Who should HRC pick for her VP?

[untermensche]

According to this

http://www.270towin.com/maps/qxN2v

Ohio and Pennsylvania are uncertain. One of those would be a boost….

But I agree, Warren and Sanders can only deliver what she already has.

A white male younger than her.

No. Either Warren or Sanders would lure some of the left of center voters, especially younger ones. Hillary is pretty solidly right of center. A liberal running mate would be a draw for younger voters who are likely to stay home. It would certainly make her much more palatable to the young set. And to this old lady.

Sanders is not going to do it. And Warren might not either.

It would take leadership and vision for Hillary to get Warren to run with her. Hillary has neither.

 

[fromderinside]

It would take leadership and vision for Hillary to get Warren to run with her. Hillary has neither.

Hillary has already telegraphed her husband as economy czar and she's the rights, health, and education czar. So she should pick David Petraeus VP international czar to make hers a preeminent competency ticket to contrast the the complete lack of competency candidacy of The Donald.

Think of it. Working government versus the Shell game.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

She should pick Trump.

He's been a democrat for a few decades and he brings a lot of supporters to the ticket.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It would take leadership and vision for Hillary to get Warren to run with her. Hillary has neither.

Hillary has already telegraphed her husband as economy czar and she's the rights, health, and education czar. So she should pick David Petraeus VP international czar to make hers a preeminent competency ticket to contrast the the complete lack of competency candidacy of The Donald.

Think of it. Working government versus the Shell game.

We could call them the A team. As in scarlet.

Any room in there for Eliot Spitzer?

 

[MarkW]

First, it's unlikely that Clinton's choice of running-mate will make a large difference in the election--at least, that's what many political scientists have concluded. Here is one article summarizing some of the research on the issue, and here is another one.

Second, I don't think it would be a good choice for Clinton to pick a current Democratic elected office-holder. The Democratic "bench" is too thin to deplete it by taking someone out of a position where they can be influential to make them the Vice-President. This applies doubly to any current Senator, especially any Senator from a state with a Republican governor, because it would damage the party's chances of taking control of the Senate this fall. So, no to Warren, or Sherrod Brown, or Joe Manchin, etc.

Although his brief presidential campaign didn't set the world on fire, I hope Clinton gives some consideration to Martin O'Malley. As a former state governor, and a major-city mayor before that, he has plenty of experience in governing. He's young enough to be a potential national contender well into the next decade. He's not currently in office, so choosing him doesn't thin out the party's bench. And while he has never been a lefty populist in the Sanders mold, he did campaign to Clinton's left earlier this year, so choosing him would be reaching out to more liberal voters in a way that a more centrist nominee would not.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Goldman Sachs.

 

[Toni]

No. Either Warren or Sanders would lure some of the left of center voters, especially younger ones. Hillary is pretty solidly right of center. A liberal running mate would be a draw for younger voters who are likely to stay home. It would certainly make her much more palatable to the young set. And to this old lady.

Sanders is not going to do it. And Warren might not either.

It would take leadership and vision for Hillary to get Warren to run with her. Hillary has neither.

I don't think Hillary would make an overture towards either one. Sanders would be more likely to jump aboard than Warren.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No. Either Warren or Sanders would lure some of the left of center voters, especially younger ones. Hillary is pretty solidly right of center. A liberal running mate would be a draw for younger voters who are likely to stay home. It would certainly make her much more palatable to the young set. And to this old lady.

Sanders is not going to do it. And Warren might not either.

It would take leadership and vision for Hillary to get Warren to run with her. Hillary has neither.

Again, I think that Sanders is just too old. It would make more sense to go after Warren. I dislike Warren (and many others like her) because she is so negative. I like positive leaders.

 

[Derec]

Again, I think that Sanders is just too old. It would make more sense to go after Warren.

Warren is no spring chicken herself. With her as VP it would be Biden all over again - a VP too old to be the heir apparent in 8 years.
Besides, Warren is too similar to Hillary demographically. Both are old, female, live in the North East and used to be Republicans. Running mates usually provide some contrast - Obama for example picked an old, white Washington insider from the East Coast for example.

 

[Derec]

Although his brief presidential campaign didn't set the world on fire, I hope Clinton gives some consideration to Martin O'Malley. As a former state governor, and a major-city mayor before that, he has plenty of experience in governing. He's young enough to be a potential national contender well into the next decade. He's not currently in office, so choosing him doesn't thin out the party's bench. And while he has never been a lefty populist in the Sanders mold, he did campaign to Clinton's left earlier this year, so choosing him would be reaching out to more liberal voters in a way that a more centrist nominee would not.

He struck a very pro-illegal note in the campaigns. That alone would make him a hard sell.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Again, I think that Sanders is just too old. It would make more sense to go after Warren.

Warren is no spring chicken herself. With her as VP it would be Biden all over again - a VP too old to be the heir apparent in 8 years.
Besides, Warren is too similar to Hillary demographically. Both are old, female, live in the North East and used to be Republicans. Running mates usually provide some contrast - Obama for example picked an old, white Washington insider from the East Coast for example.

Well, I'm leaning for Cuban! The country wants non-politicians to be elected. They are tired of both parties. From what I've heard, Cuban is a fiscal conservative, social liberal (pretty much describes more than half the country). I've also heard that he's a great leader. He seems to be optimistic and problem solver. His success in business comes from managing going concerns, which is very difficult. Whereas, Trump's success has come from managing real estate. Not many moving pieces in real estate. HRC's problem is mostly with white people who feel left behind. I think that Cuban would bring some of these people back.

- - - Updated - - -

Although his brief presidential campaign didn't set the world on fire, I hope Clinton gives some consideration to Martin O'Malley. As a former state governor, and a major-city mayor before that, he has plenty of experience in governing. He's young enough to be a potential national contender well into the next decade. He's not currently in office, so choosing him doesn't thin out the party's bench. And while he has never been a lefty populist in the Sanders mold, he did campaign to Clinton's left earlier this year, so choosing him would be reaching out to more liberal voters in a way that a more centrist nominee would not.

He struck a very pro-illegal note in the campaigns. That alone would make him a hard sell.

I just thought that Martin was just boring. He's just uninspiring.

 

[Derec]

Well, I'm leaning for Cuban! The country wants non-politicians to be elected. They are tired of both parties. From what I've heard, Cuban is a fiscal conservative, social liberal (pretty much describes more than half the country). I've also heard that he's a great leader. He seems to be optimistic and problem solver. His success in business comes from managing going concerns, which is very difficult. Whereas, Trump's success has come from managing real estate. Not many moving pieces in real estate. HRC's problem is mostly with white people who feel left behind. I think that Cuban would bring some of these people back.

Yeah, I guess basketball has more moving pieces than real estate. About 11 more per game.
Would he even be interested though? And do we really want a 2nd lady named "Tiffany"?

I just thought that Martin was just boring. He's just uninspiring.

So are Joe Biden or Dick Cheney or Al Gore. The VP really should not overshadow the top billing. Which might make it a hard task to find a suitable running mate for Hillary. Perhaps Ben Stein (reprising his Ferris Buller character) if he wasn't such a Republican ...

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yeah, I guess basketball has more moving pieces than real estate. About 11 more per game.
Would he even be interested though? And do we really want a 2nd lady named "Tiffany"?

I just thought that Martin was just boring. He's just uninspiring.

So are Joe Biden or Dick Cheney or Al Gore. The VP really should not overshadow the top billing. Which might make it a hard task to find a suitable running mate for Hillary. Perhaps Ben Stein (reprising his Ferris Buller character) if he wasn't such a Republican ...

Trump has had success in managing real estate. Cuban's success has come from starting companies and managing going concerns. Real estate magnets need good judgement and negotiation skills. Successful managers of going concerns need great leadership and management skills. But you make a good point that Cuban would probably outshine HRC a little!

 

[Derec]

Real estate magnets need good judgement and negotiation skills.

No, they kinda just sit there.

 

[Terrell]

I'm not sure who she should take, but I don't think Warren or Sanders would be a good choice for reasons already stated by other posters.

Whoever she chooses should be someone with a future but doesn't take someone away from any office that's difficult for the Democrats to keep. In my opinion the Democrats need to do some rebuilding in the down ticket offices, especially state legislatures & governors. This should be a major focus in 2016, 2018, and 2020, but they need to sustain it beyond there.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's why she should choose long time friend, long time supporter, long time donor, and long time loyal Democrat, Donald Trump.

 

[Deepak]

That's why she should choose long time friend, long time supporter, long time donor, and long time loyal Democrat, Donald Trump.

Could you imagine if they both went with the reciprocity pick?

 

[Derec]

That's why she should choose long time friend, long time supporter, long time donor, and long time loyal Democrat, Donald Trump.

Could you imagine if they both went with the reciprocity pick?

As if they weren't like Kang and Kodos enough already.

 

[MarkW]

In my opinion the Democrats need to do some rebuilding in the down ticket offices, especially state legislatures & governors. This should be a major focus in 2016, 2018, and 2020, but they need to sustain it beyond there.

One of the big things the Democrats need to do is figure out how to increase turnout among their voters in midterm elections. Democratic turnout in 2010 and 2014 dropped off much more, compared with the 2008 and 2012 presidential election years, than did Republican turnout. If Democrats had turned out in 2010 and 2014 at rates comparable to Republicans, today you'd almost certainly have a Democratic majority (albeit a narrow one) in the Senate, several additional states with Democratic governors, including at least some of Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, and a larger Democratic delegation in the House, although it might still be controlled by Republicans.

 

[Terrell]

In my opinion the Democrats need to do some rebuilding in the down ticket offices, especially state legislatures & governors. This should be a major focus in 2016, 2018, and 2020, but they need to sustain it beyond there.

One of the big things the Democrats need to do is figure out how to increase turnout among their voters in midterm elections. Democratic turnout in 2010 and 2014 dropped off much more, compared with the 2008 and 2012 presidential election years, than did Republican turnout. If Democrats had turned out in 2010 and 2014 at rates comparable to Republicans, today you'd almost certainly have a Democratic majority (albeit a narrow one) in the Senate, several additional states with Democratic governors, including at least some of Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, and a larger Democratic delegation in the House, although it might still be controlled by Republicans.

Agreed. I'm not sure how the Democrats go about doing that but they do need to find a way to motivate their voters in off year elections. For those who think that the Democrats are insufficiently liberal this is an opportunity to move the party in the direction they desire by running their own candidates, and motivating voters that agree with them to come out & vote.