• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Who should HRC pick for her VP?

 
 
 
Tristan Scott said:
Julian Castro would be a great choice.
Click to expand...

When I hear Castro I still think
1974_fidel_castro_ap_629.jpg
 
Harry_Bosch said:
untermensche said:
Cuban?

So Hillary says the Democrats are just a sideshow too?
Click to expand...

What has Cuban said that is wacky? I can think of 50 things that Trump has said that is wacky. His views on vaccines, bombing families, views on Mexicans, and etc and etc.
Click to expand...

He's an admirer of Ayn Rand. Such a pick would guarantee I wouldn't vote for the ticket.
 
I think HRC needs to widen her appeal, so I think Derec would be the perfect counterweight for HRC.
 
Bernie just endorsed Russ Feingold's campaign for senate.

I think Hillary should ask Feingold to be her VP, if he were not running for senate.

Feingold's credentials are excellent.

voted against USA PATRIOT Act, voted against iraq war, voted against wall st bailout. Mccain-feingold campaign finance reform etc...
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Bernie just endorsed Russ Feingold's campaign for senate.
Click to expand...
He just endorsed Feingold?!

Feingold's credentials are excellent.
Click to expand...
Except he in a state being run by a rabid asshole... and a Republican. That'd be a lost Senate seat.

Among the issues with Obama, I think his largest was depleting Democrat strongholds in the Senate and Governorship. He robbed the Democrats of a good deal of incumbency that really helped to bite the Dems in the ass in '10.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Among the issues with Obama, I think his largest was depleting Democrat strongholds in the Senate and Governorship. He robbed the Democrats of a good deal of incumbency that really helped to bite the Dems in the ass in '10.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to Obama nominating Democratic governors and senators to be in his cabinet? It's hard to see how this had much of an effect on the 2010 elections, since the "depleted" Senate seats or governorships were either held by Democrats in 2010 (New York, Colorado), or unlikely to be held when incumbent governors were term-limited out of office (Arizona, Kansas).
 
Toni said:
Horatio Parker said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

I would love to see someone as left/progressive as Warren or Sanders, but I don't think either of them would be the right choice for Clinton.

I don't think he is quite as progressive as Warren, but I like Julián Castro as a VP pick

I am curious why the OP would suggest Mark Cuban? I am not at all on board with someone so indiscriminate he would run as Veep for either candidate :p
 
MarkW said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with you regarding not choosing any currently sitting Senator, and even extend that to the House as well.

I also really like Martin O'Malley as a possibility. I will have to defer to our resident wonks as to what he could do for electoral math, though :D
 
MarkW said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Among the issues with Obama, I think his largest was depleting Democrat strongholds in the Senate and Governorship. He robbed the Democrats of a good deal of incumbency that really helped to bite the Dems in the ass in '10.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to Obama nominating Democratic governors and senators to be in his cabinet? It's hard to see how this had much of an effect on the 2010 elections, since the "depleted" Senate seats or governorships were either held by Democrats in 2010 (New York, Colorado), or unlikely to be held when incumbent governors were term-limited out of office (Arizona, Kansas).
Click to expand...

I'll shut up then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RavenSky said:
Toni said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would love to see someone as left/progressive as Warren or Sanders, but I don't think either of them would be the right choice for Clinton.

I don't think he is quite as progressive as Warren, but I like Julián Castro as a VP pick

I am curious why the OP would suggest Mark Cuban? I am not at all on board with someone so indiscriminate he would run as Veep for either candidate :p
Click to expand...

Well, suggesting Cuban was a little tongue in cheek. However, he would negate many of the favorable attributes of Trump: non-politician, straight shooter, blunt, great business success (far more than Trump), social liberal, fiscal conservative, and etc. But I think that he would really outshine HRC which would be a problem.
 
The more I think about it the more I realize there is no downside for Clinton picking Sanders. He's senator in a state with a democratic governor, and the pick would almost certainly insure victory in November. It amidst seems like a no brainer.
 
Tristan Scott said:
The more I think about it the more I realize there is no downside for Clinton picking Sanders. He's senator in a state with a democratic governor, and the pick would almost certainly insure victory in November. It amidst seems like a no brainer.
Click to expand...

What state would Sanders deliver that HRC wouldn't get anyway? I also think that he is too old for VP. He'll be 110 in 8 years! I think that the dems really need to cultivate some younger talent. I don't like Cruz or Rubio but those guys are young and will be around for 50 years.
 
I think there are other positions besides vp that can better prepare young talent for potus. Not often do sitting Vice Presidents get elected President, in fact GHW Bush is the only one since Van Buren that was.

Also, I think Ohio and Pa. Could be in jeopardy and Sanders on the ticket could make a difference.

I'd like to think that voters will wake up by November and reject Trump, but after 2004 I have zero faith in the American voter.
 
I disagree and think maybe you are right.

A Michigan poll showed Sanders up 52 to 33 over Trump, where as Clinton was 43 to 39. What I don't see is are there really 6 pts of Sanders supporters that would choose Trump over Clinton? A North Carolina poll shows Sanders up on Trump by 3 pts, and Clinton down by 4 pts. Is the difference Sanders supporters? These are coming from the same polls. New Jersey shows a walloping for Sanders over Trump.

So are we seeing Sanders supporters swapping or independents or does it even matter? Maybe Sanders is the right choice. He can step down in '20 if he wants.

Sanders on the ticket isn't to win any particular state, but to mobilize a group of people in every state.
 
HRC should pick Tammy Baldwin, Senator from Wisconsin. That way the right wing can go crazy with "Hillary is a lesbian" rumors ;)

More seriously Sanders may just shore up the disaffected (hate the establishment) vote for HRC, as I don't have a better thought.
 
Perhaps it does not matter how you or others think on this matter, if Hillary wanted to she might just choose one of her best friends and former Secretary of State to run with her.
henry_kissinger_2010_11_02.jpg

He could probably do her foreign relations works for her while she helps her buddies on Wall Street clean up on still another crash.:thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom