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

[PeteB]

Let me chime on this. While I think that a lot of these would be good picks for Clinton, I do think that she will emulate Bill, when he picked AL Gore and broke all regional and demographic "rules". She will go for a candidate with whom she is comfortable with, and who is, in her opinion, ready to replace her.

To me that means Tim Kaine. It probably doesn't hurt that VA may be in play, depending on who her opponent is. And Kaine actually speaks Spanish better that Castro .

[PeteB]

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.

[PeteB]

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.

[PeteB]

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.

Oh, I am not worried about Hillary not winning the White House -given her opponents, that is a foregone conclusion.  I know she is in effect our next President.  What I am concerned about is minimizing ticket-splitting.  I don't want to keep the White House only to have Congress (or one chamber of Congress) remaining in Republican hands.  

While I do not agree that Clinton is a foregone conclusion, if she faces someone like Kasich or Ryan, how do you see a Progressive VP helping with taking over the Senate (the House imho will not be in play unless Trump is the candidate)?

[PeteB]

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.

Oh, I am not worried about Hillary not winning the White House -given her opponents, that is a foregone conclusion.  I know she is in effect our next President.  What I am concerned about is minimizing ticket-splitting.  I don't want to keep the White House only to have Congress (or one chamber of Congress) remaining in Republican hands.  

While I do not agree that Clinton is a foregone conclusion, if she faces someone like Kasich or Ryan, how do you see a Progressive VP helping with taking over the Senate (the House imho will not be in play unless Trump is the candidate)?

The only way that someone like Kasich or Ryan could be the nominee is through a contested convention, which would result in Trump either running as a third party candidate, or at the very least urging his supporters not to support the GOP nominee.  And given their alienation from the Republican Party, in all likelihood they will listen to him.  

The Presidency is securely in Democratic hands no matter who the GOP nominates.  And I think the bigwigs in the GOP establishment know the Presidency is a lost cause (at least this year), so their main objective is trying not to lose Congress as well as the Presidency.  

Which is where the value of a veep like Elizabeth Warren comes in -she brings excitement to the ticket in a way that Hillary seems to have failed to do.  Democrats can leverage that to win Congress making our triumph complete, at least at the federal level.  

I disagree on your Kasich vs Clinton assessment, but we can debate that in another thread.

My simple question is what senate races would the addition of VP Warren help Democrats with?

[PeteB]

I predicted this a few weeks ago and, so far, I haven't seen any reason not to stick with the predictions:

1. Clinton picks Kaine

2. Trump would like to pick Kasich or Rice....but he ends up with either Gingrich, Rubio or Fallin!

[PeteB]

Gingrich’s fellow presumed-VP short lister Bob Corker is also criticizing Trump over the Curiel matter, albeit in somewhat more gentle terms.  On “This Week”, he said that Trump is “going to have to change” his campaign approach for the general election, and:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-bob-corker-trump-change/story?id=39611502

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trump is finished.   Hell it might be time to consider another candidate for the convention.

He's almost certainly going to clinch the nomination with bound delegates alone after tomorrow, so the only way to get a different candidate would be to employ some sort of nuclear option. That could lead to a huge backlash.

At this stage, the risk of that backlash pales in comparison to the damage Trump is bringing onto the GOP, the US image internationally and to the economy.

[PeteB]

At this stage, the risk of that backlash pales in comparison to the damage Trump is bringing onto the GOP, the US image internationally and to the economy.

LOL! Like we would ask you of all people for advice which risk is greater for the GOP?
Troll!

Do you have anything intelligent to add to this conversation? Or are you just mimicking Trump and throwing insults around in lieu of facts and arguments?

[PeteB]

If Trump were to rule out everyone who’s criticized him over Curiel, then who’s left?  By my count, of those for whom there’s been some speculation:

Blackburn
Brewer
Brown
Christie
Ernst (though she did break with him over the US alliance with South Korea)
Fallin
Huckabee
Palin
Sessions

None of them are actually defending him on Curiel though.  They’re just not criticizing him.

His best shot right now is probably to pick a woman and try to change the conversation. So from that list, it would be Brewer, Fallin or Blackburn. I still think Condi Rice would be the best pick but I am also sure that she would shoot herself before accepting the invite.

Tthe problem with Trump is unfortunately with himself. There is no VP pick, good enough, that he or she will remedy the flaws of the actual candidate.

[PeteB]

Apparently, Trump just gave an interview stating that his VP search is down to 4 or 5 politicians, including s of his past competitors and, significantly, including those who have not yet endorsed him!

[PeteB]

I am pretty sure Trump wants Kasich, and am as fervently hoping Kasich says NO!

[PeteB]

Just listened to Kasich on Fox. Not only was he adamant that he would not be Trump's VP but clearly said that he would not endorse Trump, even at the Convention in Cleveland, and in response to whether he prefers Clinton or Trump said "those are not very good choices".

So, if Trump is looking to his competitors, it would have to be Rubio.

[PeteB]

I still think that a "politically experienced" woman (who will agree with Trump) is the only plausible choice for Donald Trump at this point. And unless Trump can do the impossible, and convince Condoleeza Rice, Fallin or Blackburn it is. My guess right now is Trump/Fallin.

Also, the more this election unfolds, the less likely is a Latino VP pick. Not only will dems pick up the Latino vote anyway but the inexperience of someone like Castro would be dangerous to Clinton's claim to be a safe pair of hands (vs "loose cannon" Trump). And in spite of seeing some of the advantages of having Sen. Warren as the VP, that would allow Trump to run more to the center and capture centrist Dem voters. Therfore, I am still predicting a Clinton/Kaine ticket on the Dem side.

[PeteB]

I have said it before and I will repeat it - it will be Clinton-Kaine.

Hillary is very comfortable with Kaine, has chemistry and a personal relationship, and he comes from a tossup state and, unlike Castro, actually speaks Spanish. And he counterbalances the perceived "threat" of a woman President (yes I know it's hard to believe, but sexism is alive and well). The other choices are uninspiring, except for Warren. Castro is too green and she does not need to shore up Latino vote - 85 or 88%, what's the difference? Brown is someone she is also comfortable with, but that would mean that the GOP picks up a Senate seat. Warren is the only other plausible choice but, leaving aside the 2 women ticket, she is just too left wing and would help the GOP. If fate has dealt you a present in Donald Trump, why tempt it by appointing a leftwinger VP?

[PeteB]

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.

[PeteB]

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.

Your reasoning would be very sound if her opponent was ABT (anyone but Trump).  With Trump, the Democratic base is already mega-motivated and will come out, even if they have to "hold their noses" while voting for Hillary.  That extra 1-2% that Warren or Castro may bring would be useful but is not really critical.  On the other hand, the presence of a non-moderate mainstream VP could turn off many more centrist voters who are willing to forego the GOP for Clinton, because of Trump.  Or to put it in a sports parallel, Trump is in a no-win position - why would you give him an opportunity to try and develop a counter-play, by portraying the Democratic ticket as a left wing thing (with Warren) or as pandering to an "unqualified" minority member (with Castro)?  Besides, if I was Clinton, I would get the left wing support from Bernie, in exchange to a policy concession (free or reduced fee College?).

[PeteB]

People that everyone will know? I think that rules out Scott Brown, Mary Fallin, or Bob Corker. My guess is Gingrich, Christie, Haley, and Carson make up the list.

I wouldn't take Lewandowski comments at face value.  It is probably between Fallin and Sessions, at this point.  Unless Trump does a complete 180 and brings the GOP in (at which point Gingrich, Kasich, Haley and Rubio become possibilities), I am still thinking it will be Trump/Fallin.  Sessions is more likely to be a National Security Adviser in a (hypothetical) Trump administration.

[PeteB]

Christie is being vetted for VP, and has received the official paperwork for the vetting process.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/30/politics/chris-christie-donald-trump-vp-vetting/index.html

Unless Trump is doing this purely as a gesture towards Christie, this implies that the VP search is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[PeteB]

While I wouldn't be surprised by the choice of either Sessions, Gingrich or even Corker, I still think it will be Fallin. With her, Trump gets a Palin without the ego and, importantly for Trump, someone who will NOT counteract him.

[PeteB]

Ernst has to be the dumbest choice Trump could make. Someone who's been a Senator for barely a year and a half, come on. If you really wanted a female nominee, I'd go with Mary Fallin. Can't pick Susana Martinez like everybody thought, because Trump already insulted her.

But it's the same reason I'm not keen on Cory Booker either. While she's vetting all the other candidates, I still think she'll pick Tim Kaine.

Here is a statement from Ernst:



In short, Trump is just posturing.  Unless he can broker a last-minute peace treaty with the mainstream GOP, it will be Fallin.  And, yes, it will be Kaine for Hillary.

[PeteB]

Ernst has to be the dumbest choice Trump could make. Someone who's been a Senator for barely a year and a half, come on. If you really wanted a female nominee, I'd go with Mary Fallin. Can't pick Susana Martinez like everybody thought, because Trump already insulted her.

But it's the same reason I'm not keen on Cory Booker either. While she's vetting all the other candidates, I still think she'll pick Tim Kaine.

Here is a statement from Ernst:



In short, Trump is just posturing.  Unless he can broker a last-minute peace treaty with the mainstream GOP, it will be Fallin.  And, yes, it will be Kaine for Hillary.

How do you get from this post it's Fallin, or (if I understand you) that his meeting with Ernst is just "posturing"? 

Pardon me - I mixed up two separate statements. Fallin for VP is purely my prediction. The "Trump posturing" comment is meant for Ernst, based on her comments after the meeting. Her statement does not sound like something coming from a serious VP candidate.

[PeteB]

While I still believe that Fallin would be the best currently available Trump pick, I am beginning to think that Pence may be a real contender. I agree with Fuzzy Bear that, for Pence, this is a relatively small risk, for a potentially big reward. Besides, if he loses, how bad would that be? He comes from a GOP state and he would be seen by voters, as the voice of reason on the ticket. If they lose, he could always run for Senate or join the private sector. He.k, he might even get a job offer at TrumpCo .

[PeteB]

Another vote for Ivanka (albeit a biased one):

Eric Trump: Ivanka has my vote for VP

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/286804-eric-trump-ivanka-has-my-vote-for-vp

[PeteB]

Blackburn seems like she is out:

Blackburn: ‘I'm a very unlikely candidate’ to be Trump’s VP

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/286840-watch-blackburn-im-a-very-unlikely-candidate-to-be-trumps-vp

[PeteB]

Strictly speaking, Christie was never in to begin with.