Who Will Hillary Pick for Veep?

I don't think she would, either, plus Massachusetts is a Democrat lock, and it has been for a few decades now (I think the last time we went Republican was in the 1984? Reagan landslide. Before that, I think the last time we went Republican may have been for Ike). I also think Warren does better in the Senate, and Hillary could use a powerful friend in there.

I would look for someone in the South, Midwest, or West, preferably someone who brings in a decent delegate prize. E. g. Cory Booker brings a nice chunk of delegates, but I think he'd skew things too heavily East Coast. Plus I think he would do better rising up through the ranks. He's got a dynamite future if he wants it.

Two odd ideas from the Senate: Gary Peters - Michigan, up for reelection in 2020. 57 years old, was in the House before. Michigan currently leans Democratic and brings with it 16 electoral votes. It's a nice prize to have.

Other is Bill Nelson - Florida - up for reelection in 2018. 73 years old is potentially a problem, but the guy was a freakin' astronaut. Florida is a battleground state with 29 electoral votes. I doubt either side can win without Florida.

According to CNN, the current map gives Hillary 236 delegates to Trump's 191, with 111 in play.

Either candidate needs 270 to win. If Hillary gets Florida, Nevada, and New Hampshire, then the whole shooting match is decided, assuming all the solid predictions hold true.

Mrs. Clinton and her group need votes to get them in first

accountability doesn't matter if you don't have the job

__

Michael Moore's making some little waves saying he thinks Mr. Trump will win . That needs to be avoided.

Someone who could bring in Florida would be terrific.


(edit : is it weird that I don't read Florida as part of the US South?)

I'm just interested in the way you guys are acting as if the only utility of a VP pick is in how many votes they can bring. This person will serve closely with the president for 4 to 8 years. Shouldn't they have some other positive attributes besides being able to get out the vote? Like for instance, maybe having views and knowledge that's consistent with the desires of the Democratic electorate, and having the ability to influence the POTUS? I understand the VP can be useful if they attract more votes, but the argument could also be made that people vote for the top of the ticket, not the second .

Other than the current acceptable progressive yardstick, there is not a big area in which Clinton is lacking in qualifications to be president. I just worry about her Israel stance and there aren't too many democrats who vote/believe differently. (I don't think there needs to be a anti Jewish fest, but on the other hand, there should be a person in the WH who looks at the Palestinians equally and as far as I know, Warren has never expressed an opinion one way or another) Biden was a good pick for Obama because everyone thought Obama might have needed shoring up in foreign matters. Turned out Biden was used more to get the left on board with Obama's domestic agenda. I think most are thinking Clinton needs to appeal to Trump (or white poor working folks) like democrats which liberals/democrats seem to loose.

Given how tight this election could be, I think votes matter more than anything. I don't think there's much use in having a running mate that appeals to the same group as the head of the ticket.

People who aren't sure of the head of the ticket and could go third party (like I would if I was in the US) might be brought in by the running mate.

She'll probably tap Clinton as vice president so he doesn't have to be referred to as the first lady... unless she has Huma as first lady.

Well, she's gotta be elected before anything else can happen, of course.

One advantage to having a somewhat different running mate is a perceived (not always true, of course) ability to work with a wider range of people. This is the Kennedy-Johnson model, I feel - Johnson had issues but he was good at getting people on board with him. He was also absolutely necessary for getting Kennedy elected in the first place. 56 years ago, people were up in arms about the possibility of a Catholic president.

I think there has to be a good bench in the Senate and House for a while. Not only to get those folks more seasoned but to get something done for once. Right now, the legislature seems to just hang around a few times a year, collect their paychecks and then they run off electioneering again. Of course that's oversimplified, but any president has got to have a Congress that will work with him or her. They don't have to be the same party, and I think they can (if they are willing to do so) sometimes get more accomplished if the parties differ.

^^^ this is why I like minority governments when we get them - they get stuff moving

For what it's worth, the conventional wisdom seems to be that HRC will choose Kaine or Vilsack

Perez is a possibility too, but I don't think she'll go that route because she really doesn't need to attract more of the hispanic vote.

Heard someone on CNN suggest that if she picks Vilsack the African-American Community will be pissed of because of his firing of Shirley Shirrod.

First of all, how many African-Americans know who Shirley Shirrod is or that Vilsack fired her? Secondly, even if the GOP were to bring it to light in ads would it really dissuade large swathes of African-Americans from voting for Clinton?

It might, however, attract white, blue-collar voters which is the bloc she should be most worried about. Pretty cynical calculation of course, but if you don't think this is the way these decisions are made, jump up on your unicorn, ride to Candy Land and let the adults continue with the discussion.

The demographic most in play in this election is male, white working class.

Whatever her pick might be it's not going to be a game changer, but in an election that is currently very close the candidates look for whatever edge they can get.

Neither Kaine nor Vilsak are Elizabeth Warren Democrats, and they are, obviously, not women. A two women ticket when she needs to attract male votes? Nope.

HRC has to tack to the center in the general election to draw in the white working class Democrats that could decide the race.

I originally thought she would go with Castro, but that now seems highly unlikely, so what do I know? However that opinion was formed when she was still looking to bring in Berners. I should have realized that ultimately, most of the Berners were all hot air about their opposition to Clinton and would be voting for her in November. I think it's pretty clear that her internal polling has told her this is the case.

Obviously anything can happen, but as we get closer to the election and we see the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates and which demographics are most at play, I think it's a good bet that she will pick a white male, Kaine or Vilsack. Between the two of them it's probably a case of which one she has a personal chemistry with.

Politico just had a headline that gave Kaine the moniker "Vanilla Nice"

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-vp-pick-tim-kaine-226013

Even he has said he is boring (no link..)

I'm - as I've several times stated - for my man, Hickenlooper, but I figure he is out of it. And, natch, I don't know every little thing about him, but have liked what I did read.

I gather we'll hear soon. I'll guess Vilsak..

He's boring?

Perfect choice!

Do you think Clinton wants a running mate that might upstage her? This is why Warren was never a serious candidate.

The buzz was that Trump wanted Christie, but his advisers and family argued against him.

Maybe, maybe not, but if it's true then his first instinct wasn't to worry about someone who might upstage him. That's a point in his favorable column for me.

How many items are in that favorable column? I for one would just LOVE to peruse such a list about such a unique candidate made by such an astute voter.

It's Kaine. It's official. Well, he's fluent in Spanish. I guess that's a plus.

58. White. Eh.

I'm not super-enthused, but I don't find it horrifying either.

Fluent in Spanish IS a plus, I didn't know that.

Oh he's against the death penalty. That's cool.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/22/12244762/tim-kaine-hillary-clinton-vice-president-running-mate-announcement

His minuses are not being exactly pro-choice, but does believe in planned parenthood. (I kind of agree with him on his views, he is not pro-life all the way either) He is centrist on the economy, banks and free trade and taxes. Some pluses Pro gay civil liberties and was part of a bill which would require authorization and debates on wars and believes we should only go to war if we have an immediate threat but agreed with Obama's actions on Syria. Actually, the more I read about him the more I like him as I am centrist on the economy as well.

still wondering about the choice, but the more I read about Mr. Kaine, the more he seems like our friend George (not Georgeob) and I kind of get him as a choice

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/tim-kaine-the-evolution-of-pro-choice-politics.html#

Kaine was chosen for several good reasons:

1) Hillary likes him
2) He won't upstage her
3) He's not someone that will further push away white male working class voters

Seems pretty clear she thinks she has the Berners in the bag or, at least, is worrying less about them than white male working class.

That he's fluent in Spanish is to his credit, and a plus, but not a significant one.

No amount of spinning his record is going to make him less of a slap in the face of the Berners. May be moot, but especially with the WikiLeaks revelations, I have to imagine that the 30,000 Berners on their way to Philly are going to be charged up.

I would much rather see him in the White House than her.