2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPick Warren and lock up the race entirely. Pick anyone else and Trump stays within the MOE.
If Warren is the VP, Hillary locks up the race. Why? Because Hillary would have the establishment AND an excited base with her through the election. That's the Obama coalition+. Trump and the Republicans are toast.
Pick anyone else, and the base is not excited. Which means that Trump lives within the MOE, and anything can happen.
artyteacher
(598 posts)More people are voting besides the base.
TheBlackAdder
(28,261 posts).
It's better than that Pro-Monsanto pick being floated around.
Hopefully, Monsanto won't move from affecting the Dept. of Agriculture to directly affecting general public policy.
.
artyteacher
(598 posts)It's a diverse country.
TheBlackAdder
(28,261 posts)exboyfil
(17,865 posts)Is Clinton planning to be a one term president?
TheBlackAdder
(28,261 posts).
Good politicians and political parties keep options open.
.
Visalik just shows the Dems as another side of the corporate party coin, further bluing the lines between the parties.
It doesn't necessarily have to be Warren (though she's completely awesome), but someone in that group. Progressive, dynamic, committed, experienced, brilliant, with few skeletons, that can inspire Dems, progs, youth, and all the required demographics.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Unfortunately, that's not Warren.
kwolf68
(7,365 posts)Handle THIS EIGHT years first. If the best person for the job is older, then HIRE them.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I really believe a solid liberal Hispanic is the way to go. My favorite is Xavier Becerra. But if Hillary picks Warren, I will be just fine.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)that's a voter demographic that Trump has already significantly alienated with his "deport 'em all and build a wall" rhetoric. Latest polls put Trump's Latino/Hispanic support on 14% (Romney got 27% in 2012, GWB got 40% at one point). Warren as VP would bring in Sanders supporters who may otherwise be considering voting Green (which could make a difference in a few key swing states). Electorally, Warren is a smarter choice.
Response to MoonRiver (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Yavin4
(35,455 posts)Older is sometimes better.
TheBlackAdder
(28,261 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)Clinton already has "the base" on her side. It's why she's the nominee.
bonemachine
(757 posts)the roots are the base. the grass can be green and lovely, but with no root structure, bad things happen quickly if there's too much (or not enough) rain...
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)The electorate is already fully polarized. As usual, the independents in the middle will decide the election. The VP pick makes very little difference where it counts, unless that pick is not acceptable to independents.
Wishful thinking is what destroys Republican politics. Let's not mimic them.
marybourg
(12,650 posts)was not acceptable to me - at that time already a near-retirement age life-long democratic voter - and I didn't vote for Gore. And I've never regretted it. We got Obama instead, which never would have happened if Gore had won.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If you don't regret that, you and I are definitely not on the same page.
marybourg
(12,650 posts)have been a Publican and not Obama.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I'd like to win Powerball, it's pretty high right now.
thucythucy
(8,134 posts)to do all the damage he did?
The dead of Katrina alone make your statement entirely incomprehensible to me.
How wonderful it must be, to be in such a place of personal privilege that eight years of GOP misrule evidently left you and yours entirely unscathed.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)I like Warren, and have no issue picking her, but if I'm doing the math, I'm going with Perez or Becerra. Getting the Hispanic vote to turn up in the largest numbers ever would be the most effective way of guaranteeing victory (not that I think Trump has any chance), and having to run against them would drive Trump bat-shit crazy.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,256 posts)I'm more concerned about the Sander's suppoters who say they won't vote for Clinton. I think Warren could draw some back.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The "Sanders supporters" who say they won't vote for Hillary are not just not Democrats, they're not voters. I suspect that many such people didn't actually show up to vote for Bernie either. The real Bernie voters are mostly behind Hillary already. There's no reason to devote energy to courting the votes of people who will never vote at all.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,256 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Anybody who normally doesn't vote and is doesn't already have a firm preference for this election is almost certainly going to continue not voting in November. The votes to focus on are the ones that are actually attainable.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)It takes much more than base excitement.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Only one single pair of Dems can possibly defeat a buffoon who doesn't even want to be president in the first place.
Time to start pretending I'm visiting from Canada.
TwilightZone
(25,517 posts)The base voted for Hillary. The base is out registering voters.
Obama's base, for the most part, *is* Hillary's base. The base is not disaffected Sanders supporters.
farmboy
(252 posts)and speed a couple of weeks driving voters to the polls. I believe in Hillary being more progressive than people have given her credit for, and I will be enormously disappointed if she picks a center-right moderate vp candidate like Vilsack or Kaine. I will not put forth my same efforts of time and money this year to try and convince voters of something I no longer believe in if she goes that route. I will vote for her in November and will assume she's telling me that's all she needs by choosing a nonprogressive teammate for her administration.
elleng
(131,414 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)The LAST thing she should do is get advice from DU consensus. She'd lose for sure.
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)We have to do everything we can to make sure we win in November, and win big.
Imo, the OP goes wrong in
1. Assuming significant numbers of Sanders progressives would not vote the Dem ticket if they didn't like the VP choice. Only a few.
2. Assuming that all uncommitted Sanders supporters are left-wingers who would be pleased with a left-wing VP choice. Not exactly. That's been proven many times.
3. Ignoring the need to appeal to the middle and to disaffected conservatives. Voters considering alternatives to Trump must have an alternative to vote for.
4. Forgetting that the people making these decisions aren't amateurs, their data and analyses are far better than ours, and they're extremely personally committed to winning.
andym
(5,447 posts)and at the time he wanted Ted Kennedy who refused-- polls supposedly would have had him even with Nixon.
VP picks haven't made a real difference in half a century.
marybourg
(12,650 posts)I can assure you that the choice of Leiberman cost Gore the presidency. I refused to vote for that ticket which I considered half Republican, and worked for Nader. About 85% of the Nader workers were Leiberman "refusniks".
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That was all on Ralph Nader.
It was 100% the fault of Ralph Nader and nobody else.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Nader took less than 1% of the vote and most who voted for him would have sat out had there been no third party candidates.
Blaming Nader is just scapegoating.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)End of discussion.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Nader garnered less than 1% of the vote total. It's basic math.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Moostache
(9,897 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Had the SCOTUS allowed the recount to continue in Florida, Bush would have still won because the counties where Gore would have picked up enough votes were not a part of the recount the Gore campaign called for.
So no, Bush was elected in 2000, not appointed.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Many of them live in places like the panhandle of Florida.
Nader deserves the blame he got and you are wrong about what his voters would have done. Around 20% more of them would have voted Gore than voted Bush if Nader had not been in the race, giving Gore Florida by a comfortable margin. There were polls done of Nader voters at the time.
Your revisionist history will not work.
marybourg
(12,650 posts)I refused to vote/work for a Dem who would choose a Publican for his Veep. And most of the people I met who worked for Nader felt the same. I knew after a Bush presidency we'd get a Dem. And we did. Obama. After a Gore presidency, I knew we'd get A Publican. But thanks for your assurances, anyway.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Anecdotal evidence is evidence of nothing.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,256 posts)It may be annecdotal, but I knew Republicans who didn't vote for McCain because the thought of Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency was frightening.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)yodermon
(6,143 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,631 posts)Are you saying you don't believe her?
Response to RBInMaine (Reply #25)
johara This message was self-deleted by its author.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)JennyMominFL
(218 posts)My Republican sister is willing to vote for Hillary, but not if Warren is on the ticket.
treestar
(82,383 posts)is those who can be counted on, who don't have to be lured with "excitement."
Response to Yavin4 (Original post)
Post removed
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)campaign. The Democratic Party base is not who you think it is, frankly. It is made up of Democratic voters who vote in every election, even mid-terms and who volunteer for GOTV activism. The base is not the disgruntled fringe. It never has been.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Yavin4
(35,455 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...through election fraud.
She needs a high single digit, or double digit lead IMHO.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)pnwmom
(109,025 posts)I like Warren but some the men in my family think many men would still be turned off by two women. (They wouldn't hesitate themselves, but they don't see EW as expanding the group of voters choosing the ticket.)
It's not clear that Warren would add more than some of the male candidates who have been proposed.
GeorgeGist
(25,327 posts)I'm gone forever.
Moostache
(9,897 posts)A President Trump would be unthinkable in ways that the GOP fanatics who are accepting him out of Hillary Hate can't even begin to fathom.
1) He is not a Republican or a Democrat....he is a Talking Yam and out for himself only.
2) There are rattlesnakes with a better equanimity than Sir Donald of Orange.
3) There are pre-schoolers who have thicker skins than the Orangutang offspring.
In a more serious vein, I do not fear for the country out of some ideological schlock (like the disgusting GOP 'fans' cheering to jail Hillary for nonsensical, and pardon the pun, trumped up reasons). I am not afraid of policy positions from Trump. I am afraid of lasting damage to America's alliances around the globe. I am afraid of a half-cocked fool actually deploying nuclear weapons. I am afraid of an absentee presidency in domestic affairs and in combating global climate change (even more than currently).
President Donald J. Trump = the end. (and not just of America)
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)So yes, she needs to pick Elizabeth Warren.
If Warren's the running mate, Hillary will have this race locked up!
Response to backscatter712 (Reply #58)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It will be no different after her pick. Clinton is the big show. To claim only one person is the best pick is extremely shortsighted.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and is way too linear.
Mike Nelson
(9,990 posts)...I would pick someone to lock up a state/region or help with the negatives. I like excitement too, and Warren is the most exciting of anyone she's considering. Looks like a win, either way!
Response to Yavin4 (Original post)
johara This message was self-deleted by its author.
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)I don't think this would "lock up the race" for Hillary.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)WASHINGTON ― Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is on Hillary Clintons short list of potential vice presidential nominees. Hes also actively pushing bank deregulation this week as he campaigns for the job.
Kaine signed two letters on Monday urging federal regulators to go easy on banks ― one to help big banks dodge risk management rules, and another to help small banks avoid consumer protection standards.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is believed to be weighing Kaine among a handful of other potential VP choices. Her pick is widely viewed in Washington as a sign of her governing intentions. The former secretary of state has spent weeks attempting to woo progressive supporters of vanquished primary challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Choosing from one of the handful of names on her short list ― Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) or Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), for instance ― would signal that her camp is taking progressive concerns seriously.
Kaine, by contrast, is setting himself up as a figure willing to do battle with the progressive wing of the party. He has championed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that both Sanders and Warren oppose, and he is now publicly siding with bank deregulation advocates at the height of Clintons veepstakes.
Picking a Conservadem like Kaine would be an enthusiasm killer as bad as Gore picking Joe Lieberman back in 2000. Would pretty much ensure that the independents who were supporting Bernie won't show up for Hillary in November. And few of the right-leaning independents would jump on the Hillary campaign either - the mood in the country is almost entirely against job-killing trade deals like TPP.
Don Draper
(187 posts)excitement & enthusiasm will grid to a snails pace. Kaine brings nothing to the ticket just like mike pence brought nothing to trump's ticket.
If she picks a corporatist, it will be interpreted as a big middle finger to the Bernie supporters who will most likely go third party if this is the case.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)I could not accept that but maybe others who prefer it will vote and make up for those who just can't so I guess Clinton knows what is and who is important for votes
I think stating not excited is the least damaging of reactions that will occur among some current supporters but maybe not enough for her campaign to care.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Completely wrong-headed analysis.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Trump would be blind-sided.
It would produce a similar tsunami that got Obama elected.