Red Mosquito

Simple Torture wrote:

Strat wrote:What are the chances for a sandrs/clinton ticket ? Figure that would all but wipe the GOP out of contention no matter who gets the nod

Very little chance, I think. I don't think VP is a position in which Sanders could continue the work he likes to do--he'd either be debating on the Senate floor or be President to set the debate, I think, and not the weird figure-headish guy who usually gets to be VP. Clinton has lots of options, and if it looks like Trump's going to be the VP, one left-field option would be to choose a woman as a running mate, see if Trump would up the misogynistic rhetoric, and then try to encourage women to vote to block him. But more likely, I'd see her picking a non-controversial young Hispanic man. One of the Castro twins would be interesting.

stip wrote:out of anecdotal curiosity, how many of you, in this extremely limited and demographically inaccurate sample, know people who are just flat out excited for Clinton? The only one I know is my mom.

tommymtcom wrote:What we need is a none of the above option on the ballot. I think that would easily get more votes than trump or Clinton

stip wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

Strat wrote:What are the chances for a sandrs/clinton ticket ? Figure that would all but wipe the GOP out of contention no matter who gets the nod

Very little chance, I think. I don't think VP is a position in which Sanders could continue the work he likes to do--he'd either be debating on the Senate floor or be President to set the debate, I think, and not the weird figure-headish guy who usually gets to be VP. Clinton has lots of options, and if it looks like Trump's going to be the VP, one left-field option would be to choose a woman as a running mate, see if Trump would up the misogynistic rhetoric, and then try to encourage women to vote to block him. But more likely, I'd see her picking a non-controversial young Hispanic man. One of the Castro twins would be interesting.

That would be my prediction. I don't think Warren would attach herself to Clinton's wagon, and Sanders will go back to the senate with an infinitely higher profile than he enjoyed before.

Simple Torture wrote:

stip wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

Strat wrote:What are the chances for a sandrs/clinton ticket ? Figure that would all but wipe the GOP out of contention no matter who gets the nod

Very little chance, I think. I don't think VP is a position in which Sanders could continue the work he likes to do--he'd either be debating on the Senate floor or be President to set the debate, I think, and not the weird figure-headish guy who usually gets to be VP. Clinton has lots of options, and if it looks like Trump's going to be the VP, one left-field option would be to choose a woman as a running mate, see if Trump would up the misogynistic rhetoric, and then try to encourage women to vote to block him. But more likely, I'd see her picking a non-controversial young Hispanic man. One of the Castro twins would be interesting.

That would be my prediction. I don't think Warren would attach herself to Clinton's wagon, and Sanders will go back to the senate with an infinitely higher profile than he enjoyed before.

Choosing a Hispanic running mate--someone young, someone who could run for president in 2020** or 2024--could be part of the Dems long-term strategy of turning states like Texas and Arizona blue. It might take half a generation, but it could be done.

**Why 2020? If Clinton wins the 2016 race "by default" (that is, she's up against Trump and voters decide "anybody but Trump please"), I'm not 100% convinced she'll run for re-election in 4 years.

turned2black wrote:I know Julian Castro is a sexy VP pick for her, but I'm not sure it actually makes much strategic sense, particularly if she faces Trump. She'll already have the hispanic and black vote locked up if that's the case. I think the people in this thread seem to have forgotten that the average American white dude still sees Hillary as a big "liberal" simply because of her last name. She'd probably be better off picking a moderate "white guy."

tommymtcom wrote:Do people really put a lot of stock in who the vp nominee is? It's not like they do anything.

stip wrote:out of anecdotal curiosity, how many of you, in this extremely limited and demographically inaccurate sample, know people who are just flat out excited for Clinton? The only one I know is my mom.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

tommymtcom wrote:Do people really put a lot of stock in who the vp nominee is? It's not like they do anything.

Ask John McCain.

turned2black wrote:Given both Clinton's and Trump's huge "dislike" numbers, VP picks will matter more than they usually do.