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

[Zioneer]

https://twitter.com/albamonica/status/734371289461362689

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No you won't, Hillary. You don't want to have a politically untested businessperson on the ticket, because that's your opponent. You'll choose a Senator, Congressperson, or Cabinet Secretary, because that makes the most sense. Maybe a Governor if you felt lucky.

[Zioneer]

My three guesses for Hillary's VP would be Kaine, Becerra, and Warren, all depending on what Hillary wants the VP to do.

No earthly idea on Trump.

[Zioneer]

Hillary's Wall Street donors are threatening to abandon her if she picks Elizabeth Warren:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489

BTW, they really like the idea of a Vice-President Tim Kaine.

All the better reason to choose Warren, then.

[Zioneer]

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.

[Zioneer]

Still holding out hope for Becerra.

[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.

[Zioneer]

Castro would be an utter disastro.

Says the guy advocating for Booker...

Provide one legitimate non-identity politics reason why Booker is less qualified than Castro.

Booker is a Wall Street puppet.

Has Booker been as much a "Wall Street puppet" as Senator as he was as mayor? I feel like he's gone to the left as Senator.