And Now, the Mindless Speculation on Vice-Presidents, Democrat Edition
[guest post by JVW]
With the Presidential candidates pretty much settled at this point (right? — right?) it is now time to organize an infinite number of electrons in the old and new media to make stunningly wrong predictions on the possibilities for Vice-Presidential picks for each candidate. In this edition, we’ll discuss the options available to the Once and Future Inevitable Next President of the United States, First Lady/Senator/Secretary Hillary! Rodham Clinton, noted IT and National Security expert. First, let’s consider what Her Clintonic Majesty may be looking for in a running mate. To start off with, the Washington Post has put together a long list of 27 possibilities for the position. Some of them I find to be fanciful (Al Franken? Al Franken? Al F’n Franken?), so I narrowed that down to a top ten that we can analyze. I’ve thought about it for nearly four minutes now, and I think it boils down to the following criteria in the following order of importance:
1. Unwavering Loyalty: Hillary!’s entire career is one long exercise in demanding fealty and subservience from those who work on her behalf, and I don’t see that changing once she reaches the pinnacle of public life. This works against some noted former rivals (Sanders) as well as other Democrats who enjoy a high level of popularity (Warren). HRC would want a VP who absolutely depends on the Clinton Machine and won’t make any public challenges to her agenda. Furthermore, I think she is narcissistic and paranoid enough that she will not brook any private dissent either. This augurs well for someone like Martin O’Malley, who pointedly declined to criticize her questionable ethics during his brief primary run, or a Senate ally like Amy Klobuchar.
2. Comfortable as a Second Fiddle: While her husband was willing to pick an ambitious, preening, camera-loving egomaniac as his VP, don’t expect the same from HRC. As the first female President, she will want to spotlight to be solely upon her. This is another strike against Warren, and is definitely a weak spot to other charismatic media-savvy politicians like Cory Booker and Deval Patrick.
3. Credible in Role: I think this might be a criteria forced upon HRC by circumstances. She may feel confident that the FBI investigation into her illegal use of personal email will go nowhere, but it sure seems that many Democrats are rightfully skittish that an indictment could derail her candidacy. It is imperative, therefore, that the VP nominee be someone who independent voters would trust as a credible leader who could step into the Presidency at a moment’s notice. I am not an independent voter, so I have no idea how they would rank the various candidates. I think an ex-governor like O’Malley would have some credibility, and perhaps Warren, Kaine, Bayh, and Klobuchar would be deemed acceptable. Deval Patrick left Massachusetts in pretty bad shape when he left the governor’s office, and then he embroiled himself in a scandal concerning Boston’s aborted bid for the 2024 Olympics, which should cause him problems on the campaign trail. The major two Latino candidates, Perez and Castro, are both far less prepared for executive office than Sarah Palin was in 2008.
4. Appeases Sanderistas: The devoted followers of Senator Bernard Sanders, an elderly white socialist from un-diverse Vermont, may think that this ought to be HRC’s top priority. She needs his supporters to turn out for her in November and she thus can’t afford any bad blood with him, so though this will not be her major criteria it will be heavily considered. Hillary! is arrogant enough to think she can win over the Bernie Bros and Babes on her own and she thus might feel that she can safely forego offering the VP slot to Sanders or to Elizabeth Warren, another elderly white woman. But look for whomever she selects to at the very least pay lip service to the angry leftist populism that dominated this primary.
5. Suitable to the Diversity Crowd: Normally this would be a much higher priority for the Democrat nominee, but since HRC has the novelty of being the first woman to be a major party candidate for President, she probably feels that the diversity requirement has been fulfilled. Her popularity with black voters also helps insulate her from the demands of the hardcore crybullies, though she will no doubt have to make at least one major concession to the Black Lives Matter crowd somewhere along the way.
So given all that, here is a quick chart showing how each candidate stacks up in each category. I have added question marks in the areas that I think as yet remain unknown.
Let me know if you think I am wrong on a particular point (is Sanders really seen beyond his narrow base as someone who would be a credible Vice-President?) or if there are potential VP picks I overlooked and how you think they stack up with this criteria.
– JVW
There are other traditional criteria like regional balance and the ability to help carry a key electoral state that I have not bothered to add. Frankly, I don’t see either being all that important. Bush chose a guy who had ties to two states (Texas and Wyoming) that he was obviously already going to win, and Obama took a VP from a safe Democrat state.
I think that based upon what I outlined below, Amy Klobuchar would be the favorite. She doesn’t seem to run counter to any of the criteria, she comes from a Democrat state that would replace her in the Senate with a fellow Dem, and she helps HRC perhaps a bit in the upper-midwest which the presumptive Republican candidate says he will target.
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:19 pmEvan Bayh has no constituency in the contemporary national Democratic party and is not a contender.
Bernie Sanders wouldn’t be the first choice of the party establishment or the Clinton supporters, and I think he would be viewed partywide as a credible option.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:25 pmHarris raises an interesting procedural question: in CA, are you simultaneously allowed to be a candidate for both Senate and VP? And, if *not*, who takes Harris’ place on the ballot? Sundheim?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:26 pmUnwavering loyalty is the absolute requirement – Julian Castro will be the pick.
Steve Malynn (4bc33a) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:27 pmi but you Sanders voters will really really like an amiable poofter like julian “not a tranny per se” castro
happyfeet (831175) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:29 pmIf Castro is the VP, it’s also a sign that Clinton thinks that the combination of Hispanics energized by him *and* Republicans displeased by Trump puts Texas in play.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:30 pmJohn Bachtell is the obvious choice.
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:30 pmlooks like Julian’s worried that the nasty old woman thang he wants to veep for might have trouble renting a house in the future
happyfeet (831175) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:33 pmThe Castro name alone should garner any democrat all the graduates of almost every American college in the last fifteen years. It’s a marketing colossus.
Rev. Hoagie© (734193) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:34 pmMr. aphrael I think you’re selling hispanics short to assume they’ll be energized by a goof-ass like julian
i don’t think he’s got any more genuine ethnic appeal than Mr. Rubio, and maybe less cause he’s so ugly
happyfeet (831175) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:36 pmi think Tim Kaine probably should get a “credible in role” check mark based on Sarah W’s observations about him
happyfeet (831175) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:40 pmIf Castro is the VP, it’s also a sign that Clinton thinks that the combination of Hispanics energized by him *and* Republicans displeased by Trump puts Texas in play.
The same way that Romney/Ryan cleaned up in Massachusetts and Wisconsin four years ago?
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:44 pmi’d go so far as to suggest that the reason hillary’s propganda slut media is having these phonied-up vapors about the la raza judge is 100% entirely to prepare the battlespace for poor fugly julian
happyfeet (831175) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:45 pmTim Kaine. I’d go more bluedog/scintilla of military myself, but this would have to do.
urbanleftbehind (7195bd) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:47 pmI don’t mean to be so dismissive, aphrael. I think that adding Castro to the ticket wouldn’t be so much about winning Texas as it would be solidifying the Hispanic vote in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, and maybe even hoping to put Arizona into play.
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:49 pm*propaganda* slut media i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:50 pm12. Maybe that sort of noise with regard to Utah is useful as well – Clinton might mistake LDS restraint for actual support and pick Jim Matheson or in an attempt to get GOPe AND LDS, Jon Huntsman. That would drive a lot of Dem diehards to the sidelines or to Trump.
urbanleftbehind (7195bd) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:51 pmAnd as I mentioned in the post, I think the one salient question that Republicans could ask about Julian Castro is “How is he better prepared for the Presidency than Sarah Palin was in 2008?” It seems to me that Democrats would have a really hard time answering that question, unless they want to admit to holding Castro to a lower standard.
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:53 pmHillary’s anti-fracking jihad very explicitly threatens the Texas economy and tens of thousands of good paying jobs, a large percentage of which are currently filled by hispanic texans
happyfeet (831175) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:53 pmwhere did Hillary’s passionate hatred and contempt for fracking and the jobs it creates come from?
that’s your girl dustin
happyfeet (831175) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:57 pmWell, crap Happy, which motor coach companies, bus manufacturers and freight railroaders are benefiting from touch back amnesty (2 trips) v. self or forced deportation (1 trip).
urbanleftbehind (7195bd) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:04 pmi don’t know Mr. urban, but i bet you Mr. Trump does
he knows all kinds of things
happyfeet (831175) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:06 pmHappyfeet, at 10, and JVW at 12: *I* am not assuming they’d be energized by Castro, I’m saying that Clinton naming him her VP would suggest *she* thinks that.
I don’t know much about Castro at all, and while I have some familiarity with the politics of the CA latino voters, I know nothing about the TX latino voters.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:07 pmJVW – I think Arizona is already in play. Trump put Pennsylvania in play for the Republicans and Arizona in play for the Democrats; as a practical matter that swap would be to the Republicans’ benefit.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:08 pmoh. ok understood Mr. aphrael
what’s creepy Mr. aphrael (to me)
one thing for sure the hispanic californians and texans share?
an over-average commitment to home ownership
you think that explains why they put julie where they did?
happyfeet (831175) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:13 pmPresident Obama as the upcoming VP. Fully Constitutional, and a way to pay him back for all his forbearance on all the crap he’s put up with from her. Keep his hand in the game, keeps his name in the limelight. Swings all the black vote back to him at that 99+ percent level. (110%+ in some districts.)
Ingot (e5bf64) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:15 pmIngot – nah, that won’t fly. If you’re at all worried about Clinton dying or being impeached, that puts Paul Ryan next in line, and Democrats aren’t going to go for that.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:27 pmCan’t imagine President Obama serving as second banana to anyone, let alone a woman I think he largely dislikes. It’s less likely than the purportedly considered Reagan/Ford ticket in 1980.
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:37 pmNo, Aphrael, being elected as Vice President and then ascending into the Presidency again is a Constitutional way to get more than two terms. The Amendment specifically says that you can’t be elected into the Presidency more than twice.
Ingot (e5bf64) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:40 pmRealistic or not, all must admit it fits with Obama’s ego. 🙂
Ingot (e5bf64) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:41 pmInteresting. You may be right, although I think doing that would trigger a constitutional crisis.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:49 pmRealistic or not, all must admit it fits with Obama’s ego.
I could see him doing this only if he knew that once she had been inaugurated his allies could leak hugely damaging information that would force her to resign, or even possibly lead to her impeachment. But as a practical matter, those machinations would be met in kind by the Clinton Machine leaking all sorts of unsavory things about the Obama Administration, and the net effect would be to tear the Democrats apart worse than the GOP fared when Nixon resigned.
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:51 pmAs I understand it, no person who cannot serve as President can serve as VP. In other words, you have to meet the requirements to be president in order to be vice president.
Since Obama can no longer serve as president – having served the max two terms he is not eligible – he can’t be the VP.
SteveMG (9b9cae) — 6/9/2016 @ 3:58 pmTwenty-Second Amendment:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Twelfth Amendment
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:04 pm. . . The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:04 pm
Well that settles that.
felipe (429749) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:10 pmSteveMG – I think there’s a very technical *legal* argument that says Pres. Obama can serve as VP.
I agree with you that the *intent* of the law is that he shouldn’t be able to.
But the *precise wording of the law* looks like it allows it.
[a] the requirements for VP are not actually spelled out. The requirements for eligibility to be President are specified, but there are no requirements specified for eligibility to be VP.
So is someone allowed to serve as VP who is ineligible for the Presidency? The constitution is silent.
I think you can reasonably infer that the answer was intended to be ‘no’ because of the original scheme for electing the President and vice-President, and if you asked me to argue it in court, that’s the line I’d use.
But I don’t think it matters, because:
[b] Article II sets requirements for eligibility to be President:
> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The 22d amendment, on the other hand says:
> No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once
It says someone can’t be *elected* President if they’ve served two terms. Butu there’s nothing which would prevent them from *becoming* President.
Imagine, for example, that President Bush ran for the House, was elected and named Speaker, and then both the President and vice-President were to die in a plane crash. Could he serve as President? He couldn’t be *elected* President under the 22d Amendment, but he meets all of the requirements of Article II.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:11 pmJVW – thank you! that was an important addition in the 12th amendment, and I missed it when I scanendd the amendment.
But I don’t think it solves the problem, as the example I just posed (involving President Bush) illustrates. The 22d amendment forbids *electing* a President who has served two terms, but it doesn’t render that person constitutionally ineligible.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:12 pmDeceit them all Patrick could be the pick for v.p. The price for Obama’s backing.
mg (31009b) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:17 pmObama as VP, then the day after the election the Obama DOJ indicts Clinton…….
The main problem with that is truth is stranger than fiction.
I could see them doing it and no one standing in their way, actually.
MD in Philly (d8a244) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:23 pmThe GOP has not stood in the way of things more clearly illegal.
This is an interesting case where I think textualists and originalists have to reach different answers. I think a textualist would say “the 22d amendment’s *written words* say no person can be elected, not no person can serve, so previous election isn’t a constitutional ineligibility and thus Obama can be VP” while an originalist would say “the original meaning of the 12th amendment and the 22d amendment makes previous service a constitutional bar and therefore he can’t be.”
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:24 pmaphrael, I think it solves the problem of “electing” Obama as Vice-President, which strikes me as impossible under the combined 12th and 22nd Amendments. The example you cited with the Speaker of the House assuming the Presidency is a separate case because it does not involve being “elected” to either the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. Another interesting alternative is if the VP suddenly resigns and is, by the text of the 25th Amendment, replaced. Here is the text of the relevant part of the Amendment:
Interesting that nothing is said about that nominee needing to fulfill the eligibility requirement under the 12th Amendment, but I would expect that Congress might call it into question. But if they do allow a Speaker George W. Bush or Speaker Barack Obama to become VP under that circumstance, then I suppose that he would thus be eligible to once again serve as President. Would you agree?
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:27 pmOr even forget the whole Speaker part and assume that the President nominates Bush or Obama as private citizens. If confirmed by Congress, are they thus eligible to be President once again? As a Scalian, I would say yes.
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:28 pmJVW –
[a] I’m unconvinced that it’s impossible to elect Obama as VP, because the 22d amendment talks about electing the *President*, which isn’t at issue, and the 12th amendment talks about *constitutional ineligibility for the office*, which isn’t at issue.
[b] Yeah, I think it’s clear that if Speaker Bush became VP through Senate election, then he could become President again, he just couldn’t run for re-election.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:34 pmIt’s kind of amazing to me that when the 25th Amendment was proposed and voted upon, no one brought up this question and suggested that it be addressed. Section 2 could have been drafted as follows: Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President, constitutionally eligible to serve as President, who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Or when drafting the 22nd Amendment, why did they say “. . . shall be elected to the office of President. . . ” when Article II clearly uses “shall be eligible to the Office of President”? The drafters of the 22nd Amendment could easily have written “No person shall be eligible for the office of the President after having served two terms, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:39 pm1. Unwavering Loyalty: This is, I think the one most important croteria, but Hillary\! also needs someone who has a reason to remain loyal.
This means somebody compromised in some way, who can be destroyed by Hillary Clinton. If not already, this person, like Al Gore, may be inveigled into violating some law, or better yet,going into agreay area with no controlling legal authrity. The president needs to have some hold over the vice president.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:41 pmJVW: sloppy legislative drafting, a boon to lawyers and bane to courts, everywhere!
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:42 pm1. JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 2:19 pm
No, Maria Cantwell of Washington State.
A point in her favor is that she is not on the Washington Post list, which probably stems from Clinton campaign leaks.
The only drawback is the choice of Maria Cantwell Sanderistas, but this would only be factor in Washington State anyway.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:43 pmWhat is the terminology in the 12th amendment?
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:44 pmi don’t think dribbles would pick a food stamp cabinet member like julie if she hadn’t picked him from the beginning with the condition that food stamp would help groom him
and julie knows he’s her boi
loyalty’s not even an issue
dribbles *made* him
happyfeet (831175) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:45 pmSammy,
> But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
the difficulty comes in determining whether one is constitutionally ineligible to the office of President after serving two terms, or if one is merely constitutionally ineligible to be *elected* to the office of President after serving two terms.
the text of the 22d amendment seems to say the latter.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:46 pm[a] I’m unconvinced that it’s impossible to elect Obama as VP, because the 22d amendment talks about electing the *President*, which isn’t at issue, and the 12th amendment talks about *constitutional ineligibility for the office*, which isn’t at issue.
Interesting thought. I might counter by pointing out that the Constitution at times spells out that both the President and Vice-President are elected:
That would seem to indicate that the Vice-President is every bit subject to the 22nd Amendment as the President is.
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:47 pmRight! due to sloppy drafting there are reasonable arguments on both sides. No court would touch this with a fifty thousand mile pole, and so all we can really do is hope no Presidential candidate is of the mind to provoke a fight on the issue.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:49 pmNo, Maria Cantwell of Washington State.
Well, that’s an interesting conjecture. She certainly isn’t high-profile, and maybe that’s exactly what HRC wants.
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:49 pmI mean, you could argue the opposite of 51: the fact that they are used together in all of these other cases and NOT used together in this case is significant. Clearly the example of pairing them existed, and the authors of this amendment chose not to pair them, which means they were trying to distinguish from the other cases, etc.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:53 pmMy homeowners association charter has more lucidly written regulations.
[No, it really doesn’t.]
JVW (aa050c) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:54 pm“homeowners association” “lucidly written regulations” DOES NOT COMPUTE
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:56 pmJust as crooked as Hillary…. Check.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/9/2016 @ 5:04 pmIf that sonofahud isn’t stealing ninety cents of every dollar, he’s cheating generations of HUD directors to come.
ah it’s the closest thing to a block committee, soviet style, at least in broward county,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/9/2016 @ 5:08 pmnow who induces less of a gag reflex, by a narrow marginm tim kaine,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2016/06/07/opinion-big-data-reports-latino-support-for-trump-on-rise-at-37/
narciso (732bc0) — 6/9/2016 @ 5:15 pmInstead of “who’s your Leviathan?”..”who’s your Klompas?”
urbanleftbehind (847a06) — 6/9/2016 @ 5:16 pmI believe JVW may have me, but thank you for going through it in great detail and finding the second exactitude.
We’ll see! It’s already been stated by many that Obama won’t leave the limelight willingly.
Ingot (2f2dbc) — 6/9/2016 @ 5:19 pmso who’s the biggest fraud, red squaw, they might use her to appeal to doc brown supporters, but she is a super delegate, everything they hate,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/9/2016 @ 5:41 pmI think their two main criteria will be someone fairly young to balance Clinton, and not a white non-Hispanic male. Being a good attack dog would probably be a consideration.
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 6/9/2016 @ 6:21 pmaphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/9/2016 @ 4:46 pm
Bill Clinton was asked a few years back if he might run for VP. He said then that it was a tempting idea, and he had considered it but decided the 22nd Amendment barred him from doing it.
kishnevi (b1c03d) — 6/9/2016 @ 6:35 pmnumber four sanders supporters mostly white young and male. they don’t have any loyalty to the clintonistas. they like jill stein green party better. many prefer trump to hillary because of her iraq war vote. not big deal to you ;but big deal to them.
greenie (0686b0) — 6/9/2016 @ 6:38 pmwell money in politics, and superdelegates, secured her nomination, so she may win the battle, but lose the war
narciso (732bc0) — 6/9/2016 @ 6:44 pmThink Joe Biden might be willing to serve a third term? (The 22nd Amendment doesn’t forbid it.)
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 6/9/2016 @ 7:21 pmThink Joe Biden might be willing to serve a third term? (The 22nd Amendment doesn’t forbid it.)
It’s a great question. The guy was content to spend 32 unproductive years in Washington as a Senator; why wouldn’t he be willing to spend another 16 as a useless Vice-President?
JVW (eabb2a) — 6/9/2016 @ 7:28 pmSteveMG – I think there’s a very technical *legal* argument that says Pres. Obama can serve as VP.
No there isn’t. The prohibition is in a discussion of ELECTING presidents and vice-presidents and the clear inference is But no person constitutionally ineligible [to be elected] to the office of President shall be eligible [to be elected] to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/9/2016 @ 7:34 pmChelsea Clinton is 36, and certainly loyal to the Clintons. She’d probably have to move out of New York for the election — it’s kind of silly to call someplace a residence anyway when you’re campaigning. Maybe Miami. Might not satisfy the Sandernistas though.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/9/2016 @ 7:39 pmWhy not Bill Clinton??
GUS (30b6bd) — 6/9/2016 @ 9:03 pmHi, GUS.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 6/9/2016 @ 9:09 pmsounds like this coffee clatch:
http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2016/06/09/washington-post-book-club-compares-donald-trump-to-great-dictators-of-literature/
narciso (732bc0) — 6/9/2016 @ 9:12 pmin point of fact, it would be unconstitutional to do so, but when has that stopped the democrats in recent years, injunctions barring acorn funding, allowing ocs drilling, a host of other tools have been ignored.
narciso (732bc0) — 6/9/2016 @ 9:15 pmWow, Gus, you’re back. You really taught us. You’ve been gone for what, 4 threads now?
Bill H (971e5f) — 6/10/2016 @ 12:00 amI’m waiting on the “Who will Trump pick?” thread. I’ve got dibs on Todd Akin. “Impeachment insurance.”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/10/2016 @ 1:29 amMario Armando Lavandeira, Jr.
nk (dbc370) — 6/10/2016 @ 4:42 amBernie Madoff
ropelight (596f46) — 6/10/2016 @ 4:58 amJoe Biden — he even has VP experience!
jim2 (8e0621) — 6/10/2016 @ 5:02 amLook, this is the style over substance election. Hillary is running on pretend competence and her gender, but she is completely anti-hip. Julian Castro, scary pretty, has a kid & pretty wife, oozes nice guy in the same way as Hillary reeks of corruption. He will be Hillary’s Dan Quail.
Steve Malynn (4bc33a) — 6/10/2016 @ 5:14 amIt’s still Trump or Clinton.
cedarhill (abed02) — 6/10/2016 @ 6:12 amVote against one of them by voting for the other.
# 6 & #12
Texas in not in play.
Joe - From Texas (debac0) — 6/10/2016 @ 6:27 amThought for the day…
“The Democrats’ ability to goad the GOP into forming a circular firing squad is a major strength of theirs. Why does the GOP play along?”
— Glenn Reynolds
Colonel Haiku (e37049) — 6/10/2016 @ 6:40 amCedarhill, its actually more complicated than:
With Obama we have the most corrupt administration ever.
With Hillary we would have a new most corrupt ever.
With Trump, I think at worse we would be subject to mere Tammany Hall levels of corruption, but more likely “simple” Carter levels of incompetence.
But you are still asking me to vote for corruption. Yes it appears to be a choice between a Robber Baron and a Bolshevik – both of whom believe big government under their control will solve anything.
If Trump actually campaigns and hits Hillary at every weakness she has (and they are never-ending) he might win. But I don’t believe, when it counts, he will be any harder on Hillary than Romney or McCain were on Obama.
I was dreaming of a substantive election cycle, and that the R party would put up a credible conservative to rein in the Obama fiasco. What we have is a bread or circus election – Clinton promising free lunch to all, and Trump bringing in the circus.
We are heading into another disaster, I hope our culture can recover, because unless it does our nation and our freedoms will fall apart.
Steve Malynn (4bc33a) — 6/10/2016 @ 6:42 amEven if impeached in the house for treason, cooperation in espinouge (sp) with foreign governments, corruption with the foundation, their is virtually zero chance that democrat senator votes to convict. Party loyalty trumps national loyalty
Joe - From Texas (debac0) — 6/10/2016 @ 6:46 am76. Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/10/2016 @ 1:29 am
75% to 85% probability: Chris Christie. Trump isn’t looking for impeachment insurance, but someone he knows, to whom he can offload some of the work without getting sabotaged. Hillary does want some sort of impeachment insurance, but in the sense of someone who will discourage any kind of attempt at replacing her, and whom she can get rid of if she needs to. It will be a woman because all her close aides are women.
Sammy Finkelman (be1e2f) — 6/10/2016 @ 8:03 amCruz may have a shot yet….
SpokaneBob (6797b5) — 6/10/2016 @ 8:19 amIt’s funny how you can tell the truth abut Trump from the lies Trumpkins say about his opponents:
nk (dbc370) — 6/10/2016 @ 8:27 am— Trump is a liar, so it’s “Lyin’ Ted”
— Trump is a crook, so it’s “Crooked Hillary”
— Trump is a pansy, so it’s Rubio who is claimed to be the closet gay
— Trump is a closet drag queen, so Cruz is called a woman
Mr. Trump he’s a merry old soul and a merry old soul is he
here’s your pipe Mr. Trump
here’s your bowl Mr. Trump
we await your presidency
happyfeet (831175) — 6/10/2016 @ 8:30 amThat’s not what other Texans on here have said, Texans that are far more trustworthy than some a55clown who declares Patterico persona-non-grata in Texas. I’ll believe DRJ and Beldar over A55clown-From Texas.
John Hitchcock (b441d8) — 6/10/2016 @ 8:34 amSammy. no way she picks a woman – then Hillary is throwing the election to Trump.
Steve Malynn (4bc33a) — 6/10/2016 @ 8:56 amShe already went out of her way to prepare people for the possibility it might be a woman, and might be somebody like her in some ways. I don’t think she thinks she can manage most men.
Sammy Finkelman (be1e2f) — 6/10/2016 @ 9:02 amJoe – From Texas (debac0) — 6/10/2016 @ 6:46 am cooperation in espinouge (sp) with foreign governments,
Espionage. That’s what her e-mails from Sidney Blumenthal most likely were about (checking out what kinds of disinformation would fly – she would forward them to Jake Sullivana and ask him to get reponses to this analysis from various places in the U.S.> government)
But it will be hard to prove that, or even begin to build a case, unless there’s a break.
Unless their re-election begins to come into question.
Sammy Finkelman (be1e2f) — 6/10/2016 @ 9:06 amJohn Hitchcock, at 91: there’s something to be said, I think, for the trust that is built through years of association. DRJ and Beldar have that; random newbies have not.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/10/2016 @ 10:27 amQFT & QED
John Hitchcock (b441d8) — 6/10/2016 @ 10:50 am“The Democrats’ ability to goad the GOP into forming a circular firing squad is a major strength of theirs. Why does the GOP play along?”
We told you this would happen. We told you that Trump would kill the Party. We told you we could not abide this choice. Did you listen? No! Either sample reality and admit that we need a better candidate or ride this turd down the drain.
But do NOT come whining to us for help. We TOLD you what would happen.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/10/2016 @ 11:13 amIt’s still Trump or Clinton.
Vote against one of them by voting for the other.
Vote against both of them by voting for someone else.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/10/2016 @ 11:15 amAnd if Trump wins it works the other way – the ex-GOP folks who continue whining and begging about the need to do something their way will be roundly ignored and ridiculed.
I look forward to seeing Trump pick HappyFeet as the next Treasury Secretary. Cruz will still just be chairing the Interstate Interdiction of Sex Toys committee. “Four adult bookstores and 20 bunny ears ago…..”
SpokaneBob (6797b5) — 6/10/2016 @ 11:59 amTrumpsters are araw-araw proving what utter wastes of human DNA they are, as evidenced by SpokaneBob’s fecal spewings at 11:59 am.
John Hitchcock (b441d8) — 6/10/2016 @ 12:02 pmok hi it’s day one first let’s have some donuts i brought them!
then i want all you guys to each do at least one fiscally prudent thing before lunch then we can circle back after nap time
secretary happyfeet (831175) — 6/10/2016 @ 12:05 pmThe oafty died a little in 2008, when it chose not to contest that year, in 2010 the tea oafty offered an opening but the top men (redacted on it) of coursed we know the travismochashM of 2012,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/10/2016 @ 12:13 pmParty, then in 2014, they had one last shot to prove teasel ves, they failed again.
narciso (732bc0) — 6/10/2016 @ 12:16 pmThe Democrats have a short bench. That’s just the mathematical consequence of how many state and local elections they’ve lost nationwide in the Obama Era, including (for the moment, which seems imperiled) both chambers of Congress.
The Clintonista Narrative is that she’s got enough experience, even not counting Bubba, that her Veep’s own experience level is immaterial. But among the shallow pool, Julian Castro’s credentials are, objectively, roughly as good as anyone else’s if you squint and tilt your head a little: He’s been the mayor of the nation’s seventh largest city (you can look that up; San Antonio’s 1.47M populations surprises most people). As Obama’s HUD Secretary, he’s run a cabinet department. Even as we speak, he’s 13th in the line of presidential succession — exactly the guy who becomes the accidental president in all the zombie apocalypse movies!
His credentials don’t really matter much, though. The media won’t compare him to Sarah Palin, nor ever put him under remotely the kind of stress it put her under, and the Clintonista campaign discipline is legendary (in contrast to McCain’s, which was a cluster-something).
Would Castro put Texas in play? I have no idea, but that no longer seems preposterous to me. As far as Texas Latinos go, consider that in his successful reelection bid in 2014, Texas senior U.S. senator, John Cornyn, won 48 percent to finish in first place among Texas Latinos. In that same election cycle, in Greg Abbott’s successful gubernatorial campaign against the Dem’s “Great New Hope” Wendy Davis, Abbott finished second with 44 percent of the Latino vote, but he actually beat Davis among Latino males. Bush outpolled Kerry among Texas Latinos in 2004. If I were to generalize, I’d suggest that Texas Latino voters are indeed receptive to some GOP candidates. Romney drew only 30% of the Texas Latino vote in 2012, by contrast. If Trump does a whole lot worse than that, and if GOP voter interest is low (as it’s likely to be among still-angry Ted Cruz fans), then yes, Texas could absolutely swing into play. Against Clinton-Castro, Trump would certainly have to defend in Texas, which is a spectacularly expensive state to campaign in, with its population split into mostly non-overlapping media markets.
Everyone’s already bored with the “First! Woman! President!” meme, as indicated by the decided flatness of the Clintonistas attempt to celebrate her new status as “nominee-presumptive.” Castro will be pliable and patient, both as a Veep candidate and as a Veep. The Clintons figure they’ve already rallied their base in the black community during the primaries; that’s what they used to bludgeon Sanders into slow and snarling submission.
I think the Dem Veep slot is his to lose between now and the convention.
aphrael, I agree with you (#2) re Evan Bayh’s lack of constituency in the Democratic Party, but I would add a “sigh” to your observation. There no longer is a conservative wing of the Democratic Party, as evidenced by Jim Webb’s short-lived campaign, and Hillary has no reason to consolidate anyone from the center because she’s too busy trying to buy off constituencies loyal to Bernie and Elizabeth Warren (with whom Hillary’s meeting this week was required window-dressing to avoid a perceived slight). Tim Kaine’s also probably too moderate for a national Democratic ticket, and he’s certainly too Wonder Bread (the O’Malley curse).
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/10/2016 @ 7:13 pmEvan Bayh. Ex-Gov and -Sen of winnable swing state Indiana. Declined to oppose Hillary in 2008. Already comfortable as second banana.
Also the only normal person left in the Dem Party. Dems need to court the normal vote.
@dykevantom (3623ea) — 6/10/2016 @ 10:35 pmHow about DOCTOR Jill Biden?
As a sop to Joe, who was one indictment away from the throne.
Patricia (5fc097) — 6/11/2016 @ 9:13 amI think the speculation on both sides is like pre-draft sports talk – a waste of time.
JEA (5bd5ed) — 6/11/2016 @ 1:59 pm