Too old, and California is already in the bag for the Dems in November.
So Christie introduced Trump at this evening’s press conference. I was almost surprised that there wasn’t an announcement that Christie was the VP pick. Seems pretty glaring …
Julian Castro couldn’t flip Texas. Not a chance.
So, if Hillary thinks he’d make a great President in the event of her death, she should pick him. But he couldnt deliver a single state she wouldn’t win on her own.
“The guy I pick to be my vice-president, he’s gonna be YUUUGE…”
Castro is not my first choice but
-
Not Texas but in a race against Trump he could be deciding for a few other large Hispanic population states that in a Trump favorable election could be tipping point: WI, FL … Plus adding some rev to Millennial outreach
-
A Trump candidacy would likely presage a major party reshuffle. This election? No not Texas. But between that reshuffle and the demographic shift in progress … laying the groundwork in Texas is important and who knows about a House seat or so?
I prefer Vilsack based on rural and experience/readiness, but the arguments for Castro are not bad.
I’d be surprised if Christie isn’t Trump’s pick. He’s beginning to look like Boo Boo Bear standing behind Yogi. It seems he isn’t quite used to being in someone’s shadow like that, he’s far more accustomed to casting enormous shadows of his own. Christie makes sense in that his own political future is shot and there’s nothing for him to lose by running with Trump. My dark horse is Scott Brown, who apparently hasn’t settled on a state to lose a Senate bid this year.
I’m unsure of who Hillary should pick. A rust belt Senator like Brown or Stabenow would help with the blue collar vote, but both of them would cost a Senate seat. She could try to reduce GOP turnout by picking Pelosi and giving a lot of Republicans a fatal stroke.
Hillary won’t pick another woman. Too many old-fart voters will have a problem voting for one, let alone two.
But both Trump and Christie are from the tri-state area. Isn’t there some value in a VP selection from another part of the country? (On the other hand, both GWB and Cheney were from Texas, so not always.)
I think that’s a little dated conventional wisdom. I don’t know if a veep candidate has helped a candidate win a critical state since LBJ helped JFK carry Texas. Nowadays people care less about where someone is from than they used to.
And before that, Clinton/Gore, sure as Arkansas and Tennessee share a border.
Texas/Connecticut born, and Wyoming/Nebraska, respectively.
Cheney was living in the Dallas area when he was the VEEP search committee for GWB. He sold his house and changed his residency to Wyoming when he selected himself.
Well - Kennedy did have 6 years in the House and almost 8 in the Senate. People forget he had so much experience because he was so young.
As for a Clinton running mate - thanks to her opponent, she has the flexibility to think outside the box. Since she’s running against a TV personality - why not pick one as her veep. So you heard it here first - Clinton / Stephanopoulos is the ticket to beat. They’ve got history. He’s got White House experience. He’s smart and knowledgeable. And he can hold his own in debates, interviews, basically anything involving the media. So yeah . . .
(OK - so no, I’m not betting the mortgage on this.)
Now that would be interesting.
Dee Dee Myers for SecDef! Bill Clinton for Chief of Staff! Sidney Blumethal for Communications Director! Let’s get the whole gang back together! Well, minus Rahm. No one likes Rahm. And Gergen. F him!
If she is countering with another TV personality she might as well go all the way and get the Poprah.
Well, George actually is a pretty outstanding pick, and it highlights another reality, a different one from the one that Trump is pushing.
One of the rationales behind the Trump run is, “Why elect the politicians that are bought and sold? Just get their paymaster and let him run things.” With George, it’s “Why elect the politicians who are told what to say and think by the experts who actually know what they are doing? Just elect the handlers.” A George Stephanopolous vs. Karl Rove Presidential race would be interesting, actually.
Oprah would be ridiculous. Stephanopoulos actually has White House experience, and he’s pretty politically savvy. I could think of 100 worse picks than George.
The problem with george is disloyalty. I own his book and he aired the Clintons dirty laundry pretty extensively.
What about the possibility of Trump channeling Apollo Creed and picking up an unknown but highly charismatic, intelligent, and informed woman combat veteran born in the 1980’s? When Hillary asserts her foreign policy experience, the young veep attack dog could strike back: “Mrs Clinton says she landed under sniper fire once, which doesn’t even seem to be true, I don’t know anything about that, but what I can tell you is that when I was in Iraq I WAS the sniper, and Al Qaeda was afraid of ME, not the other way around.”
An announcement of an unknown would rock the news cycle for weeks, very Trumpy.
Well - I think we can rule Romney out.