2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPut aside the GD-P animosity for a second: post who you think is the strongest VP pick for both
Just curious who people think either candidate would be best off choosing.
In my case:
Sanders: Landrieu or Beshear
Clinton: Villaraigosa or Castro
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)Drops Mic.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Doubling down on New England is an awful idea.
Doubtful pick for Clinton for similar reasons (NY is pretty close to NE).
Also she spells her name with a "z".
Renew Deal
(81,871 posts)She has been very clear that she doesn't want to be president and that she feels she could be more effective in the senate.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)Without holding my nose.
Plus she has the added benefit of being a woman which would help Bernie.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)She spent much of her adult life living and working in Texas.
She moved to Massachusetts in her late 40s.
musiclawyer
(2,335 posts)Bernie is running a 21st Century campaign. So is Hillary.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)with respect to VP picks.
My Bernie VP picks are, in order of preference:
1. Elizabeth Warren - must announce 5 days before New York & New England states that follow. This would end the nominating process quickly with Bernie winning.
2. Tulsi Gabbard - has lots of pluses including good party & plenty of tick-box creds. Plus crossover potential from horny republicon males - a potential devastating blow if Trump is the repug candidate (its the Sarah Palin syndrome in the republicon party)
3. Nina Turner - weakest political credentials as a state official but that state is Ohio. She is an intelligent young black woman with real passion and a flair for the stump.
My Hillary VP picks are:
I have none; a waste of my time.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)She's very progressive, but also close to Obama, so a good bridge candidate.
Clinton? Maybe Sen Sherrod Brown.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Props.
Peregrine Took
(7,417 posts)Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)Just because she endorsed him doesn't make her a good pick. It would actually make the most sense to pick a progressive that was with Hillary.
Renew Deal
(81,871 posts)Probably less ready than Rubio.
Maybe Sherrod Brown. It's "his turn" in many ways. There are some more I could change me up with.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm still ultimately an O'Malley supporter, but the sad truth is I can't see him bringing much to either candidate in the VP spot...
Fair point about Castro, but I think Villaraigosa could do a lot.
Renew Deal
(81,871 posts)O'Malley is as qualified as anyone and can make points. I just don't understand why he doesn't connect.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)All white though, that's a bit boring.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think he'd do great in DWS's job, though...
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)I cant find the words to respond other than "no, Rubio was not only not ready, but has zero in the brains department"
Renew Deal
(81,871 posts)Because that's really the question. I'm sure he's smart, but his experience is very limited.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)That's the progressive I think Hillary will choose with an importance on Ohio in the general.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)That wouldn't exactly make the ticket seem less corrupt.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think Villaraigosa would be a good match for Clinton and an awful match for Sanders, and I think that's because they would have to run very different campaigns, and you're basically describing why.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)edited to add: My apologies to dog catchers everywhere.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Biden could burnish Sanders' foreign policy credentials. And he could hopefully moderate some of Clinton's more hawkish views.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Not saying it's impossible, just that the theory of the day says not to do that.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)And that worked out pretty well for the Dems.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Another issue is whether she would be willing.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)She sounds like my elder Aunts, or like my Mom but most specifically like my Mother's late cousin Leela.
Live Bait
(93 posts)Are you effing kidding me?
I think I know who Bernie will ask. I'll just wait until Bernie secures the nomination first.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And Bernie is damn sure going to run on having expanding clinic funding in ACA, along with Landrieu.
Beshear puts KY in play, which is worth it simply for that.
Live Bait
(93 posts)as in a 50-state strategy.
I know *exactly* who Bernie will pick if he wants this to happen.
icecreamfan
(115 posts)Live Bait
(93 posts)I like your picks for Sanders.
Brown should not be anywhere near Clinton if he wants to keep his dignity.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)in such a disgusting way that it is hard to imagine you voting Democratic.
Live Bait
(93 posts)Please put your damn bias aside, and let the rest of the states play it out.
You'd be amazed to find out that at the end, it will be Bernie, not Clinton.
Plus, it was an advice for Brown, not an attack to Clinton, so...
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Your ugly character assassination of ACCORDING TO THE STATS likely Democratic nominee is disgusting.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)certainly was one before you knew who he was.
Some of you are so new at this, it is embarrassing.
Your comment should make me angry, but at this point I no longer am surprised.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)I have also been on this board since 2002, and I've seen a lot. Some things are very transparent.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)supports him both verbally and financially.
This is an immature approach you are taking, that if someone is not Bern or Bust they must be a liar, etc.
This is a good example of why Bernie is not getting certain votes that he needs, thankfully I have not contributed to this problem.
you have, of course, as is clearly seen here.
You will not find a single comment of mine that tears down either candidate.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)And the line "this is an example of why Bernie is not getting certain votes that he needs" is a popular one here. Are you saying you might not vote for Bernie because of me?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)beginning of this election, here and on the internet, is the issue.
I watched and said nothing for a long time as a lurker but I finally had to engage the insanity I was seeing.
The repeated remarks about not voting if Hillary is the nominee, whether you have said this or not at this point doesn't matter because the endless bashing of Hillary does have it's consequences.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)We are Democrats, and if we can't complain and vent to each other what is the point of being here? I was a huge Bill Clinton supporter. I met them in New Hampshire at a town hall the Saturday before the Gennifer Flowers story broke, and I was solidly in their corner from that point on. I supported them right through the Lewinsky scandal, and I thought it was outrageous the way they were treated.
But a lot of things since have opened my eyes...the Telecommunications Act, which caused us to no longer have a free press, the crime bill, which gave us the awful 3 strikes law, and I could go on and on. Hillary supported these things, even spoke up for them, and I no longer feel the Clintons offer what I want as a Democrat. I was raised by FDR democrats, I got interested in politics because of the Kennedys, and I want that back. Bernie speaks more to the things that matter to me. I also think Clinton and her surrogates have played dirty...Bernie cares about people, ALL people, and it should never have been said that he doesn't.
Having said all that, I am disgusted with all 3 of the Republican choices, and I certainly won't vote for whoever their nominee is. All three of them are equally dangerous, including Kasich, who pretends to be so nice. He was a real shit when he was in Congress, and I haven't forgotten that.
I apologize for getting on your case. I hope we can understand each other better now.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)angrychair
(8,733 posts)Smart, well-spoken, great debater, veteran, women, person of color (native Pacific Islander) likely to the right of Sanders on some issues. Very strong VP.
Clinton: not sure but I would think anyone from the progressive caucus would help. She needs someone to the left of here if she is to bring at lest some Sanders supporters back to her side.
Live Bait
(93 posts)Working on that 50 state strategy, plus the EV's from Texas could go to Sanders, easily.
metroins
(2,550 posts)If she were chosen, her entire family and business dealings will go on spotlight.
This would not be good for her.
angrychair
(8,733 posts)I realized in 2012 that was just a dream. If the first black president and the greatest president of the modern era cannot carry a southern state than no one can. (not counting FL, it is not a southern state in the same context as AL or SC)
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)balances the ticket for both.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Keeps the assassins away. Balances both of the tickets philosophy in different ways.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Wait wait wait, why the hell would I pick Weiner who is scandal-ridden? Because I know he gives a damn about the American people which is more than I can say about Clinton.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)...
...
...
Carlos Danger that is.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Bernie: Someone strong on national security/foreign policy. He needs to assure people there will be an experienced, steady hand in his ear. A person on the younger side would be nice too.
Hillary: Someone that excites the base and young people. Doesn't necessarily need to be a Hispanic person, the GOP is doing a fine job of turning out that constituency.
MadBadger
(24,089 posts)Tikki
(14,559 posts)Tikki
DrDan
(20,411 posts)young, Hispanic, from the South, local and national experience, educated
what's not to like?
basselope
(2,565 posts)I don't think she needs someone with a sex scandal running on a ticket with her.
For Sanders I think Sherrod Brown would be a good choice.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)For Bernie: Tulsi Gabbard, Nina Turner, or Russ Feingold For Hillary: Brian Schweitzer just cuz I like him and he deserves more name recognition.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I have to admit it's mostly because of the CON head exploding factor though. I really love seeing CONs lose their chit.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Clinton: Tulsi Gabbard. Because that would at least show a willingness to rebuild the bridges she and Debbie were happy to burn.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Liz Warren: yes, she seems like a poor fit, but picking her would say that has a deal to those ion the bernie/warren orbit, that is you elect Hillary, then after she goes, you can put Liz in. It is the same sort of deal she made with Obama.
Cory Booker: A very cagey pol who knows how to fight. He can attack Trump in his home area and make him look like crap.
And as much as I am the Latino, I do not think Castro or Villarafiosa would work. Both of them are lightweights that people could not see in the Oval Office. If I had to pick a Latino, I would rather have Bill Richardson (who despite the name, is Mexican-American) He is useful especially if the GOP rolls out Susanna Martinez.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)It would have to be someone who shares his vision and a minority might help him. Ben Jealous? Nina Turner?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Sanders: A woman. Warren would be great. So would some others:
Barbara Lee; Rosa DeLauro; Donna Edwards; Nydia Velazquez; Judy Chu....the list goes on and on.
Clinton? I've got nothing, because I don't think she'd choose anyone I'd be interested in. I don't want a neo-liberal in the WH, and I don't want a VP a neo-liberal would choose as running mate. If she chose a running mate who is clearly NOT a neo-liberal, it might help her a bit in November, but I can't see her doing that. If she did, it wouldn't be anything more than window dressing, but I really don't think she, and the establishment she heads, would want to set up a future candidate who was not on the neo-liberal bandwagon.