| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
|
I know one person that unfriended me because Hillary won the nomination and is voting Trump because she's more anti-Hillary than progressive. And this group of Sanders supporters are asinine anomalies that we cannot worry about, or worry about appealing to. Most sane Bernie supporters have moved on to support Hillary or Jill Stein (which, while I strongly disagree with her especially on vaccination, is better than voting Trump).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ShineOverShadow
Even his advisors say he's uncomfortable being an attack dog. That's historically the most important aspect of the VP candidate, as it allows the person at the top of the ticket to avoid going negative more than they absolutely need to. You need a VP candidate who is 100% effective at attacking Trump, like Warren has been already. She has been fighting against Wall Street types her entire career, there's no one better suited at effectively attacking someone like Trump than she is.
And I don't know why anyone would be hoping for Kaine to be the VP when he's so incredibly uninspiring, and really does nothing for the ticket. Virginia appears to be a battleground, but in all actuality, it isn't. It may have only started going consistently blue in '08, but that's also the case for Colorado, which you call a lock for Hillary, so you can't have it both ways. I know you have some weird vendetta against Warren, it seems you're jumping through hoops to justify anyone else to be her VP. She doesn't need Kaine to help her win Virginia. Any political analyst will tell you that picking a VP to help deliver their home state, doesn't actually work most of the time, and that there are much more important reasons to pick someone. All you have to do is look at how Virginia's demographics have changed, their high percentage of minorities, and their high percentage of well educated people (who oppose Trump at a very high rate) to know that as long as turnout is high enough, Virginia is absolutely a lock for Hillary. She has/will have the Obama coalition, as she has through the primary season. And she'll win women and highly educated people at higher rates than Obama did because of their difference in opponents (Romney as opposed to Trump).
I completely agree, she will have a golden opportunity with how all of this has transpired.
|
Receipts for being an attack dog being most important aspect of a VP? Because as far as I'm concerned it's about being ready to be president at any time, not being an attack dog because you'll only have that role for a month or so. Just because Warren got a few good one liners in doesn't mean she is the most effective. There's no stats to prove her attacks actually work. It's just something that makes Clinton's base excited
Kaine is uninspired to you but Hillary clearly doesn't need excitement. You saw what excitement Bernie in the primary right? I already rattled off a list of reasons why Kaine would be a very effective VP besides being from Virginia: a lot of executive experience, familiarity without throwing in a curveball, very good relationship with Clinton personally, close policies positions, etc. it's not just Virginia
Colorado is more democratic than Virginia, it also has voted for a democrat more since 1964 than Virginia so yes I am right in saying VA is more of a battleground. There's a reason she's pouring a lot of money into that state and campaigning for it, it's no lock. And she certainly does not have the Obama coalition because first of all she's no Obama, she hasn't shown she can turn out the voters like him. And his coalition includes progressives who have shown they haven't completely warmed up to Clinton yet
I couldn't care less about Warren herself being VP, in fact I already said multiple times I'd take her over anyone else. I just am not gonna sit back and parrot why everyone else sucks as a means to justify backing Warren over the rest. You can find the positives in multiple people
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
|
Ugh. It's funny to me, who jumped ship in like mid-March, seeing these comments. I'm usually an optimist but moments like these call for total realism. Bernie has lost. He tried his best, he came at a very known and strong candidate from almost nothing. Trump is viewed as a threat to many of his ideas. He realized that his revolution would completely die out with a Trump's presidency so like hell he's going to pull everyone toward Jill Stein or run 3P.
I don't usually like to bring up this point, but blind hatred for Hillary is really clouding some things. Of course people then play the "lesser of two evils" cards but when I ask some of these people why they are against Clinton, I get responses that seem extremely angry and exaggerated like "Hillary laughed behind closed doors when she did X." or "she literally killed people" or just general insults as oppose to simple/complex argument. Now I'm not saying that there aren't valid criticisms. I have some issues with her as well but figured the pros outweigh the cons (WITHOUT factoring in Trump). But it's really hard for me, at least, to understand where they are coming from with such narrative.
And I have another minor issues with some supporters showing signs of racism since black people didn't support the candidate of their choice. Like honestly get over it.
(Oops, didn't expect to be ranty  )
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
|
Stopped reading at this... 
Quote:
|
GOP insiders: Kaine is strongest VP pick for Clinton
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
Stopped reading at this... |
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
That means he's the weaker VP pick, which means we should get Warren. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/7/2011
Posts: 1,480
|
Queen Elizabeth has the GOP hella shook.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
That means he's the weaker VP pick, which means we should get Warren. |
She's gonna make the decision in July right?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 1,911
|
I jumped ship after the ny-pa punch but just haven't got around to changing my sig and avi lol
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
She's gonna make the decision in July right?
|
She'll announce likely at the convention.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/15/2009
Posts: 16,903
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
She'll announce likely at the convention.
|
We usually know a few days before the convention so they can get all of the signs ready
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/26/2012
Posts: 3,733
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
She'll announce likely at the convention.
|
That's way too late.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/17/2009
Posts: 5,464
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Receipts for being an attack dog being most important aspect of a VP? Because as far as I'm concerned it's about being ready to be president at any time, not being an attack dog because you'll only have that role for a month or so. Just because Warren got a few good one liners in doesn't mean she is the most effective. There's no stats to prove her attacks actually work. It's just something that makes Clinton's base excited
Kaine is uninspired to you but Hillary clearly doesn't need excitement. You saw what excitement Bernie in the primary right? I already rattled off a list of reasons why Kaine would be a very effective VP besides being from Virginia: a lot of executive experience, familiarity without throwing in a curveball, very good relationship with Clinton personally, close policies positions, etc. it's not just Virginia
Colorado is more democratic than Virginia, it also has voted for a democrat more since 1964 than Virginia so yes I am right in saying VA is more of a battleground. There's a reason she's pouring a lot of money into that state and campaigning for it, it's no lock. And she certainly does not have the Obama coalition because first of all she's no Obama, she hasn't shown she can turn out the voters like him. And his coalition includes progressives who have shown they haven't completely warmed up to Clinton yet
I couldn't care less about Warren herself being VP, in fact I already said multiple times I'd take her over anyone else. I just am not gonna sit back and parrot why everyone else sucks as a means to justify backing Warren over the rest. You can find the positives in multiple people
|
Obviously it's incredibly important for the VP to be prepared to be president, a lot of the VP candidates being talked about are qualified enough, that goes without saying. But being an effective attack dog is incredibly important, and they have that role for over 3 months, not just 1, from the end of July all the way through November.
And you obviously aren't paying attention if you don't believe Hillary needs excitement, that's the main thing she's been lacking. She has the experience, the knowledge, the detailed policy plans, but she's lacking in excitement and enthusiasm, and someone like Warren would go a long way in fixing that.
1964 is such an arbitrary year, I don't know why you keep referencing it. 2008 is much more pertinent, as that's when Obama changed the map for democrats, and the changing demographics started flipping states blue. And I don't know why you have such little faith in Hillary's ability to win the Obama coalition when the primaries and polling are telling us otherwise. Hillary is going to have an even more extensive voter turnout operation than Obama did in '08 or '12, it's not something we really have to worry too much about. In my opinion, both Colorado and Virginia are locks for Hillary. It's Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa and North Carolina that really need to be focused on, and even Pennsylvania to an extent, which has been trending republican over the last 8 years, and Obama won it by his 5th slimmest margin in '12, and some of the other rust belt states that have high numbers of white people who really don't like NAFTA, that Trump can exploit.
And yes, there are positives to all of the potential VP candidates being discussed, we need someone supremely qualified, but also someone that is going to fire up the progressive base, and help convince them to come out and vote for Hillary, which is exactly what Warren would do, and even someone like Sherrod Brown to an extent.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/17/2009
Posts: 5,464
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Akil
That's way too late.
|
They always announce at the convention or a few days before. And we are lucky enough to be have our convention the week after the Republicans, so depending on who Trump chooses as his VP, or in the slim chance they throw him off of the ticket, Hillary can adjust her VP choice accordingly.
And the conventions are much earlier this year, so we only have to wait a month to find out who it's going to be.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ShineOverShadow
Obviously it's incredibly important for the VP to be prepared to be president, a lot of the VP candidates being talked about are qualified enough, that goes without saying. But being an effective attack dog is incredibly important, and they have that role for over 3 months, not just 1, from the end of July all the way through November.
And you obviously aren't paying attention if you don't believe Hillary needs excitement, that's the main thing she's been lacking. She has the experience, the knowledge, the detailed policy plans, but she's lacking in excitement and enthusiasm, and someone like Warren would go a long way in fixing that.
1964 is such an arbitrary year, I don't know why you keep referencing it. 2008 is much more pertinent, as that's when Obama changed the map for democrats, and the changing demographics started flipping states blue. And I don't know why you have such little faith in Hillary's ability to win the Obama coalition when the primaries and polling are telling us otherwise. Hillary is going to have an even more extensive voter turnout operation than Obama did in '08 or '12, it's not something we really have to worry too much about. In my opinion, both Colorado and Virginia are locks for Hillary. It's Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa and North Carolina that really need to be focused on, and even Pennsylvania to an extent, which has been trending republican over the last 8 years, and Obama won it by his 5th slimmest margin in '08, and some of the other rust belt states that have high numbers of white people who really don't like NAFTA, that Trump can exploit.
And yes, there are positives to all of the potential VP candidates being discussed, we need someone supremely qualified, but also someone that is going to fire up the progressive base, and help convince them to come out and vote for Hillary, which is exactly what Warren would do, and even someone like Sherrod Brown to an extent.
|
Anyways deal with a different opinion. That's it. Not everyone has to be pro Warren
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/17/2009
Posts: 5,464
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Anyways deal with a different opinion. That's it. Not everyone has to be pro Warren
|
Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said everyone has to be pro Warren, I just think it's absurd to jump through mental hoops to try and justify your stance against her. Just say you don't like her. I'm just saying that there are much better options than Kaine, not just Warren, but people like Sherrod Brown, Xavier Beccera, John Hickenlooper, and even Martin O'Malley. She doesn't need to play it safe, which she would be by picking Kaine, he's the safest choice, but also the most uninspiring.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ShineOverShadow
Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said everyone has to be pro Warren, I just think it's absurd to jump through mental hoops to try and justify your stance against her. Just say you don't like her. I'm just saying that there are much better options than Kaine, not just Warren, but people like Sherrod Brown, Xavier Beccera, John Hickenlooper, and even Martin O'Malley. She doesn't need to play it safe, which she would be by picking Kaine, he's the safest choice, but also the most uninspiring.
|
He's always twisting my words as well. 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
She's gonna make the decision in July right?
|
Obama waited until late August - it could actually come after the convention.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/15/2009
Posts: 16,903
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Obama waited until late August - it could actually come after the convention.
|
The convention is where the VP is officially nominated and accepted. She has to announce before the convention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
