The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[SpottedKitty]

Because there has never (to my knowledge) been a third party candidate that ever had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. It's always been one of two major political parties. I'm sure if there was a third party candidate that appealed to the majority of voters, there could be a very real chance of a three-way election.

Isn't that more or less how the original party system of a couple hundred years ago gradually morphed into what exists today? E.g. it's been quite a while since there actually was a Federalist or Whig party.

[Borgholio]

Yeah more or less. IIRC, the Whigs were formed as a political party to oppose Andrew Jackson. So naturally after Jackson left office they became less and less relevant.

[Dalton]

I am pleased at how the discussion is progressing now. Thank you.

Point of note: The Vice President has two constitutionally-defined roles: Break a tie in the Senate, and certify the results of the electoral count. Not sure if that was mentioned. But yes, the VP has had a varying amount of influence. Biden's was fairly large since he had the foreign policy credentials Obama lacked.

[Elheru Aran]

I suspect the amount of influence the VP has is proportional to the President's. Biden and Cheney had plenty because both Obama and W were (initially, at least) somewhat amateur politicians (yeah, W was governor of Texas, Obama was a one-term Senator... I'm not sure how much those mattered). Cheney had been part of DC politics for decades before W was "elected", Biden similarly had been in the Senate for quite a while IIRC.

Compare that to, say, FDR, whose VP's until Truman basically sat on the benches and twiddled their thumbs as far as I know. Or Spiro Agnew and Ford-- the most distinctive thing about Agnew that I recall is he got convicted and had to quit, and Ford was a place-holder, more or less literally.

The fact of the matter is that in practical terms, the VP simply doesn't have much responsibility. That's changed in recent years, but when it comes down to technicalities...

[Dalton]

Like I said, technically speaking the VP has those two constitutional roles (aside from being first in the order of succession). It's a smart thing though to have a ticket where one candidate complements the other.

----------------

And in other late-breaking news, less than a month before the RNC, Donny Jingles has fired his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. That's definitely not a good sign.

[The Romulan Republic]

Big Wall Street donors are pressuring Clinton not to pick Warren, warning that she'll lose donations if she does:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/eliz ... ent-224489

NEW YORK — Big Wall Street donors have a message for Hillary Clinton: Keep Elizabeth Warren off the ticket or risk losing millions of dollars in contributions.

In a dozen interviews, major Democratic donors in the financial services industry said they saw little chance that Clinton would pick the liberal firebrand as her vice presidential nominee. These donors despise Warren’s attacks on the financial industry. But they also think her selection would be damaging to the economy. And they warned that if Clinton surprises them and taps Warren, big donations from the industry could vanish.


“If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her,” said one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton. “They would literally just say, ‘We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you’ve had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can’t trust you, you’ve killed it.’”

Most big donors don’t want Warren on the ticket because she is the most accomplished anti-Wall Street populist in the Democratic Party. But many also think her presence would drive a potential Clinton administration too far to the left, poison relations with the private sector from the start and ultimately be damaging to the economy.

A constant theme that emerged in the interviews is that executives in the financial industry believe the first 100 days of a Clinton administration could feature potential deal making with Republicans, who are likely to maintain their majority in the House of Representatives.

The dream deal for Wall Street would be a combination of targeted infrastructure spending that appeals mostly to Democrats and corporate and international tax reform that could bring Republicans along. The fear is that Warren would make such a deal more difficult.

“Clinton is going to face a divided government unless there is a total tsunami,” said one moderate Washington Democrat with close ties to the banking industry. “What you want in a vice president is someone who can negotiate for you on the Hill, someone like Joe Biden. And that is not a Warren strength.”

All of the donors and senior Democrats interviewed for this story demanded that their names not be used both because they were not authorized to speak about the Clinton campaign’s internal deliberations and because they feared Warren’s wrath. “There is no upside to my talking to you on the record,” one big donor said. “Either I piss off the Clinton campaign or I piss off Warren, or both.”

Several donors said they did not really fear Warren going on the ticket because they do not believe Clinton has a strong relationship with the senator and would not trust Warren to be a loyal No. 2, either on the campaign or in the White House.

“First of all, they don’t particularly like each other,” said one prominent hedge fund manager who has raised millions for Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton before her. But, the manager added, “The absolute predicate for a vice presidential nominee is they have to understand they are No. 2 both during the campaign and once you take office, and I just don’t think Elizabeth Warren is that type of person.”

160609_elizabeth_warren_Getty_1160.jpg
Warren: I'm ready to be commander in chief
By CRISTIANO LIMA
The distaste for Warren in the banking industry is not surprising. No American politician in recent history has done more to harness the powerful anti-Wall Street sentiment that continues to rage in the country since the financial crisis of 2008.

Warren created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that many bankers dislike, and she continues to push for far stronger regulations including breaking up the nation’s largest financial institutions into smaller, simpler pieces. This is exactly the reason that many on the left, including ardent backers of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, want to see Warren on the ticket.

“It’s very clear that Wall Street guys don’t like her because she has been a lot more effective than most in communicating an anti-Wall Street message that has been part of the Democratic Party for 80 years, since the 1930s,” said Charles Geisst, a Wall Street historian at Manhattan College. “It’s not so much that Wall Street doesn’t like her personally, most of them don’t even know her, but they don’t like anyone that espouses that particular ideology.”

A Clinton campaign spokesman declined to comment for this story. A representative of Warren did not respond to requests for comment.

Clinton earlier this month said she thinks Warren is “qualified” to be vice president. “I have the highest regard for Sen. Warren,” she said in an interview with Politico. “I think she is an incredible public servant, eminently qualified for any role. I look forward to working with her on behalf of not only the campaign and her very effective critique of [Donald] Trump, but also on the issues that she and I both care about.”

Warren has maintained the typical stance of potential vice presidents, saying she is perfectly happy in her current job. But she has some powerful backers pushing Clinton to pick her for the vice-presidential slot, including outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

People close to the Clinton campaign say that while Warren might not wind up as the vice-presidential selection, Wall Street executives are dead wrong to think that it couldn’t happen.

They say Warren is very high on the list of possible vice presidential candidates along with Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Cory Booker of New Jersey; Labor Secretary Tom Perez; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro; and Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, among others. “We are not at the point of ruling anyone in or out,” a person close to the process said.

Picking Warren would be risky for Clinton’s fundraising operation. The presumptive Democratic nominee hopes to raise $1.5 billion for her campaign against Trump, and Wall Street has been a big source of funding for her over the years.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton and outside groups supporting her have raised $289 million so far in the 2016 cycle. The securities and investment industry is easily Clinton’s top source of cash, donating over $28 million so far, according to the CRP.

“Things are so volatile now with all of the outside groups that all it can take is pissing off one billionaire on Wall Street to make it difficult,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the CRP. “And you don’t run national campaigns for as many years as Clinton has without some serious support from Wall Street, they are just too much of a heavy hitter.”

The progressive case for Warren holds that she would immediately energize the liberal base and bring Sanders voters into the fold. And Warren backers note that the senator has been an early and enthusiastic basher of Trump and shown a knack for getting under the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s skin.

“Elizabeth Warren very effectively called out Donald Trump for cheering the Wall Street collapse because it would make him money — and that moment reminded Democrats how powerful Warren’s megaphone can be,” said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “Whether it’s as vice president or as co-chair of the presidential transition committee, it’s hard to imagine Hillary Clinton not wanting a very large role for Elizabeth Warren at the table.”

But more moderate Democrats in the financial services industry argue that Sanders voters will come on board anyway and that Clinton does not need to pick Warren to help her win.

“We are going to win this. Trump shouldn’t be president and he isn’t going to be president,” said one senior executive at a Wall Street bank who is close to Clinton. “Picking Warren would indicate weakness and panic for no reason and make them look like they are running scared of Trump. There will be plenty of time to galvanize the left and get them to come out. And Warren would be a nightmare to try and manage.”

elizabeth_warren_whitehaven_1160_AP.jpg
Clinton hosts Warren amid VP buzz
By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL and DANIEL LIPPMAN
Another argument against putting Warren on the ticket is that she can be just as effective a surrogate while maintaining her power base in the Senate.

“In the current era of presidential politics, social media has allowed more people to assume the role of attack dog that was traditionally left to the vice-presidential nominee,” said Jason Rosenstock, an analyst at Thorn Run Partners who covers the financial industry. “Warren has shown an excellence in the platform that would allow her to help the campaign incredibly while maintaining her growing position of power in the Senate.”

On the economic front, some moderate Democrats and financial executives worry that having Warren as vice president would poison relationships between business and the White House from the beginning of a potential Hillary Clinton administration.

These people say there is an opportunity for much better relations between business and the White House than during President Barack Obama’s tenure, as well as more effective deal making with Congress to avoid the kind of fiscal crises that damaged the economy the past six years. In addition to cutting deals on taxes and infrastructure, Wall Street worries about the return of the debt ceiling as a potentially big issue in 2016, as well as the return of sequester spending cuts.

“There is going to be a lot to deal with in the first 100 days, and I’m not sure going left and picking Warren would be particularly helpful,” said a top financial services lobbyist in Washington.

This Democrat, along with several Wall Street donors mentioned Kaine as the ideal vice-presidential pick. The Virginia Democrat comes from a key swing state, is fluent in Spanish, sits on the Armed Services Committee and is generally palatable to both progressives and more business-friendly Democrats.

“He checks every box,” the moderate Washington Democrat with close ties to the banking industry said. “You could see him step in as president, he is credible with the base of the party, and he’s also comfortable spending time with the rich people you need to raise money from.”

In other words, they basically want a veto on the VP or they'll (indirectly, at least) aid the fascist blowhard.

Well, now we'll see whose support Clinton values more, I suppose. Her big donors, or progressive voters. I'm not hopeful on her making the right choice, but I also don't think Clinton will appreciate being bullied.

Personally, I can scarcely think of a stronger endorsement for Warren than the fact that these people don't want her.

Edit: Of course, there are legitimate reasons aside from fear of Wall Street why Clinton might not pick Warren. But if she doesn't pick someone fairly progressive (and Warren is the obvious choice), it will potentially send a message that she isn't really interested in progressives' concerns or giving them a prominent voice in the Democratic Party or her administration. And this is a chance for her to show that she will not be intimidated or controlled by her rich donors.

[FireNexus]

We won't see shit. She was never going to choose Warren in the first place.

[Wild Zontargs]

So, technically speaking, there was an assassination attempt against Trump:

19-year-old charged after allegedly trying to assassinate Donald Trump

A 19-year-old arrested at a Donald Trump rally said he wanted to kill the presidential candidate.

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police arrested Michael Sandford on Saturday at Trump's rally at the Treasure Island Hotel and Casino.

Police say Sandford started chatting with one of their officers at the event and claimed he wanted to get Trump's autograph. But instead, Sandford tried to take the officer's gun, and officers quickly took him into custody.

Court documents say Sandford was identified by his driver's license from the U.K. Sandford told investigators he's been in the U.S. about a year and a half, living in Hoboken, New Jersey.

Sandford allegedly told investigators he practiced shooting at a nearby gun range the day before the rally.

When officials asked Sandford why he tried to take the officer's gun, he said, "To shoot and kill Trump," admitting that he expected to be killed during the attempt.

The 19-year-old was transferred into the custody of the U.S. Secret Service. He's charged with attempting to commit an act of violence on restricted grounds.

[Flagg]

We won't see shit. She was never going to choose Warren in the first place.

Duh. They are almost polar opposites when it comes to Democratic economic viewpoints, what with Clinton being a corporatist and Warren a populist. I doubt Warren would even accept the offer.

[maraxus2]

I suspect the amount of influence the VP has is proportional to the President's. Biden and Cheney had plenty because both Obama and W were (initially, at least) somewhat amateur politicians (yeah, W was governor of Texas, Obama was a one-term Senator... I'm not sure how much those mattered). Cheney had been part of DC politics for decades before W was "elected", Biden similarly had been in the Senate for quite a while IIRC.

Compare that to, say, FDR, whose VP's until Truman basically sat on the benches and twiddled their thumbs as far as I know. Or Spiro Agnew and Ford-- the most distinctive thing about Agnew that I recall is he got convicted and had to quit, and Ford was a place-holder, more or less literally.

The fact of the matter is that in practical terms, the VP simply doesn't have much responsibility. That's changed in recent years, but when it comes down to technicalities...

It all depends on the Veep in question and the President in question, but Presidents basically all want a veep that will make their administration more successful, however you define it. Take Obama, for instance. He picked Biden for many reasons, but the fact that he had 36 years of Congressional relationships and a ton of foreign policy experience was no small account. Obama basically made Biden his congressional liaison, giving him a huge amount of power. This is the same reason why FDR picked Jack Garner to be his Veep for the first two terms, and he had great relations with the conservative Democrats too.

At the same time, Jack Kennedy picked LBJ basically to win in 1960, and the Kennedy White House actively shunned/feared/loathed LBJ all three years of his presidency. They never even consulted LBJ on anything, despite him being the greatest parliamentarian in American history.

I'd expect Clinton to nominate someone with whom she's truly simpatico. Someone who can swing a lot of votes, and who would enable her to have a successful presidency. Unfortunately, she's kinda got to pick two of the three with her current crop of veep nominees. Still think it'll be Kaine, maybe Perez or Castro if she's feeling the electoral pressure.

Speaking of electoral pressure, Trump has less cash-on-hand than the former NY State Senate Majority Leader? The one who is going to jail for all the corrupt things he did?

Donald J. Trump enters the general election campaign laboring under the worst financial and organizational disadvantage of any major party nominee in recent history, placing both his candidacy and party in political peril.

Mr. Trump began June with just $1.3 million in cash on hand, a figure more typical for a campaign for the House of Representatives than the White House, and trailed Hillary Clinton by more than $41 million, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission late Monday.

He has a staff of around 70 people — compared with nearly 700 for Mrs. Clinton — suggesting only the barest effort toward preparing to contest swing states this fall. And he fired his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, on Monday, after concerns among allies and donors about his ability to run a competitive race.

The Trump campaign has not aired a television advertisement since he effectively secured the nomination in May and has not booked any advertising for the summer or fall. Mrs. Clinton and her allies spent nearly $26 million on advertising in June alone, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, pummeling Mr. Trump over his temperament, his statements and his mocking of a disabled reporter. The only sustained reply, aside from Mr. Trump’s gibes at rallies and on Twitter, has come from a pair of groups that spent less than $2 million combined.

Mr. Trump’s fund-raising for May reflects his lag in assembling the core of a national finance team. In the same month that he clinched the Republican nomination, Mr. Trump raised just $3.1 million and was forced to lend himself an additional $2 million to meet costs. Some invitations to Trump fund-raising events have featured the same short list of national Republican finance volunteers regardless of what city the event is held in, suggesting Mr. Trump has had some trouble lining up local co-hosts.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to an inquiry about the campaign’s spending plans. During an interview on CNN, Mr. Lewandowski defended the candidate’s bare-bones approach.

“We are leaner, meaner, more efficient, more effective. Get bigger crowds. Get better coverage,” Mr. Lewandowski said. “If this was the business world, people would be commending Mr. Trump for the way he’s run this campaign.”

The shortfall is leaving Mr. Trump extraordinarily dependent on the Republican National Committee, which has seen record fund-raising this campaign cycle.

[The Romulan Republic]

We won't see shit. She was never going to choose Warren in the first place.

As to the chances of Warren being chosen, its not something pulled out of thin air. Their has been a great deal of discussion of late around Warren, and Harry Reid (hardly a fringe individual in the Democratic Party) has reportedly been promoting her as a choice. Its also hard not to notice that Warren has positioned herself as an appealing choice for unifying the Clinton and Sanders camps.

I don't think Clinton necessarily will or must pick Warren, by any means, but I think it would be highly premature to rule it out. Though doubtless those who are hostile to progressivism in any form (like Wall Street donors) would wish to dismiss the possibility.

Regardless, it is offensive that Wall Street donors apparently are willing to pull support from Clinton (implicitly aiding Trump) over this. As if they think that their wishes are the most important consideration here. I would rate who would make the most capable President should the need arise, who would most help win a general election, who the voters want, and Clinton's personal preferences as more important, in that order. All this does is underline the validity of the argument against the influence of big money in politics.

Really, though, unless one of us is psychic or is in Clinton's inner circle, we won't know until Clinton makes the call, and too my knowledge she has said very little on the subject yet. No doubt they are still in the process of vetting various candidates.

It should at least be taken into consideration, however, that a recent poll had Warren as the top choice for Clinton supporters by a huge margin (Cory Booker came second, with 17% to Warren's 35):

http://www.bloomber.com/politics/articl ... part-2-vps

More than a third of likely voters backing Democrat Hillary Clinton in the latest Bloomberg Politics national poll say she should pick Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a darling of the party’s liberal wing, as her running mate.
QUICKTAKE
How the U.S. Elects Its Presidents
On the Republican side, almost a third of likely voters supporting Donald Trump say former House Speaker Newt Gingrich would be his best pick. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a man the presumptive GOP nominee has often referred to as “Little Marco,” is selected by about a quarter of Trump’s backers, making him the second most popular pick among seven widely mentioned names.
Warren received support from 35 percent of Clinton’s supporters in the poll. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro are the only two other Democratic names to break into double-digits among six tested.
Read the questions and methodology here.

Likely voters of all political stripes are split on whether the U.S. is ready to elect two women as president and vice president, with 46 percent saying yes and 48 percent saying no.
Men and women look at the question differently, and not in a way that might be expected, the poll shows. A majority of men, 55 percent, say the nation is ready to elect two women to the nation’s top jobs. It’s women who are skeptical, with a majority of 59 percent saying that the nation isn’t ready.
While neither presumptive nominee is expected to pick their running mate until closer to next month’s national conventions, the parlor-game speculation is already intensifying.
After Gingrich and Rubio, John Kasich is the next most popular choice for a running mate among those backing Trump, with 18 percent selecting the Ohio governor.

In an effort to measure whether other business types have the prominence to ever mount a campaign like Trump’s using their ties to commerce as a springboard, Bloomberg Politics polled the popularity of four technology-company leaders who have all had higher national profiles. The results showed that most of them aren’t that well known.
The least familiar among the four is Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer. Almost two-thirds of Americans didn’t give an opinion about her, while 20 percent said they viewed her favorably and 15 percent unfavorably.
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, is the best known among those tested, with just 37 percent giving no opinion. He’s viewed favorably by 40 percent and unfavorably by 23 percent.
Fifty-five percent of Americans said they don’t know enough about Elon Musk, chief executive of Tesla Motors and SpaceX, to form an opinion. Among those that did give one, 37 percent said they view him favorably and 8 percent negatively.
Mark Cuban, a technology entrepreneur and owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, is viewed favorably by 37 percent of Americans and unfavorably by 16 percent. Nearly half, 47 percent, said they didn’t know enough about him to form an opinion.
The poll, conducted Friday through Monday, included 1,000 adults and has a margin or error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The questions on vice-presidential candidates were answered by 333 Trump supporters and 332 Clinton supporters and both have a margin of error of plus or minus 5.4 percentage points. The survey was directed by Selzer & Co. of West Des Moines, Iowa.

Interestingly, Gingrich is the top choice for the blowhard's running mate.

Clinton vs Gingrich. It'd be like the bloody '90s all over again.

[bilateralrope]

Anybody but Trump' movement gathering steam ahead of Republican convention

The organisers of a prospective anti-Trump rebellion say they now have the support of several hundred GOP convention delegates

The organisers of a renewed Republican effort to deny Donald Trump the party’s presidential nomination say they now have the support of several hundred delegates, with just weeks to go until the GOP convention. The group is seeking to alter party rules by adding a “conscience clause” allowing delegates, if they so wish, to vote against the presumptive nominee – and against the results of the Republican primaries.

“This literally is an ‘Anybody but Trump’ movement,” Kendal Unruh, a Colorado delegate and member of the convention’s Rules Committee who is helping to organise the anti-Trump faction, told the Washington Post. “Nobody has any idea who is going to step in and be the nominee, but we’re not worried about that. We’re just doing that job to make sure that he’s not the face of our party.”

Ms Unruh said the group comprised “pockets of resistance” made up largely of former supporters of Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Ohio Governor John Kasich, all of whom were soundly beaten by the property mogul during the primaries. Steve Lonegan, a spokesman for the Courageous Conservatives PAC, which previously backed Mr Cruz, told CNN he believed that at least 250 delegates were on board. On Sunday, the group said it was fundraising – in part through Mr Lonegan’s PAC – to finance a recruitment drive and a legal defence fund.

A month before the party meets in Cleveland, GOP leaders are once again being forced to play down the prospect of a contested convention. Sean Spicer, chief strategist for the Republican National Committee (RNC), said in a statement that talk of changing convention rules was “silly”, adding: “There is no organised effort, strategy or leader of this so-called movement. It is nothing more than a media creation and a series of tweets.”

Even some Republicans who have endorsed Mr Trump are concerned by his toxic rhetoric, be it racial attacks on the federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University, or his call this weekend to begin profiling Muslim Americans in the wake of the recent mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

Yet the anti-Trump movement faces an uphill struggle even to add its “conscience clause”, let alone overturn the will of Republican primary voters. At least 57 members of the 112 Rules Committee members must vote for the change, which then has to be ratified by a majority of the convention’s 2,400 delegates.

It is also unclear whom they might recruit to be a standard-bearer, given that many of the party’s most prominent anti-Trump figures have either counted themselves out of contesting the convention or declined to attend the event at all. But even a quelled rebellion would be a blow to Mr Trump, who is slumping further in the polls with his campaign in apparent disarray.

On Monday, the billionaire reality TV star ditched his controversial campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. His campaign has so far shown little sign of ramping up its national organisation or its fundraising operation to get on a general election footing. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is leading by 5.8 per cent in national polls, according to the latest RealClearPolitics average. She also holds the lead in a majority of crucial swing states.

Mr Trump has accused his erstwhile primary rivals Mr Cruz and Jeb Bush of manipulating attempts to derail his candidacy, describing efforts to deny him the nomination as “totally illegal” and “a rebuke of the millions of people who feel so strongly about what I am saying.” Speaking at a rally in Las Vegas on Saturday, he also said the anti-Trump faction was a “hoax” that had been “made up by the press”.

Several delegates have reported facing pressure from party colleagues to support Mr Trump, including threats of ostracisation and fines. But House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking Republican in Congress, has left the door open for a delegate effort to dethrone the presumptive nominee at the convention. Speaking to NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Mr Ryan said it was “not my place to decide” whether delegates ought to be bound or unbound.

“It is not my job to tell delegates what to do, what not to do, or to weigh in on things like that. They write the rules. They make their decisions,” said Mr Ryan, who will act as chairman of the July convention. “The last thing I would do is tell anybody to do something that’s contrary to their conscience."

They sound very desperate to avoid Trump.

[maraxus2]

Regardless, it is offensive that Wall Street donors apparently are willing to pull support from Clinton (implicitly aiding Trump) over this. As if they think that their wishes are the most important consideration here. I would rate who would make the most capable President should the need arise, who would most help win a general election, who the voters want, and Clinton's personal preferences as more important, in that order. All this does is underline the validity of the argument against the influence of big money in politics.

Dude, this is classic interest group politics. Same reason why Latino civil rights groups and progressives are pushing for Tom Perez or Julian Castro. You put pressure on people and organizations to accept your candidates. Also, incidentally, why Sanders was apparently putting pressure on Clinton to not vet Sherrod Brown. People with influence have a way of making that influence felt. Not saying that it's a positive thing, but how the hell do you think this stuff works?

Really, though, unless one of us is psychic or is in Clinton's inner circle, we won't know until Clinton makes the call, and too my knowledge she has said very little on the subject yet. No doubt they are still in the process of vetting various candidates.

It should at least be taken into consideration, however, that a recent poll had Warren as the top choice for Clinton supporters by a huge margin (Cory Booker came second, with 17% to Warren's 35):

http://www.bloomber.com/politics/articl ... part-2-vps

Eh, this survey's probably pretty worthless. Mostly a matter of which senators have national name recognition. How many people do you know who can tell you what the Veep does, anyway?

Interestingly, Gingrich is the top choice for the blowhard's running mate.

Clinton vs Gingrich. It'd be like the bloody '90s all over again.

I know. I'm excited. Trump-Gingrich would be this glorious black hole of extreme unlikeability and infidelity.

They sound very desperate to avoid Trump.

Yeah, but what can they realistically do? Trump rode into the nomination largely on the backs of people who think that the Republican Elites are a bunch of corrupt liars and mealy-mouthed politicians. And they propose to nullify that feeling of betrayal and grievance by...betraying the Republican electorate and giving them new (and newly realistic) grievances? How's that shit gonna work?

[Gandalf]

As to the chances of Warren being chosen, its not something pulled out of thin air. Their has been a great deal of discussion of late around Warren, and Harry Reid (hardly a fringe individual in the Democratic Party) has reportedly been promoting her as a choice. Its also hard not to notice that Warren has positioned herself as an appealing choice for unifying the Clinton and Sanders camps.

I imagine that Warren is being mentioned mostly so that they can say that her name is being mentioned. It means that nobody can deny that Clinton (by which I mean the campaign/DNC) considered Warren, but ultimately decided to go down another path for whatever reason.

[bilateralrope]

Yeah, but what can they realistically do? Trump rode into the nomination largely on the backs of people who think that the Republican Elites are a bunch of corrupt liars and mealy-mouthed politicians. And they propose to nullify that feeling of betrayal and grievance by...betraying the Republican electorate and giving them new (and newly realistic) grievances? How's that shit gonna work?

That depends on what they are worried about:
- If they are worried about how bad Trump will be for the future of the Republican party, I can't see how ignoring the results of the primary votes and is going to do better once Trump and Democrat supporters start talking about how the Republican party doesn't like democracy.
- If they are so worried about what Trump will do to the US that they are willing to destroy the Republicans as a party in order to deny him the presidency (very unlikely), then they have options.

[maraxus2]

That depends on what they are worried about:
- If they are worried about how bad Trump will be for the future of the Republican party, I can't see how ignoring the results of the primary votes and is going to do better once Trump and Democrat supporters start talking about how the Republican party doesn't like democracy.
- If they are so worried about what Trump will do to the US that they are willing to destroy the Republicans as a party in order to deny him the presidency (very unlikely), then they have options.

What about the third option? What if they're worried for their physical safety at the RNC? Riots would by no means be out of the question if they tried to pull some convention chicanery and had the nomination to someone who lost the election. Or worse, someone who never even entered in the first place.

No, they've burned their boats with Trump now. He has to be the nominee.

[bilateralrope]

That depends on what they are worried about:
- If they are worried about how bad Trump will be for the future of the Republican party, I can't see how ignoring the results of the primary votes and is going to do better once Trump and Democrat supporters start talking about how the Republican party doesn't like democracy.
- If they are so worried about what Trump will do to the US that they are willing to destroy the Republicans as a party in order to deny him the presidency (very unlikely), then they have options.

What about the third option? What if they're worried for their physical safety at the RNC? Riots would by no means be out of the question if they tried to pull some convention chicanery and had the nomination to someone who lost the election. Or worse, someone who never even entered in the first place.

No, they've burned their boats with Trump now. He has to be the nominee.

I was speculating on their reasons for ignoring the primary votes and picking someone other than Trump. Not their reasons for respecting those votes.

[maraxus2]

I was speculating on their reasons for ignoring the primary votes and picking someone other than Trump. Not their reasons for respecting those votes.

I dunno, the whole thing just sounds like a lot of hot air. So far, the Never Trump people have demonstrated less than compelling competence, to put it mildly. Like, there seem to be a lot of unhappy delegates who are making lots of noise about Trump, maybe genuine or maybe for posterity. But what's the realistic outcome of the Convention? Is there anybody they could pick who would be less of a disaster than Trump?

Honestly, I don't think so. They're probably going to lose with Trump at the top of the ticket. They could risk losing all the way down ballot if they try to pull any chicanery. Like I said earlier, voters HATE this kind of shit. I don't know that anyone exists who could win if they dumped Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

That depends on what they are worried about:
- If they are worried about how bad Trump will be for the future of the Republican party, I can't see how ignoring the results of the primary votes and is going to do better once Trump and Democrat supporters start talking about how the Republican party doesn't like democracy.
- If they are so worried about what Trump will do to the US that they are willing to destroy the Republicans as a party in order to deny him the presidency (very unlikely), then they have options.

What about the third option? What if they're worried for their physical safety at the RNC? Riots would by no means be out of the question if they tried to pull some convention chicanery and had the nomination to someone who lost the election. Or worse, someone who never even entered in the first place.

No, they've burned their boats with Trump now. He has to be the nominee.

Sadly, given the violence that has occurred at numerous Trump events (either from his supporters, his opponents, or both), I think that in all likelihood violence at the Republican convention is almost a foregone conclusion. Its more a question of how bad it will be.

I'm worried about it at the Democratic convention too. Their will almost certainly be a lot of protesters (probably mostly a mix of Bernie people and Right wingers), and while most protesters will likely have peaceful intent, and have every right to protest, it doesn't take much to turn a protest into a riot. A few agitators or thugs looking to use the protest as an excuse for violence or looting, or an overzealous, heavy handed police response could do it. But I'm hoping for the best.

I'm increasingly disgusted and horrified by what our politics is being reduced to.

Edit: I'll just say that I hope there's no violence, but if there is, I hope its Right wingers who are perpetrating it. I don't want the Left going down that road as well.

[Flagg]

We won't see shit. She was never going to choose Warren in the first place.

As to the chances of Warren being chosen, its not something pulled out of thin air. Their has been a great deal of discussion of late around Warren, and Harry Reid (hardly a fringe individual in the Democratic Party) has reportedly been promoting her as a choice. Its also hard not to notice that Warren has positioned herself as an appealing choice for unifying the Clinton and Sanders camps.

I don't think Clinton necessarily will or must pick Warren, by any means, but I think it would be highly premature to rule it out. Though doubtless those who are hostile to progressivism in any form (like Wall Street donors) would wish to dismiss the possibility.

Regardless, it is offensive that Wall Street donors apparently are willing to pull support from Clinton (implicitly aiding Trump) over this. As if they think that their wishes are the most important consideration here. I would rate who would make the most capable President should the need arise, who would most help win a general election, who the voters want, and Clinton's personal preferences as more important, in that order. All this does is underline the validity of the argument against the influence of big money in politics.

Really, though, unless one of us is psychic or is in Clinton's inner circle, we won't know until Clinton makes the call, and too my knowledge she has said very little on the subject yet. No doubt they are still in the process of vetting various candidates.

It should at least be taken into consideration, however, that a recent poll had Warren as the top choice for Clinton supporters by a huge margin (Cory Booker came second, with 17% to Warren's 35):

http://www.bloomber.com/politics/articl ... part-2-vps

More than a third of likely voters backing Democrat Hillary Clinton in the latest Bloomberg Politics national poll say she should pick Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a darling of the party’s liberal wing, as her running mate.
QUICKTAKE
How the U.S. Elects Its Presidents
On the Republican side, almost a third of likely voters supporting Donald Trump say former House Speaker Newt Gingrich would be his best pick. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a man the presumptive GOP nominee has often referred to as “Little Marco,” is selected by about a quarter of Trump’s backers, making him the second most popular pick among seven widely mentioned names.
Warren received support from 35 percent of Clinton’s supporters in the poll. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro are the only two other Democratic names to break into double-digits among six tested.
Read the questions and methodology here.

Likely voters of all political stripes are split on whether the U.S. is ready to elect two women as president and vice president, with 46 percent saying yes and 48 percent saying no.
Men and women look at the question differently, and not in a way that might be expected, the poll shows. A majority of men, 55 percent, say the nation is ready to elect two women to the nation’s top jobs. It’s women who are skeptical, with a majority of 59 percent saying that the nation isn’t ready.
While neither presumptive nominee is expected to pick their running mate until closer to next month’s national conventions, the parlor-game speculation is already intensifying.
After Gingrich and Rubio, John Kasich is the next most popular choice for a running mate among those backing Trump, with 18 percent selecting the Ohio governor.

In an effort to measure whether other business types have the prominence to ever mount a campaign like Trump’s using their ties to commerce as a springboard, Bloomberg Politics polled the popularity of four technology-company leaders who have all had higher national profiles. The results showed that most of them aren’t that well known.
The least familiar among the four is Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer. Almost two-thirds of Americans didn’t give an opinion about her, while 20 percent said they viewed her favorably and 15 percent unfavorably.
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, is the best known among those tested, with just 37 percent giving no opinion. He’s viewed favorably by 40 percent and unfavorably by 23 percent.
Fifty-five percent of Americans said they don’t know enough about Elon Musk, chief executive of Tesla Motors and SpaceX, to form an opinion. Among those that did give one, 37 percent said they view him favorably and 8 percent negatively.
Mark Cuban, a technology entrepreneur and owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, is viewed favorably by 37 percent of Americans and unfavorably by 16 percent. Nearly half, 47 percent, said they didn’t know enough about him to form an opinion.
The poll, conducted Friday through Monday, included 1,000 adults and has a margin or error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The questions on vice-presidential candidates were answered by 333 Trump supporters and 332 Clinton supporters and both have a margin of error of plus or minus 5.4 percentage points. The survey was directed by Selzer & Co. of West Des Moines, Iowa.

Interestingly, Gingrich is the top choice for the blowhard's running mate.

Clinton vs Gingrich. It'd be like the bloody '90s all over again.

So what if Harry Reid and others have lobbied for Warren? It's not their choice and they are polar opposites on most non-core Democratic principles.

[The Romulan Republic]

The significance of Reid lobbying for Warren is that he is a very high profile, influential Democratic politician and Clinton supporter. It indicates that powerful people in the Democratic establishment and among Clinton's allies are considering Warren seriously, rather than Warren as VP being a far-fetched idea, idle speculation, or wishful thinking by progressives.

Yes it is of course, as I said previously, ultimately Clinton's decision. That is not in any way in question. But she is also doubtless receiving advice on this decision from many quarters, and it might influence her decision one way or another. Though weather she's more likely to take advice from Harry Reid or Wall Street donors, for example, I don't know.

I'm also not sure that Clinton and Warren are that far apart, really. For one thing, Warren (unfortunately) has a reputation of being a bit of a foreign policy hawk, as does Clinton. She's also pretty pro-Israel. Take these excerpts from her Senate campaign website:

We live in a constantly changing, increasingly interconnected world. It is essential that America remain engaged in the world to protect our national security and to support a stable international system based on the values of human rights and democracy. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for "Smart Power" - the use of defense, diplomacy, development, and other tools to advance U.S. interests in the world. As a Senator, I will pursue a foreign policy that is smart, tough, and pragmatic, and that uses every tool available. We owe nothing less to our citizens and to those we would put in harm's way to protect us.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship and Middle East Peace

Since its founding more than 60 years ago, Israel and the United States have been steadfast, trusted, and reliable allies. I unequivocally support the right of a Jewish, democratic state of Israel to exist, and to be safe and secure. The U.S.-Israel relationship is rooted in shared values and common interests, based on a commitment to liberty, pluralism, and the rule of law. These values transcend time, and they are the basis of our unbreakable bond.

To me, it is a moral imperative to support and defend Israel, and I am committed to ensuring its long-term security by maintaining its qualitative military edge. Israel must be able to defend itself from the serious threats it faces from terrorist organizations to hostile states, including Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others.

I am also a strong proponent of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which I believe to be in the interest of Israel and the United States, with a Jewish, democratic state of Israel and a state for the Palestinian people. The U.S. can and should play an active role in promoting a diplomatic resolution to the conflict that is agreed to by the parties, but I do not believe that a lasting peace can be imposed from the outside or that either party should take unilateral steps - such as the Palestinians' application for UN membership - that move the parties further away from negotiations.

I am also deeply proud that Israel and Massachusetts are natural economic allies. Like Massachusetts, Israel has a real commitment and advantage in high-tech and innovative industries. There are approximately 100 companies in Massachusetts with Israeli founders or based on Israeli technologies - creating $2.4 billion in value and thousands of jobs for our economy.

As a United States Senator, I will work to ensure Israel's security and success, and I will support active American leadership to help bring peace and security to Israel and the region.

https://elizabethwarren.com/issues/foreign-policy

Edit: Sigh... another site that, while appearing to be legitimate, gives me a warning that its security certificate is invalid when I click on the link I just posted. Maybe its just out of date- its her Senate campaign site, and looks like it hasn't been updated in a while. But fair warning, just in case.

[eyl]

The significance of Reid lobbying for Warren is that he is a very high profile, influential Democratic politician and Clinton supporter. It indicates that powerful people in the Democratic establishment and among Clinton's allies are considering Warren seriously, rather than Warren as VP being a far-fetched idea, idle speculation, or wishful thinking by progressives.

Yes it is of course, as I said previously, ultimately Clinton's decision. That is not in any way in question. But she is also doubtless receiving advice on this decision from many quarters, and it might influence her decision one way or another. Though weather she's more likely to take advice from Harry Reid or Wall Street donors, for example, I don't know.

Aside from anything else, wouldn't choosing Warren as VP mean the Democrats losing her Senate seat to the Republicans?

[The Romulan Republic]

The significance of Reid lobbying for Warren is that he is a very high profile, influential Democratic politician and Clinton supporter. It indicates that powerful people in the Democratic establishment and among Clinton's allies are considering Warren seriously, rather than Warren as VP being a far-fetched idea, idle speculation, or wishful thinking by progressives.

Yes it is of course, as I said previously, ultimately Clinton's decision. That is not in any way in question. But she is also doubtless receiving advice on this decision from many quarters, and it might influence her decision one way or another. Though weather she's more likely to take advice from Harry Reid or Wall Street donors, for example, I don't know.

Aside from anything else, wouldn't choosing Warren as VP mean the Democrats losing her Senate seat to the Republicans?

As I understand it, the Republican governor of Massachusetts would appoint a (presumably Republican) replacement until a special election was held.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I was speculating on their reasons for ignoring the primary votes and picking someone other than Trump. Not their reasons for respecting those votes.

I dunno, the whole thing just sounds like a lot of hot air. So far, the Never Trump people have demonstrated less than compelling competence, to put it mildly. Like, there seem to be a lot of unhappy delegates who are making lots of noise about Trump, maybe genuine or maybe for posterity. But what's the realistic outcome of the Convention? Is there anybody they could pick who would be less of a disaster than Trump?

Honestly, I don't think so. They're probably going to lose with Trump at the top of the ticket. They could risk losing all the way down ballot if they try to pull any chicanery. Like I said earlier, voters HATE this kind of shit. I don't know that anyone exists who could win if they dumped Trump.

I think the only vaguely electable Republican in existence right now is Mittens, and he'd almost definitely say no. And I don't know that he could beat HRC in the general even without accounting for the amount of goodwill they would need to blow to put him in place of Trump.

The GOP decided to sow hate and xenophobia, and now it has come time to reap some impressively fertile fields. Regardless of if they want to or not.

[The Romulan Republic]

Romney is a past loser (by a considerable margin), and that was before the current cluster fuck that is the Republican Party.