Clinton VP shortlist

I think there was a thread on this a while back, but can't find it now. Anyway, per WSJ,looks like some names have leaked:

Beyond the Massachusetts senator, other prospective candidates include Labor Secretary Tom Perez; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro; Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Cory Booker of New Jersey; Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and Reps. Xavier Becerra of California and Tim Ryan of Ohio, several Democrats said.

Vox has their take on the pros and cons of each candidate.

Virginia will most likely be an important state for Clinton to win as it was for Obama. I would imagine Tim Kaine to be near the top of that list. He may not be the most exciting or rabble rousing but he is thoughtful and willing to compromise. 

Anyone know if there is a strong Democrat in MA who can take the race for Warren's seat?

jimmurphy said:

Anyone know if there is a strong Democrat in MA who can take the race for Warren's seat?

I really, really don't think she'll choose Warren. Unfortunately, it needs to be a guy. 

I don't think so. These two rock! Moreso together if they get along.

Warren would be an impeachment insurance policy.

dave said:

Warren would be an impeachment insurance policy.

ZING!! [snore] 

jimmurphy said:

I don't think so. These two rock! Moreso together if they get along.

They totally do! But traditionally the VP pick fills in a gap in the ticket. So she either needs to go Southern, ethnic and/or male (how's that for cynical??) 

I do not favor Sen. Warren as the VP candidate. I always go for Geographic balance. I think ethnic and gender balance is also a plus. Further, I see Warren's role as being in the Senate.

OTOH Warren's strength is that she really knows how to attack Trump and I think she really gets under his skin.

Plus she's bringing out some of the ugliest sides of him. Pocahontas? Seriously? Just keep showing those true colors!

LOST said:

I do not favor Sen. Warren as the VP candidate. I always go for Geographic balance. I think ethnic and gender balance is also a plus. Further, I see Warren's role as being in the Senate.

OTOH Warren's strength is that she really knows how to attack Trump and I think she really gets under his skin.

Right now she's doing it for fun. Why make it a job? Warren's doing what you want for free right now and setting up for 2020.

I seriously doubt it will be Warren, at least I certainly hope it's not.

While Warren might bring along some of Sanders' supporters who might otherwise have just walked away, I think it would seriously risk alienating people who would prefer to vote for someone more fiscally moderate than the dems are offering, but have only Trump as their other choice.  I think a good number of Clinton voters are in that camp.   I certainly am...currently expect to unhappily vote for Clinton, but very unlikely I could cast a vote for a ticket with Warren on it.  I hope I'm not put in that spot.

ice points out one of the basic issues with the Clinton candidacy.

Does she appeal to "The Base" that is, those who lean Left and may have supported Bernie, or does she try to appeal to disaffected Republicans and centrist, even center-Right Independents.

My money is on the latter, but while doing so she can't alienate the Left either.

Of course to me Sen. Warren is not very far Left.

LOST said:

I do not favor Sen. Warren as the VP candidate. I always go for Geographic balance. I think ethnic and gender balance is also a plus. Further, I see Warren's role as being in the Senate.

Gender balance?  When have we ever had gender balance on the ticket?

I agree with you, however, that I would prefer to keep Warren in the Senate.

I like Thomas Perez, Secretary of Labor, a lot.   He's hardly a household name, of course, but he has a lot of potential.

Warren is certainly left enough for this center- fiscally right independent.  And I suspect for multitudes of others. 

For us, there is always the possibility, the hope, that Clinton will eventually move back toward the center as president.  Nominating Warren as VP would be a slap in the face of that hope, and it would make the unknowable chaos of a Trump presidency ever so slightly more palatable.  Brrr...I shiver to even say it.

ice said:

Warren is certainly left enough for this center- fiscally right independent.  And I suspect for multitudes of others. 

For us, there is always the possibility, the hope, that Clinton will eventually move back toward the center as president.  Nominating Warren as VP would be a slap in the face of that hope, and it would make the unknowable chaos of a Trump presidency ever so slightly more palatable.  Brrr...I shiver to even say it.

I was unaware that according to the ADA ratings Warren is the most liberal member of the Senate with the only 100% rating. Al Franken, Sherrod Brown and some others are at 95% and some are at 90% but sometimes that's because they missed a vote. Additionally the ratings are based on votes in 2014.

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2014.pdf

I really think that control of the Senate is crucial.  I would not want to remove any solid Democratic votes from there.

mjh said:

LOST said:

I do not favor Sen. Warren as the VP candidate. I always go for Geographic balance. I think ethnic and gender balance is also a plus. Further, I see Warren's role as being in the Senate.

Gender balance?  When have we ever had gender balance on the ticket?

This is only the second time there has been the possibility of gender balance, but are we ready for two women?

Now let's really throw bombs. Should Hillary consider a Republican? She can make a big deal about unifying the country in contrast with Trump who seeks to divide it.

I've thought about this before but it came to mind again while I was watching Christie Whitman last night, but what if Hillary reached out to the Female, Latina, maligned by Trump, Governor of New Mexico?

LOST said:

Now let's really throw bombs. Should Hillary consider a Republican? She can make a big deal about unifying the country in contrast with Trump who seeks to divide it.

I've thought about this before but it came to mind again while I was watching Christie Whitman last night, but what if Hillary reached out to the Female, Latina, maligned by Trump, Governor of New Mexico?

Lost - where do you live, 'cause where I am it ain't cocktail hour yet, and you sound like you've had a few....

LOST said:

mjh said:

LOST said:

I do not favor Sen. Warren as the VP candidate. I always go for Geographic balance. I think ethnic and gender balance is also a plus. Further, I see Warren's role as being in the Senate.

Gender balance?  When have we ever had gender balance on the ticket?

This is only the second time there has been the possibility of gender balance, but are we ready for two women?

Now let's really throw bombs. Should Hillary consider a Republican? She can make a big deal about unifying the country in contrast with Trump who seeks to divide it.

I've thought about this before but it came to mind again while I was watching Christie Whitman last night, but what if Hillary reached out to the Female, Latina, maligned by Trump, Governor of New Mexico?

Two Republicans on the Dem ticket?  If HRC chooses a Repug, she can kiss the Bernie vote good bye and I suspect she would lose a bit of her own base as well.  That said, she MIGHT pick up some percentage of the 12 Repugs that would be willing to vote for a Clinton under any imaginable circumstance.

LOST said:

mjh said:

LOST said:

I do not favor Sen. Warren as the VP candidate. I always go for Geographic balance. I think ethnic and gender balance is also a plus. Further, I see Warren's role as being in the Senate.

Gender balance?  When have we ever had gender balance on the ticket?

This is only the second time there has been the possibility of gender balance, but are we ready for two women?

Now let's really throw bombs. Should Hillary consider a Republican? She can make a big deal about unifying the country in contrast with Trump who seeks to divide it.

I've thought about this before but it came to mind again while I was watching Christie Whitman last night, but what if Hillary reached out to the Female, Latina, maligned by Trump, Governor of New Mexico?

No.  We have plenty of Dems to choose from and I don't think there is any need to make such a gesture.  

ice said:

Lost - where do you live, 'cause where I am it ain't cocktail hour yet, and you sound like you've had a few....

 "> 

I haven't had any but it appears that Governor Martinez likes one now and again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/once-hailed-as-the-gops-ideal-vp-pick-new-mexicos-susana-martinez-finds-herself-clashing-with-donald-trump/

I knew I'd get a quick and "loud" response.  

the VP choice will tell us a lot about whether or not Hillary Clinton is really the progressive she says she is. If she chooses a Tim Kaine or someone similar, it's another kick in the face to the liberal base.

which is of course what I'm expecting her to do.

ml1 said:

the VP choice will tell us a lot about whether or not Hillary Clinton is really the progressive she says she is. If she chooses a Tim Kaine or someone similar, it's another kick in the face to the liberal base.

which is of course what I'm expecting her to do.

Tom Kaine's 2014 ADA rating is 90%. Same as Schumer, Menendez, Feinstein.

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2014.pdf

LOST said:

ice points out one of the basic issues with the Clinton candidacy.

Does she appeal to "The Base" that is, those who lean Left and may have supported Bernie, or does she try to appeal to disaffected Republicans and centrist, even center-Right Independents.

My money is on the latter, but while doing so she can't alienate the Left either.




Of course to me Sen. Warren is not very far Left.

IMO, a politician should not "try" to appeal (pander) to left, center, or right, or any subculture. An elected official should have a philosophy and lead from that philosophy. Bring people along with her. That's what Bernie did, and it worked. He wasn't "trying" to appeal to any particular group with preformed opinions. He had a message and brought people along with him.

And lost.

dave23 said:

And lost.

But went from 0 to 100 very quickly. And he would have gotten nowhere if he had pandered.

I would say that offering free healthcare and free college are classic examples of pandering.  Even if he actually believed in them and thought he could pull it all off.

shoshannah said:

dave23 said:

And lost.

But went from 0 to 100 very quickly. And he would have gotten nowhere if he had pandered.

He was never at a 0. He benefitted tremendously from being in a tiny candidate pool and knee-jerk anti-Clinton sentiment.

He ran a good, principled campaign. He's a good man. But I thing you romanticize him a bit. He's a politician, and one that focuses on a relatively narrow band of issues. Very important issues, but narrow nonetheless.