Veepstakes

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
crandc

crandc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
23,518
Likes
30,456
Points
113
Hillary Clinton is reportedly down to three:

HUD Secretary and former San Antonio mayor Julian Castro
Virginia Senator Tim Kaine
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren

Donald Trump is more in the rumor category but seems to focus on:

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions

So can we, without getting nasty about Clinton and Trump, say who we think 1) should 2) will be running mates?

If I were a betting woman I'd say Warren and Sessions. Warren because she is the leading choice among Democrats and the Sanders supporters love her. Sessions because he is the least colorful and Trump does not want competition.
 
The only reason I think Clinton may not choose Warren is that a two woman ticket may scare a lot of voters. Call it sexist, or whatever, but I believe. If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't care, but I think some would. Kaine is probably the one that would make the most sense for her. She doesn't need Castro for the Hispanic vote, IMO

Trumps best chance would be to find someone who is a moderate. He's won the nomination, so he needs to convince people like me, with his VP, that it won't be completely bat shit crazy in Washington if he is elected....somehow

Rubio makes a ton of sense for Trump, but he can't afford the embarrassment of him turning him down. That's who I'd go after though. A bit of a moderate and will carry some clout in the Hispanic community.

Now ask me how angry I am that the Presidency likely hinges on who the fucking Hispanics vote for
 
Actually I think MM has a point about a two-woman ticket. If there are people afraid to vote for one woman, two would be more so. Funny, for 200+ years it was OK to have a two-man ticket! While Clinton has overwhelming support over Trump among Hispanic voters, there are many swing states where they are a big part of the voting population but don't have high turnout. I think Castro on the ticket could change that. Kaine is safe but pretty unexciting.

Trump already said he is only considering white men so that lets out Rubio. And Rubio is no moderate, a pure Tea Party. I don't think Trump wants a moderate and I'm not so sure there are any, except maybe Susan Collins and she's female so that lets her out.
 
I'm really not sure it's a negative at all to have a 2-woman ticket. Sure, there are many people who would not vote for a woman for Pres, and many more that wouldn't vote for a Democrat, and Still others who wouldn't vote specifically for Hillary. However, I don't see anyone who would vote for a Woman, would vote for a Dem, and would vote for Hillary that would have any issue with another female candidate. That's not to say Warren couldn't give people reason to vote against her, just as Palin gave plenty cause for concern. Personally, I like Warren a ton and would love if she ran.
 
It's a small voting bloc, but choosing Warren would lose the Native American vote.
 
Further said:
I'm really not sure it's a negative at all to have a 2-woman ticket. Sure, there are many people who would not vote for a woman for Pres, and many more that wouldn't vote for a Democrat, and Still others who wouldn't vote specifically for Hillary. However, I don't see anyone who would vote for a Woman, would vote for a Dem, and would vote for Hillary that would have any issue with another female candidate. That's not to say Warren couldn't give people reason to vote against her, just as Palin gave plenty cause for concern. Personally, I like Warren a ton and would love if she ran.
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother you that Warren claimed to be a Cherokee? Geez, I would much rather have a real Cherokee, woman or not.
 
I think Clinton should pick the best know Gay Black Muslim woman.
 
MarAzul said:
It doesn't bother you that Warren claimed to be a Cherokee? Geez, I would much rather have a real Cherokee, woman or not.
Click to expand...
Not even a tiny bit. Now Trump calling her Pocahontas, that's offensive.

I'm about 1% Chinese, a family member had some genetic testing. Warren was told where she came from (as far as I know) and that included a lineage with Cherokee in it. She could, or she could not, but I certainly can't tell by looking. Do I look Chinese in my Avatar?
 
Hillary:

Tim Kaine is the safe, but boring pick. He helps Hillary win Virginia, a usual Republican state, though its gone blue the last two elections, so maybe she doesn't need him for that. Pro - He is safe and reliable, ready to be president if something happens, a more lucid version of Joe Biden. Con - His political positions make me think he is a Republican in democratic clothing.

Elizabeth Warren would mean a two woman ticket, a bold move by Hillary to say the least. Warren could be her attack dog against Trump, while also drawing in those upset Bernie voters from the far left. Warren hails from a state that is safely blue, so no real help there. Still an intriguing duo that would bring more balls to the table then Trumps ticket that will likely have two men.

Julian Castro has the least experience of the three. He brings youth, his latino herritage, and the fact that he hails from Texas, a dominate red state, that Hillary would love to get her hands on, which is no doubt one of the reasons, if not the main one he is being vetted for. He is also an outsider, a fresh face that can help counter the old stinch on this year's election. Problem is, could I really see him taking over the presidency if something happen to old cottage cheese legs, I'm not sure.

Should pick: Warren

Will pick : Kaine

Trump:

Newt Gingrich: Trump has stated that he wants a boring insider as his veep, and Newt has been in Washington D.C. since the last supper. Also, they both look like frogs so it works.

Chris Christie: Trumps lap dog, went from despising and talking trash about Trump, to licking his shoes. Christie's stock has fallen in his Home State of New Jersey. Is he still governor there? Doesn't seem like he has been back there since he started campaigning for Trump and standing in the corner during Trump speeches. Sad, but Trump likee. Not, that Christie would be a great president once, I mean if something happens to Trump like dying of old age.

Jeff Sessions hails from Alabama, a state so red, the color is etched into its peoples necks permanently. Sessions agrees on Trump with everything, because who wouldn't, and has the political experience that Trump is missing. Seems like an easy choice for Trump, probably why he won't make it.

Mary Fallin - If Trump were intelligent he would strongly consider this hard nosed governor from Oklahoma. A Republican firecracker who could strike hard against Hillary Clinton, and disarm voters who are angry at Trump for his less then tactful comments in the past about women among other things.

Should Choose: Fallin

Will Choose: Sessions because it's the right choice. Who am I kidding, Trump will pick Christie because there is nothing Trump enjoys more then a lap dog, that he can bark at and demean. Plus, there will be no need for anyone to take over for him should something happen, because nothing will ever happen to Trump...
 
Last edited:
Good analysis, Chris. Were you being deliberately tongue in cheek when you said Clinton/Warren would bring "more balls"?
But I still say Sessions.

Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren are doing a campaign event together in Ohio next week - read into it what you want.

Platypus, the "white male only" comment was partially walked back as in "I'd consider someone else if they were qualified". Gee, Trump was trying to be "politically correct"! Problem is the "others" are always judged "not qualified" as they are not pale or male. I've heard "consider a woman if she's qualified" all my life and it always seems to translate to "women are not qualified period."
 
crandc said:
Platypus, the "white male only" comment was partially walked back as in "I'd consider someone else if they were qualified". Gee, Trump was trying to be "politically correct"! Problem is the "others" are always judged "not qualified" as they are not pale or male. I've heard "consider a woman if she's qualified" all my life and it always seems to translate to "women are not qualified period."
Click to expand...
He's trying to leave an opening for Omarosa.
 
crandc said:
Good analysis, Chris. Were you being deliberately tongue in cheek when you said Clinton/Warren would bring "more balls"?
But I still say Sessions.

Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren are doing a campaign event together in Ohio next week - read into it what you want.

Platypus, the "white male only" comment was partially walked back as in "I'd consider someone else if they were qualified". Gee, Trump was trying to be "politically correct"! Problem is the "others" are always judged "not qualified" as they are not pale or male. I've heard "consider a woman if she's qualified" all my life and it always seems to translate to "women are not qualified period."
Click to expand...

@crandc I was figuratively being deliberate but serious...Hillary and Elizabeth would be a force to be reckoned with...I truely believe they could make Trump cry...If they get elected together I would not want to be on a Republican led Senate or in the house and try what they did with Obama...those gals would make them cry too
 
MarAzul said:
It doesn't bother you that Warren claimed to be a Cherokee? Geez, I would much rather have a real Cherokee, woman or not.
Click to expand...

All white people claim to be part Cherokee. I blame Cher.

 
crandc said:
Platypus, the "white male only" comment was partially walked back as in "I'd consider someone else if they were qualified". Gee, Trump was trying to be "politically correct"! Problem is the "others" are always judged "not qualified" as they are not pale or male. I've heard "consider a woman if she's qualified" all my life and it always seems to translate to "women are not qualified period."
Click to expand...

Per the link: "When asked by ABC News whether he would have a woman or minority as his vice president, Trump did not rule it out. 'I think it's likely we would have somebody, but we don't do it for any specific reason. We're looking for absolute competence.' "

What is the proper response from a Republican when asked if he will have a woman or minority as a running mate? I mean, if saying "I'm not going to pick a woman or minority just because they're a woman or minority; I'm going to pick the best person" isn't good enough, what more should he have said that wouldn't simply be chalked up to "political correctness"?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Per the link: "When asked by ABC News whether he would have a woman or minority as his vice president, Trump did not rule it out. 'I think it's likely we would have somebody, but we don't do it for any specific reason. We're looking for absolute competence.' "

What is the proper response from a Republican when asked if he will have a woman or minority as a running mate? I mean, if saying "I'm not going to pick a woman or minority just because they're a woman or minority; I'm going to pick the best person" isn't good enough, what more should he have said that wouldn't simply be chalked up to "political correctness"?
Click to expand...

So, basically he's saying we might have a woman or minority on the ticket, but we are looking for someone that is competent so no...
 
Chris Craig said:
So, basically he's saying we might have a woman or minority on the ticket, but we are looking for someone that is competent so no...
Click to expand...
Again, where did he say "no", or even imply it? The question was specifically "Will you have a woman or minority?" He said "Possibly, but I won't pick someone specifically for that reason."

It's amazing that saying that a selection will be made solely on merit, without regard to color or gender, is somehow considered to be discriminatory.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Again, where did he say "no", or even imply it? The question was specifically "Will you have a woman or minority?" He said "Possibly, but I won't pick someone specifically for that reason."

It's amazing that saying that a selection will be made solely on merit, without regard to color or gender, is somehow considered to be discriminatory.
Click to expand...
Thats the lefts modus operandi. Always has been.
 
JFizzleRaider said:
Thats the lefts modus operandi. Always has been.
Click to expand...
What's fascinating to me is this all stemmed from the campaign manager saying that they're unlikely to pick a female or minority for fear of it being perceived as pandering. Shockingly, when a quote from Trump is provided suggesting that he is more willing to select a female or minority than his campaign manager suggested, the response is that it is solely for the sake of political correctness.

Essentially, the Trump critics are proving the campaign manager correct based on their unwillingness to take Trump's own words at face value. Which means that their presumptions of discrimination are exactly what led to the campaign manager's comments in the first place.
 
Warren, and Sanders to some degree, have lost pretty much any and all credibility and trust by capitulating to Hillary and her evil empire of banks and insurance companies raping Real Americans, and Arab nations murdering women and gays.

She is the sworn enemy they built their fame on and now they are her fawning lap dogs. So pathetic.

The DNC is circling the drain as we post.
 
Ah yes, of course the woman is the one raping "Real Americans" (I guess I'm not real) and the candidate who supports gay rights is murdering us.

I doubt if Sanders or Warren ever had credibility with Maris. So nothing for them to lose. They may as well do what they want, as will I, as will the rest of the "not-Real Americans".

The thread was NOT intended to be a candidate debate or (sigh) yet another opportunity for white dudes to say "but it's all about me"!!!! However...
 
crandc said:
Ah yes, of course the woman is the one raping "Real Americans" (I guess I'm not real) and the candidate who supports gay rights is murdering us.

I doubt if Sanders or Warren ever had credibility with Maris. So nothing for them to lose. They may as well do what they want, as will I, as will the rest of the "not-Real Americans".

The thread was NOT intended to be a candidate debate or (sigh) yet another opportunity for white dudes to say "but it's all about me"!!!! However...
Click to expand...
Sorry for ruining your thread by calling out your inaccurate statement. I'll leave you to return it to its former glory.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
What's fascinating to me is this all stemmed from the campaign manager saying that they're unlikely to pick a female or minority for fear of it being perceived as pandering. Shockingly, when a quote from Trump is provided suggesting that he is more willing to select a female or minority than his campaign manager suggested, the response is that it is solely for the sake of political correctness.

Essentially, the Trump critics are proving the campaign manager correct based on their unwillingness to take Trump's own words at face value. Which means that their presumptions of discrimination are exactly what led to the campaign manager's comments in the first place.
Click to expand...
Well, from my perspective there are several things going on here simultaneously:

1) The left jumps on the right just as the right jumps on the left. So with regards to your thinking, it mostly comes from this issue.

2) The campaign manager is traditionally thought of as an extension of the candidate.

3) the timing in this situation leads to Trump looking iffy on the topic. First the campaign manager says what he says, then there is a blow up in the news, then Trump clarifies. It appears to many (myself including) that Trump realized he was in a firestorm and was trying to fix it. leading me to believe that his quotes were to get out of the flame, not a true representation of his beliefs. I do not know if I am correct, this is just what we as people do, assess and judge based on our own experiences and biases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top