2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWho is your pick for Vice President?
Hillary's shortlist for VP has been leaked, who is your pick? I have only included candidates I saw on the leaked list.
12 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Elizabeth Warren | |
4 (33%) |
|
Tim Kaine | |
0 (0%) |
|
Sherrod Brown | |
0 (0%) |
|
Cory Booker | |
2 (17%) |
|
Tom Perez | |
0 (0%) |
|
Julian Castro | |
0 (0%) |
|
Eric Garcetti | |
0 (0%) |
|
Xavier Becerra | |
6 (50%) |
|
Tim Ryan | |
0 (0%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
ram2008
(1,238 posts)Makes the most political sense, solid progressive, voted against Iraq, fluent in Spanish, qualified Latino, keeps Liz as the Senate lion.
There are no negatives I can think of.
As a Latino I would be insulted if she picked Castro, if she picks Becerra Id be very enthusiastic.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)with a pencil applied lightly. A good, progressive liberal, but as far as I can see one of dozens who stands out from a crowd of them only because he is Hispanic. That's a big qualification, but I really want someone with a real record of accomplishment. Don't we have a Hispanic governor at least to put on the list?
Fwiw, I believe that if Becerra had had Castro's prominence and had been picked for HUD, he would now have Castro's negatives. You can't sell mortgages to non-existent nonprofits that don't want them, and the GOP holds the government pursestrings and has been passing hostile laws, both severely limiting the HUD secretary's options. But, oh, well. Good man down.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)After watching the whole Republican-Nazi-car candidates this year...
Mitt was "fun". Funnier than hell. None of those guys were funny... at all...
And, compared with all them, he was a decent guy, for a Republican.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)It's highly probable that Clinton would not/will not select anyone I want in Washington. Should she condescend to choose a non-neo-liberal, that person would be hamstrung by the necessity of supporting the neo-liberal president, and would be generally useless as VP unless Clinton resigned, was removed, or died.
I don't like her. I never have, and I doubt I ever will. I don't want her to be president.
But I don't wish any of those things upon her that would make her VP choice matter to me.
I suppose I could take the long view, that her VP would become president after her.
I don't think she's going to win in November. If she does, though, the whole party machine will work to keep her in place for 8 years. I'm not going to be waiting around another 8 years; I'll be working to defeat neo-liberalism every day, every action, every vote, and the next time I have a chance to nominate a presidential candidate, it won't be someone who was leashed and heeled by a neo-liberal administration for 8 years.
longship
(40,416 posts)Why? Just why?
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)I think she would be wasted as VP.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)positives, plus, it would leave the senate intact.