Who should be Hillary's running mate?

@chai2,

Your point isn't missed, it just isn't significant. "Hillary is perfect, it's just that the nation hates women and isn't ready for a ticket of two women."
Yeah... except that you're wrong. Now my point on the other hand: Madeline Albright already showed decades ago that the nation is very accepting of strong women who aren't crippled by severe personality disorders.

1 Reply

@Banana Breath,

I don't remember people being wild about Madeline Albright. Hillary does not have personality disorders, your merely saying it doesn't make it so.

I don't think people would have problems with two women, I just do not think Warren and Hillary would mesh too well.

I have just about got over 2008 and am ready to support Hillary for President in 2016. She is the most qualified plus having views both foreign and domestic that I agree with. I even bought a bumper sticker, pink.

0 Replies

@chai2,

The following are my observations as an objective observer (as much as that's possible) but not my personal preference by any means:
2 women on this election ticket will not get elected as Prez and Veep. The same would go for any 2 women. As the show-biz saying goes, "it won't play in Peoria".

Hillary won't get elected because of her total baggage. It is the show-stopper but it is not because she is a woman or thought of as a 'bitch'. Yes, there'll be a large number who won't vote for her because she's a woman but the baggage or her heavy negatives will sink her. FWIW, I know politically active women Dems who would not vote for her.

The following is my personal preference:
I like Warren but it's too soon for her on a national scene. Also, international awareness and her familiarity with In'tl arena...is not there ..yet. At this time is no time for a rookie or OJT.

I just now read a Rasmussen poll where it reads: "54% think that Dems should run a fresh face for Prez in 2016"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/54_think_democrats_should_run_a_fresh_face_in_2016

"Ask Likely Democratic Voters that same question, and a plurality (44%) believes the party should promote a candidate who has already run in the past. That’s no surprise, given that Hillary Clinton, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, is the overwhelming favorite for 2016.

What is surprising, though, is that 57% of Democrats won’t commit to someone from the past, with 36% who think their party needs a fresh face and a sizable 21% who are undecided.

Of course, by comparison, when Mitt Romney was flirting with running again next year, 64% of all voters said Republicans should look for a fresh face to run for president in 2016, and 60% of Republicans agreed.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters share a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton, while 49% view her unfavorably. This includes 21% with a Very Favorable view and 33% with a Very Unfavorable one.

Perhaps of greater concern to Democrats is the finding that 56% of voters not affiliated with either major party also view Clinton unfavorably, including 34% with a Very Unfavorable opinion. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of these voters think the Democratic Party should find someone new to run in 2016.

More voters than ever think the circumstances surrounding the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. Embassy employees in Benghazi, Libya will hurt Clinton if she runs for president in 2016. "
"The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on March 16-17, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports"

I'd even consider voting for Condoleezza Rice, if she were a candidate.

As an aside, for the political future:
Caroline Kennedy is gaining international exposure and experience as an ambassador (currently Amb to Japan). whether she has an senatorial aspirations remains to be seen. I'd guess she does not.

2 Replies

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

The following are my observations as an objective observer (as much as that's possible) but not my personal preference by any means:
2 women on this election ticket will not get elected as Prez and Veep. The same would go for any 2 women. As the show-biz saying goes, "it won't play in Peoria".

Exactly ragman, that was my point.

The purpose of my "bitch" remark was not the point. That was thrown in there just to show the old cliches are still being thrown around.

The point is, it's going to be a challenge to get any woman to be the first woman in the white house. Making it a 2 woman ticket would make the effort futile.

FWIW, I don't see Clinton as being with any more baggage than any male interested in the position, when it comes down to it. Everyone's got baggage.

As far as who would be the best running mate, I'm not informed enough in politics to have an opinion. My thoughts were on the human nature aspect.

0 Replies

@Ragman,

I agree with Eugene Robinson, the more republicans pick on Hillary, the more democrats will rally around her.

Quote:

No sooner had Clinton announced than the Republican National Committee issued a statement saying she has “left a trail of secrecy, scandal and failed policies.” Other Republicans resumed the familiar Benghazi chant. It doesn’t take clairvoyance to predict that the anti-Clinton rhetoric will become more heated, more extreme and more personal. I don’t think anyone will be surprised if it becomes sexist as well.

My guess is that progressive Democrats will react to these attacks by rallying around their party’s certain nominee. This time, Clinton’s inevitability looks real. History may well be on her side for a change.

source

As for a running mate, I don't have a clue. I think the first step is get a solid group of democrats to support her.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

Agreed revelette.

I mean, how can someone not look at a candidate more favorably when, for instance in this thread, those who don't support her make childish suggestions like pee wee herman and dead people?

Wow, you've really swayed me by showing your ignorance and sophomoric humor. I think I'll change my mind based on that.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

I agree with Eugene Robinson, the more republicans pick on Hillary, the more democrats will rally around her.

Which is a function of the D leadership not seeing fit to offer voters options, which by the way all D's should be pissed about. The is a further corruption of our political system.

0 Replies

When you have a choice between Clinton and the clown car of Republicans they are so far offering, you have a clear choice, but it is your choice.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

When you have a choice between Clinton and the clown car of Republicans they are so far offering, you have a clear choice, but it is your choice.

You are aware I hope that the way this works is that wewill have a choice between one R and one D. And having been around the block a time or two you know that candidates often dont start the process looking presidential, that they grow into to role as they go.

Also, the R's go +1 in my books for offering a choice, for allowing the voters to matter, for not letting the operatives and big money donors decide everything before a single vote is cast.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

The clown car of the Repug's is fresh and new.

The Dems roll out some old dried up prune spouting the same old nonsense !!

If she is the Dems only serious candidate, any republican will beat her like a drum.

1 Reply

@woiyo,

Did you happen to notice a few years worth of public opinion sensing that says that the majority of people think that Washington is broken, and that we want new people with new ideas?

Ya, it is almost impossible for hillary to win, all the R's need to do is offer a credible alternative. The real story is that there is a decent chance that they will run the table. I think we are ready to take a chance on one party rule, under the theory that it is hard to imagine it being worse that what we have now.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

If it is only hillary on the Dem side, what are the chances of a 3rd party candidate coming into the race and tipping the scales a bit back towards hillary? Yes, many feel DC is broke and the Dems and Repub broke it.

Would not a Rand Paul run as independant be better than him running as a Repub?

1 Reply

@woiyo,

Not how the two parties have the election process rigged to prevent others from winning.

That being said I think we are fast getting to the level of lack of faith in the parties and anger at Washington that a cleaner running as not a R or a D can win. At that point the D/R collusion to prevent competition becomes added fuel.

Jsyk the D's not offering the votors a choice this time will propel this anger ant Washington, and this hopelessness that D's at R's will ever get their heads out of their asses and put America first. Even I, one who has extremely low expectations from the washington elite, am stunned by the idiocy of the democratic party, that they seem set on undertaking this act of suicide.

0 Replies

Yeah, Woiyo...Hawk...

...Hillary is a truly lousy candidate...and any decent Republican will wipe the floor with her.

Ya gotta wonder why the Republicans seem so focused on seeing that she is not the Dem candidate????

Me...I would love someone like Cruz to be at the top of the Rep ticket. I may send money to his campaign.

You guys are a gas!

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-with-laughter.gif

1 Reply

Even most Republicans do not seem stupid enough to nominate Cruz. But that is what I thought about GW Bush.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Ya gotta wonder why the Republicans seem so focused on seeing that she is not the Dem candidate???

What mechanism do the R's have to decide the D parties nominee?

Answer: none, but they hope she is, because she is easy to beat.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Lettuce hope they aren't feeling like another Bush baby!

0 Replies

Quote:

Clinton’s campaign launch video has variously been described as “slick,” “gauzy,” “icky” and “vapid.” I’d just call it empty — but in a way that invites the political definition to come: What does Clinton stand for? How does she plan to change an America in which, as she says in the ad, “the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top”?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-clinton-campaign-gets-off-to-a-fuzzy-start/2015/04/14/9bef58e6-e2df-11e4-905f-cc896d379a32_story.html?hpid=z2

It looks like the schtick here is to have Hillary go talk to some hicks in Iowa to find out what she should do, then she will whip up plans, then she tells us what to do. It reminds me of when Bill would bring 7 year olds up on stage to tell him and us how to end hunger and bring world peace as he pretended to be getting educated.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Do ya'll know that Iowa is still mostly white? I did not know that as I thought that the meat cutting and manufacturing industries had brought in a lot of non native born citizens and illegal aliens.

This cant be good with the left constantly screaming "WHITE PRIVILEGE!" Why does no one change this idiot and unfair way we run elections? Surely we can do it much cheaper, and faster.

America, always inefficient and paying way too much for too little, always going the long way around the block in an over priced jalopy.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Ya gotta wonder why the Republicans seem so focused on seeing that she is not the Dem candidate???

What mechanism do the R's have to decide the D parties nominee?

Answer: none, but they hope she is, because she is easy to beat.

Yeah...the R's like you HOPE that Hillary is the D candidate because she is easy to beat!!!!

And of course, the constant stream of negativism toward her and her candidacy is in motion because they want to see her get top billing.

Jeez!

1 Reply

Who should be Hillary's running mate?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know