2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Eurell]

He's already said he is going to work with Clinton to beat Trump no matter what. So his endorsement is coming, its just a matter of time. I don't get how it would be any more hypocritical I guess.

[Carth]

It'd actually be more hypocritical of him to not endorse her because he said no matter what he'll support the nominee, and he repeatedly stated 50 billion times he'll never run 3rd party.

Also, Sanders basically already said he's going to work with Clinton after his meeting with Obama. I'm sure he knows for a fact he lost, but my guess is he's building a lot of leverage that the HRC and the DNC won't be able to ignore.

[kuronosan]

He can still endorse her and not be the VP.

[Tyche]

The number of Bernieofbusters that would stay home after Hillary spends the next few months on the trail is slim and insignificant. She would be better served by picking a Latino or minority.

[Gryffes]

It's amazing how short the memory is of some people. Remember all the Hillary or bust supporters when Obama won the nomination? The media was hyping that shit up as well and it was nonsense.

[Byrthnoth]

Am I really the only one who wants 8 more years of Biden?!

[tyven]

I love that Tom Perez is on the short list. The man is a genius, he's also charming and highly capable at navigating party lines to get things done.

[Kincard]

Am I really the only one who wants 8 more years of Biden?!

Without Trump to say crazy things, 8 more years of Amtrak Joe's faux pas would be great.

[Ksandra]

Warren is a bad choice imo. Let's face reality here. It is a big idea that a woman is getting voted in for president. Having two women raises the hill they'd have to climb.


I also want Biden, but I know that won't happen.

[Ragnus]

I have to agree about Liz, but, at this point, I wouldn't put it past the DNC to think that throwing more women at one of the most misogynistic candidates in recent history is a good idea.

She's said she's not interested in the past, but Liz Warren in an interview that was mentioned on NPR recently said she would consider it now.

The sad thing about this is that, no matter who she taps for VP, there's a part of the liberal voting pool that see anything she touches as tainted.

[archibaldcrane]

Hillary's VP options are so damn bleak. Why couldn't Russ Feingold have won in 2010? He would've been a perfect fit.

Oh except then a Republican governor would name his replacement JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER GOOD CANDIDATE JESUS FUCK VOTE IN LOCAL AND MIDTERM ELECTIONS PEOPLE GODDAMNIT

[Sho]

I'm hoping its Jim Webb as a supreme "fuck you i do what i want." One of Trump's staff said democrats are not out of the question and I assume it was specifically talking about him. I'd be ok with Rand too just for the revival of happening. Trump turned down Newt, supposedly, GOP tried to pay him to do it if twitter is to be believed.

Should probably also mention: Most people have guessed it would be Trump/Sessions ever since he got the endorsement so I wouldn't be surprised at all. I just want heads to explode with a dem pick.

A Dem pick would definitely be amazing, but I think Trump had Sessions had it in mind for VP for a while now (since after February, I'm guessing).

Downside to Jim Webb is that while he's a Democrat that could cross party lines, he has no name ID, and the people who matter on the Dem side will remember his dismal and very short showing in the Dem primaries. Rand's morality will preclude him from Veep spot (also he loves the Senate), and Trump of course turned down Newt, which would have also been a shoe in as much as Sessions.

[Inshiya]

"Rand's Morality" lol.

There isn't a single republican that wouldn't sell out to be Trump's VP and ride the power train, even to defeat.

[Gredival]

It's amazing how short the memory is of some people. Remember all the Hillary or bust supporters when Obama won the nomination? The media was hyping that shit up as well and it was nonsense.

The difference is that the Clinton wing of the party are the cynics and pragmatists mostly. The Bernie wing are the radicals. There's a much higher chance that a higher % of Bernie or Bust stays home or writes in than the % of PUMAs that didn't turn out for Obama.

[Carth]

Warren is a bad choice imo. Let's face reality here. It is a big idea that a woman is getting voted in for president. Having two women raises the hill they'd have to climb.

Are we still in that point of time where people believe having women in power is like the worst thing in the world?

[Sho]

Maybe a stupid question. Why not pick Bernie as VP? IF anything's going to bring the bros in, that would be it, no? I know he was asked before and never said no, he just tried to avoid the question till later.

For Clinton is all about viability:

1) She wants someone who is ready to take office should she be incapacitated, killed, or made to step down from the office.
2) She wants someone who is viable if she doesn't rerun in 2020.
3) Someone who's closer to her core ideals.
4) Someone who is in line with Third Way politics that embodied Bill and Obama's administrations.

Warren is a bad choice imo. Let's face reality here. It is a big idea that a woman is getting voted in for president. Having two women raises the hill they'd have to climb.


I also want Biden, but I know that won't happen.

Actually I would disagree with you here, only because Trump is the main opponent. If it was ANYONE else Warren wouldn't be as viable as VP, but since it's Trump, he has an inherent weakness to misogyny that would work to Clinton's favor if Warren was VP. Warren not only knows how to sidestep Trump's bombast and get under his skin, but she's also a darling of the Democratic party, and 90-100% of Bernie supporters would gladly fall in line on a unity ticket.

Biden is actually no longer a viable option because of reasons 1 & 2. He's an old man now, and will just have to settle for serving as VP for 8 years as the height of his career. Clinton is playing the long game and looking into 2020 & 2024 with her VP pick, which means it will be someone younger.

"Rand's Morality" lol.

There isn't a single republican that wouldn't sell out to be Trump's VP and ride the power train, even to defeat.

It's ironic to say, but it's almost certainly the reason. Rand has always had Presidential aspirations, not necessarily VP aspirations. For others, it's true that if they got the call it would be hard to say no, but Trump has been so toxic to the GOP -- people are actually scared to be in that position. If Trump really wants to double down on his immigration agenda, he needs Jeff Sessions.

[Mertron]

Warren is a bad choice imo. Let's face reality here. It is a big idea that a woman is getting voted in for president. Having two women raises the hill they'd have to climb.

but we only have to pay them both 73% of the hill climbing rate

[Dimmauk]

The number of Bernieofbusters that would stay home after Hillary spends the next few months on the trail is slim and insignificant. She would be better served by picking a Latino or minority.

Castro or Booker or Bust. I'm leaning towards Castro so he can steak the Latino vote from Trump........lol

[Krandor]

Apparently ABC has been sitting on at least part of this for a few years and just released the story today

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clint...ry?id=39710624

[kisada]

Castro or Booker or Bust. I'm leaning towards Castro so he can steak the Latino vote from Trump........lol

not that i think she needs castro to secure the latino vote, but if she does that's kind of like 5 firehoses vs a squirt gun at that point