YOu’d think, but there’s buzz around Brown for some reason.
I wouldn’t even have suggested it 6 months ago even though I was alarmed at the limited candidate possibilities available. I knew Franken existed, but he didn’t loom large on my radar. He isn’t my senator.
Then I started watching YouTube videos of Franken’s speeches in the Senate, in committees, and at other events. I became more impressed the more I saw.
I wouldn’t say his nomination as VP is impossible under the right circumstances. Think of another relatively come-from-behind candidate, Obama, who leapfrogged over the VP position entirely.
That’s because on the surface he checks off several boxes, but upon closer inspection, it makes absolutely no sense to take him out of the Senate.
I’d give up his seat for 2 years if I thought it meant the difference in Ohio.
It’s not like the Dems are going to get to 60 anyway.
In other threads I said he would be a great choice. He can be as much an attack dog as Elizabeth Warren is right now - imagine him taking on Trump. And as people see him in action he’ll win him over.
He’s my senator, and it was a hard-sell for his first election; after all, we still had memories of Jesse Ventura. But he’s become a well-liked figure who seems genuinely interested in the job and its duties and in his constituents.
“No sense” may be an overstatement … but there are less costly good choices. I was talking up Brown back in November precisely for the boxes he checked but allowing a GOP governor to appoint his replacement? A big price.
Filibuster proof 60 no, but the odds are modestly good for getting a majority. Not so large that giving up one doesn’t have to come with a lot of benefits. Brown might be worth a few points in Ohio, and Ohio may be close enough that a few points can swing it. That’s significant. And he ticks off progressive and rural issues cred. But you can get the fairly small but real marginal VP home state advantage with other contenders that may have as much or more impact otherwise, or significantly bigger other advantages without that swing state bit, without the same price.
I think every 2012 Obama state is safe except Ohio and Florida. But you might be right, even if you take Ohio and Florida and Virginia away, she’s still got 272. Problem is, if you lose Florida and Virginia, you probably lost a couple of small ones too. Ohio by itself can save that. Lose VA and FL and a few small states, win OH and you’re still OK.
Brown is out. Even if you’re willing to let Kasich appoint a Republican for 2 years, you have no idea what 2018 will look like. Another massacre like 1994 or 2010 would really hurt the Democrats.
Adaher, you keep saying silly things like this and it really detracts from your credibility.
Reagan, while not inventing it, popularized the Republican 11th Commandment. It insisted on party loyalty superceding all other differences between Republican operatives and officeholders.
What about Bob Casey from Pennsylvania? There’s even a Democratic Governor to appoint a Democrat to take his place.
I comically read this as Chris Christie the first time through, and was surprised to learn he was popular in Florida.
I agree that with the other criticism that politicians who keep losing in their home state don’t tend to get VP nods.
This type of state-specific selection isn’t really done that much anymore. When was the last time a VP actually helped carry a specific state? 1960?
I think Warren is a distinct possibility, despite temporarily handing the Republicans a Senate seat. I have seen a lot of traitor-hate being flung her way by the hard-core Sanders fans, but I think they’re basically irrelevant. Too few in number, and if they’re turning on Warren, there’s no point in trying to persuade them. Kaine is also a high-probability choice, assuming Clinton has no problem continuing to reinforce the safe, overly-scripted aspect to her campaign.
Hillary has given only one hint as to what she is seeking in a VP: He/she must be ready to step into the presidency on Day One, if something happens. This pretty much eliminates the up-and-comers, including Brown, Castro, Merkley and Perez. She wants to protect existing Democratic senators, so this eliminates anyone who is stuck with a Republican governor to appoint a replacement. Bernie and Warren are too effective in the positions they already occupy. I’d love to see them both appointed to a Hillary cabinet to work together on breaking up big banks, reinstating a modern version of Glass-Steagall and overturning Citizens United. She won’t risk a double-woman ticket, either, so that eliminates quite a few very qualified people.
Haven’t read through the whole thread so perhaps these have already been mentioned, but with all the above kept in mind…
John Kerry? He’s 72, but he’s a young 72.
Al Gore? He’s only 68! (Ok, ok, this is a personal pipe dream of mine because I can’t imagine Gore will ever hitch his wagon to a Clinton again, plus he’s a lightning rod for hard core righties… but he would fire up the young progressives since he’s been entirely vindicated in his stance on the environment. Sure would be a fun pick, though!)
It doesn’t eliminate anyone – every Presidential candidate says that “being ready on day one”, or equivalent, is the most important thing in a VP choice, and after they make the choice, they say that their running mate is absolutely ready on day one.
He’s anti-choice.
I’d agree that it doesn’t really eliminate anyone, but I do think she actually prefers someone ready to be President right now. And her favorite people just happen to be experienced people, such as Vilsack and Gen. Clark.
Ugh. Oh, well.
I used to think this, too, but I think against Trump, the calculus changes. Baiting him into making clearly misogynistic statements is a reasonable, if cynical, campaign strategy. It’s why Cruz chose Fiorina; he just didn’t have a lot of time for the strategy to work, and the general election is a better theater for it than the Republican primary.
She specifically said she’s considering women, which she didn’t actually have to do.
I’ll confess that I voted for him for Senator. He’s progressive in a lot of ways except for that one thing, and his opponent was Santorum. He couldn’t have done any real harm on the abortion issue by himself, and certainly not more than Santorum could’ve, and, as I said, he’s progressive other than that one thing.
LOL, come on. What else is she going to say? “Nah, I’m good enough to be president, but no way do I want two opinionated bitches in the highest offices of the land!”
There are some very qualified women, and I believe a couple would be wonderful picks. I’m sure Hillary Clinton does, too. But she will play it safe. It’s who she is. She’s already identified the voter blocs she needs to entice and which she can’t afford to alienate. Hate to say it, but a lot of older men, especially the white ones, who are leaning toward voting for her will likely be put off by a double-woman ticket. That’s not what I think. It’s just the reality on the ground.
Do Not Taunt, IMO Fiorina was a terrible pick for a lot of reasons. Apart from its utterly transparent gratuitous nature, she brought exactly nothing to the table. Widely despised for her “business acumen,” (of which there is none) she wasn’t going to deliver many women or the State of California. Her main appeal to Ted Cruz was that she liked Ted Cruz – not a great selling point to anyone else. She wouldn’t have played any better in the general election, I don’t think.
I agree Trump is a game changer, much in the Palin tradition. And the young progressive voting bloc that Clinton needs to entice would love a Warren VP and are not concerned over her gender. But if you lose as many voters for picking a female running mate as you gain, when you’re already the first female at the top of a major party’s ticket, then… probably not a great strategy.