Support NeoGAF

[DietRob]

lol @ anyone thinking it won't be Perez. He is perfect - experienced, aligned with the existing party lines, Clinton likes him, and he locks in that coveted latino/hispanic vote to clinch this sucker.

Warren is the Bernie Sanders of VP picks. Too many pickable flaws, way too idealistic to be taken seriously. Cabinet position for sure, run in 2024.

Before tonight I've never heard of Perez. I like to think I'm fairly 'plugged into' politics but maybe not?

Personally I like the idea of picking Warren. Her presence would push the ticket a little further to the left, it might help woo some die hard Sanders supporters, and having an all female ticket would be pretty remarkable. None of those are very good reasons though just my personal thoughts.

It makes much more sense to pick someone who is well liked in the Latino communities or from an important swing state.

 

[Emarv]

I think it's gotta be Castro. Given his running partner I think he could skate by on what little experience he has.

Relatively, I think most of her voices would skate by on her experience. Like others have said, I don't think VP is necessary for grooming a candidate for the presidency. Having him as a Senator or higher cabinet member is probably better overall for him.

But that's probably enough VP talk from me. Back to the thread, I'm curious how early they'll call it for her tomorrow.

 

[univariate]

I can't wait to vote for Hillary in November––just so Donald can lose.


Above all else, I wish Obama had another 3rd term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

So much swag.

 

[itschris]

One option I haven't seen discussed much is Xavier Becerra:

Mr. Becerra, who as the No. 4 Democrat in the House is the highest-ranking Hispanic lawmaker in the party, has made the fight against Donald J. Trump and Republicans personal. On Spanish-language television, where he is recognizable to millions of viewers, he has become the most prominent and outspoken advocate of Mrs. Clinton to a constituency she hopes to win over in huge numbers to capture the White House.

He has the advantage over Tom Perez of having held elected office.

 

[Holmes]

Put your back into it!

Yaaasss Queen!

YAAAASS QUEEN!!!

 

[Suikoguy]

One option I haven't seen discussed much is Xavier Becerra:



He has the advantage over Tom Perez of having held elected office.

Yeah, watch it be someone nobody has mentioned. Plus, that name is awesome.

 

[pigeon]

What

He is the Secretary of Labor.

Not an elected office. He was appointed to the cabinet.

I agree that this is the fundamental problem for Perez. The last office he's run for was Maryland AG and he was sued for not living in Maryland long enough! I just don't see him as being vetted enough.

But we'll see. I really have no idea.

 

[Zornack]

What

He is the Secretary of Labor.

Which is an appointed position. I think the last time he held elected office was in 2002, as a member of that county council.

 

[3phemeral]

This is very cute. You're going to need to add Trump/Pharoah though at some point for Election day.

Spoiler

Waiting for VP pic to finish the rest

 

[NYR]

That's not an elected position. It also doesn't matter. A cabinet position is more than enough to cover whatever imaginary litmus test we are arguing about.

Not an elected office. He was appointed to the cabinet.

I agree that this is the fundamental problem for Perez. The last office he's run for was Maryland AG and he was sued for not living in Maryland long enough! I just don't see him as being vetted enough.

But we'll see. I really have no idea.

While I get where you are coming from and agree, the republicans presidential nominee is someone who has done nothing in politics but 40% of the US will give him their vote no matter what.

 

[Emarv]

One option I haven't seen discussed much is Xavier Becerra:



He has the advantage over Tom Perez of having held elected office.

Yup. He's a good choice too and one of the ones I was mentioning that was "too old" for what that poster was implying. For some reason he just doesn't get a lot of traction amongst elites and pundits. But I guess we've been shocked by choices enough times to know that we don't really know anything.

 

[pigeon]

While I get where you are coming from and agree, the republicans presidential nominee is someone who has done nothing in politics but 40% of the US will give him their vote no matter what.

I think that number is going to turn out to be high.

Anyway, when your opponent is flying off course, you don't chase him. You fly straight and narrow.

 

[Trouble]

While I get where you are coming from and agree, the republicans presidential nominee is someone who has done nothing in politics but 40% of the US will give him their vote no matter what.

I was agreeing with you. Cabinet position is plenty for VP.

 

[Already Torn]

While acknowledging that this whole thing has gotten way out of hand, this has and will continue to be a poor argument. You can recognize that the rules of a game are bad, and yet still play by those rules because you want to win.

He still hasn't shut up about how corrupt the whole process is though, even though he's relying on shady tactics to win. It's super hypocritical dude

You can't play by bad rules and then complain when you lose

 

[johnsmith]

Perez is a bureaucrat, not a politician. He'd be a bad choice.

 

[Stumpokapow]

He still hasn't shut up about how corrupt the whole process is though, even though he's relying on shady tactics to win. It's super hypocritical dude

You can't play by bad rules and then complain when you lose

Just like it's not hypocritical to say "Negative campaigning is bad" and eventually go negative when you have no other choice, it's not hypocritical to point out that the system is bad and then eventually give in and try to exploit it. It is self-serving, and it is irrelevant, as he has lost. The super delegates aren't suddenly going to flip, as the Sanders campaign well knows--we're not talking a 51-49 split, Hillary has soaked up nearly every super delegate because she's actually been a member of the Democratic party for more than a year and has made all sorts of relationships with other Democrats. But it's also not hurting anyone for Sanders' campaign to make a bad argument, because the timing and manner of someone's primary exit is not relevant to the general election results.

 

[Already Torn]

Just like it's not hypocritical to say "Negative campaigning is bad" and eventually go negative when you have no other choice, it's not hypocritical to point out that the system is bad and then eventually give in and try to exploit it. It is self-serving, and it is irrelevant, as he has lost. The super delegates aren't suddenly going to flip, as the Sanders campaign well knows--we're not talking a 51-49 split, Hillary has soaked up nearly every super delegate because she's actually been a member of the Democratic party for more than a year and has made all sorts of relationships with other Democrats. But it's also not hurting anyone for Sanders' campaign to make a bad argument, because the timing and manner of someone's primary exit is not relevant to the general election results.

Doesn't it hurt Sanders's message of purity though to give in to the thing he condemns in others? Just seems sleezy when you're running the kind of campaign he has been.

I also think it's pretty hypocritical to condemn negative campaigning and then start negative campaigning.

 

[Daria Morgendorffer]

Bummer, but she's at least better than her republican opposition haha

 

[Stumpokapow]

I was agreeing with you. Cabinet position is plenty for VP.

List of vice presidential nominees since World War 2 who have never held high-level elected office (Governor, House, Senate):

Sargent Shriver, 1972. Was the VP nominee for the losing McGovern ticket, and was not the first choice--the original VP choice Thomas Eagleton, who was a Senator, dropped out due to media coverage of his mental illness. Besides being a backup choice, Shriver was a) a Kennedy, b) Director and Creator of the Peace Corps, c) Director of the Jobs Corps, d) Founder of Head Start, e) Ambassador to France.

... end of list.

I mean, Trump is the first candidate to be a crack-addled idiot who pissed away two years of his life trying to convince the country that the president was secretly born in Kenya so it's not like we aren't in an election of firsts, but I don't think a credible argument can be made that historically this is what we are looking for in a VP.

Doesn't it hurt Sanders's message of purity though to give in to the thing he condemns in others? Just seems sleezy when you're running the kind of campaign he has been.

I'm not going to endorse his position on superdelegates as a good argument, given that I've already said repeatedly he's lost the race. I just think the need to Lady MacBeth one's hands continuously until he drops out is so boring.

I also think it's pretty hypocritical to condemn negative campaigning and then start negative campaigning.

I explained above why I don't think it is hypocritical, although it is self-serving.

 

[DietRob]

Doesn't it hurt Sanders's message of purity though to give in to the thing he condemns in others? Just seems sleezy when you're running the kind of campaign he has been.

I also think it's pretty hypocritical to condemn negative campaigning and then start negative campaigning.

Yes of course it hurts Sander's message and is the main reason almost all of previous Bernie Sanders supporters here on GAF have ditched him. If you go back and read through the threads about Sander's tactics over the past two months you'll see tons of "I feel terrible that I voted for Sanders in my primary." posts.

 

[Already Torn]

List of vice presidential nominees since World War 2 who have never held high-level elected office (Governor, House, Senate):

Sargent Shriver, 1972. Was the VP nominee for the losing McGovern ticket, and was not the first choice--the original VP choice Thomas Eagleton, who was a Senator, dropped out due to media coverage of his mental illness. Besides being a backup choice, Shriver was a) a Kennedy, b) Director and Creator of the Peace Corps, c) Director of the Jobs Corps, d) Founder of Head Start, e) Ambassador to France.

... end of list.

I mean, Trump is the first candidate to be a crack-addled idiot who pissed away two years of his life trying to convince the country that the president was secretly born in Kenya so it's not like we aren't in an election of firsts, but I don't think a credible argument can be made that historically this is what we are looking for in a VP.

I'm not going to endorse his position on superdelegates as a good argument, given that I've already said repeatedly he's lost the race. I just think the need to Lady MacBeth one's hands continuously until he drops out is so boring.

I explained above why I don't think it is hypocritical, although it is self-serving.

I'm sorry if it bores you, and of course it doesn't really matter, but it's still a valid point. Bernie's campaign has been politics as usual, but that's super disappointing for a candidate that ran on not just being another politician to an insufferable degree.

 

[Tubie]

I hope Bernie does the right thing.

I would give him some time and space tho, losing a presidential race like this must be devastating.

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

Spoiler

Waiting for VP pic to finish the rest

Lol

 

[Spoiled Milk]

List of vice presidential nominees since World War 2 who have never held high-level elected office (Governor, House, Senate):

Sargent Shriver, 1972. Was the VP nominee for the losing McGovern ticket, and was not the first choice--the original VP choice Thomas Eagleton, who was a Senator, dropped out due to media coverage of his mental illness. Besides being a backup choice, Shriver was a) a Kennedy, b) Director and Creator of the Peace Corps, c) Director of the Jobs Corps, d) Founder of Head Start, e) Ambassador to France.

... end of list.

I mean, Trump is the first candidate to be a crack-addled idiot who pissed away two years of his life trying to convince the country that the president was secretly born in Kenya so it's not like we aren't in an election of firsts, but I don't think a credible argument can be made that historically this is what we are looking for in a VP.



I'm not going to endorse his position on superdelegates as a good argument, given that I've already said repeatedly he's lost the race. I just think the need to Lady MacBeth one's hands continuously until he drops out is so boring.



I explained above why I don't think it is hypocritical, although it is self-serving.

Yup. There's a bit more to this, too. Reposting from PoliGAF some time ago:

Becerra or Perez would be the first non-Senator Vice Presidential picks for the Democratic Party since Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 (she was a representative). This was from pressure from the DNC to pick a woman for the pick, including voices like House Speaker Tip O'Neal. Before that, Sargent Shriver in 1972 (who achieved national recognition for implementing and orchestrating many of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs like the Peace Corps). And before that, you have to go all the way back to FDR's first vice president, John Nance Garner. His qualifications? He was Speaker of the House.

But that's just for getting the nomination. If you look at the tickets that were actually successful, it turns out that we have not had any Vice President in our history who has not served either as a Senator, house speaker, governor, or some otherwise very important national or international function since at least before the 20th Century (this is where I stopped looking; the only exception is James Sherman, who was merely a representative). And this is a good thing; as I noted earlier, the Vice Presidency is none of the authority of the presidency but almost all of the responsibility. If you cannot see the Vice President becoming the President, then that person is not a worthy Vice President.

So that's why Perez will never be the vice presidential pick. Because it would be historically unprecedented for a person who has never held nothing more than a minor politically appointed office, let alone having never held any kind of elected office at all, to be Vice President of the United States. And that's why I think Elizabeth Warren would be a poor pick, too: she doesn't have any synergy with Hillary Clinton, would disagree with her on the issues she's most likely going to have any leeway on the next four years when the vice president is the one supposed to be brokering these deals, and has no major accomplishments to her name besides making government bigger.

Actually, I did forget one guy who doesn't fit this description.

Let's not talk about him.

 

[Tallshortman]

Sanders supporters hoping for her indictment literally sound like Trump supporters. She's not getting indicted or going to jail, it's like people didn't even read what the email stuff was about.

 

[Romars202129]

Thank goodness. I honestly would have been lost in a Sanders v Trump election. Like choosing between a brick or a baseball bat to the face.

 

[Rentahamster]

Thank goodness. I honestly would have been lost in a Sanders v Trump election. Like choosing between a brick or a baseball bat to the face.

How is a President Sanders that bad for you?

 

[davepoobond]

Sanders supporters hoping for her indictment literally sound like Trump supporters. She's not getting indicted or going to jail, it's like people didn't even read what the email stuff was about.

but she's guilty of the server!!! Trump sayz

 

[Wafflecakes]

While acknowledging that this whole thing has gotten way out of hand, this has and will continue to be a poor argument. You can recognize that the rules of a game are bad, and yet still play by those rules because you want to win.

You mean like Hillary and corporate donations/super PACs?

There is no way you can twist logic to not result in Bernie looking like a fucking hypocrite.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Sanders supporters hoping for her indictment literally sound like Trump supporters. She's not getting indicted or going to jail, it's like people didn't even read what the email stuff was about.

To be fair, it took the 2008 campaign until January 2007 before Hillary claimed Obama went to a madrassa, February 2008 before Hillary circulated photos of Obama wearing brown person clothes to Matt Drudge (the same source that broke the Lewinski story), accused him of being involved with Shady Chicago Character Tony Rezko, and then March 2008 when she went on the offensive about how Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan prove Obama supports Hamas, and that Obama "isn't a Muslim as far as I know". Necessity is the mother of invention, and nothing like a losing campaign to gin up whatever delusional scandal they can attach themselves to.

 

[Suikoguy]

Thank goodness. I honestly would have been lost in a Sanders v Trump election. Like choosing between a brick, or a baseball bat to the face.

I actually like that analogy, with one fix. The extra comma.

Sanders is much like a brick, unyielding, uncompromising and won't accomplish anything without working together with a ton of other bricks that don't exist yet.

Trump is like hitting the non-white electorate with a baseball bat to the face.

 

[JordanN]

Thank goodness. I honestly would have been lost in a Sanders v Trump election. Like choosing between a brick or a baseball bat to the face.

So how would you justify the supreme court appointment in this case? It's no longer important because Bernie is on the scene?

 

[Romars202129]

How is a President Sanders that bad for you?

Socialist. Spend the country into the ground, and destroy commerce. I am a democrat, but a moderate one.
I guess I'd have voted for him, but only in the hopes that the party could reign him in a bit.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Socialist. Spend the country into the ground, and destroy commerce. I am a democrat, but a moderate one.
I guess I'd have voted for him, but only in the hopes that the party could reign him in a bit.

(presidents can't spend money, it's in the constitution)

 

[phaonaut]

Woo hoo! Let's do this!

why is this so funny, is it the straight face

 

[Romars202129]

So how would you justify the supreme court appointment in this case? It's no longer important because Bernie is on the scene?

I care more about the country staying afloat than what laws are passed.

 

[Cerium]

To be fair, it took the 2008 campaign until January 2007 before Hillary claimed Obama went to a madrassa

That wasn't her, it was Republicans who blamed Hillary. I remember this one clearly.

February 2008 before Hillary circulated photos of Obama wearing brown person clothes to Matt Drudge (the same source that broke the Lewinski story)

I don't recall if this was ever actually tied to her campaign.

The other stuff, yeah.

 

[Christopher]

How is a President Sanders that bad for you?

He's all hot air...nothing but nonsense.

Come on Hilary lets get this over with already.

 

[carlsojo]

I bet she announces her VP soon.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

How is a President Sanders that bad for you?

Sanders will destroy small businesses. His tax-plan is insane.

 

[GutsOfThor]

I bet she announces her VP soon.

I think she'll wait for trump go first.

 

[whyamihere]

but I have no idea why Webb would even come up in conversation.

You know why.

You know why.

 

[Already Torn]

He's all hot air...nothing but nonsense.

Come on Hilary lets get this over with already.

Yeah. I'll worry about GE stuff later. Right now I'm just glad Sanders is officially done. It's like Christmas, you just gotta savor the moment while you can. The radio silence from some of my biggest Sanders fans on Twitter and Facebook is wonderful.

 

[whyamihere]

I'm on team Xavier Baccera, personally. Or Warren.

 

[Flying Toaster]

I love how everyone somehow thinks presidents are in control of the budget.

Well congrats to Clinton. Like I said I would throw my support behind the Democratic nominee. Let's do this people.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

How is a President Sanders that bad for you?

I'd vote for him over Trump without a doubt but I think Sanders is extraordinarily unqualified and would be a disastrous president.

 

[Stumpokapow]

That wasn't her, it was Republicans who blamed Hillary. I remember this one clearly.

https://web.archive.org/web/2008012..._backer_passed_along_obama_madrassa_email.php

(I'm trying to spider this down because I admittedly did not check the details before posting it initially--it looks like there might be some ambiguity on whether the original source was Hillary or if that claim was false but that her campaign later re-sent the story)

I don't recall if this was ever actually tied to her campaign.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton

Regardless of any individual claim, I trust my thrust--trying to draw a through-line of campaigns latching on to scandals and smears as they go down swinging--is still clear.

 

[benjipwns]

Yup. There's a bit more to this, too. Reposting from PoliGAF some time ago:

Forgive me for replying to this at extent, but I've always found the man fascinating.

Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense during the "most successful war in world history" and the end of the Cold War.

Cheney also worked in the Nixon and Ford White Houses, becoming Chief of Staff. And was campaign manager for Ford. He got behind Reagan early. Was a big player within the GOP establishment. Served many years on the Council on Foreign Relations.

Cheney was an ideal "governance" pick. Much like Gore for Clinton, Biden for Obama, LBJ for Kennedy. (Bentsen for Dukakis...Bush for Reagan)

Optics picks (Ryan, Palin, Edwards, Lieberman, Quayle, Ferraro, Mondale, Dole) don't actually have a great track record despite their popularity. (LBJ doing everything he could to sideline RFK in 1964 probably worked out better for both men than had he picked the "obvious" running mate...except for that getting shot thing for RFK. And Vietnam for LBJ.)

 

[Zornack]

(presidents can't spend money, it's in the constitution)

Then how do they buy things?

Checkmate.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Then how do they buy things?

Checkmate.

Donations!