Clinton VP news LATEST: Podesta now calling the losers to tell them its not them

[Suck my caulk]

I will not be voting for Clinton in November, however I think Perez, Warren, Brown, Becerra, and Garcetti would all be good choices for her to select. Ultimately, I am betting on a Clinton/Perez ticket. Trump's shortlist apparently has been reduced to Christie, Sessions, Fallin, and Gingrich, although I think Santorum has a good shot at being selected. He is younger than Trump (58), from a swing state (Pennsylvania), has 12 years of experience in the Senate (1995-2007), has national exposure and a proven campaign record (from 2012, when he showed he was able to excite the base and come a close second to Romney), and he was the only Republican to speak against free trade deals and emphasize domestic manufacturing in 2012. Aditionally, Santorum has treated Trump quite well throughout the primary. I think Trump/Santorum is a realistic scenario.

[Suck my caulk]

Whatever happened to Gingrich being out of the running? Not that I'm complaining, of course.

We assumed that he was out of the running because he started getting critical of Trump.  He stopped talking about that stuff though, and maybe Trump has a short memory.  I don't know.

No chance. Corker and Thune were in the running, and then both got critical of Trump, and both are now out. Ben Carson was fired from Trump's VP selection team, because he was too talkative with respect to who was actually on Trump's shortlist: Sarah Palin (now gone) and Jim Webb. Gingrich was being considered, but he is done. The shortlist that we know of, as it now stands, is limited to Chris Christie, Jeff Sessions, and Mary Fallin. Jim Webb may or may not remain under consideration, and Mike Huckabee, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum are all neglected names that some people, including I, believe to be serious contenders for the office.

To answer the question, Trump's VP will be either: Christie, Fallin, Sessions, Webb, Huntsman, Perry, Huckabee, or Santorum Read me now, quote me later.

[Suck my caulk]

Liz Warren is shamelessly trying to become VP, but she'll end up looking like the left-wing Chris Christie.

She already does. I would like to see Clinton give Warren the finger and select Becerra or Perez as her running mate.

[Suck my caulk]

Liz Warren is shamelessly trying to become VP, but she'll end up looking like the left-wing Chris Christie.

She already does. I would like to see Clinton give Warren the finger and select Becerra or Perez as her running mate.

Becerra or Perez would be an incredibly savvy move from her part. It will pull more Hispanics in as Trump alienates them to unprecedented lengths.

I agree 100%. Tom Perez is as progressive, if not more, than Warren, and at least Becerra and Perez were honest about their candidate preferences and endorsed Clinton from the beginning. Warren, on the other hand, gave Sanders supporters every reason to believe that she would endorse Sanders, but then refused to make any endorsements until Clinton was her only choice, and now vies full-throttle for the VP spot. Becerra and Perez, or even Brown, deserve the position more than Warren does. They are all progressives, but the former three made a decision from the beginning.

[Suck my caulk]

Liz Warren is shamelessly trying to become VP, but she'll end up looking like the left-wing Chris Christie.

She already does. I would like to see Clinton give Warren the finger and select Becerra or Perez as her running mate.

Becerra or Perez would be an incredibly savvy move from her part. It will pull more Hispanics in as Trump alienates them to unprecedented lengths.

I agree 100%. Tom Perez is as progressive, if not more, than Warren, and at least Becerra and Perez were honest about their candidate preferences and endorsed Clinton from the beginning. Warren, on the other hand, gave Sanders supporters every reason to believe that she would endorse Sanders, but then refused to make any endorsements until Clinton was her only choice, and now vies full-throttle for the VP spot. Becerra and Perez, or even Brown, deserve the position more than Warren does. They are all progressives, but the former three made a decision from the beginning.

When did she ever lead Sanders supporters to believe she'd endorse him? She was neutral literally the entire process and then endorsed the presumptive nominee which, funny thing, happens to be Clinton. She would've done the same for Sanders if he pulled a win out of his ass.

Warren's Senate votes and stated policy positions clearly align more with Sanders than they do Clinton, as do Sherrod Brown's, yet she refused to back the man who could have enacted the progressive agenda she claimed to have wanted to seen enacted (especially considering that Sanders would be a much stronger candidate in the general election than Clinton). She would not have done the same for Sanders, as evidenced by the fact that Sanders won several states during the primary process, and had a real shot at the nomination. Warren's endorsement could have pushed Sanders over the top in Massachusetts, and if given early enough, perhaps in Iowa, Illinois, and Ohio. Warren had a clear choice, and she stayed neutral when Sanders needed her most. Tom Perez, Xavier Becerra, and Sherrod Brown, on the other hand, did not give any false impressions. They came out from the beginning backing Clinton. That does not make sense to me, but at least they are honest. They have been loyal to Clinton from the beginning, and deserve to be Clinton's #2 more than Warren does.

[Suck my caulk]

Kaine, Castro and Warren have been asked to submit docs.

Ugh, seriously, why won't the idea of a Castro VP just go away already, he's a terrible pick. Becerra is better than him in every way possible. Also Kaine is far too boring.

Kaine, Castro and Warren have been asked to submit docs.

Ugh, seriously, why won't the idea of a Castro VP just go away already, he's a terrible pick. Becerra is better than him in every way possible. Also Kaine is far too boring.

I agree 100% that Kaine is too "boring" for Clinton (read: too establishment and too conservative or "moderate" for a Democrat, with respect to trade and abortion). I also agree with you that Castro is pure identity politics, and a poor choice. He is young Latino (yay!), but beyond that he is a terrible choice. Castro does not have the necessary amount of experience to succeed Clinton should she resign, die, or be impeached; he will not put Texas in play among Latinos, since he does not even speak Spanish. Finally, even though Clinton is about as right-wing a Democrat as there is, and even though Castro is a "moderate" establishment-type, I can imagine Fox News will try to galvanize the Republicans even more against Clinton by playing up the Castro name (i.e. dog whistle involving Fidel and Raul Castro). Tom Perez, Xavier Becerra, and Eric Garcetti (in that order) are much better choices for Clinton if she wants to excite Latino turnout, as all speak Spanish, are more experienced than Castro, and are also more experienced than Castro. That said, identity politics should not be the basis for Clinton's choice. If I was to pick a woman who is more progressive and a better choice, in my opinion, for the Presidency, I would choose Elizabeth Warren (although her refusal to endorse Sanders still aggravates me) or Jill Stein.

[Suck my caulk]

Clinton is about as right-wing a Democrat as there is,

Ah, so you're a troll. Now it suddenly makes a lot more sense.

Will you please explain how my statement makes me a troll? I posted an entire paragraph of substantive argument, and you focused on a single sentence, and did not provide a substantive response. Will you please name a few Democrats who are more right-wing than Clinton? Maybe Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln, but none of them are in politics any longer, and I struggle to name any more.

[Suck my caulk]

Will you please explain how my statement makes me a troll? I posted an entire paragraph of substantive argument, and you focused on a single sentence, and did not provide a substantive response. Will you please name a few Democrats who are more right-wing than Clinton? Maybe Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln, but none of them are in politics any longer, and I struggle to name any more.

Perhaps... Joe Biden, John Edwards, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, most representatives and senators?

Al Gore is to the right of Hillary Clinton? On climate change, he receives money from the fossil fuel industry (of course not; he is not even in politics anymore)? He voted for Iraq (he was against it, while Clinton was for it)? He ran in 2000 on expanding Social Security; Clinton has supported the chained CPI cuts to Social Security. Joe Biden? Seriously? You genuinely believe MOST Democratic Congress members are to the right of Clinton. Now I think you might be a troll.

[Suck my caulk]

Democrats in Office that are more conservative than Clinton: Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, John Bel Edwards, Dan Lipinski, Andrew Cuomo, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Ron Wyden, Joe Donnelly, Steve Bullock, Scott Peters, Claire McCaskill, Ann Kirkpatrick, Kyrsten Sinema, Henry Cuelllar, Gene Green, John Hickenlooper, Tim Kaine, Bob Casey. There are probably others. After November, we'll likely be able to add Pete Gallego to the list.

Most of those are members of the Blue Dog Caucus, and that is a sad reflection on the modern-day Democratic Party. Thank you for providing a list, but that is not a majority. Clinton is still relatively right-wing. Call me a troll if you like, but Chafee (a Republican until 2007) was to the left of Clinton on foreign policy; Webb was to the left of her on trade and foreign policy; Lessig was to the left of her on economic policy; O'Malley and Sanders were to the left of her on trade, economics, and foreign policy (all issues). The truth is, for a Democrat, Clinton is rather conservative.

Also, could you please explain how Senator Joe Manchin is to the right of Clinton? He has been consistently against the Iraq War and Obama's military intervention abroad; he has consistently opposed free trade deals, including the TPP. and he has called for overturning Citizens United and getting money out of politics since before Clinton was in the race.

Will you please explain how my statement makes me a troll? I posted an entire paragraph of substantive argument, and you focused on a single sentence, and did not provide a substantive response. Will you please name a few Democrats who are more right-wing than Clinton? Maybe Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln, but none of them are in politics any longer, and I struggle to name any more.

Perhaps... Joe Biden, John Edwards, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, most representatives and senators?

Al Gore is to the right of Hillary Clinton? On climate change, he receives money from the fossil fuel industry (of course not; he is not even in politics anymore)? He voted for Iraq (he was against it, while Clinton was for it)? He ran in 2000 on expanding Social Security; Clinton has supported the chained CPI cuts to Social Security. Joe Biden? Seriously? You genuinely believe MOST Democratic Congress members are to the right of Clinton. Now I think you might be a troll.

Biden voted for the Iraq War. He was in favor of the 1994 crime bill. He had major ties to the credit card industries and the banking industries. The list goes on. His voting record in the Senate was way to the right of Hillary's. Her voting record was in the more liberal half of the Democratic caucus. Look it up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/us/politics/banking-ties-could-hurt-joe-biden-in-race-with-populist-overtone.html
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

I realize your ilk give him a pass for stuff you'd string up Hillary over because he is a man, but don't expect to not get called out for it.

That's not true. I am aware that Clinton was rather progressive as a Senator (the 11th most progressive; Sanders was the most progressive Senator), and that Biden, at one time, voted in a more conservative manner than Clinton. Biden has become more progressive as VP, however. Clinton has become more progressive in rhetoric, but it is painfully obvious that the reason for that is because she had a strong challenger in Bernie Sanders.

[Suck my caulk]

So Biden became more progressive as VP...and Hillary became more progressive since leaving SoS. Yes, they're both shifting in the direction of the party's overall tide. I don't see the difference. You can't assume good faith on Biden's part and bad faith on Hillary's without any solid evidence. Don't forget he also wanted to run for president, and only backed out because he didn't see a path to victory.

Also, Hillary was very clearly shifting to the left almost immediately after beginning her campaign, back when Sanders was still polling at 3% and nobody outside of Vermont knew who he was.

I think Sanders sped up Clinton's process of shifting leftward, but she was shifting from the beginning, because she saw how she lost in 2008 by being too conservative for the overall primary electorate. I take your point, however. I do not assume good faith on Biden's part; I just know that Biden is not running for President, and that his foreign policy has been lesss interventionist (therefore, more progressive) than Clinton's since being VP. If anything, as Secretary of State, Clinton became more militant.

[Suck my caulk]

also lol at Martin O'Malley being more left-wing than Hillary Clinton. He's a former NEW DEMOCRAT who changed his colors to win the White House.

I am aware of that. It is also no secret that O'Malley endorsed Clinton over Obama in 2008. He changed/evolved/lied/flip-flopped/pivoted (choose your word) on several issues over his tenure as Maryland Governor, however, and he became extremely progressive as Governor with respect to taxation, marriage equality, gun control, marijuana, immigration, etc. His climate change/energy plan in the primary season was so progressive, he made Bernie Sanders look moderate (completely renewable by 2030). O'Malley actually has a track record to show how his thinking and policies changed. He started out as a New Democrat, but he has evolved into a progressive. Clinton is the opposite. She used to be a progressive, when her husband was a New Democrat, and she was quite progressive as a Senator. In the interim period between running for President in 2008 and 2015 when her rhetoric shifted sharply to the left, however, Clinton was quite conservative (dare I say, quite right-wing, something which has earned me a lot of hatred on this forum). I would go as far as to say that Clinton was a New Democrat from her time leaving the Senate until she received stiff competition to her left in the form of Bernie Sanders.

[Suck my caulk]

also lol at Martin O'Malley being more left-wing than Hillary Clinton. He's a former NEW DEMOCRAT who changed his colors to win the White House.

And enthusiastically endorsed her extremely early in 2007. lol

I guess only male politicians are allowed to genuinely "evolve." Women who do so are just power hungry opportunist shill bitches.

I did not say that; you did. Who brought up Clinton's gender before IceSpear? I am so sexist that I will be "throwing away" a vote on Dr. Jill Stein, who I know will not win, but who has at least offered me a genuinely progressive platform that I can enthusiastically vote for.

[Suck my caulk]

While Morden is right, I'd just like to highlight that it's incorrect  that Clinton lost the 2008 primary due to being too conservative.

I am going to stop this debate as Mr. Morden requests. What I meant by that was that Obama outflanked Clinton on the left, using their differences over the Iraq War and Clinton's former Walmart ties and opposition to unions to defeat her in the primary. She was more conservative than Obama and happened to lose; I would not be surprised if that was a part of it.

[Suck my caulk]

It will be Kaine. Castro is just too green and brings nothing substantial to the ticket. Warren is just a poor fit with Clinton and would skew the ticket too much to the left. Having a more moderate ticket is a sure way to keep Trump to less than 40%.

Once Sanders throws his formal support behind Clinton, Kaine will be chosen.

A large part of the Democratic base is already skeptical of Clinton, and elections are won by exciting one's base to come out and vote. It is certainly possible Clinton/Kaine will win (with maybe 51%, but certainly not 60% as you say), but it seems likely than if Clinton excites the base by picking Warren, Brown, or Perez, for example.