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

[Bismarck]

I think Warren would allow Clinton to really start pushing ahead with a positive and proactive vision rather than getting stuck in a reactive campaign with Trump. They're still going to fight but putting Warren on the ticket gives a lot of people who don't necessarily like Hillary something to believe in, like things are capable of moving forward in America.

Yes Warren has really avoided being negative and has been focused on the issues rather than personal attacks lately. 😂🙄

[Eraserhead]

Clinton promises that there will be no leaks of her VP choice before she sends out the notification texts:

Wow, this is bizarre. It'll almost certainly be leaked.

[Mr. Morden]

It's not necessarily that hard to announce it via text message before it leaks to the press.  All you have to do is send out the text message immediately after you've offered it to the guy and he's accepted.  Obama could have done that in '08 if he'd wanted to.  He could have ordered the text message notification go out after he got off the phone with Biden.  It would have gone out some time that Friday evening.  But instead they waited on the text message until something like 6 in the morning, many hours after the news had been leaked to the media.

McCain could have done the same with Palin.  In that case, the news didn't leak out until Palin was actually physically there in Dayton, backstage with McCain.  He could have announced it the day before via text message if he'd wanted to.

So maybe that is what the Clinton people are saying about this time: No need to track flights and that sort of thing, because we'll tell you right away.

[IceSpear]

I'm actually surprised Jeff Merkley didn't make the shortlist for VP. It would be a great way to satisfy the left, without the potential pitfalls of the other options (age, gender, and Senate seat, for Sanders/Warren/Brown respectively.)

The Clintons hold grudges (and i'm a Hillary supporter).

Eh...Merkley endorsed Sanders, but he never badmouthed Hillary and has been pushing hard for unity. Warren never endorsed her, so if it was really about grudges I doubt she'd be on the shortlist.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Clinton promises that there will be no leaks of her VP choice before she sends out the notification texts:

Wow, this is bizarre. It'll almost certainly be leaked.

I don't think it qualifies as bizarre, but it's odd language to make supporters feel special.

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

Kaine isn't my first pick, but he's completely acceptable. Experienced, Moderate, maybe worth a half point or point in Virginia.

[Devout Centrist]

I'm actually surprised Jeff Merkley didn't make the shortlist for VP. It would be a great way to satisfy the left, without the potential pitfalls of the other options (age, gender, and Senate seat, for Sanders/Warren/Brown respectively.)

I'm surprised Franken didn't

[PeteB]

Just looking at history and basic facts, this should be a no-brainer for Kaine.  The key to understanding this decision, IMHO, is the trust and chemistry between running mates. 

Fact 1: When Bill Clinton picked a running mate, he chose someone whom he felt comfortable with (Gore), in spite of not getting any geographic or demographic boost.
Fact 2: Hillary was there and closely involved in that decision.
Fact 3: The strategy worked well for Bill.
Fact 4: According to numerous sources, Hillary is very comfortable with Kaine, knows him well and trusts him a lot (unlike some of the other candidates).
Fact 5: Kaine will provide competency on #2 without overshadowing the candidate (as someone like Warren could).
Fact 6: With a Trump-Pence GOP slate, there is no reason for any "reckless" or "Hail Mary" picks on the Democratic side, nor is there really any reason to pick a "progressive".

Therefore my prediction is Clinton-Kaine 2016!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Just looking at history and basic facts, this should be a no-brainer for Kaine.  The key to understanding this decision, IMHO, is the trust and chemistry between running mates. 

Fact 1: When Bill Clinton picked a running mate, he chose someone whom he felt comfortable with (Gore), in spite of not getting any geographic or demographic boost.
Fact 2: Hillary was there and closely involved in that decision.
Fact 3: The strategy worked well for Bill.
Fact 4: According to numerous sources, Hillary is very comfortable with Kaine, knows him well and trusts him a lot (unlike some of the other candidates).
Fact 5: Kaine will provide competency on #2 without overshadowing the candidate (as someone like Warren could).
Fact 6: With a Trump-Pence GOP slate, there is no reason for any "reckless" or "Hail Mary" picks on the Democratic side, nor is there really any reason to pick a "progressive".

Therefore my prediction is Clinton-Kaine 2016!

All very true. But you're missing the "first, do no harm" part of any VP pick.

Now, I am very far left, but to me picking Kaine signals that Clinton plans to run (and govern) as Republican lite. Even moreso than Obama.

That is pretty unacceptable to me and raises my chances of staying home or "throwing away my vote" astronomically, even if it may mean Trump winning. If significant numbers of likely voters share me views on this Kaine becomes a risky pick.

[PeteB]

Just looking at history and basic facts, this should be a no-brainer for Kaine.  The key to understanding this decision, IMHO, is the trust and chemistry between running mates. 

Fact 1: When Bill Clinton picked a running mate, he chose someone whom he felt comfortable with (Gore), in spite of not getting any geographic or demographic boost.
Fact 2: Hillary was there and closely involved in that decision.
Fact 3: The strategy worked well for Bill.
Fact 4: According to numerous sources, Hillary is very comfortable with Kaine, knows him well and trusts him a lot (unlike some of the other candidates).
Fact 5: Kaine will provide competency on #2 without overshadowing the candidate (as someone like Warren could).
Fact 6: With a Trump-Pence GOP slate, there is no reason for any "reckless" or "Hail Mary" picks on the Democratic side, nor is there really any reason to pick a "progressive".

Therefore my prediction is Clinton-Kaine 2016!

All very true. But you're missing the "first, do no harm" part of any VP pick.

Now, I am very far left, but to me picking Kaine signals that Clinton plans to run (and govern) as Republican lite. Even moreso than Obama.

That is pretty unacceptable to me and raises my chances of staying home or "throwing away my vote" astronomically, even if it may mean Trump winning. If significant numbers of likely voters share me views on this Kaine becomes a risky pick.

You make an excellent point....if it wasn't for the Trump factor . How many progressives would genuinely stay at home (all rhetoric aside), and watch Trump win? And with Pence as VP, even the possibility of impeachment is hardly a welcome development for this group. 

On the other hand, Hillary putting a Warren or a Sanders, as VP, would be a major liability with swing voters. I know people who supported GOP candidates such as Kasich and Bush, who could vote for a Clinton-Kaine, but not a Clinton-Warren ticket. It would potentially also allow Trump to shift the media needle from whether he is a loose cannon to whether the Democrats are way out in left field. Not sure that it would work but, if I was advising Clinton, I wouldn't risk it. Plus having a charismatic VP, with progressive leanings, would highlight even more some of Hillary's perceived problems.

So I am betting that she will roll the dice, choose Kaine, and hope that people like you will hold your nose and still vote for her. But we will soon see.

[IceSpear]

I'm actually surprised Jeff Merkley didn't make the shortlist for VP. It would be a great way to satisfy the left, without the potential pitfalls of the other options (age, gender, and Senate seat, for Sanders/Warren/Brown respectively.)

I'm surprised Franken didn't

Well, I like Franken, but it's not exactly hard to see why he wasn't considered (SNL baggage.) I have a hard time thinking of an explanation for no Merkley.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'm actually surprised Jeff Merkley didn't make the shortlist for VP. It would be a great way to satisfy the left, without the potential pitfalls of the other options (age, gender, and Senate seat, for Sanders/Warren/Brown respectively.)

I'm surprised Franken didn't

Well, I like Franken, but it's not exactly hard to see why he wasn't considered (SNL baggage.) I have a hard time thinking of an explanation for no Merkley.

I'd imagine that they did approach him to see if he was interested in being vetted, and he probably just outright declined.

[Illiniwek]

I'm actually surprised Jeff Merkley didn't make the shortlist for VP. It would be a great way to satisfy the left, without the potential pitfalls of the other options (age, gender, and Senate seat, for Sanders/Warren/Brown respectively.)

I'm surprised Franken didn't

Well, I like Franken, but it's not exactly hard to see why he wasn't considered (SNL baggage.) I have a hard time thinking of an explanation for no Merkley.

I get the concern, but (asking in general) what did Franken do on SNL that was any more outrageous than something trump has done? Sure he may have done a few things that look goofy, but that should be countered pretty easily with how serious he has taken his job as a senator.

I just think his deadpan delivery and wit would be so invaluable in going up against trump. You don't stop a bully by telling him he's a mean kid; you beat him by pulling his pants down in front of everyone. I know I won't get my wish, but I hope the Democrats are aggressively smart and smartly aggressive on how they go after trump.

[dspNY]

I'm actually surprised Jeff Merkley didn't make the shortlist for VP. It would be a great way to satisfy the left, without the potential pitfalls of the other options (age, gender, and Senate seat, for Sanders/Warren/Brown respectively.)

I'm surprised Franken didn't

Well, I like Franken, but it's not exactly hard to see why he wasn't considered (SNL baggage.) I have a hard time thinking of an explanation for no Merkley.

I'd imagine that they did approach him to see if he was interested in being vetted, and he probably just outright declined.

This is probably right. Merkley most likely had no interest

[IceSpear]

I'm actually surprised Jeff Merkley didn't make the shortlist for VP. It would be a great way to satisfy the left, without the potential pitfalls of the other options (age, gender, and Senate seat, for Sanders/Warren/Brown respectively.)

I'm surprised Franken didn't

Well, I like Franken, but it's not exactly hard to see why he wasn't considered (SNL baggage.) I have a hard time thinking of an explanation for no Merkley.

I get the concern, but (asking in general) what did Franken do on SNL that was any more outrageous than something trump has done?

Well, by that standard, any pick is fair game. Hillary shouldn't be trying to compete with Trump in unseriousness.

This is not my opinion, btw. I think Franken would be a pretty good choice. I'm just saying there's nothing mystifying about his absence.

[Inmate Trump]

All very true. But you're missing the "first, do no harm" part of any VP pick.

Now, I am very far left, but to me picking Kaine signals that Clinton plans to run (and govern) as Republican lite. Even moreso than Obama.

That is pretty unacceptable to me and raises my chances of staying home or "throwing away my vote" astronomically, even if it may mean Trump winning. If significant numbers of likely voters share me views on this Kaine becomes a risky pick.

Not voting for Clinton is a vote for Trump. I respect your feelings on this, and I share them in a way. But you have to realize it's going to be either her or Trump; no matter how well a third party *might* do, it will not be enough to win. So would you rather have her or him?

Clinton is not a perfect candidate, and she is not the most ideal choice for president. But she is leagues beyond Trump.

[PeteB]

All very true. But you're missing the "first, do no harm" part of any VP pick.

Now, I am very far left, but to me picking Kaine signals that Clinton plans to run (and govern) as Republican lite. Even moreso than Obama.

That is pretty unacceptable to me and raises my chances of staying home or "throwing away my vote" astronomically, even if it may mean Trump winning. If significant numbers of likely voters share me views on this Kaine becomes a risky pick.

Not voting for Clinton is a vote for Trump. I respect your feelings on this, and I share them in a way. But you have to realize it's going to be either her or Trump; no matter how well a third party *might* do, it will not be enough to win. So would you rather have her or him?

Clinton is not a perfect candidate, and she is not the most ideal choice for president. But she is leagues beyond Trump.

I rest my case .

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

All very true. But you're missing the "first, do no harm" part of any VP pick.

Now, I am very far left, but to me picking Kaine signals that Clinton plans to run (and govern) as Republican lite. Even moreso than Obama.

That is pretty unacceptable to me and raises my chances of staying home or "throwing away my vote" astronomically, even if it may mean Trump winning. If significant numbers of likely voters share me views on this Kaine becomes a risky pick.

Not voting for Clinton is a vote for Trump. I respect your feelings on this, and I share them in a way. But you have to realize it's going to be either her or Trump; no matter how well a third party *might* do, it will not be enough to win. So would you rather have her or him?

Clinton is not a perfect candidate, and she is not the most ideal choice for president. But she is leagues beyond Trump.

I rest my case .

Eh.

I think Clinton rallying around the base causes substantially less harm than picking a moderate.

Left wingers who are currently not convinced (who DO exist) will not be convinced by more comparison of Clinton to Trump, with no positive reason to vote for her. They're leaning towards staying home.  Moderates currently picking Clinton as the lesser of two evils will either continue to do so, or simply not vote. Trump gains no votes if Clinton picks Warren,  and Clinton loses votes if she picks Kaine.

But this may not even be the most salient point. Having a progressive in the administration is going to be very important if Clinton seeks to govern at all AFTER the election. If she's confident that she can win in a tight race against Trumpence (a pretty reasonable assumption IMHO) would she rather have a progressive ambassador in the Naval Observatory, or a stuffed centrist shirt who can't do anything?


EDIT: This is of course colored by the fact that I'm in the population of people watching Clinton's VP pick to see if I can vote for her. 

[Mr. Morden]

Castro's a lawbreaker: 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-18/hud-s-castro-found-in-violation-of-law-against-campaign-activity

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like no action will be taken against him for this though.  Sebelius did the same several years ago, and nothing happened to her.

[This account no longer in use.]

Finally, a reason for Clinton not to pick empty suit Castro. That'd be a hell of a boring veep debate.

[freedomburns]

Fingers crossed for either Warren or Sanders.  I know they are both long shots.

[Mr. Morden]

Clinton will be in Orlando on Friday, followed by a rally in Tampa later in the day:

http://orlando-politics.com/2016/07/18/hillary-clinton-in-orlando-on-friday-during-vp-pick-window/

My guess would be that she might announce her VP choice in Orlando, but we’ll see.

Interestingly, as that story points out, Elizabeth Warren is scheduled to speak before the National Conference of La Raza in Orlando on Saturday, one day after Clinton is likely to announce her VP pick in the same city.

[Xing]

Glad to see that Castro is probably out, though I never really expected her to pick him anyway.

[Horsemask]

Clinton will be in Orlando on Friday, followed by a rally in Tampa later in the day:

http://orlando-politics.com/2016/07/18/hillary-clinton-in-orlando-on-friday-during-vp-pick-window/

My guess would be that she might announce her VP choice in Orlando, but we’ll see.

Interestingly, as that story points out, Elizabeth Warren is scheduled to speak before the National Conference of La Raza in Orlando on Saturday, one day after Clinton is likely to announce her VP pick in the same city.

Hmmmmm...two women on the ticket would be a bold move

[evergreenarbor]

All very true. But you're missing the "first, do no harm" part of any VP pick.

Now, I am very far left, but to me picking Kaine signals that Clinton plans to run (and govern) as Republican lite. Even moreso than Obama.

That is pretty unacceptable to me and raises my chances of staying home or "throwing away my vote" astronomically, even if it may mean Trump winning. If significant numbers of likely voters share me views on this Kaine becomes a risky pick.

Not voting for Clinton is a vote for Trump. I respect your feelings on this, and I share them in a way. But you have to realize it's going to be either her or Trump; no matter how well a third party *might* do, it will not be enough to win. So would you rather have her or him?

Clinton is not a perfect candidate, and she is not the most ideal choice for president. But she is leagues beyond Trump.

I rest my case .

Eh.

I think Clinton rallying around the base causes substantially less harm than picking a moderate.

Left wingers who are currently not convinced (who DO exist) will not be convinced by more comparison of Clinton to Trump, with no positive reason to vote for her. They're leaning towards staying home.  Moderates currently picking Clinton as the lesser of two evils will either continue to do so, or simply not vote. Trump gains no votes if Clinton picks Warren,  and Clinton loses votes if she picks Kaine.

But this may not even be the most salient point. Having a progressive in the administration is going to be very important if Clinton seeks to govern at all AFTER the election. If she's confident that she can win in a tight race against Trumpence (a pretty reasonable assumption IMHO) would she rather have a progressive ambassador in the Naval Observatory, or a stuffed centrist shirt who can't do anything?


EDIT: This is of course colored by the fact that I'm in the population of people watching Clinton's VP pick to see if I can vote for her.