Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
C. Matthews last night said that it has never happened (?) in our political system. But he suggested that Clinton choose Kasich as her running mate to capture the anti-Trump vote.
That would surely shake up the political system.
How could Paul Ryan then have any justification for trying to get nominated in a contested convention?
McCain is rumored to wanted to have wanted to run with Joe Lieberman. RNC went ballistic and prevented it. Instead they made him run with Palin.
I figure the same will happen with the Democrats. As much as the Clintons run that party, they won't be allowed to do it. They owe too many favors to too many establishment Democrats to ever put a Republican on the ticket.
Hillary has led over Mr. Trump in almost every single poll. So, I can't picture her doing anything that would be so controversial with the DNC.
She would be better off picking Bernie Sanders. Huh, why? Because if Democrats can turnout their base, they will win. Like in 2012, when Obama lost big with GOP and Independents. Didn't matter. Bernie fans will turn out and provide tremendous energy . . . . capturing the Millennials (where Bernie dominates), along with Hillary's older base, will just about lock it up.
I know a NY/VT ticket provides no geographical diversity typical in a VP pick, but they will be complementary in ideology. Bernie is strong in Red States, and Hillary does well in Blue States. Woman/man is more palatable to some men than a woman/woman (let's say Elizabeth Warren) ticket. Hillary's alleged dishonest disposition will be mitigated in part by Bernie's perceived honesty.
Chris Matthews sometimes says very foolish things. There is zero reason why a Democrat would pick a Republican, esp. one that despite trying to make it sound as if he's a moderate is anything but.
And either Trump or Cruz motivates people go out and vote against them.
And it won't be Sanders either, just like it wasn't Hillary in 2008. He will have a role in the Administration, or he will get a leadership role in the Senate if that's what he wants. But he will not be VP.
McCain is rumored to wanted to have wanted to run with Joe Lieberman. RNC went ballistic and prevented it. Instead they made him run with Palin.
I figure the same will happen with the Democrats. As much as the Clintons run that party, they won't be allowed to do it. They owe too many favors to too many establishment Democrats to ever put a Republican on the ticket.
If true, McCain is indeed a Maverick . . . picking a Dem/Ind who was VP pick for Gore . . . . wow.
It would have helped him do better than with Palin, but not have been as fun.
Hillary would have her best chance if she picked Bernie for her VP. I don't expect that, the Democratic party would be afraid the old battle ax would keel over, or start having flash backs to her days of taking sniper fire in Bosnia, and they would end up with Bernie as president.
In all seriousness, Bernie would be her best chance against Trump.
It's not that outrageous...the thought I assume being that Kasich would deliver Ohio and not offend Democrats enough to make them stay home.
With Hillary proposing eliminating jobs in coal mining, I was surprised that the people of Ohio were on board for that. The Dems can have Kasich as far as I am concerned. The only thing Clinton and Kasich have in common is that people don't really care for them and that they want to make illegals legal at a cost of amnesty running $6.3 trillion. Add to that the 80,000 jobs that will be eliminated when we stop the mining........... One would need poo for brains to buy that.
Hillary would have her best chance if she picked Bernie for her VP. I don't expect that, the Democratic party would be afraid the old battle ax would keel over, or start having flash backs to her days of taking sniper fire in Bosnia, and they would end up with Bernie as president.
In all seriousness, Bernie would be her best chance against Trump.
My first impression is to agree, on the argument of attracting his most passionate voters, especially among the young.
What I like about Bernie, besides first and foremost his cute Jewish Brooklyn accent, naturally, is that he forcefully points to the need to increase incomes among average people to get the economy going at full potential. However, in my view, that is only one part of an integrated puzzle and his formulas for achieving higher average incomes would be temporary and malignantly inflationary, among other maladies, and so disastrous for economy and country, and I have the impression that even Hillary knows that.
So could it backfire? Could he scare away moderate or pro-business democrat voters into abstaining or to vote for Hillary's eventual opponent?
Some people suggest she should choose along ethnic and/or geographic lines. Fair enough.
But what about doing like Obama did, choosing a moderate senator or ex-senator along the lines of Biden or Kerry?
That might make both moderate democrats and moderate independents, and even moderate republicans, feel more comfortable.
Apparently no single candidate can please everybody, so which way should she lean?
Hillary already has the African American and Latino vote but if she wants to crush that, her best chance would be to pick Booker or Castro as her VP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
