OT: who will be Hillary’s running mate?

[an]

Would be awesome if Hillary pick Bloomberg as VP. He would nullify Trump’s big wealth’s variable by saying, say, I have many more Billions than he does and we’ll self fund our campaign too. LoL.

[afx114]

Barack Hussein Obama

[poorgradstudent]

Ideally she’d want a non-white male from a swing state. The Republicans are unlikely to try to hit Hillary on inexperience (especially if they run Trump) so she’s probably going to either want someone who seems young and fresh and non-white, or maybe go with a Safe White Male.

Unfortunately, the Democratic bench is actually rather thin these days. Not a lot of Blue governors outside of places like California (and she’s not going to pick Moonbeam, even if he wanted the job).

Julian Castro and Tim Kaine seem like reasonable picks.

[zk]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Ideally she’d want a non-white male from a swing state. The Republicans are unlikely to try to hit Hillary on inexperience (especially if they run Trump) so she’s probably going to either want someone who seems young and fresh and non-white, or maybe go with a Safe White Male.

Unfortunately, the Democratic bench is actually rather thin these days. Not a lot of Blue governors outside of places like California (and she’s not going to pick Moonbeam, even if he wanted the job).

Julian Castro and Tim Kaine seem like reasonable picks.[/quote]

Interesting points, but why would she want a non-white male? I guess maybe to energize voters of whatever race her running mate was and to appeal to progressives in general. But it seems to me she needs to appeal to purple voters more than she needs to energize the base. I could be wrong about that, but it seems the election will be won or lost in states like Ohio and Florida. Some purple voters might be averse to an all non-white-male ticket. Not out loud, of course. But averse nonetheless.

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=poorgradstudent]

Julian Castro and Tim Kaine seem like reasonable picks.[/quote]

I think it will be Sen. Sherrod Brown. He will help with Bernie’s voters and it doesn’t hurt that he is from Ohio!

[SK in CV]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=poorgradstudent]

Julian Castro and Tim Kaine seem like reasonable picks.[/quote]

I think it will be Sen. Sherrod Brown. He will help with Bernie’s voters and it doesn’t hurt that he is from Ohio![/quote]

That would be a great choice. I’d hate to lose him in the Senate.

[moneymaker]

Could Hilary pick Nancy Pelosi as a running mate?

[SK in CV]

[quote=moneymaker]Could Hilary pick Nancy Pelosi as a running mate?[/quote]

She could. She won’t. Pelosi is 75 years old. No upside. She adds absolutely nothing to the ticket.

[FlyerInHi]

Tim Kaine speaks Spanish, but as an occasional Univision viewer, I don’t think that he has a following among Hispanics.

White establishment people might think he has a Hispanic appeal, but I doubt he does.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=zk]My prediction is still:

I’m thinking it will be the safest possible person. A white man, for sure. Someone experienced. Someone who doesn’t make a lot of gaffes. Sort of a democrat version of Mitt Romney.

Maybe an Evan Bayh type. He’s “president-shaped,” as Stephen Colbert hilariously called Mitt Romney.[/quote]

Yes. She needs a gregarious, telegenic Latino.
It would be Brian Sandoval, if he were democrat

I’d like Elizabeth Warren. Hillary should take the risk and make double history.

[joec]

I think it’s impossible for Hillary to pick Bloomberg. The $30+ billionaire who has done tons more than Hillary isn’t going to want to play second fiddle to anyone.

He has been major of NY himself and thought about running his own campaign if it was left to Bernie and Trump…

It’s sad (to me) to see Hillary get the nod, I’d rather see Kasich win the republican nod and beat Hillary…

I think if they pulled that at the convention, all the Trump voters will probably just stay home, but who knows.

Good thing whoever wins, my life will probably change very little (even Trump) I’d assume so at the end of the day, all this politico talk is fun, but most likely will have nearly no impact on our lives (especially Hillary…continued special interest and money politics).

What I and some others have mentioned on news outlets I’ve seen is why does Hillary have this insane need to grab so much money? She doesn’t really need it as much now and it makes her look like she is continuous bought.

[La Jolla Renter]

[quote=joec]
What I and some others have mentioned on news outlets I’ve seen is why does Hillary have this insane need to grab so much money? She doesn’t really need it as much now and it makes her look like she is continuous bought.[/quote]

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why this does not bother the left even the slightest. She is 100% bought. Corporate America is not paying the Clinton’s a couple hundred million dollars because they give good speeches. It is hard to claim your a servant to the people from your $50k a week Hampton vacation rental. etc. etc. etc.

But back to the question at hand… and to stay on par with this vaudeville election.

Michelle Obama.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=La Jolla Renter][quote=joec]
What I and some others have mentioned on news outlets I’ve seen is why does Hillary have this insane need to grab so much money? She doesn’t really need it as much now and it makes her look like she is continuous bought.[/quote]

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why this does not bother the left even the slightest. She is 100% bought. Corporate America is not paying the Clinton’s a couple hundred million dollars because they give good speeches. It is hard to claim your a servant to the people from your $50k a week Hampton vacation rental. etc. etc. etc.
[/quote]

If Clinton is bought by corporations, establishment Republicans should love her. They should love HillaryCare.

Could it be jealousy on the part of right that a progressive is rich? Because, you know, people who understand business better should be richer.

[SK in CV]

[quote=La Jolla Renter]For the life of me, I can’t figure out why this does not bother the left even the slightest. She is 100% bought. Corporate America is not paying the Clinton’s a couple hundred million dollars because they give good speeches. It is hard to claim your a servant to the people from your $50k a week Hampton vacation rental. etc. etc. etc.

[/quote]

Your comment begs the question. But the left, nonetheless, is bothered by Clinton’s relationship with Wall St. And lest the two be confused, it is Wall St., not corporate America, that has the relationship with Clinton. Wall St is that giant machine that sucks a trillion dollars a year out of the economy, while providing absolutely no useful service. Bernie Sanders is proof that the left is bothered by that relationship.

[FlyerInHi]

To be fair to Hillary, she’s right that Obama took Wall Street contributions and still signed Dodd-Frank, and still called them fatcats.

The right reviles Dodd-Frank and they mention it a lot at their rallies.

Except for a general idea of what Dodd-Frank is, I don’t even fully understand it because complex financial regulations are above my pay grade.

Either the people who cheer on the floor of Republican rallies, when Dodd-Frank is mentioned as government tyranny, are Wall Street traders, or they are the clueless ones who are dominated by their masters.

[Author]

Posts