Chris Christie. I'm guessing not.
Joni Ernst. Traitor to her gender? More than being GOP is, of course.
Mike Pence. Not awful as a pick, but IN is not a swing state.
Jeff Sessions. >>> <<<
John Thune. Not awful as a pick, but SD is not a swing state and the High Plains are largely irrelevant.
Hillary Clinton's Potential Running Mates
Elizabeth Warren. I hope not.http://www.blueridgedebate.com/viewtopi ... ing#p62297
Julian Castro. Cool, would mobilize Latinos and it would really stick it to the xenophobes.
Tim Kaine. No opinion.
Tom Perez. Montgomery County, Maryland represent!
Mark Warner. No opinion other than vague disease.
I won't even try to guess with Trump. He's a lunatic and many won't want to ruin their political futures.
Who do y'all want Hillary to pick, think Hillary will pick or think Hillary should pick? I'll go with Castro or Perez. BRD bragging rights are at stake.
Not Castro. I like him, and met his mother (before she was anybody's mother) back in the La Raza days. But he's got a light resume, other than academic, and the other side would have a field day with his name.
I wouldn't want to risk a Dem senate seat unless there was a plan for replacement. Most of the list is pretty dull.
Warren is a rock star. Maybe too much of one, but I'd go with her.
Good point about sitting Senators, this year in particular. I'm not sure about the rules. Dem Party, Governor and/or Congress involved, depending on resignation timing? Warren's Massachusetts has a GOP Governor.
Is there a prominent enough black Latina disabled Muslim lesbian?
Thanks, sounds like Congress doesn't get to confirm. Maybe not Warren then?
Say a Dem Senator is up for election this year and the Gov. is GOP. Not sure who that might apply to. S/he could not resign, but withdraw from the race. Then, I think, the state Dem party can put someone else on the ballot.
Massachusetts Interim Gub. Appt.? Yes (from either party?) Special Election Must be Held 145-160 days after vacancy occurs
So, only 5 months, but they may be a critical 5 months and with Warren narrowly getting elected (53.7%) and a GOP Gov., MA wouldn't be certain to elect a Dem.
Vrede too wrote:I don't want Warren to become the VP nominee. Hillary already has the Northeast sewn up and Warren is too effective as a Senator to be relegated to the sidelines. It would be sad to see her voice stifled by having to defend the way more moderate POTUS Hillary line.
Can you imagine what Warren could do, for example, as chair of the Committee on Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs in a majority Dem Senate, which is a real possibility thanks to Trump and the GOP chaos? She could even pay special attention to your BoA, neoplacebo.
There's another possibility - Hillary appoints Warren to a high post if the Nov. Senate results make the potential loss of the MA Senate seat an acceptable risk. I'd rather see her doing that than relatively hidden and powerless as VP.
Vrede too wrote:
There's another possibility - Hillary appoints Warren to a high post if the Nov. Senate results make the potential loss of the MA Senate seat an acceptable risk. I'd rather see her doing that than relatively hidden and powerless as VP.
How "relatively hidden and powerless" the VP is depends a lot on how the President uses him/her. The job of First Lady wasn't the same before Hillary held it and the President giving her real assignments and responsibility. And the VP is first in line of succession to the Presidency.
Who do y'all want Hillary to pick, think Hillary will pick, or think Hillary should pick?
I'll go with Castro or Perez. BRD bragging rights are at stake.
I'm not especially finicky about anyone in particular as long as Trump is eliminated, but I feel Elizabeth Warren will probably be a VP,
S-of-D, or S-of-S pick if Hillary wins.
neoplacebo wrote: I think he will choose Christie; I formed this opinion a couple of months ago and am sticking with it.
As far as Trump goes, signs are pointing to Christie as most-likely VP pick.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
Seth Milner wrote:]
As far as Trump goes, signs are pointing to Christie as most-likely VP pick.
Good choice. 64% unfavorable rating in his own state; 26% approval. The rest of the country just thinks Christie is an obnoxious dick. Yeppers. Big help on the ticket. I love it. Of course, Newt has his own matching set of baggage, too. Trump has already pretended to be his own PR agent. Maybe he can pretend to be his own VP.
Seth Milner wrote:]
As far as Trump goes, signs are pointing to Christie as most-likely VP pick.
Good choice. 64% unfavorable rating in his own state; 26% approval. The rest of the country just thinks Christie is an obnoxious dick. Yeppers. Big help on the ticket. I love it. Of course, Newt has his own matching set of baggage, too. Trump has already pretended to be his own PR agent. Maybe he can pretend to be his own VP.
Vrede too wrote:
There's another possibility - Hillary appoints Warren to a high post if the Nov. Senate results make the potential loss of the MA Senate seat an acceptable risk. I'd rather see her doing that than relatively hidden and powerless as VP.
How "relatively hidden and powerless" the VP is depends a lot on how the President uses him/her. The job of First Lady wasn't the same before Hillary held it and the President giving her real assignments and responsibility. And the VP is first in line of succession to the Presidency.
It would assassination-proof Hillary from most cons & fat cats.
If Trump is still sliding by the Dem convention, Hillary can pick whomever she wants for any reasons she wants. If she's worried at all, I'd guess a male, either a Latino or one from a purple state.
And if they did manage to win a few electoral votes, they'd probably be Hillary's. If nobody gets a majority, the decision goes to the House. We'd get Trump or worse. Bernie doesn't strike me as the sort who would want to end his career blamed for that.
The Bernie/Greens would only win electoral votes in the handful of states that divide them proportionally, along with maaaybe getting a plurality in a state or two. People really love Bernie, but they don't tend to be stupid. In the rest of the states Hillary or Trump would still get the winner take all electoral votes, with Trump picking up some states he otherwise would have lost, possibly enough to get the win. I don't think the Bernie/Greens would ever get enough electoral votes to throw it to the House.
Noted, USA SUPREME is a sketchy "news site" that doesn't even ID who's running it or where its funding comes from.
No, I don't think it's likely that any third party, even this year of the unpopular candidates, is going to throw it to the House. But even running as a Green or Independent is not "doing everything possible to keep Trump from winning," which is what Bernie has sworn to do.
O Really wrote:... Not Castro. I like him, and met his mother (before she was anybody's mother) back in the La Raza days. But he's got a light resume, other than academic, and the other side would have a field day with his name.
... Castro -- whose twin brother, Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro, represents San Antonio in Congress -- lacks the experience of more seasoned potential running mates such as Tim Kaine, a current U.S. senator and former governor of Virginia, and Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, a top House Democrat.
And unlike Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez, Castro is not favored by progressives, who criticized him over federal mortgage policy this spring....
I've never heard of Xavier Becerra. He looks good, though. I do like Perez.
Not that I favor Castro over other possibilities, but it looks like some see your negative as a positive.
... But his supporters say the telegenic housing secretary could help broaden Clinton’s appeal.
“He’s Gen- X, she’s a baby boomer. He brings gender balance, he brings regional balance,” said Henry Cisneros, a former HUD Secretary under President Bill Clinton and former San Antonio mayor....
Both Perez and Castro will be out of jobs as of January unless reappointed, while Becerra and Warren can continue their good works no matter who is POTUS.
I'm all for telegenic, gen-x, yada, but I'd like somebody with reasonably broad political experience. Even telegenic Dan Quayle had about 10 years under his belt. We can joke about "assasin-proofing" if we like, but seriously, the VP is next in line to be President. Really. Has happened.
I don't know enough about Castro to disagree with you, but his supporters will say:
Julian Castro has 15 years of political experience. Elizabeth Warren has 9, and 5 of those were on advisory panels.
He's got administrative experience. Elizabeth Warren doesn't and Xavier Becerra doesn't have much.
He's got federal government experience. Shrub, Bill Clinton, Reagan and Carter didn't.
He's well-suited to deal with Mexico, not our most important international relation but arguably the one with the most complexities and pitfalls.
Winning in November is what matters. "A heartbeat away" is just one factor and often not a crucial one with voters.
Well, yeah, 15. But 13 of those was as San Antonio council member and mayor.
So, other than B Clinton, how'd that "no federal experience" work out?
All things considered, however, he probably is a decent candidate. General wisdom is that VP choices can do harm, but only rarely help. I doubt he'd do any harm. He's certainly not a Palin or Quayle.
O Really wrote:Well, yeah, 15. But 13 of those was as San Antonio council member and mayor.
Large, diverse city in a border state counts for something. POTUS is more of an administrative job than a legislative one.
So, other than B Clinton,
??? Peccadillos matter more in DC than they do in Arkansas, as he found out.
how'd that "no federal experience" work out?
It got them elected. You're the one calling Castro a naif. How did that federal experience work out for Daddy Shrub? It is interesting that federal outsiders and insiders alike as far back as I can remember all pick a federal insider VP candidate.
All things considered, however, he probably is a decent candidate. General wisdom is that VP choices can do harm, but only rarely help. I doubt he'd do any harm. He's certainly not a Palin or Quayle.
That's my thinking. Given Trump's outrageous Latino-hating, I'm not even sure that a Latino VP will motivate that many Latino voters that aren't already going to vote, but it can't hurt. I suppose it could also be the selection of a future POTUS, for better or worse, and help move TX towards becoming blue.
<<<
