters. I would point out that Tim Scott, one of the things that I think makes him a very intriguing choice is that every time Tim Scott has been in the national spotlight, we have seen self-professed “anti-racists” denounce him in the most hateful and racist ways, calling him an Uncle Tom, calling him an Oreo, etc. So if Trump picks him and the reaction from the Democratic Party is the most horrible racist stuff anybody’s ever heard, I actually kind of think that might help Trump. And so I think it could do some good. I don’t know if that’s a sufficient reason to pick him, but I do think it’s a very intriguing factor if Tim Scott were the selection.

Lowry: Ramesh.

Ponnuru: I think Tim Scott makes more sense than Burgum, notwithstanding that Burgum had a better Sunday show appearance this weekend than Scott. I think that there is some legitimate excitement in Republican circles around the idea of making a breakthrough among non-white voters this fall. And I think that’s got to have a lot of appeal to Trump and the political people around him, and Burgum doesn’t offer any advantages that way.

Lowry: Charlie.

Cooke: I definitely think that Tim Scott would make more sense, but I think I would rather be Doug Burgum because I think the reporting on this has been solid. So I think Trump prefers Burgum.

Lowry: I’d rather be Burgum. I just I don’t find Scott hugely impressive. It wouldn’t shock me if people who are going to be influential in this process have the same view. Burgum is as safe as safe can get unless there’s some horrible thing lurking that no one has any idea about and might do the most to help in the suburbs absent a woman with some suburban appeal,

Final pairing, Jim Geraghty, would you rather be Kristi Noem or Cricket?

Geraghty: People have asked legitimately, “Why is Kristi Noem going out doing these TV appearances and keeping the story alive?”

I’m just glad she’s keeping something alive.

Lowry: Ramesh.

Ponnuru: Well, I’ve heard that all dogs go to heaven, so I think I’d rather be Cricket.

Lowry: Charlie?

Cooke: Would I rather be a dog who’s been shot in the gravel pit or. . . . I’d rather be Kristi Noem.

Geraghty: The funny thing is that this is not an easy choice.

Cooke: It is an easy choice. Sorry, it is an easy choice. I don’t wish to be a dog who’s been shot in a gravel pit. Yes, Kristi Noem, who is alive and human.

Ponnuru: I think it we workshop this a little. We’re going to come up with a solid slogan for Kristi Noem.

Geraghty: “Kristi Noem 2024 — till the last dog dies.”