General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho Do You Think Hillary's VP Pick Will Be?
Not who do you want, who do you think it will be?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Both who I want, and who I think it will be.
Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)But my mild concern is that it will be Tim Kaine. He wouldn't be terrible but I fail to see how exactly he has earned being the title of front runner.
I disagree that we need to somehow counter trump and have someone that isn't "low energy" as the orange jackass would say but if we want to get the base onboard, Kaine isn't it. Clinton would have to do all of the heavy lifting to get the last few holdouts on our side and that is a tall order.
Peregrine Took
(7,417 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,476 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)He would cover a lot of bases.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Pick Booker and I might stay home.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)Big Wall St. guy, little to no foreign policy experience, etc.
I voted for him, but he is not right for VP at all.
chillfactor
(7,584 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)He was just found to have violated the Hatch Act...not necessarily something that we need on the ticket.
lamp_shade
(14,841 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)There sure is a lot of talk about Kaine. He is the most likely choice, he is the one the experts expect, he is the one that the campaign is leaning towards. An actual Kaine pick would be very anti-climactic.
It would be like watching a murder mystery and the killer seems really obvious from the beginning..and that is who the killer is. It creates an extremely dull narrative. Bringing out someone that seems like a longshot would certainly create a lot of buzz and excitement. Optically, if she wants to go for a moment tomorrow that is extremely boring, predictable, and frankly forgettable she will bring Kaine up on stage and that will be the end of it. Not only would it be painfully obvious but also the candidate himself is very dull.
imanamerican63
(13,814 posts)Trumpeter!
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Warren, Perez, Becerra and O'Malley would all be better selections. Hillary needs to go left. Use the VP pick to shore up the base and then she can position herself as the national security expert to attract those moderate Repubs who are wavering on Trump. There is no VP pick short of a disastrous Repub selection that will pull moderate Repubs into her camp.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Angleae
(4,493 posts)Unless you're referring to a different "Bill" that I'm thinking of.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)or another Dino to turn towards the center.
Didn't picking Leiberman teach the Dems anything?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Kaine would turn into a Lieberman. Let's face it, how many of our legislators have ever moved from supposedly "liberal" to hard right militarily? He's a odball.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)a big bank surrogate.
Look if it gets Hillary elected and delivers Virginia, I'll live with it.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)certainly aren't black or white. Maybe don't worry about him now since he may not be chosen? If he is, then you could always do some reading and learn more about who the man is.
Btw, did you know that Elizabeth Warren was a Republican most of her adult life, until the party moved much farther right than it did under Reagan? These days she has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate Democratic caucus, and yet she is a major force for progressive changes. There's a big clue there.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)More bank deregulation is the last thing we need. And this s yesterday, of 30 years ago.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)she would provide of a strong focus on reforming business regulation and equitable income distribution. Tim Kaine doesn't give that political signal, but misinterpreting that to mean he would not be for that at all is what I mean by black OR white. A couple of analysts I read think that Warren could actually be counterproductive as VP, replacing chances for cooperation on reform between Clinton and business with a monolithically adversarial relationship that eventually accomplished less than could have been.
I'm not crazy about Kaine's positions on those two regulatory tweaks, based far more on the fact that Warren is opposed than anything I know, but that doesn't mean they aren't sensible. Kaine supports tailoring regulation to risk profiles rather than just asset classes. Dodd-Frank has flexibility to allow this specifically written into its provisions. Some wondering why this now think these positions may be meant to send a signal to the finance industry that a good working relationship will be possible. In any case, I do know that the regulatory structure we build has to work well, fairly and sensibly, in order to be strong and eventually be supported even by a good number of those regulated. (And, yes, many businesspeople do support good regulation.) A punitive and dysfunctional structure will help its enemies destroy it.
Frankly, even though Obama and Clinton both like and admire Kaine, and in fact almost everyone seems to (a majority black city council Kaine was once on choosing him for mayor is typical of his relations with his colleagues), I've been wondering why would she consider him when the election for his Senate seat might fill it with a Republican.
WaPo:
edhopper
(33,615 posts)pro-Wall Street. So Warren would be a good balance. Kaine would be more pro-Banks than Hillary.
I think she will make the political choice to go to her right for the Veep.
It's not a deal ender, just unfortunate.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)since this isn't a black or white world I wouldn't take Kaine's presence on the ticket as proof that they will accomplish less than if Warren were but would instead wait and see what they tried to accomplish. They both want to expand Dodd-Frank, so that's good.
But the president does not have dictatorial powers, even if Trump has trouble understanding that, and the consensuses required to get anything important done are typically very complex and require a great deal of time, typically years, and effort by very clever people to accomplish.
Warren would probably be head of the bureau she helped create if at the same time she had also managed to create a trusting working relationship with enough on the other side who feel that increased regulation is necessary and inevitable; instead almost all decided against her. We may love her for her fighting commitment and see that as the strength it is, but the widespread enmity she created among bankers against her specifically is also a sign of weakness.
and it's more about what Hilary wants to do vis a vi financial regulation.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)But aren't we enjoying this waiting... Let's hope tomorrow is terrorism-free, at least in the
"western" world.
same as the old boss
BooScout
(10,406 posts)...I want it to be Warren.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)Winning the democratic base is enough for an easy electoral victory. There are still some holdouts and even in that situation she is up by 4 or 5 points. Get most of those holdouts onboard and she is up by 6 or 7 straight through to the election. Since I doubt she would pick Sanders, Warren is the best option to do that.
If she picks Warren, this election is over tomorrow. If she pick Kaine or Vilsack, I'm sure she still wins but she will need to rely on centrists and independents, which is doable but makes her situation needlely more difficult.
Iggo
(47,565 posts)And I think she'll pick Kaine.
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)He's a solid pick but does nothing for us far lefties. I'd love to see Warren, though. She knows how to give 'em hell. I'll be voting for her regardless since Trump is no joke.
Rosco T.
(6,496 posts)Warren, Castro, Booker
Different Drummer
(7,642 posts)avebury
(10,952 posts)I seriously doubt that they will be able to sit on Trump long enough for him to no pull a lot of shennaigans during the DNC.
Response to Doctor Jack (Original post)
arthritisR_US This message was self-deleted by its author.
rurallib
(62,448 posts)I wish Spitzer were still in the game.
I wish Kamala Harris were a senator and pickable.
Corey Booker is acceptable but has some baggage to deal with.
Al Franken would be good. As would Sherrod Brown, but his seat would become a republican seat.
Please not Kaine or Vilsack.
Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)natesilver: The Clintons arent being too subtle about this. They clearly want everyone to think that its either Kaine or Vilsack. Which is probably because it actually will be Kaine or Vilsack, and they want to see if airing their names out brings anything to the fore.Or its a misdirection, and theyre hoping to do something game-changey like pick Warren. I tend not to think it will be somewhere in between, though. You dont tease Kaine or Vilsack and then trot out another Boring White Guy.
harry: I remind readers that very few people thought Bill Clinton would pick Al Gore in 1992. And what Bill Clinton ended up doing was choosing a candidate who reinforced his bona fides.
micah: I think Warren is a no-brainer.
natesilver: Warren would create the most buzz of any pick since Sarah Palin and change the way a lot of people regard Clinton. The conventional wisdom is that shed be a risky pick, however.
clare.malone: omg, I love Clinton palace intrigue. Clinton reportedly met with Warren, and it seemed to be the kind of thing that was youre not getting the nod but lets talk about your role going forward.
micah: Warren excites the Bernie Sanders voters, she helps the ticket feel less Secretary of the status quo, (to borrow Pences wonderful turn of phrase). Warren emphasizes the historic nature of Clintons candidacy and helps defend against Trumps more populist, Wall Street-themed attacks, which I tend to think are among his most effective against Clinton.
natesilver: Well, look, thats clearly what they want us to think, Clare. They clearly want us to think its Vilsack or Kaine. Which is probably how theyd play it if it actually was Warren. They wouldnt want us to know it was Warren.
More here:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-should-trump-respond-to-the-cruz-craziness/
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)JanMichael
(24,890 posts)puffy socks
(1,473 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)alphafemale
(18,497 posts)It is as hideous and short-sighted as Sarah Palin.
John McCain had already had the old white man vote sewed up. Getting them horned up was....well
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)JanMichael
(24,890 posts)So in a way I will not be surprised....
JanMichael
(24,890 posts)Any good candidate under 50????
Or at least any good candidates under 50 that have not recent burned their own bridge by breaking a simple fucking rule?
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)...it will be Warren.
I watched the Tampa rally this evening. It was a calm, measured, reasonable response to the ramblings of a lunatic. Now she should pull the pin on the grenade, yell "FIRE IN THE HOLE," and announce Warren.
She's Trump's worst nightmare, next to Clinton herself.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)it's Tim Kaine.