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

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

There actually is a way around that for Warren, which is for Warren to declare her intentions to resign a certain day or later to force Brown to not appoint anyone but for there to be a special election on the general election day.

Brown? Don't you mean Baker?

[PaperKooper]

Shinebox is out, per NJ.com.

Thank goodness!

[Gass3268]

CNN says Hillary's choice down to Kaine and Warren.

If that's true, it just goes to show that Hillary doesn't care about the democrats' chance of having a senate majority in the short term or the long term.  Both of these seats would be at risk of falling into Republican hands, either through governor appointment with Warren or through a low turnout contentious election in 2018 in Virginia.

There actually is a way around that for Warren, which is for Warren to declare her intentions to resign a certain day or later to force Brown to not appoint anyone but for there to be a special election on the general election day.

The legislature could also pass a law that requires the governor to appoint a Senator of the same party.

[Mr. Morden]

Ftr, Sessions was of course one of the Senators who Trump met with in DC today.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

CNN says Hillary's choice down to Kaine and Warren.

If that's true, it just goes to show that Hillary doesn't care about the democrats' chance of having a senate majority in the short term or the long term.  Both of these seats would be at risk of falling into Republican hands, either through governor appointment with Warren or through a low turnout contentious election in 2018 in Virginia.

There actually is a way around that for Warren, which is for Warren to declare her intentions to resign a certain day or later to force Brown to not appoint anyone but for there to be a special election on the general election day.

The legislature could also pass a law that requires the governor to appoint a Senator of the same party.

That seems like a highly dubious legal proposition.

[cinyc]

CNN says Hillary's choice down to Kaine and Warren.

If that's true, it just goes to show that Hillary doesn't care about the democrats' chance of having a senate majority in the short term or the long term.  Both of these seats would be at risk of falling into Republican hands, either through governor appointment with Warren or through a low turnout contentious election in 2018 in Virginia.

There actually is a way around that for Warren, which is for Warren to declare her intentions to resign a certain day or later to force Brown to not appoint anyone but for there to be a special election on the general election day.

The legislature could also pass a law that requires the governor to appoint a Senator of the same party.

That seems like a highly dubious legal proposition.

Why?  It's perfectly legal to do so.  And the Democrats have a veto-proof majority in both houses of the Massachusetts Legislature.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

CNN says Hillary's choice down to Kaine and Warren.

If that's true, it just goes to show that Hillary doesn't care about the democrats' chance of having a senate majority in the short term or the long term.  Both of these seats would be at risk of falling into Republican hands, either through governor appointment with Warren or through a low turnout contentious election in 2018 in Virginia.

There actually is a way around that for Warren, which is for Warren to declare her intentions to resign a certain day or later to force Brown to not appoint anyone but for there to be a special election on the general election day.

The legislature could also pass a law that requires the governor to appoint a Senator of the same party.

That seems like a highly dubious legal proposition.

Why?  It's perfectly legal to do so.  And the Democrats have a veto-proof majority in both houses of the Massachusetts Legislature.

Really? I've always interpreted the 17th Amendment to mean that a legislature can either give a governor the option to appoint a temporary replacement or not. The notion that that appointment power could be given in a restricted manner is novel to me.

[Gass3268]

CNN says Hillary's choice down to Kaine and Warren.

If that's true, it just goes to show that Hillary doesn't care about the democrats' chance of having a senate majority in the short term or the long term.  Both of these seats would be at risk of falling into Republican hands, either through governor appointment with Warren or through a low turnout contentious election in 2018 in Virginia.

There actually is a way around that for Warren, which is for Warren to declare her intentions to resign a certain day or later to force Brown to not appoint anyone but for there to be a special election on the general election day.

The legislature could also pass a law that requires the governor to appoint a Senator of the same party.

That seems like a highly dubious legal proposition.

Why?  It's perfectly legal to do so.  And the Democrats have a veto-proof majority in both houses of the Massachusetts Legislature.

Really? I've always interpreted the 17th Amendment to mean that a legislature can either give a governor the option to appoint a temporary replacement or not. The notion that that appointment power could be given in a restricted manner is novel to me.

This is already the law in Arizona, Hawaii, Utah, and Wyoming.

[cinyc]

Really? I've always interpreted the 17th Amendment to mean that a legislature can either give a governor the option to appoint a temporary replacement or not. The notion that that appointment power could be given in a restricted manner is novel to me.

Tell that to Hawaii, which requires the governor pick a replacement from a list provided by the former Senator's party.  Or Arizona, Utah or Wyoming, which require an appointee be from the same party as the former Senator.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Really? I've always interpreted the 17th Amendment to mean that a legislature can either give a governor the option to appoint a temporary replacement or not. The notion that that appointment power could be given in a restricted manner is novel to me.

Tell that to Hawaii, which requires the governor pick a replacement from a list provided by the former Senator's party.  Or Arizona, Utah or Wyoming, which require an appointee be from the same party as the former Senator.

I've gotta be honest, I've never really bothered to look into any of that before. Still, I have to wonder whether or not that would hold up in court if a governor ever challenged it.

[Zioneer]

CNN says Hillary's choice down to Kaine and Warren.

If that's true, it just goes to show that Hillary doesn't care about the democrats' chance of having a senate majority in the short term or the long term.  Both of these seats would be at risk of falling into Republican hands, either through governor appointment with Warren or through a low turnout contentious election in 2018 in Virginia.

There actually is a way around that for Warren, which is for Warren to declare her intentions to resign a certain day or later to force Brown to not appoint anyone but for there to be a special election on the general election day.

The legislature could also pass a law that requires the governor to appoint a Senator of the same party.

That seems like a highly dubious legal proposition.

Why?  It's perfectly legal to do so.  And the Democrats have a veto-proof majority in both houses of the Massachusetts Legislature.

Really? I've always interpreted the 17th Amendment to mean that a legislature can either give a governor the option to appoint a temporary replacement or not. The notion that that appointment power could be given in a restricted manner is novel to me.

This is already the law in Arizona, Hawaii, Utah, and Wyoming.

Utah has that requirement in pretty much all elected offices, and specifically we have a kind of mini-convention, where would-be candidates for a seat (say, a state senate seat) give their reasoning for why they should be the appointee, and the delegates choose who they want to be the appointee, and their choice is sent to the Governor, who could theoretically reject that choice, but never does. So its a miniature version of our convention system.

The most recent time this happened was in 2015, when State Representative Justin Miller (HD-40, D) resigned because he was arrested for being a thief. Three candidates ran: Amy Fowler, Chris Stout, and Miller's predecessor Lynn Hemingway. All three candidates were also  Democratic delegates. The Democratic delegates for HD-40 met and voted in two rounds for who they wanted to be the appointee for the seat. In the first round, Chris Stout was eliminated, and advocated for Lynn Hemingway, but gave his delegate vote to Amy Fowler (or was it the other way around?), which gave a lot of folks heartburn. Fowler and Hemingway face off in the second round, and Hemingway wins by one delegate vote, and his name is sent to the Governor as the delegate's choice for that office. The Governor accepted and now Hemingway is the state representative for that district (again).

It works like that with vacancies in all elected offices, except for Governor/LG and US Senator; Governor is succeeded by the LG, and if the LG's office is vacant, the Governor appoints a new LG (technically the Legislature has to confirm the new LG, but I've never seen reject the choice). And Senator is just the choice of the governor, restricted by party. I don't believe there's ever been a US Senate vacancy in Utah though. All other offices are party-restricted delegate choices.

[Ogre Mage]

Take note of the fact that the better quality GOP VP candidates have largely declined to run with Trump, which suggests that they (correctly) see the nomination a booby prize.  Trump is left with a bunch of political C and D-listers who have little to nothing to lose.  LOL, no one worthwhile wants to run with him.  This is reminiscent of George McGovern, who was rejected by a number of Democrats when he asked them to join the ticket.

In contrast, I know of no prominent Democratic politician who has issued a Shermanesque statement about joining the ticket with Hillary Clinton.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

CNN says Hillary's choice down to Kaine and Warren.

If that's true, it just goes to show that Hillary doesn't care about the democrats' chance of having a senate majority in the short term or the long term.  Both of these seats would be at risk of falling into Republican hands, either through governor appointment with Warren or through a low turnout contentious election in 2018 in Virginia.

There actually is a way around that for Warren, which is for Warren to declare her intentions to resign a certain day or later to force Brown to not appoint anyone but for there to be a special election on the general election day.

The legislature could also pass a law that requires the governor to appoint a Senator of the same party.

That seems like a highly dubious legal proposition.

It's fascinating in comparison to Australia. When there is a Senate vacancy, the state premier puts forward a replacement and then that's voted on by the state parliament and recommended to the Governor who FORMALLY appoints the replacement.

IF, say, when Joe Bullock quit the Senate (thanks BE, by the way), the WA Government put forward a Liberal, all hell would have broken loose. The Federal ALP announced who the replacement would be, the WA Liberal Government respected that choice and it was smooth as silk.

[Mr. Morden]

Shinebox is out, per NJ.com.

But also of note in that story:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They've also got some fun facts about Blackburn:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Shinebox is out, per NJ.com.

But also of note in that story:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They've also got some fun facts about Blackburn:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The story also suggests that the vetting of Christie is a charade being put on just to make sure he doesn't get embarrassed by being left off the short list:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

This story suggests that Trump is keen on Gingrich in part because he shares his love of going after the media.  Apparently Trump’s decision to tweet the Frozen star of David grew out of a conversation he had with Gingrich(!):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-and-gingrich-connect-as-outsiders-who-live-on-the-inside/2016/07/07/4524f52c-4489-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SteveRogers]

This story suggests that Trump is keen on Gingrich in part because he shares his love of going after the media.  Apparently Trump’s decision to tweet the Frozen star of David grew out of a conversation he had with Gingrich(!):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-and-gingrich-connect-as-outsiders-who-live-on-the-inside/2016/07/07/4524f52c-4489-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those two really are made for each other.

[Mr. Morden]

CNN says Hillary's choice down to Kaine and Warren.

That’s not really what the story says.  It just says that the list is down to five or fewer names, and that not all of the short listers are on equal footing, meaning that Kaine and Warren are believed to be the top two…but not the only two.  The other options believed to be in the mix are Brown, Perez, and Vilsack, while Becerra and Castro are thought to be out of it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, looks like we could have a round of interviews over the next two weeks, before the announcement is made:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Really glad that Castro is out.

[Dr. Arch]

Really glad that Castro is out.

Same. He's just not ready.

[The Mikado]

Really? I've always interpreted the 17th Amendment to mean that a legislature can either give a governor the option to appoint a temporary replacement or not. The notion that that appointment power could be given in a restricted manner is novel to me.

Tell that to Hawaii, which requires the governor pick a replacement from a list provided by the former Senator's party.  Or Arizona, Utah or Wyoming, which require an appointee be from the same party as the former Senator.

I've gotta be honest, I've never really bothered to look into any of that before. Still, I have to wonder whether or not that would hold up in court if a governor ever challenged it.

A decade ago, the sitting GOP Senator in Wyoming died and the Democratic governor was forced by that law to pick a GOP Senate replacement (IIRC it was the state party submitted three names and the governor had to pick one of the three).

These laws have been used before, they're not just hypothetical.

[SteveRogers]

Really? I've always interpreted the 17th Amendment to mean that a legislature can either give a governor the option to appoint a temporary replacement or not. The notion that that appointment power could be given in a restricted manner is novel to me.

Tell that to Hawaii, which requires the governor pick a replacement from a list provided by the former Senator's party.  Or Arizona, Utah or Wyoming, which require an appointee be from the same party as the former Senator.

I've gotta be honest, I've never really bothered to look into any of that before. Still, I have to wonder whether or not that would hold up in court if a governor ever challenged it.

A decade ago, the sitting GOP Senator in Wyoming died and the Democratic governor was forced by that law to pick a GOP Senate replacement (IIRC it was the state party submitted three names and the governor had to pick one of the three).

These laws have been used before, they're not just hypothetical.

Without sidetracking this thread too much, I will say that I agree with darthpi that there is a very legitimate question about whether such laws would hold up if challenged.

As for Massachusetts, the democratic legislature could certainly pass such a law right now, but their reason for doing so has to do with how ridiculous and overtly partisan they'd look if they flip-flopped on this issue a third time (Removing the power to appoint when Mitt Romney was governor, restoring the power to appoint when Ted Kennedy died, and now removing or constraining it to keep Warren's seat in Dem hands).

[Mr. Morden]

As recently as last week, Gingrich was saying that he wasn't sure he wanted to be VP.  Now he confirms that he's one of the people being vetted, and says that yes, he'd take the job:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/newt-gingrich-donald-trump-vp-vetting-225274

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Joe Republic]

Really? I've always interpreted the 17th Amendment to mean that a legislature can either give a governor the option to appoint a temporary replacement or not. The notion that that appointment power could be given in a restricted manner is novel to me.

Tell that to Hawaii, which requires the governor pick a replacement from a list provided by the former Senator's party.  Or Arizona, Utah or Wyoming, which require an appointee be from the same party as the former Senator.

I've gotta be honest, I've never really bothered to look into any of that before. Still, I have to wonder whether or not that would hold up in court if a governor ever challenged it.

A decade ago, the sitting GOP Senator in Wyoming died and the Democratic governor was forced by that law to pick a GOP Senate replacement (IIRC it was the state party submitted three names and the governor had to pick one of the three).

These laws have been used before, they're not just hypothetical.

OMG has it been that long?  I remember the discussion on here about it. 

[Mr. Morden]

Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan as Trump's VP?  Probably not, but People Magazine claims he may be in the running. The Alaska Dispatch News reports that he has not met Trump (before perhaps today at the Senate Republican meeting), so I doubt it.

That story doesn't really seem to be based on anything though.  There's no "According to sources close to the campaign..." type of statement.  It just talks about what Sullivan might bring to the ticket, and suggests maybe Trump will decide to pick him based on that.  To be clear, Sullivan says that he has not been contacted by the Trump campaign:

http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Alaska-Sen-Dan-Sullivan-says-Trump-has-not-contacted-him-about-being-veep-385937921.html