Who are the best and wrong VP choice for Clinton and Christie? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 04, 2024, 08:00:05 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Who are the best and wrong VP choice for Clinton and Christie? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Who are the best and wrong VP choice for Clinton and Christie?  (Read 3037 times)
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

« on: October 27, 2013, 09:49:22 PM »

Christie's best choice would be Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA).  He comes from a key swing state, he has experience sufficient for the job, and he's Jewish.  The GOP has missed some opportunities to make inroads in the pro-Democratic Jewish vote in a number of states.

Eric Cantor is very unpopular statewide in Virginia. That would be a very stupid pick.

And why would Hillary pick Mark Pryor? If she wanted to make inroads into Appalachia/Arkansas, it would be much better to pick the super popular Mike Beebe.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2013, 12:11:19 AM »

Clinton's wild card would be Sen. Mark Pryor. provided he wins re-election.  He's a friend, he could bring Arkansas back into the fold, and he'd be loyal.  Hillary has never been personally popular in Arkansas.  She's not Southern, and she is considered to be one of the reasons Clinton lost re-election in 1980.  

Take it from a Democrat -- Pryor is too conservative to be Hillary's running mate.  The base would revolt.

They would not revolt. There'd be some grumbling, then in a few weeks everyone would be back to only caring about beating the (R).

Now, Christie/Martinez on the other hand, would have solid potential for a third party Tea Party candidate.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2013, 01:04:14 AM »

Clinton's wild card would be Sen. Mark Pryor. provided he wins re-election.  He's a friend, he could bring Arkansas back into the fold, and he'd be loyal.  Hillary has never been personally popular in Arkansas.  She's not Southern, and she is considered to be one of the reasons Clinton lost re-election in 1980.  

Take it from a Democrat -- Pryor is too conservative to be Hillary's running mate.  The base would revolt.

They would not revolt. There'd be some grumbling, then in a few weeks everyone would be back to only caring about beating the (R).

Now, Christie/Martinez on the other hand, would have solid potential for a third party Tea Party candidate.

You really think a pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-LGBT rights senator with a poor environmental record is going to pass muster with the base?  Do you realize how many constituencies within the party would be hugely pissed off? 

And what will the base do? Vote Nader? The Democratic base tends to take whatever is given to them. Just an example: the base enthusiastically supports the Heritage Foundation's/Bob Dole's/Mitt Romney's healthcare plan.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 12 queries.