| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
If we go by Reid's advice to Clinton not picking a senator as VP, since some senate seats could be filled by Republican governors, we'd still have some senators to choose from who come from states with Democratic governors, I also highlighted some key VP names:
ـــــ Tim Kaine of Virginia
ـــــ Al Franken of Minnesota
ـــــ Mark Warner of Virginia
ـــــ Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
ـــــ Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire
ـــــ Bernie Sanders of Vermont
ـــــ Michael Bennet of Colorado
ـــــ Chris Murphy of Connecticut
ـــــ Richard Blumenthal of Connectiut
ـــــ Chris Coons of Delaware
ـــــ Tom Carper of Delaware
ـــــ Brian Schatz of Hawaii
and there's more!
From the House, she could go with Joaquin Castro of Texas, a Latino and maybe she can flip Texas like polls indicate, then almost nothing could stop her from being President
From Governors, she could go with John Hickenlooper and bring Colorado on her side, or Tom Wolf and ensure donald doesn't take Pennsylvania.
From the cabinet, there's Castro, Foxx, Perez and Kerry. Though all could take her down the drain with their ties to Obama.
From retired officials, she has Deval Patrick, Evan Bayh, and Wesley Clark.
|
It's gonna be Kaine or Perez. I firmly believe in that, but my dark horse is Xavier Becerra. He's been making some noise as a potential running mate. I can't stress enough, the importance of running with someone you have chemistry with, respect, and have confidence in. A Clinton-Sanders ticket doesn't fit that. They're would always be conflict and butting of heads behind the scenes. It's not happening.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 2,514
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
That's why I kept saying IF the primary had still been held back in March. And still, the other aspect I mentioned was the people going to vote for down-ticket Dems consisted of mostly solid registered Democrats who were very likely to swing Clinton anyway. The presidential primary being held on this date would have turned out many more independents who would have easily swung this in Sanders' favor. So no, I disagree; Washington is tailor-made for Bernie in terms of politics and I believe it would have still gone to him. But, of course, not with the same lead he went home with in the caucus scenario.
|
Ok but what I'm saying is that it wouldn't have been held in March because the date for the primary was decided a while back for May 24th, so his "momentum" would be as it is now, dissipated significantly. And your "mostly solid registered Democrats" point is irrelevant because they require a political party declaration on the ballot that expires in 60 days or something anyways. The entire point of this tho, is that it is rather significant that a VBM state like WA couldn't pull in the numbers for Sanders. They literally get their ballots mailed to their homes, they can declare their party right there & then (considering what an on going issue this has been for them this entire primary), & it expires in 60 days so they don't have to keep that party affiliation. No matter how insignificant it is at the end of the day for delegates, its pretty significant for HRC to have won it & does show a different picture on the state as whole.
I mean obviously this whole conversation is pointless anyways. And while I don't think it would've been a landslide win for HRC, it would've at least been a more fair allocation of delegates and more reflective of the state's electorate.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eros
Ok but what I'm saying is that it wouldn't have been held in March because the date for the primary was decided a while back for May 24th, so his "momentum" would've dissipated significantly. And your "mostly solid registered Democrats" point is irrelevant because they require a political party declaration on the ballot that expires in 60 days or something anyways. The entire point of this tho, is that it is rather significant that a VBM state like WA couldn't pull in the numbers for Sanders. They literally get their ballots mailed to their homes, they can declare their party right there & then (considering what an on going issue this has been for them this entire primary), & it expires in 60 days so they don't have to keep that party affiliation. No matter how insignificant it is at the end of the day for delegates, its pretty significant for HRC to have won it & does show a different picture on the state as whole.
I mean obviously this whole conversation is pointless anyways. And while I don't think it would've been a landslide win for HRC, it would've at least been a more fair allocation of delegates and more reflective of the state's electorate.
|
I get what you're saying about the primary not being held in March and that's why I said "IF". If you wanna put up a fair comparison, don't compare Bernie's numbers back then, when he was winning states left and right, breaking records in terms of crowds and fundraising, to his numbers today. Also, what I meant in regards to party affiliation at the down-ticket primaries last night is that people who show up to those tend to be partisan solid Democrats, and those tend to lean Clinton; I wasn't trying to criticize the system that is put in place in terms of their registration. I'm just talking about the demographics that show up in both scenarios. Independents and millennials are far, far more present at presidential primaries and that inevitably benefits Sanders.
I do agree, there would have been a fairer and more reflective allocation of delegates had it not been a caucus, that's totally true - which is why I'm advocating for the caucus system to end. I just firmly believe that last night's results, which was the almost inevitable outcome of rock-hard Democrats who showed up to vote for down-ticket Dems, after Clinton had virtually clinched the nomination without a further chance of losing, is not reflective of how the effective primary in Washington, a state that heavily favors Bernie, would have turned out in reality.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 2,514
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
I get what you're saying about the primary not being held in March and that's why I said "IF". If you wanna put up a fair comparison, don't compare Bernie's numbers back then, when he was winning states left and right, breaking records in terms of crowds and fundraising, to his numbers today. Also, what I meant in regards to party affiliation at the down-ticket primaries last night is that people who show up to those tend to be partisan solid Democrats, and those tend to lean Clinton; I wasn't trying to criticize the system that is put in place in terms of their registration. I'm just talking about the demographics that show up in both scenarios. Independents and millennials are far, far more present at presidential primaries and that inevitably benefits Sanders.
I do agree, there would have been a fairer and more reflective allocation of delegates had it not been a caucus, that's totally true - which is why I'm advocating for the caucus system to end. I just firmly believe that last night's results, which was the almost inevitable outcome of rock-hard Democrats who showed up to vote for down-ticket Dems, after Clinton had virtually clinched the nomination without a further chance of losing, is not reflective of how the effective primary in Washington, a state that heavily favors Bernie, would have turned out in reality.
|
If we were doing this hypothetical Primary instead of Caucus scenario, with the only thing switching being that the Primary counts for delegate allocation instead of the Caucus, we'd have to take into account that Hillary would be coming off her recent wins that knocked all the air out of Bernie's little bird wings right? (Which is where we're at right now) And since the Caucus doesn't exist in this scenario then the circumstances present in the timeframe which it was held in wouldn't be relevant to this conversation at all.
And what you're saying about voter turn out is also not relevant to this scenario because, like I said, Washington is a VBM state! As in vote-by-mail where every registered voter, regardless of party affiliation, receives their ballot in the mail for the Primary. EVERY SINGLE ONE. You then mail it back or drop it off. The only thing being is that you have to claim party affiliation while you fill out your ballot and vote, and then, like I said in my previous post, it goes back after 60 days. So party loyalty isn't a factor with "turnout" per se. So, if every registered voter gets a ballot and they only have to temporarily claim party affiliation (this is literally every Sanders supporter's dream!) tell me how Bernie didn't win the state you claim to be tailor made for a candidate like him? And instead HRC won the Primary with a significant margin. As well as a tremendous margin compared to Bernie's win during the Caucus. Proving that Washington in fact prefers a candidate like HRC rather than Bernie, its just that the voting process they used didn't accurately reflect that.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/27/2011
Posts: 20,704
|
I would really be here for a Hillary Clinton x Michelle Obama ticket.
I want to keep at least one Obama in power. They have done so much good for us. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 31,849
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Aden
I would really be here for a Hillary Clinton x Michelle Obama ticket.
I want to keep at least one Obama in power. They have done so much good for us. |
Don't worry sis. After Hillary makes history as the first female president Michelle will make history as the first female black president. Give her time. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mitch.
I know Bernie says he's going to the convention, but like, what the hell is he going to do in between D.C. primary and Philly?
Speeches about how he's gonna switch the Supers?
It would be a bizarre look, no?
I'm not totally convinced Senator Sanders won't be holding a press conference the day after D.C.... |
As Hillaryious as it would be to see the meltdowns of Bern victims as they grasp their their Messiah is running a campaign with their Lucifer, I don't think (or want) this will happen. Bernie is far too much of a liability at this point for Hillary to even think about appointing him as VP. Also, I think Bernie would recognize that he could do more where he's already at and would stick to the Senate. Now, he might want a cabinet position like Secretary of the Treasury, but I don't see that happening unless Bernie makes a massive shift in his tone towards Hillary.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 14,942
|
HRC shouldn't pay Bernie anything but dust. He doesn't deserve a damn thing. The last thing he would want is to be a part of Hil's cabinet aka "the establishment". Honestly, I'm just ready for him to go.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
I hope you all don't wanna be politicians or work on a campaign.  "Paying Bernie dust" is how you lose elections. The party needs to be united and Obama didn't do it by ignoring Clinton in 08. The onus is on the nominee and the party. Let's be real.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mitch.
As much as I would hate to see Bernie rewarded with VP considering his behaviour over the past month, a tiny part of me wishes she did pick him.
Lmao can you IMAGINE the meltdowns from the Little Bernsters if Saint Bernard comes on stage at the convention holding hands with the 'Devil'.
 |
idk. Most of them already wish Hillary would drop dead as is. This might give them a reason to go through with it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
If we go by Reid's advice to Clinton not picking a senator as VP, since some senate seats could be filled by Republican governors, we'd still have some senators to choose from who come from states with Democratic governors, I also highlighted some key VP names:
ـــــ Tim Kaine of Virginia
ـــــ Al Franken of Minnesota
ـــــ Mark Warner of Virginia
ـــــ Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
ـــــ Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire
ـــــ Bernie Sanders of Vermont
ـــــ Michael Bennet of Colorado
ـــــ Chris Murphy of Connecticut
ـــــ Richard Blumenthal of Connectiut
ـــــ Chris Coons of Delaware
ـــــ Tom Carper of Delaware
ـــــ Brian Schatz of Hawaii
and there's more!
From the House, she could go with Joaquin Castro of Texas, a Latino and maybe she can flip Texas like polls indicate, then almost nothing could stop her from being President
From Governors, she could go with John Hickenlooper and bring Colorado on her side, or Tom Wolf and ensure donald doesn't take Pennsylvania.
From the cabinet, there's Castro, Foxx, Perez and Kerry. Though all could take her down the drain with their ties to Obama.
From retired officials, she has Deval Patrick, Evan Bayh, and Wesley Clark.
|
Almost everyone on the list (except Sanders) is boring and is seen as "establishment". They won't excite the far left Bernie supporters. Plus, Hillary already has age + experience. She needs someone young, hip, and has a strong record of progressiveness, if she doesn't pick Sanders.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,133
|
I want Xavier Becerra as the Vice President pick
Absolutely NO at Bernie getting picked. I don't ever want to hear his name after this election.
Tim Keine would also be great
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 14,942
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
I hope you all don't wanna be politicians or work on a campaign. "Paying Bernie dust" is how you lose elections. The party needs to be united and Obama didn't do it by ignoring Clinton in 08. The onus is on the nominee and the party. Let's be real. |
Child, I'm not a politician and I don't care. I'm petty as ****. There is no way I would befriend a mother****er who has been relentlessly attacking me AND my party for months. But that's just me. The Dems. are going to be fine with or without Bernie, IMO. And what Bernie is doing now is the complete oppsosite of how HRC ran her campaign in 2008. Two different stories.
Send his ass to the left!  But like I said, that's just how I feel.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 31,849
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
Almost everyone on the list (except Sanders) is boring and is seen as "establishment". They won't excite the far left Bernie supporters. Plus, Hillary already has age + experience. She needs someone young, hip, and has a strong record of progressiveness, if she doesn't pick Sanders.
|
Young and Hip is the exact opposite of Bernie though 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by retromaury
I want Xavier Becerra as the Vice President pick
Absolutely NO at Bernie getting picked. I don't ever want to hear his name after this election.
Tim Keine would also be great
|
Why are Clinton supporters always trying to act like Bernie is irrelevant just because he's not going to win the nomination? You don't agree with most of his positions? You do know that prior to the Clinton's most of his ideas were a part of the democratic platform, right? If anything, Bernie's views are more in line with true democrats dating back to what was considered the "New Deal coalition".
Quit trying to constantly dismiss him as if he's irrelevant. Even most of the people who voted for Hillary liked what Bernie was bringing to the table. It's so stupid to act like he shouldn't matter anymore.
Democrats only make up 29% of the electorate well. Is it really wise to dismiss a good portion of those in the party as well as liberal independents?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
|
I have now... 👀
I'm curious as to what this means going forward. I don't think it will mean much in the end. There was obviously some poor handling of emails. We've known this for a while, but I don't think will change anything, especially given that the auditors acknowledged that this has been an ongoing problem and isn't exclusive to Hillary.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/6/2014
Posts: 19,122
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
|
#FeelTheBern 👀
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Icarus
#FeelTheBern ��
|
More like #Biden/Warren16 if the the DNC has their way.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/10/2011
Posts: 14,331
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
I have now... ��
I'm curious as to what this means going forward. I don't think it will mean much in the end. There was obviously some poor handling of emails. We've known this for a while, but I don't think will change anything, especially given that the auditors acknowledged that this has been an ongoing problem and isn't exclusive to Hillary.
|
Good luck with that! Considering she has been selling it has she had done no wrong!
SHE IS DONE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
