"Any male voter who's going to make the candidate's gender a conscious or subconscious deciding factor in his choice is already won or lost in this election."

In normal election years, the ticket is 99.9999 percent about the presidential candidate, and the "rest" is about the VP candidate. But with both Clinton and Donald Trump facing such high unfavorable ratings (56 percent for Clinton and 59 percent for Trump, according to Real Clear Politics), their running mates really matter this year.

The many pundits who have been predicting and weighing Clinton's running mate options have it all wrong. Because most of them continue to name Housing and Urban Development Secretary and former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro is the "obvious" best choice. They even believe that Trump's repeated comments about Latinos add to the potency of Castro's name and face on the ticket. But that thinking completely ignores the Clinton campaign's real problems (that I mentioned above). Castro does nothing to aid Clinton's need to gain acceptance from the now dominant progressive wing of the party. And while Castro's youth and good looks will positively distract many voters from Clinton's negatives, that distraction won't last long. To really keep the focus off of Clinton's negatives for a long time, the public needs a running mate it can really sink its teeth into. (Besides, if the Clinton camp doesn't already have the Latino vote as sewn up and energized as it could possibly be, then there's no hope for her in November anyway. )

Forget about a list of other names. There's really only one person that Clinton should choose in order to overcome those hurdles: Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.



Warren is arguably a more popular standard bearer for the progressives than Sanders. And because she's been such a recognizable figure in the ideological debate for several years now, she provides plenty of material for the news media, voters, and everyone else to discuss for weeks. Even Trump routinely acknowledges her, if only to demean her in a ferocity he usually reserves for those running against him, even though she's not running against him for anything yet. Warren has also been busy for weeks honing her own attacks on Trump that have become the toast of left wing social media. Warren is the ultimate surrogate for Clinton, giving her a chance to take a breather and allow someone more tenacious and savvy to join the back-and-forth online war that Trump has been winning for some time.

What about the inevitable question of whether it's wise for Hillary to choose another woman as her running mate? Won't that hurt her among undecided male voters? Not really. Any male voter who's going to make the candidate's gender a conscious or subconscious deciding factor in his choice is already won or lost in this election. Besides, in choosing Warren, the Clinton campaign can trot out a new twist on a catchy and snarky slogan and say: "Hillary needs a man for her vice president like a fish needs a bicycle!" (I know the Clinton campaign and social media team will like that one; they can send payment to me for that idea, care of CNBC).

But seriously, this running mate choice is about much more than a catchphrase. The wrong choice here could really doom Clinton's chances and essentially end her political career. If the Clinton team truly sees its situation for what it really is, Warren isn't just the best choice, she's the only choice.

Commentary by Jake Novak, supervising producer of "Power Lunch." Follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny.



For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter.