Clinton VP news LATEST: Podesta now calling the losers to tell them its not them

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I guess Murphy would like his stock to rise.

I grew up in CT.

I even volunteered for Murphy in 2012.

He will not bring me in line for the fall. I'm just one Bernie supporter, but the thought of him being a bridge to us is pretty laughable.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Hmmm... Trump/Pence might edge things back toward a 2012ish map and away from a realignment.  He would rally hesitant parts of the conservative base, but he would have plenty of issues with the populist indies and is quite anti-labor.

Yeah, this reeks of Manafort tamping Trump's eccentricity down in a *bad * way.

Not sure what the actual plan is here? Though if we're relitigating 2012 maybe they're hoping that Obama won only because he was literally the best candidate (in terms of rallying the troops and putting the work in) since JFK and had the best, most sophisticated campaign in history, and HRC will do worse?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Clinton needs to pick Cory Booker. Tells Sanders that socialism isn't the answer, keeps up AA turnout, helps keep Hillary away from the D senate she can't be trusted with.

Alternately, she should focus on actually listening to her party so that she has a reasonable governing coalition in 2017.

Or, ya know, she could govern with all of the moderates in Congress that moderate independents seem to think exist.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Warren, originally listed as Monday night's Keynote Speaker, is now suddenly missing from the line-up provided by Politico.

Warren was doing the keynote?

That article just seems to have the really really big guns plus some weird one-offs.  I mean Warren's big but she's not Sanders or a prez/vp/flotus.

Uhhhh.

In DC, Warren is still bigger than Sanders.

Among the Progs, she's basically equal to Bernie (short of the Bernie Bros, but they aren't politically relevant)

Among the Dem establishment, she's seen as the prog ambassador, and is a Senatorial rising star.


Where have you been the past four years?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

All very true. But you're missing the "first, do no harm" part of any VP pick.

Now, I am very far left, but to me picking Kaine signals that Clinton plans to run (and govern) as Republican lite. Even moreso than Obama.

That is pretty unacceptable to me and raises my chances of staying home or "throwing away my vote" astronomically, even if it may mean Trump winning. If significant numbers of likely voters share me views on this Kaine becomes a risky pick.

Not voting for Clinton is a vote for Trump. I respect your feelings on this, and I share them in a way. But you have to realize it's going to be either her or Trump; no matter how well a third party *might* do, it will not be enough to win. So would you rather have her or him?

Clinton is not a perfect candidate, and she is not the most ideal choice for president. But she is leagues beyond Trump.

I rest my case .

Eh.

I think Clinton rallying around the base causes substantially less harm than picking a moderate.

Left wingers who are currently not convinced (who DO exist) will not be convinced by more comparison of Clinton to Trump, with no positive reason to vote for her. They're leaning towards staying home.  Moderates currently picking Clinton as the lesser of two evils will either continue to do so, or simply not vote. Trump gains no votes if Clinton picks Warren,  and Clinton loses votes if she picks Kaine.

But this may not even be the most salient point. Having a progressive in the administration is going to be very important if Clinton seeks to govern at all AFTER the election. If she's confident that she can win in a tight race against Trumpence (a pretty reasonable assumption IMHO) would she rather have a progressive ambassador in the Naval Observatory, or a stuffed centrist shirt who can't do anything?


EDIT: This is of course colored by the fact that I'm in the population of people watching Clinton's VP pick to see if I can vote for her. 

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

So people didn't want Warren because the VP doesn't set policy and she'd be better in the Senate.

But people also don't want Kaine because of his policies and he'd be worse in the Senate than as a powerless VP.

Ok.

I want Warren.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Warren as VP would give Republicans a nice senate seat.

That's a spicy memeball

He's not wrong. The Massachusetts Democrats will go ahead and nominate Coakley again, I bet.

And? MA Republicans like Scott Brown and Charlie Baker only come around once in a while, and I think it's more likely the MA Dems nominate a younger candidate like Moulton or Kennedy.

I hope. I just can't believe Coakley dropped the ball not once, but twice in four years.

Coakley is done. She won't be the nominee again. The 2014 gubernatorial race was the first time I voted against a democrat in my life.

It would probably be Moulton, my congressman.

Not Joe III? Odd poetry of a Kennedy re-occupying that seat.

That said, I don't know anything about MA politics other than the hilarious ineptitude of Martha Coakley.