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

[RaphaelDLG]

One other factor that Hillary needs to put into consideration is the fact that if she wants to do more than just play defense (i.e. protecting Barack Obama's legacy) and enact a transformative progressive agenda of her own, she is going to need a Democratic congress -which in turn requires activists excited enough to get out and do the grunt work to make it happen.  And sad to say it seems her candidacy alone won't be enough -she needs a veep who can electrify the ticket, and down the ballot as well.

Which veep can do that best?  

Warren, but she won't pick her. It would just make this election a right vs left choice and I think Clinton wants to avoid that.  

As Obama proved, you don't need to use the VP slot to placate your opponent -there are better ways. I would pick an issue near and dear to Sanders (College costs seems like a good one) and promise to make him or one of his supporters the "Reform Tsar" on that issue.

This isn't just about placating the more skeptical Sanders supporters.  It's about winning Congress as well as keeping the White House in Democratic hands.  

If her opponent is either Trump or Cruz, Democratic control of Congress is a foregone conclusion (with or without a Progressive VP). If progressives will not pick Hillary over thos e two, she shouldn't be in this race.

If her opponent is Kasich (or a white Knight mainstream Republican), picking a Progressive could cost her the election, never mind Congress.

Either way, it doesn't make sense.

If Trump or Cruz are the nominee, then and ONLY THEN might the house be even in play

[RaphaelDLG]

Oh hell yeah, guys:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-vice-president_us_5734e8efe4b060aa7819c184

[RaphaelDLG]

There's "nothing in it" for Gingrich either, and he's still being floated as one of Trump's top choices.  As for Ayotte, I think I have a better chance of being chosen than she.

Gingrich is at least always trying to stay relevant though, and doesn't even have a veneer of respectability anymore.

Exactly.  Also, Gingrich sees dollar signs

[RaphaelDLG]

Harry Reid says he’ll do whatever he can to prevent Clinton from picking a Senator from a state with a Republican governor:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/24/reid-vows-to-stop-clinton-from-picking-certain-running-mates.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you think Massachusetts counts?

[RaphaelDLG]

Yeah, if Warren were to resign on November 9th, the special election would be sometime around late February/March, right? Probably earlier if it looks like Clinton/Warren will win and Warren resigns earlier, but that's risky.

Two months isn't so bad, I guess

[RaphaelDLG]

I recently had the pleasure of talking to the extremely bright posters IceSpear and Xingkerui about their thoughts on Clinton's rumored VP short list. 

If you can ignore the abominable quality of the audio, you can listen to the very incisive things that they had to say here:

https://soundcloud.com/user-242697410/podcast-icespear-xingkerui-on-clintons-vp-picks

[RaphaelDLG]

I recently had the pleasure of talking to the extremely bright posters IceSpear and Xingkerui about their thoughts on Clinton's rumored VP short list. 

If you can ignore the abominable quality of the audio, you can listen to the very incisive things that they had to say here:

https://soundcloud.com/user-242697410/podcast-icespear-xingkerui-on-clintons-vp-picks

This is really cool! Maybe have Trump supporters next time!

Thanks!

I really, REALLY wanted to talk to TRUMP supporters about their feelings on Trump's rumored VP shortlist, but I was afraid to do so because I thought there was a pretty good chance that Trump would pick a VP before the podcast was released.

For that matter, talking to libertarians about the convention would have been extremely cool as well.

The whole thing is crowd-sourced, so really it's whoever people want to listen to, and whatever topics they want to hear about.

[RaphaelDLG]

Vilsack #2 on PredictIt, still don`t know where the hype is coming from...

My guess - just a smokescreen for Kaine.  

Clinton probably wanted to signal to Warren, as early as possible, that she will not be picked, to avoid disappointment later.  Vilsack is just a placeholder, to formally have two picks!

Wait, what?  Why would she engage in bizarre media engineering to do this and not just tell Warren directly?  And wasn't this being accomplished by the significant buzz over Perez the previous news cycle anyway?

From my vantage point, Vilsack as her second pick is a vomitrocious omen, especially when Kaine is the #1.

[RaphaelDLG]

I can't believe I'm begging Hillary to pick Kaine at this point. 

He makes sense strategically, is ready, and Vilsack is extremely conservative, despite the fact that i don't like him (Kaine).

[RaphaelDLG]

I can't believe I'm begging Hillary to pick Kaine at this point. 

He makes sense strategically, is ready, and Vilsack is extremely conservative, despite the fact that i don't like him (Kaine).

What's so conservative about Vilsack anyway?

Wants to cut social security/medicare, is weak on climate change.  He is very in favor of weed legalization, so he could potentially pull in some BernieBros.

[RaphaelDLG]

Huffington Post: Tim Kaine Calls To Deregulate Banks As He Campaigns To Be Clinton’s VP

Dear lord

Banks should be regulated, it should not be abolished like what progressives want. Without banks in this country, how is there credit?

But that's...that's not at all...ugh never mind I'm not going to bother.

The progressives plan is to nationalize the banks, or to abolish them so that the government can create prosperity among the non-producers. Regulate the banks, don't abolish it.

Where the heck did you get this idea from?

Sanders and the far left make it seem that banks and free enterprise are evil, evil. You can't have a country without a free market system. Regulate the banks, don't abolish it or nationalize it like crazy.

Where/when did Sanders propose to nationalize banks? He always spoke of breaking up the big banks like Roosevelt did. I fail to see how you arrive to this conclusion and then cast it over an entire wing of left-leaning voters.

That's his ultimate goal, but he never spoke about it because he knew he would lose. Other than that, if not Kaine or Vilsack, former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer would be good. He was an Ambassador to India.

http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20160420/NEWS/160507253

You can't just make stuff up on what you think someone's views are.

I know I'm right. He has a problem with the banks. I agree with Sanders on some issues, but the way he demeans success and others I do not like.

Read a book called "The Big Short" by a good capitalist journalist named Michael Lewis and tell me if you still think Sanders is unfairly "demeaning success."  It's easy to think that that's what he's doing when you have no idea about the shenanigans that actually go on in the upper echelons of big finance.

[RaphaelDLG]

Also, I take back all the lukewarm nice things I said about Kaine yesterday after that news story.  #Barf.

[RaphaelDLG]

Booker would be a good choice. He voluntarily lived in a housing project in the worst part of Newark when he was on the council, which is a good story to tell about commitment to public service.

Hopefully next he will "voluntarily live" with some middle-aged guy who got laid off or lost his entire pension in the aftermath of the 07-08 financial crisis.

[RaphaelDLG]

Booker would be a good choice. He voluntarily lived in a housing project in the worst part of Newark when he was on the council, which is a good story to tell about commitment to public service.

Hopefully next he will "voluntarily live" with some middle-aged guy who got laid off or lost his entire pension in the aftermath of the 07-08 financial crisis.

Who?  The Leahman Brothers?

No, Dick Fuld did just fine - he walked away from that job with $500+ million.  I heard he somehow got rehired by someone recently, too - I forget whom.

[RaphaelDLG]

Many moons ago (2005), back in high school, when I was a gleefully obnoxious Republican-leaning "socially liberal fiscally conservative" Virginia teenager, my friend and I cheekily went around town during the Kaine vs Kilgore gubernatorial race strategically slapping campaign stickers on the back of random signs/walls.

It was the "Sportsmen for Kilgore" sticker right above the "Women for Kaine" sticker, implying that it was one single macho douche frat boy sticker that read "Sportsmen for Kilgore; Women for Kaine."  We thought we were so clever.

[RaphaelDLG]

So people didn't want Warren because the VP doesn't set policy and she'd be better in the Senate.

But people also don't want Kaine because of his policies and he'd be worse in the Senate than as a powerless VP.

Ok.

I want Warren.

I would also prefer Warren but I'm seeing a lot of conflicting messages when it comes to the selection.

I want someone who is basically a clone of Warren without the tremendous cache/following that Warren has.  Someone who would be a great person to take over in case Hillary dies, but doesn't sacrifice what Warren is capable of doing in the Senate.  So maybe somebody like Perez, Franken, Brown (if he didn't affect Senate calculus), Merkley.

[RaphaelDLG]

For that matter, Charlie Baker will probably just appoint a moderate like Richard Tisei to the Senate seat if he isn't required to appoint a Democrat. It won't be as big of a deal as Virginia, where it would be very possible for a conservative Republican to take the Senate seat.

Even if the "moderate" is appointed, he/she will still caucus with the Republicans and give some degree of procedural control (albeit less than in the House) over to Republicans. 

And the difference between the most liberal Republican and the most conservative Republican is substantially smaller than the difference between the most liberal Republican and the most conservative Democrat nowadays.