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

[BlueSwan]

I would like Warren. I realize it is unlikely to happen, but I would like a serious power women ticket and I think she could bring the Sandernistas (or at least 90% of them) into the fold.

Wouldn't mind Booker either. Not big on Castro.

I hope she doesn't go with a boring middle aged white guy.

Im sorry but that's a racist comment even if it's about middle aged white men. I'm getting sick of this sh**t. Just pick the best qualified regardless of race.

Oh yeah, I'm deeply racist towards middle aged white men, of which I am one.

Seriously, you know the type. The democratic equivalents of Tim Pawlenty, who has zero charisma, but is mostly on the ticket because they appear qualified and doesn't offend anyone. A middle aged white man has always been the "safe" choice in politics and that is due to structural racism.

[Frodo]

One other factor that Hillary needs to put into consideration is the fact that if she wants to do more than just play defense (i.e. protecting Barack Obama's legacy) and enact a transformative progressive agenda of her own, she is going to need a Democratic congress -which in turn requires activists excited enough to get out and do the grunt work to make it happen.  And sad to say it seems her candidacy alone won't be enough -she needs a veep who can electrify the ticket, and down the ballot as well.

Which veep can do that best?  

Warren, but she won't pick her. It would just make this election a right vs left choice and I think Clinton wants to avoid that.  

As Obama proved, you don't need to use the VP slot to placate your opponent -there are better ways. I would pick an issue near and dear to Sanders (College costs seems like a good one) and promise to make him or one of his supporters the "Reform Tsar" on that issue.

This isn't just about placating the more skeptical Sanders supporters.  It's about winning Congress as well as keeping the White House in Democratic hands.  

If her opponent is either Trump or Cruz, Democratic control of Congress is a foregone conclusion (with or without a Progressive VP). If progressives will not pick Hillary over thos e two, she shouldn't be in this race.

If her opponent is Kasich (or a white Knight mainstream Republican), picking a Progressive could cost her the election, never mind Congress.

Either way, it doesn't make sense.

Oh, I am not worried about Hillary not winning the White House -given her opponents, that is a foregone conclusion.  I know she is in effect our next President.  What I am concerned about is minimizing ticket-splitting.  I don't want to keep the White House only to have Congress (or one chamber of Congress) remaining in Republican hands.  

Oh, and as to this comment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With Trump or Cruz, Democratic control of both houses of Congress is a distinct possibility.  With Elizabeth Warren as her veep, then it becomes a foregone conclusion.  We need that excitement, the inspiration that an all-woman ticket would bring to the race. 

[Virginiá]

Uh, I doubt that's why Obama picked Biden. It's been a long time since VP's were picked to win states or demographics. George W. Bush picked Dick Cheney, making a crucial overture to the people of Wyoming.

...

If that's true, then it makes no sense. Wyoming has voted Republican for president in every election since LBJ, and before that it was still semi-reliable, save for Truman/FDR(3 elections)/Wilson. Wyoming has been strongly Republican for most of it's history, save for very limited Democratic wins here and there.

It's been found that VP's do not bring much to the table except for in their home state, and only if they are actually very well-liked in their home state. Even then, the home field advantage is barely noteworthy.

[syntaxerror]

One other factor that Hillary needs to put into consideration is the fact that if she wants to do more than just play defense (i.e. protecting Barack Obama's legacy) and enact a transformative progressive agenda of her own, she is going to need a Democratic congress -which in turn requires activists excited enough to get out and do the grunt work to make it happen.  And sad to say it seems her candidacy alone won't be enough -she needs a veep who can electrify the ticket, and down the ballot as well.

Which veep can do that best?  

Warren, but she won't pick her. It would just make this election a right vs left choice and I think Clinton wants to avoid that.  

As Obama proved, you don't need to use the VP slot to placate your opponent -there are better ways. I would pick an issue near and dear to Sanders (College costs seems like a good one) and promise to make him or one of his supporters the "Reform Tsar" on that issue.

This isn't just about placating the more skeptical Sanders supporters.  It's about winning Congress as well as keeping the White House in Democratic hands.  

If her opponent is either Trump or Cruz, Democratic control of Congress is a foregone conclusion (with or without a Progressive VP). If progressives will not pick Hillary over thos e two, she shouldn't be in this race.

If her opponent is Kasich (or a white Knight mainstream Republican), picking a Progressive could cost her the election, never mind Congress.

Either way, it doesn't make sense.

Oh, I am not worried about Hillary not winning the White House -given her opponents, that is a foregone conclusion.  I know she is in effect our next President.  What I am concerned about is minimizing ticket-splitting.  I don't want to keep the White House only to have Congress (or one chamber of Congress) remaining in Republican hands.  

Democrats will not take the house regardless of who is on the top of the GOP ticket.

[PeteB]

One other factor that Hillary needs to put into consideration is the fact that if she wants to do more than just play defense (i.e. protecting Barack Obama's legacy) and enact a transformative progressive agenda of her own, she is going to need a Democratic congress -which in turn requires activists excited enough to get out and do the grunt work to make it happen.  And sad to say it seems her candidacy alone won't be enough -she needs a veep who can electrify the ticket, and down the ballot as well.

Which veep can do that best?  

Warren, but she won't pick her. It would just make this election a right vs left choice and I think Clinton wants to avoid that.  

As Obama proved, you don't need to use the VP slot to placate your opponent -there are better ways. I would pick an issue near and dear to Sanders (College costs seems like a good one) and promise to make him or one of his supporters the "Reform Tsar" on that issue.

This isn't just about placating the more skeptical Sanders supporters.  It's about winning Congress as well as keeping the White House in Democratic hands.  

If her opponent is either Trump or Cruz, Democratic control of Congress is a foregone conclusion (with or without a Progressive VP). If progressives will not pick Hillary over thos e two, she shouldn't be in this race.

If her opponent is Kasich (or a white Knight mainstream Republican), picking a Progressive could cost her the election, never mind Congress.

Either way, it doesn't make sense.

Oh, I am not worried about Hillary not winning the White House -given her opponents, that is a foregone conclusion.  I know she is in effect our next President.  What I am concerned about is minimizing ticket-splitting.  I don't want to keep the White House only to have Congress (or one chamber of Congress) remaining in Republican hands.  

While I do not agree that Clinton is a foregone conclusion, if she faces someone like Kasich or Ryan, how do you see a Progressive VP helping with taking over the Senate (the House imho will not be in play unless Trump is the candidate)?

[Frodo]

One other factor that Hillary needs to put into consideration is the fact that if she wants to do more than just play defense (i.e. protecting Barack Obama's legacy) and enact a transformative progressive agenda of her own, she is going to need a Democratic congress -which in turn requires activists excited enough to get out and do the grunt work to make it happen.  And sad to say it seems her candidacy alone won't be enough -she needs a veep who can electrify the ticket, and down the ballot as well.

Which veep can do that best?  

Warren, but she won't pick her. It would just make this election a right vs left choice and I think Clinton wants to avoid that.  

As Obama proved, you don't need to use the VP slot to placate your opponent -there are better ways. I would pick an issue near and dear to Sanders (College costs seems like a good one) and promise to make him or one of his supporters the "Reform Tsar" on that issue.

This isn't just about placating the more skeptical Sanders supporters.  It's about winning Congress as well as keeping the White House in Democratic hands.  

If her opponent is either Trump or Cruz, Democratic control of Congress is a foregone conclusion (with or without a Progressive VP). If progressives will not pick Hillary over thos e two, she shouldn't be in this race.

If her opponent is Kasich (or a white Knight mainstream Republican), picking a Progressive could cost her the election, never mind Congress.

Either way, it doesn't make sense.

Oh, I am not worried about Hillary not winning the White House -given her opponents, that is a foregone conclusion.  I know she is in effect our next President.  What I am concerned about is minimizing ticket-splitting.  I don't want to keep the White House only to have Congress (or one chamber of Congress) remaining in Republican hands.  

While I do not agree that Clinton is a foregone conclusion, if she faces someone like Kasich or Ryan, how do you see a Progressive VP helping with taking over the Senate (the House imho will not be in play unless Trump is the candidate)?

The only way that someone like Kasich or Ryan could be the nominee is through a contested convention, which would result in Trump either running as a third party candidate, or at the very least urging his supporters not to support the GOP nominee.  And given their alienation from the Republican Party, in all likelihood they will listen to him.  

The Presidency is securely in Democratic hands no matter who the GOP nominates.  And I think the bigwigs in the GOP establishment know the Presidency is a lost cause (at least this year), so their main objective is trying not to lose Congress as well as the Presidency.  

Which is where the value of a veep like Elizabeth Warren comes in -she brings excitement to the ticket in a way that Hillary seems to have failed to do.  Democrats can leverage that to win Congress making our triumph complete, at least at the federal level.  

[MT Treasurer]

The Presidency is securely in Democratic hands no matter who the GOP nominates.

lol

[BundouYMB]

Uh, I doubt that's why Obama picked Biden. It's been a long time since VP's were picked to win states or demographics. George W. Bush picked Dick Cheney, making a crucial overture to the people of Wyoming.

...

If that's true, then it makes no sense. Wyoming has voted Republican for president in every election since LBJ, and before that it was still semi-reliable, save for Truman/FDR(3 elections)/Wilson. Wyoming has been strongly Republican for most of it's history, save for very limited Democratic wins here and there.

It's been found that VP's do not bring much to the table except for in their home state, and only if they are actually very well-liked in their home state. Even then, the home field advantage is barely noteworthy.

Um, I was being sarcastic, to underline exactly the point you just made. Usually VPs are not picked to win states or demographics, at least not in the modern era, and I doubt that's why Obama picked Biden.

[This account no longer in use.]

Warren and Franken seem like the best choices to me.

[PeteB]

One other factor that Hillary needs to put into consideration is the fact that if she wants to do more than just play defense (i.e. protecting Barack Obama's legacy) and enact a transformative progressive agenda of her own, she is going to need a Democratic congress -which in turn requires activists excited enough to get out and do the grunt work to make it happen.  And sad to say it seems her candidacy alone won't be enough -she needs a veep who can electrify the ticket, and down the ballot as well.

Which veep can do that best?  

Warren, but she won't pick her. It would just make this election a right vs left choice and I think Clinton wants to avoid that.  

As Obama proved, you don't need to use the VP slot to placate your opponent -there are better ways. I would pick an issue near and dear to Sanders (College costs seems like a good one) and promise to make him or one of his supporters the "Reform Tsar" on that issue.

This isn't just about placating the more skeptical Sanders supporters.  It's about winning Congress as well as keeping the White House in Democratic hands.  

If her opponent is either Trump or Cruz, Democratic control of Congress is a foregone conclusion (with or without a Progressive VP). If progressives will not pick Hillary over thos e two, she shouldn't be in this race.

If her opponent is Kasich (or a white Knight mainstream Republican), picking a Progressive could cost her the election, never mind Congress.

Either way, it doesn't make sense.

Oh, I am not worried about Hillary not winning the White House -given her opponents, that is a foregone conclusion.  I know she is in effect our next President.  What I am concerned about is minimizing ticket-splitting.  I don't want to keep the White House only to have Congress (or one chamber of Congress) remaining in Republican hands.  

While I do not agree that Clinton is a foregone conclusion, if she faces someone like Kasich or Ryan, how do you see a Progressive VP helping with taking over the Senate (the House imho will not be in play unless Trump is the candidate)?

The only way that someone like Kasich or Ryan could be the nominee is through a contested convention, which would result in Trump either running as a third party candidate, or at the very least urging his supporters not to support the GOP nominee.  And given their alienation from the Republican Party, in all likelihood they will listen to him.  

The Presidency is securely in Democratic hands no matter who the GOP nominates.  And I think the bigwigs in the GOP establishment know the Presidency is a lost cause (at least this year), so their main objective is trying not to lose Congress as well as the Presidency.  

Which is where the value of a veep like Elizabeth Warren comes in -she brings excitement to the ticket in a way that Hillary seems to have failed to do.  Democrats can leverage that to win Congress making our triumph complete, at least at the federal level.  

I disagree on your Kasich vs Clinton assessment, but we can debate that in another thread.

My simple question is what senate races would the addition of VP Warren help Democrats with?

[Virginiá]

Uh, I doubt that's why Obama picked Biden. It's been a long time since VP's were picked to win states or demographics. George W. Bush picked Dick Cheney, making a crucial overture to the people of Wyoming.

...

If that's true, then it makes no sense. Wyoming has voted Republican for president in every election since LBJ, and before that it was still semi-reliable, save for Truman/FDR(3 elections)/Wilson. Wyoming has been strongly Republican for most of it's history, save for very limited Democratic wins here and there.

It's been found that VP's do not bring much to the table except for in their home state, and only if they are actually very well-liked in their home state. Even then, the home field advantage is barely noteworthy.

Um, I was being sarcastic, to underline exactly the point you just made. Usually VPs are not picked to win states or demographics, at least not in the modern era, and I doubt that's why Obama picked Biden.

Oh, ok. But, you know, reading your post, it does not come off as obviously sarcastic.

[Brittain33]

I could see Clinton choosing a woman, the same way her husband "doubled down" against the conventional wisdom by picking another moderate Southerner as his Veep.

[IceSpear]

Rooting for Deval Patrick. He's unquestionably qualified, would make an excellent attack dog, and it completely rewards African Americans, who are probably the main reason Hillary was able to put the nomination away.

There's no way she's going to pick Deval Bain. I would think she only included him on the list to not look like she's spurning blacks, but Booker was on there, so I have no idea.

[politicallefty]

Another ban should be on any Senator in a state with a Republican Governor. Warren is the exception because the legislature is veto proof and could pass a law requiring a vacancy be filled same party.

^This. Sherrod Brown would be one of my top choices, but we can't give up a Senate seat when control will probably be on a knife's edge (even if it wasn't, I'd rather have a 52-48 majority than 51-49 majority). You're probably right about Massachusetts though. They really have no problem doing what needs to be done. They could easily pass a law like Hawaii or Wyoming (where the Governor gets a choice of three from those preselected by the party holding that seat). It really would just be finessing and optimizing the law to best represent the people, since they would almost assuredly leave the special election provision intact.

I know Elizabeth Warren is the most obvious pick if she decides to double-down, but what about Amy Klobuchar? I think one of the issues the Clinton campaign my have with Warren is that she may overshadow the top of the ticket. I'm not saying I agree with that, but they have to be thinking about that. As far as I know, she's somewhere in the middle among Senate Democrats, at least to the left of Tim Kaine and well to the left of Mark Warner. And of course, one of the most important things is that she's very likeable. If Clinton/Gore was a double-down on the Southern aspect, I think Clinton/Klobuchar is the closest analogy for doubling down on the woman aspect. And not that I buy into particular electoral advantages necessarily with a running mate, but she could conceivably have Midwestern appeal to help lock down the region.

[This account no longer in use.]

I mean, even if MA doesn't pass a law, Baker seems like the type to appoint a moderate who would be willing to vote with Democrats. Kasich is much more dangerous for the Democrats, in that he's a conservative masquerading as a moderate.

[Mr. Morden]

Article said she doesn't feel a need to placate Sanders supporters...

There might actually be a political logic to *avoiding* someone who's too popular with Sanders supporters.  Such a person would have their own political base, separate from Clinton.  Thus their political interests might diverge at times, and the VP could end up undermining Clinton once in office every now and then.  OTOH, someone like a Tim Kaine would have no real anti-Clinton constituency, so his only option for continued political relevance (and a shot at the White House in 2024) would be to make sure that Clinton is as successful as possible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would like Warren. I realize it is unlikely to happen, but I would like a serious power women ticket and I think she could bring the Sandernistas (or at least 90% of them) into the fold.

Wouldn't mind Booker either. Not big on Castro.

I hope she doesn't go with a boring middle aged white guy.

Im sorry but that's a racist comment even if it's about middle aged white men. I'm getting sick of this sh**t. Just pick the best qualified regardless of race.

Besides, with all that Trump has done this cycle, it's quite clear that white men are not automatically boring, as well as that boring is not necessarily a bad thing.

[politicallefty]

I mean, even if MA doesn't pass a law, Baker seems like the type to appoint a moderate who would be willing to vote with Democrats. Kasich is much more dangerous for the Democrats, in that he's a conservative masquerading as a moderate.

Baker isn't in the same universe as the most objectionable Republicans, but I still wouldn't trust him to appoint a proper replacement to a Warren vacancy on his own. I could see a compromise if the legislature threatened action where the Governor would appoint someone on his own to prevent a new law. (With their massive supermajority, the Democrats in the legislature would hold all the cards.) When President Obama nominated Judd Gregg for Commerce, the Democratic Governor promised to appoint a Republican (a liberal Republican, but one that was named ahead of time). If Warren was tapped to be Hillary's running mate, there would be plenty of time for those in Massachusetts state government to deal with it properly ahead of time (unless her campaign wanted explicit assurance that a mainstream Democrat would be nominated should the vacancy arise).

[seanNJ9]

Thomas Perez is my choice. Hispanic with union ties and civil rights credentials.

[This account no longer in use.]

I mean, even if MA doesn't pass a law, Baker seems like the type to appoint a moderate who would be willing to vote with Democrats. Kasich is much more dangerous for the Democrats, in that he's a conservative masquerading as a moderate.

Baker isn't in the same universe as the most objectionable Republicans, but I still wouldn't trust him to appoint a proper replacement to a Warren vacancy on his own. I could see a compromise if the legislature threatened action where the Governor would appoint someone on his own to prevent a new law. (With their massive supermajority, the Democrats in the legislature would hold all the cards.) When President Obama nominated Judd Gregg for Commerce, the Democratic Governor promised to appoint a Republican (a liberal Republican, but one that was named ahead of time). If Warren was tapped to be Hillary's running mate, there would be plenty of time for those in Massachusetts state government to deal with it properly ahead of time (unless her campaign wanted explicit assurance that a mainstream Democrat would be nominated should the vacancy arise).

I, personally, feel like Richard Tisei would be Baker's choice, and I feel like some Democrats would be fine with that, but the progressives would be against it. Then again, Baker might choose a Democrat.

[Bull Moose Base]

Massachusetts Democrats already passed the law when John Kerry was the presidential nominee and Romney the governor. And it came back to bite them in the ass when Deval Patrick's appointee to fill Ted Kennedy's seat could only serve for a couple months and then Scott Brown won. Although, that led to Liz Warren eventually winning the seat. Anyway, there would be a special election by Spring 2017.

[politicallefty]

I, personally, feel like Richard Tisei would be Baker's choice, and I feel like some Democrats would be fine with that, but the progressives would be against it. Then again, Baker might choose a Democrat.

There's no way that would be acceptable to Democrats. I'm not sure you understand the nature of this compromise: "Governor Baker will offer to nominate a centrist Democrat to place Elizabeth Warren. Provided the nominee is acceptable, the Massachusetts General Court will agree and not pass any new legislation regarding US Senate vacancies." Baker would have to agree to appoint someone acceptable to the Democratic supermajority in the legislature. If the nominee wasn't acceptable, there'd be no reason or hesitation not to change the law in a manner similar to Hawaii or Wyoming.

[Mr. Morden]

So South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer suggested Mary Fallin as Trump’s running mate on CNN, and Trump later tweeted that this was “great advice”:

http://newsok.com/article/5494016

Fallin has given a non-denial response to this suggestion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[syntaxerror]

I think Sherrod Brown has ruled out being Clinton's veep.

[Mr. Morden]

I think Sherrod Brown has ruled out being Clinton's veep.

Yes, I was just about to post that:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/23/brown-shoots-down-vp-chatter/83433974/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though again, not to be a stickler about this, but that still stops short of Shermanesque.  Other candidates have said “I have no interest”, but then you ask them “Does that mean that if offered the job, you would turn it down?”, and the answer changes.  These journalists need to do better at interrogating potential veeps for denials.