|
Crameltonian posted:To be fair he may not be entirely wrong there, Hilary spent a long time being opposed to gay marriage, then 'evolving' to dodging the question and then suddenly came out in support of it a week after Portman did. She's always taken a cautious line on the issue and left her 'conversion' as late as she could- once Portman came out in support it became pretty embarrassing for a lot of Democrats who suddenly found themselves to the right of him on this issue. That's only part of it of course- I think more generally she and other Democrats were taken aback by how quickly public opinion shifted in favour of gay marriage and suddenly found themselves scrambling to catch up. Nope still dumb, Hillary wasn't going to hold a press conference and interject on gay marriage as Secretary of State. Before she held that position which explicitly forbade getting caught up in domestic politics Clinton had always been if anything slightly ahead of her Party on the issue. Bill came out for marriage equality long before Obama. And the dumb "evolving" excuse was entirely Obama's.
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
FMguru posted:The HillVeep choice will probably go to whoever makes the most tactical sense in June 2016. If she needs a particular state, she'll pick that state's governor or senator. If she's weak on a particular issue, she'll pick someone who's strong on that issue. If she's behind with a particular demographic or ethnic group, she'll pick someone from that group. If one of her primary contenders gave her an unusually tough challenge and seems to command a sizable chunk of voters, she'll put them on the ticket. Whoever makes the most sense given the situation at the time of the VP choice will get the nod. I believe the generic casting pool is as follows: Joaquin/Julian Castro (+Hispanic, +Youth, +Texas, -inexperience) Cory Booker (+Youth, -inexperience, -Northeastern) Kirsten Gillibrand (+youth, +female, -Northeastern, -New York) Mike Bennet (+youth, +leftish, +West) Xavier Beccera (+Hispanic) Russ Feingold (+left, +Midwest) -though possibly running for senate in 2016 Brian Schweitzer (+leftish, +guns, -Senate seat) Amy Klobuchar (+female, +Midwest) Martin O'Malley (+leftish, -Northeastern) Joe Manchin (+guns, +South, -South) John Hickenlooper (+West) Mark Warner (+South) Evan Bayh (+Midwest, -Evan Bayh) Joe Sestak (+Military, -inexperiance) -though definitely running for senate in 2016 Andrew Cuomo (-Northeastern, -New York) Brigadier Sockface fucked around with this message at 18:10 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Are you sure "female" is a plus there? A two women ticket... would be interesting, but what's it exactly going to gain that Hillary doesn't gain by herself?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not sure a two woman ticket brings any added value over a mixed one with a woman on top. And really, as much as I hate to say it, among some people who would otherwise still vote for Clinton, it may even detract somewhat. I have no evidence of that, however, and would be happy to learn that it is just imagined bullshit on my part. e: also, I've never been convinced of the benefits of regionalism, aside from generally trying to avoid having both your candidates from the same one. Like, I'd love for Texas to go blue, but a Castro brother isn't going to make that happen in 2016. ReidRansom fucked around with this message at 18:12 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
The number of people who would only vote for Hillary if she had a female VP are probably vanishingly small. ReidRansom posted:
What it might do though is encourage turnout, if not in Texas specifically then for hispanics around the country.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
You guys are forgetting the rabid "Amy is 48" folks.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The number of people who would only vote for Hillary if she had a female VP are probably vanishingly small. That's really more of a +Hispanic thing than a +Texas thing, though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:Evan Bayh (+Midwest, -Evan Bayh) 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
I'm calling it here. Clinton/Schweitzer or Clinton/Julian Castro. Please don't hold it against me though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Clinton/Castro would flip Texas 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Clinton/Castro would flip Texas In 2016? Nooooooooope.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Clinton/Castro would flip Texas Maybe not, but it would give him more national exposure than just being a speaker at the DNC with letting him skip the cluster gently caress that is the Texas state house to get there for a run at the seat himself in 2024. Jesus, can you imagine if that happened? First black president, followed by the first female president, followed by the first hispanic president, all of whom would be democrats. indeed
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Adar posted:I honestly think Generic Democrat is where all the votes, money and overall support are. Let's say the economy pulls off a moderate recovery and we don't get any administration killing scandals between now and then...where's the motivation to trash the administration, and on what grounds? Old people in Iowa don't care about dead Middle Easterners so that rules out drones. The activists will turn out for gay marriage, but every single candidate is going to be 100% identical on that in practice except maybe Biden, who will get the Iowa TQ vote (all six of them). Maybe somebody can run on single payer, except it's not passing Congress in this generation and everyone knows it. Like Warsaza(sp?) said, its about slight tonal shifts. Whatever Hillary is proposing, a Democractic under-dog can shift slightly (oh so slightly) to the left of it, to get all those impressionistic and idealistic Democractic voters. Clinton and Obama were virtual identical policy-wise, but her pro-war votes lined up with the "fresh" appeal of his candidacy. Look for someone trying to encircle her on health care or withdrawing from Afghanistan, maybe. EDIT: Technically, we're doing it very soon, but maybe a more isolationist stance?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
I'm trying to do some math in my head about Texas...not sure it would be as unlikely to go blue in 2016 for Clinton/Castro as you guys think. Obama lost TX by 1.2 million votes in 2012, despite getting 70% of the Hispanic vote (which made up 26% of the TX electorate of roughly ten million). Ratchet up Hispanic turnout by a couple percent, and give Clinton/Castro 90% of that vote instead of 70%. Increase female turnout by a couple percent, and give Clinton/Castro a few more percent of these women voters, and suddenly Texas Republicans are making GBS threads bricks because the state's in play. Obviously those are dumb generalizations based on identity politics, and I'm spitballing based on just a few numbers that immediately pop out of Google, but it doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me, at least on the face of it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
If Julian Castro was enough to put Texas in play, he'd be running for governor or senate in 2014 given that there are far-right incumbents who are not particularly popular sitting there for him to take on. Maybe someday, not 2016.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I'm trying to do some math in my head about Texas...not sure it would be as unlikely to go blue in 2016 for Clinton/Castro as you guys think. Obama lost TX by 1.2 million votes in 2012, despite getting 70% of the Hispanic vote (which made up 26% of the TX electorate of roughly ten million). You can't just take Obama's numbers and add female and latino votes to get to a Hillary/Castro total, we'd already be dealing with a crushing landslide nationally in that case and Texas wouldn't matter except for bragging rights. You would have to assume the Republicans are gaining votes elsewhere (white people) and factor that into your analysis.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Not to mention that the Republican Perry/Cruz ticket in 2016 is going to really bring that state home.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Still, it's the best positional move I can think of. Youth and enthusiasm, a good DNC speech, to match Hillary's experience. Reverse Biden.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Hammy posted:You can't just take Obama's numbers and add female and latino votes to get to a Hillary/Castro total, we'd already be dealing with a crushing landslide nationally in that case and Texas wouldn't matter except for bragging rights. You would have to assume the Republicans are gaining votes elsewhere (white people) and factor that into your analysis. Heh, I certainly wouldn't claim that it's faultless reasoning*, and you're right to say that my scenario would be a huge presidential wave anyway. But damnit, I want Texas. And can we not bring up Perry/Cruz 2016 anymore? Joe made me throw up in my mouth a little bit with that one. * I am a theoretical cosmologist/astrophysicist, which means I have no problem making sweeping claims based on the thinnest and most ill-considered of models.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Still, it's the best positional move I can think of. Youth and enthusiasm, a good DNC speech, to match Hillary's experience. Reverse Biden. It'd be nice, but he'd really need something higher than the ceremonial position of San Antonio Mayor (we're actually run by a manager). I'm not sure if he won governor in 2014 that would give him enough "experience" for voters in 2016 either. Although since it would just be for the vp position, maybe they wouldn't care after all? If he isn't picked in 2016, he's totally running for president in 2024 though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Not to mention that the Republican Perry/Cruz ticket in 2016 is going to really bring that state home. Wouldn't that actually prevent the electors from going to the GOP because they're from the same state?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Wouldn't that actually prevent the electors from going to the GOP because they're from the same state? Only for one of the offices, but this wouldn't really matter since Perry/Cruz is such a dynamic ticket that we'd be looking at a 1972 repeat where Texas' electors wouldn't really matter. Or Cruz would just move to a different state, like Cheney did.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Only for one of the offices, but this wouldn't really matter since Perry/Cruz is such a dynamic ticket that we'd be looking at a 1972 repeat where Texas' electors wouldn't really matter. Canada isn't a state.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:I believe the generic casting pool is as follows: Feingold could be good for shoring up the left but I couldn't see him relishing a back bencher spot like VP. Sestak is bland on top of boring, and a tepid speaker with awful cadence. He would be no benefit on the campaign trail.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Let's at least pretend we've got a little bit of data before trying to handicap a VP pick. (But nobody's picking Feingold, sorry)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Given that the 2016 Democratic nominee - whether Clinton, Biden, or other - has their easiest path to victory by maintaining the Obama 2012 turnout model, I suspect that it is fairly likely that there will be an African-American on the ticket somewhere. In other words, Cory Booker and Deval Patrick are going to be looking a lot better to pair with Clinton or Biden than the long list of generic white faces.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
If the Democrats want to ensure the vote of Jewish millionaire farmers from Vermont, I have a Vice Presidential candidate suggestion for them.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If the Democrats want to ensure the vote of Jewish millionaire farmers from Vermont, I have a Vice Presidential candidate suggestion for them. Bernie Sanders a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Given that the 2016 Democratic nominee - whether Clinton, Biden, or other - has their easiest path to victory by maintaining the Obama 2012 turnout model, I suspect that it is fairly likely that there will be an African-American on the ticket somewhere. That depends. If Obama's turnout is due to identity politics, then you're right. If it's due to his GOTV efforts, you can make that an institutionalized advantage (assuming you can find volunteers who care as much about Hillary as they did about Obama, which really shouldn't be a problem) and not have to pick someone based on race. If the latter is true, I'd honestly say the smart money would be on Sherrod Brown - liberal, pretty decent public speaker, well-known and well liked in his state, and that state is Ohio.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Holding on to that Senate seat is worth more than improving the chances of winning 18 electoral votes.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Holding on to that Senate seat is worth more than improving the chances of winning 18 electoral votes. That depends on how important those 18 electoral votes are.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:Canada isn't a state. Yeah, exactly. We cannot allow people to entertain the notion of Cruz being eligible for the Presidency, particularly after he and his ilk have not shut up about how the exact same criteria supposedly precludes the actual President from holding the position, despite that being a complete fabrication
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Yeah, exactly. We cannot allow people to entertain the notion of Cruz being eligible for the Presidency, particularly after he and his ilk have not shut up about how the exact same criteria supposedly precludes the actual President from holding the position, despite that being a complete fabrication Nah, the party that at least pretends to care about people of color should not use the circumstances of an opponent's birth, with winking reference to his "not one of us" status, as a cudgel. If you honestly think birtherism is race-neutral ridiculousness, that's one thing, but I think that's specious. If you acknowledge that birtherism is because Obama is black, then using it against another person of color, even "ironically," falls into the same pit.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Does Schweitzer have a chance at VP? I'd love to know people's opinons. I'm quite liberal, but also see him as a very pragmatic option--especially in contrast to/ in combination with a Northeastern woman (Clinton). Sure, Montana is only 3ish electoral votes, but he could be quite useful in gaining extra white males, or perhaps moderates who wouldn't normally be "alright" with a woman president. I don't want to start a huge debate, I just want to see if I'm totally not crazy.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 11:50
|
|
|
You aren't crazy, but the Inland Northwest area which is actually what the Western half of Montana is a part of (the Eastern half belongs to a necromancer (reliably Republican) which is why it's full of bones and called the Badlands) doesn't bring enough to the table for a national campaign. Not enough people, the whole area is Republican, and Schwietzer isn't ready for the national stage yet. He could be a good backup for someone who was really liberal, but Hillary isn't extreme. She doesn't need a second who reassures people that she isn't really going to implement socialism because they'll be their to hold her back. I think that the important thing is we get every single birther in the media on record admitting that having a parent who is an American citizen makes you qualify as natural born. I don't think it's necessarily bad to keep people who aren't born citizens from ascending to the Presidency (though I'll admit that's more a gut level thing than something I've reasoned out) but frankly if one of your parents is a citizen you ought to be as well. Peztopiary fucked around with this message at 12:06 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Yeah, exactly. We cannot allow people to entertain the notion of Cruz being eligible for the Presidency, particularly after he and his ilk have not shut up about how the exact same criteria supposedly precludes the actual President from holding the position, despite that being a complete fabrication You're right, we should definitely become birthers ourselves. This is a good, reasonable idea.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Yeah, exactly. We cannot allow people to entertain the notion of Cruz being eligible for the Presidency, particularly after he and his ilk have not shut up about how the exact same criteria supposedly precludes the actual President from holding the position, despite that being a complete fabrication Is Ted Cruz a birther or did I miss something? Google just turns up a bunch of articles talking about his birther-like citizenship.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 13:16
|
|
|
Assuming Clinton runs and has a fairly easy primary, she would have no reason in my mind to select a running mate outside the Clintonland establishment, anyway. The actual impact of a VP on their home state is undeniably tempting, though -- look at the impact Paul Ryan made in Wisconsin.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
Beamed posted:You're right, we should definitely become birthers ourselves. This is a good, reasonable idea. It would be birtherism if Ted Cruz was born in Maine or something and we insisted that he must have been born secretly in the very beating heart of Mexico. Ted Cruz actually was born in Canada. Barack Obama merely adopted government healthcare, Ted Cruz was born in it, molded by it. He didn't see the free market until he was already a man.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Beamed posted:You're right, we should definitely become birthers ourselves. This is a good, reasonable idea. That's not being a birther. That's being consistent with (admittedly one of the) commonly accepted definitions of "natural-born citizen", that you were born in this country. Cruz wasn't. Obama was. Birtherism is predicated upon lying about the latter of those two facts notthegoatseguy posted:Is Ted Cruz a birther or did I miss something? Google just turns up a bunch of articles talking about his birther-like citizenship. Apologies, you're right - he himself is not a birther, because it would be dumb of him to call attention to his birthplace. But he's a Tea Party superstar and they're the core of the birther crew The Warszawa posted:Nah, the party that at least pretends to care about people of color should not use the circumstances of an opponent's birth, with winking reference to his "not one of us" status, as a cudgel. If you honestly think birtherism is race-neutral ridiculousness, that's one thing, but I think that's specious. If you acknowledge that birtherism is because Obama is black, then using it against another person of color, even "ironically," falls into the same pit. Again, it's not being a birther when the guy was actually born in another country. It has nothing to do with his race or color - it's the same reason Jennifer Granholm or Arnold Schwarzeneggar or Madeleine Albright can't be President. Granted Cruz's parents are American but the guy was born in Canada and lived there til he was four; for a very long time the vast majority of people have accepted that those facts would preclude someone in that situation from becoming President, and I see zero reason to work under the assumption that Cruz is eligible. That said, it'd be really nice if SCOTUS or someone would finally goddamned define "natural-born citizen" officially because it's absurd that ambiguity like that is allowed Riptor fucked around with this message at 16:39 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 16:32
|
|