No way. I won’t hold it against Kasich or any other Republican, as it’s perfectly reasonable to want to exert influence from the inside. Besides, if Kasich or another reasonable Republican said no, who would Trump pick? Probably someone really bad. But I won’t support Donald Trump for President. Hillary Clinton is a much better option.
Screw Castro, this sounds like a great idea! Sold.
Interesting.
Just thinking about this from a political gaming POV … nothing that any politician would actually do, being concerned of course only with the most noble of things alone … which is more important to do in a race against Trump?
Shore up the progressive side (which Perez apparently would do)?
Or appeal to those who are usually GOP leaning who fear Trump by emphasizing a choice based on experience and proven competency at managing government (which a Vilsack would do)? This is mainly a college educated White crowd that is fiscally somewhat conservative and socially not so far off from most Democrats. Maybe as much as a third of GOP voters. Incremental change done with competence is less scary to them than the unpredictable.
Or primarily appealing to identity politics with a Hispanic choice (and in America that really means of Mexican heritage for the majority of the minority in identity politics, not Dominican and not Cuban), even if they do not have quite the same progressive cred or proven competency (which Castro would do)?
I’d guess that those of the progressive side who would stay home if Hillary is first off not a large number and secondly would stay home even if she had a progressive VP. If you really believe Hillary is part of the cabal that rigs the system then the VP spot would feel like a bribe and not a very big one.
It won’t be Perez over Castro. Republicans don’t hate Castro. We hate Perez with the blinding light of a thousand suns, at least those of us who know his record.
If Kasich than accepts, I’ll think Kasich is doing it to control the Donald in office, if possible, or, better yet, succeed him after the impeachment conviction.
Which is also a possibility. Interestingly enough, when I spoke to local Trump supporters, they like Kasich a lot. Hopefully that’s evidence that Trump supporters would not abandon the GOP if Trump lost in a brokered convention to someone like Kasich.
I think it would be a cold day in hell for Kasich to accept. He’s embarrassed by the circus as it is, and he is well aware of the ringmaster’s antics.
I think he’d accept, and I don’t hold it against him, I just still won’t vote for that ticket.
If Trump was seen to have lost fairly on the second or third ballot, under the same rules in place when he began running for President, the GOP would be harmed minimally, at most.
But if Trump was seen to have lost because the rules committee, at the last minute, changed how the convention process works – say, by letting delegates vote their conscience on the first ballot – then the GOP would be strongly punished by voters, Trumpite or otherwise.
That just won’t happen. Plus I can’t imagine any delegates for Trump not voting for Trump on the first ballot. Why else did they run as Trump delegates?
I’m not so sure about that. One of my most hardcore progressive Bernhead friends (he backed Kucinich back in the day, to give you an idea, and is one of those who often grouses about Obama being too conservative) was bummed after South Carolina but perked up at the thought that occurred to him, that “now Hillary will definitely have to pick a progressive running mate”.
So?
Oh right, because the Republicans’ record with Hillary Clinton over the past 25 years has been so cozy and sweet. So she should give a fig what you all think of her running mate?
Perez: civil rights lawyer, consumer advocate, defender of the working class, son of Latino immigrants. Yeah, I can see why Republicans can’t stand the rotten, evil sonofabitch.
I guess more scandals won’t matter, but Perez adds some of his own to the ticket. Castro, by contrast, has an uncontroversial history. Perez has actually been cited for misconduct by Congress, after making a corrupt deal with the city of St. Paul to avoid an adverse Supreme Court ruling in a civil rights case. In exchange, the government agreed not to recover $200 million in fraudulently spent federal money.
Plus he has a history of rather radical statements. Castro does not. Basically, he believes that any means justify his ends. We’ll be happy to use that against him in the campaign.
According to the same article that cites the Perez buzz, Clinton definitely seems to also be interested in a black VP:
Both Cory Booker and Anthony Foxx are on the short list. Both of Virginia’s Senators as well, if she wants qualifications, but qualifications are so 20th century.
Quayle was 20th century.
Can’t have that.
How about another Brown; namely, Edmund G., Jr.?
Just a reminder: in the vocabularies of decent people, “illegal” is exclusively an adjective.
That is all.
If one believes that the current incarnation of the Republican led Congress has more interest in truth, law, or justice than in politically damaging Obama and his party, then this might be of concern.
But I don’t believe this, so I’m not concerned, and Perez might be a great pick.
They didn’t all run as Trump delegates. A lot of them are GOP officeholders who are normally pledged to vote on the first ballot depending on their state’s primary results. This last sentence is why you don’t hear the word “superdelegate” used in reference to the GOP. But I don’t see why the rules committee can’t make superdelegates, other than that it would be seen as changing the game rules after play has started.
If Trump is behind Hillary in the polls, two weeks before the GOP convention, by more than a dozen points, and has less than, say, 57 percent in the delegate count, rules will change.
Now, the only way this can happen is if Cruz and/or Rubio stay in until the bitter end. If they drop out before, Trump will be too far ahead in the delegate count to have the nomination, to use what would be his word, stolen from him.
If you want to damage the Obama administration, why single out Perez? Because in an administration, there are bound to be a few political appointees who do shady things. You don’t go after an administration by attacking the clean guys, you do it by hyping up the shady dealings of the not so clean guys.
Perez would be a sop to the hard left, but it would backfire among independents and moderate Republicans who might want an alternative to Trump or a Tea Party Republican.
Plus Perez doesn’t stay on message. Clinton doesn’t like people who go freelancing and saying things her campaign didn’t approve beforehand.