Re: 2016 Election
 

I know that Clinton/Warren is a popular idea but I seriously just don't see it. Elizabeth Warren prides herself on being a pain-in-the-ass and she holds her own power. Would Clinton invite somebody that powerful, as well as having their own agenda, onto the ticket? And, on the flip side, would Warren look at the VP slot as a good career move? Plus, Warren has previously spoken out against the Clintons and has been stand-off-ish throughout this whole primary. Normal politicians can put that stuff behind them but the Clintons have long, and sometimes petulant, memories.

Bernie/Warren?

Re: 2016 Election
 

Valid points....but I do like Warren...strong woman with a no bullshit and lies accepted attitude.

I honestly see Bernie falling off quickly after Iowa and New Hampshire. Might be wrong, but will not be surprised if it happens. But yes, Warren might be the one VP candidate that would give him half a chance in the general.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I love Warren. Partly because of her own thing but also because I think that she clued the base into these inequality issues and, IMO, did a lot of the heavy lifting that enhanced and prequalified Bernie's current success. The whole Democratic primary has been pulled much further left due to both Warren and Sanders.

HOWEVER. If Clinton gets the nomination, she will take a sharp turn back to the center. Which does not bode well for Warren inasfar as the VP slot goes --- not that I necessarily think she would have accepted.

Honestly, I don't know. I've been wrong about a lot of things in this primary so don't listen to me. :blink:

Re: 2016 Election
 

I agree totally on Warren. I dearly would like to see her as POTUS someday. I think that how far Clinton moves back to center will depend on the makeup of the Congress. If the Dems won back the House and Senate...she has much more latitude...otherwise it is pissing into the wind. Of course that same problem would exist for Sanders.

I also agree in my hate of the constant hyping of the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primary as so damned important. They are not. The last two Republican winners never came within a fart sniff of the nomination. And Bill Clinton, as I recall finished 4th or 5th in single digits. But as they say..even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes.

I would be shocked if Bernie did not win New Hampshire...being practically a native son from Vermont...and since folks in that neck of the woods often wear the socialist badge with pride.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Just to clarify, when I was saying that Clinton would pull back to center, I was talking about how she would campaign in the general election against a right wing opponent. I didn't mean it as a comment about how she would govern as POTUS.



Iowa is very close and New Hampshire even closer. It's a robust Democratic primary and I think it's healthy.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Tacking more to the center in the general, I agree with. Also agree that a robust primary is healthy..especially when it focuses on issues. Bernie's Achilles heel is young voters who overwhelmingly support him....but they are not always reliable when it comes to showing up to vote.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Curious minds - is it somewhat normal for a candidate who secures the nomination to pick a VP from the list of failed presidential hopefuls?

Re: 2016 Election
 

Certainly not unheard of. Somebody will be along with a list soon. ;)

Re: 2016 Election
 

A quick glance at recent contests. Kerry/Edwards

Re: 2016 Election
 

Obama/Biden
Clinton/Gore (I think)

Re: 2016 Election
 

Clinton and the young Hispanic, Julian Castro, former mayor of San Antonio and HUD Secretary. That gives balance to the ticket - Old White Woman with a huge boatload of baggage, from DC and NY via Arkansas and Illinois and rising young heartthrob Latino from Texas. You heard it here first.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I guess it is conceptually somewhat akin to the way senate seats are apportioned equally to states, thus giving 'empty' states like Nebraska the same Senatorial pull as, say, California - in other words, an intentional device to prevent the most populous states from having the most influence.

But what I don't get is, it seems like the 'primary' concept is entirely a 'party' affair - there's no law to govern it - so couldn't the Democratic party, or the Republican party, simply decide to change things? And since they aren't doing that, should we assume they somehow like it the way it is? I mean - what is stopping the parties from having a CA primary or an NY primary or whatever? Also, is it a requirement that the Democrats and the Republicans each have their primaries in the same state at the same time? I know so little about the 'primary' concept ...

Re: 2016 Election
 

This good question almost belongs in the "WTF in America" thread. Here is an article in the Washington Post that explains it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...primary-works/

Re: 2016 Election
 

I'd say Sanders/Warren is pretty likely. The problem is it would be similar to Kerry/Edwards in 2004 when the VP pick was more like Presidential material than the candidate themselves.

For Sanders to win he has to win IA and NH and then build on that momentum to do well in SC and NV. It's a big question, and we'll know more later when we get the caucus results.

Another big problem for Sanders is that Clinton has a lot of the superdelegates in the bag already, so has a big advantage at the convention. But I suspect of the DNC goes against the popular vote there may be uproar.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Both parties could end up going against the wishes of the rank and file. In both cases it will probably result in the disgruntled staying home. They might cancel each other out, with the socialist-leaning millenials not voting for Hilllary and the evangelical-TEA party people also sitting it out.

To me, Sanders/Warren would be an unbalanced ticket.