Jump to content


Veepstakes


Recommended Posts

I saw an article yesterday listing the 4 best candidates that could join Trump on the ticket (even though some are not willing to do that). The first three are not surprising (Rubio, Kasich, and Gingrich), but the fourth was surprising....Condi Rice.

 

Now Condi has turned down opportunities before, and she is so diplomatic in terms of her demeanor that I don't think she would consider. Plus, she is very loyal to the Bush family that Trump has beaten down. But, if she were to join, she would bring a lot to the table. She is a well respected female figure (unlike Hillary) that has much crossover appeal. And she definitely helped keep the country safe after 9/11, something this country is longing for again after the past 7 years of poor policies for fighting terrorism.

While I don't think Rice will reconsider I will say this about her: Of all of the political speakers that I have heard in person over the years (unfortunately, I didn't get to hear Reagan in person) Condi was the most gracious, knowledgeable, articulate and humble of all. She had the opportunity to bash Obama (when he 1st came into office and was blaming GWB for everything) but she did not. She was asked direct questions in a Q&A and still took the high road. I have great respect for her. Some will question her in regards to Iraq and the decision to go into that conflict. I understand that as my may concern wt her is the influence of the neocon world on her policies. It got us into Iraq.

Link to comment

Elizabeth Warren seems to be the hot item in the news - traveling wt Hillary and giving speeches. Does she help or hurt Hillary as the VP choice in the general election.

My take:

She is under consideration in order to herd the Sander's crowd back into the corral. Warren doesn't help electorally - Hillary will win Mass regardless. Hillary will win those other liberal states also. She won't help wt the women's vote - Trump has done a good job alienating women already.

She will increase the perception that Hillary is really a leftist trying to appear as a moderate left candidate. I think she will drive more moderate voters away from Hillary - maybe not necessarily to Trump - they may

set it out. Maybe Hillary hopes lightning can strike 2x - first we had the 1st African-American president and now the 1st all female ticket elected to the white house.

Link to comment

I think Warren would excite the base of the Democrats. However, I don't think she will appeal to anyone else. Maybe Clinton is banking on just needing to win over the Sanders voters to win the election. She probably is correct.

 

At this point, she is double digits ahead of Trump and I'm sure there are still a lot of Sanders voters on the side lines. If she can win them over, it's game over for Trump.....it probably is anyway.

 

 

 

 

PS.....I have always wanted to watch a Condi Rice vs. Hillary debate. I think Condi would burry her.

Link to comment

I think you're both right - Warren's purpose is to be the bully vs. Trump and reel in Bernie supporters, but Hillary will pick a more diverse candidate from a more red(ish) state as VP. My money is on Julian Castro or Cory Booker. Warren & Bernie will find nice specific roles in her cabinet.

Link to comment

I think you're both right - Warren's purpose is to be the bully vs. Trump and reel in Bernie supporters, but Hillary will pick a more diverse candidate from a more red(ish) state as VP. My money is on Julian Castro or Cory Booker. Warren & Bernie will find nice specific roles in her cabinet.

 

I agree with the bolded. And I think she can accomplish those tasks w/o being on the ticket.

 

I'm going Tim Kaine of VA. He's from a swing state. He is also pretty boring, but Hillary has no reason to make a big splash. All she needs to do is to maintain the status quo.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

I think you're both right - Warren's purpose is to be the bully vs. Trump and reel in Bernie supporters, but Hillary will pick a more diverse candidate from a more red(ish) state as VP. My money is on Julian Castro or Cory Booker. Warren & Bernie will find nice specific roles in her cabinet.

 

I agree with the bolded. And I think she can accomplish those tasks w/o being on the ticket.

 

I'm going Tim Kaine of VA. He's from a swing state. He is also pretty boring, but Hillary has no reason to make a big splash. All she needs to do is to maintain the status quo.

 

I too think Tim Kaine would be a good pick for Hillary. He secures that swing state. I think Trump would be wise to consider Jim Webb - again from Virginia for the same reason. He'd help wt the moderate vote, help wt some of those dems who don't like Hillary but are too moderate to jump on the Warren or Sanders boat. Webb would also appeal to many repubs- he served in Reagan's admin, is pro-military and not radical right or left - again boring but solid. Doing the unconventional thing by picking a dem like Webb in this unconventional political season may not be as big of a surprise to pull off than what it would have been in previous campaigns. Trump and the party are already at odds - why not go for broke and appear 'above politics' by selecting a cross over VP (almost said cross dresser but that is for another tread :o )

Link to comment

I think Warren would excite the base of the Democrats. However, I don't think she will appeal to anyone else. Maybe Clinton is banking on just needing to win over the Sanders voters to win the election. She probably is correct.

 

At this point, she is double digits ahead of Trump and I'm sure there are still a lot of Sanders voters on the side lines. If she can win them over, it's game over for Trump.....it probably is anyway.

 

 

 

 

PS.....I have always wanted to watch a Condi Rice vs. Hillary debate. I think Condi would burry her.

Agree 100% wt the bold. And she'd do wt so much class that Hillary couldn't use some anti (fill in the blank) card against her.

Link to comment

 

I think Warren would excite the base of the Democrats. However, I don't think she will appeal to anyone else. Maybe Clinton is banking on just needing to win over the Sanders voters to win the election. She probably is correct.

 

At this point, she is double digits ahead of Trump and I'm sure there are still a lot of Sanders voters on the side lines. If she can win them over, it's game over for Trump.....it probably is anyway.

 

 

 

 

PS.....I have always wanted to watch a Condi Rice vs. Hillary debate. I think Condi would burry her.

Agree 100% wt the bold. And she'd do wt so much class that Hillary couldn't use some anti (fill in the blank) card against her.

 

Speaking of Condi - the repubs blew it by not 'grooming' her for the white house. Of course she said she never had the fire in the belly to campaign for a run - so the personal desire has to be there first. Instead we get Sarah Palin 8 years ago. What a stark contrast.

Link to comment

Bury? Condoleeza Rice seems like a pretty capable and accomplished person. I think that like Hillary, she'd be a good administrator and would've made a solid President if that's what she chose to do.

 

It's kind of how I feel about the presidency in general -- at its core, it's just an office job. There are a good number of people who could run it competently. By design, it's not meant to be all that, so I think a lot of the sports fandom that surrounds it is a fairly serious defect of particularly the television age.

 

If we treat this as a kingship that requires the most identifiable, inspirational, awesome warrior for our cause, then we sort of deserve what we get.

 

I say this as someone who strongly admires President Obama. I do think there has to be some credence given to the opposition voices that the left has a general blind spot here, an ends-justify-the-means sensibility that will quickly vanish when someone with far more questionable ends sits in the office.

 

Fundamentally, I think we'll be alright in the long haul as long as we keep electing sane, capable people, with contrasting agendas every now and again. There needs to be some push and pull, and most importantly recognition that we are electing officials to be temporary stewards. Not to be heroes and champions.

 

Getting off-topic here, but I wanted to drop off an article I think summarizes some of these thoughts about the office of presidency very nicely: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/quick-limit-the-power-that-trump-or-clinton-would-inherit/472743/ It's a really good read, IMO.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Bury? Condoleeza Rice seems like a pretty capable and accomplished person. I think that like Hillary, she'd be a good administrator and would've made a solid President if that's what she chose to do.

 

It's kind of how I feel about the presidency in general -- at its core, it's just an office job. There are a good number of people who could run it competently. By design, it's not meant to be all that, so I think a lot of the sports fandom that surrounds it is a fairly serious defect of particularly the television age.

 

If we treat this as a kingship that requires the most identifiable, inspirational, awesome warrior for our cause, then we sort of deserve what we get.

 

I say this as someone who strongly admires President Obama. I do think there has to be some credence given to the opposition voices that the left has a general blind spot here, an ends-justify-the-means sensibility that will quickly vanish when someone with far more questionable ends sits in the office.

 

Fundamentally, I think we'll be alright in the long haul as long as we keep electing sane, capable people, with contrasting agendas every now and again. There needs to be some push and pull, and most importantly recognition that we are electing officials to be temporary stewards. Not to be heroes and champions.

 

Getting off-topic here, but I wanted to drop off an article I think summarizes some of these thoughts about the office of presidency very nicely: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/quick-limit-the-power-that-trump-or-clinton-would-inherit/472743/ It's a really good read, IMO.

Zoogs,

 

I agree with much of what you said. And...actually, I view the President more of a Representative of the people and country than anything. Yes, he needs to point the country in the right direction and he also has the power to do disastrous things.

 

However, so much can be accomplished by simply being a good representative and gaining favor around the world for what we want to accomplish.

 

A thin skinned ego maniac is NOT the right choice for that type of situation.

Link to comment

I think Warren would excite the base of the Democrats. However, I don't think she will appeal to anyone else. Maybe Clinton is banking on just needing to win over the Sanders voters to win the election. She probably is correct.

 

At this point, she is double digits ahead of Trump and I'm sure there are still a lot of Sanders voters on the side lines. If she can win them over, it's game over for Trump.....it probably is anyway.

 

 

 

 

PS.....I have always wanted to watch a Condi Rice vs. Hillary debate. I think Condi would burry her.

 

I agree here and posted something similar yesterday. I think Hillary is just using Warren to try to gain the Bernie supporters. I think Warren may actually be to the left of Bernie which is hard to do. While Warren may fire up the base, she will completely alienate the middle and the male vote. The gender gap will always exist, where the Dems have a 10 point advantage (plus or minus a few points) among females and the GOP has a 10 point advantage among males. With Warren on the ticket, I don't see the Female gap widening, but I do see the male gap widening.

 

Regarding some of the other comments about Condi, it's not about the GOP grooming her, she simply has not been interested in the position. She was asked in 2008 and declined. She was asked in 2012 and declined, and she is still doing the same now. She would bury Hillary in a debate and as a candidate.

Link to comment

However, so much can be accomplished by simply being a good representative and gaining favor around the world for what we want to accomplish.

This is a pretty succinct description of the Bill Clinton presidency. He wasn't much of a leader, but he had a knack for making people feel good.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

I think you're both right - Warren's purpose is to be the bully vs. Trump and reel in Bernie supporters, but Hillary will pick a more diverse candidate from a more red(ish) state as VP. My money is on Julian Castro or Cory Booker. Warren & Bernie will find nice specific roles in her cabinet.

 

I agree with the bolded. And I think she can accomplish those tasks w/o being on the ticket.

 

I'm going Tim Kaine of VA. He's from a swing state. He is also pretty boring, but Hillary has no reason to make a big splash. All she needs to do is to maintain the status quo.

 

 

I'm almost sure it's going to be Kaine. Warren is doing great right now in her current role. I disagree with others that she'd be a poor choice for exciting voters other than the Dem base. Warren's big appeal is both to the far left and to blue-collar workers in the Rust Belt, much the same as was Bernie's.

 

Those two appeal to that group by being fiercely against special interests and for unions and the regular working Joe. Trump has the same appeal, even if it's just lip service. Were she to be picked, it would be to help in the Rust Belt and cut into whatever advantage Trump has there. I will say she's been a breath of fresh air, taking him on head on, and getting him to reiterate his idiotic Pocahontas taunt against her. He continues to be a liability to himself.

 

But Kaine makes more sense. Sad as it is, I don't know that the world is ready for an all woman ticket (particularly, the odd couple that would be these two). Kaine would appeal much more to the middle, would lock up Virginia, is fluent in Spanish, and could be an effective attack dog himself. I think he's a nice contrast to Clinton in bringing a lot of that "I'd have a beer with him" factor.

 

Legitimately perplexed to see who Trump is going with. I thought for a long time it'd be Newt, but he's out. I think at this point it's got to be either Christie, Corker, or perhaps Mary Fallin from Oklahoma.

 

A personal favorite of mine would be Jan Brewer. She is batsh#t insane. Seriously.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...