The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[maraxus2]

I've looked around briefly. I can go deeper later if I you insist so I'm not posting a Wikipedia article, but at the moment I lack time to pull and vet anything I'd be comfortable using as a source. I did find that a single state (Nepal) currently has a communist party with noteworthy political power in a multi-party government. Are there any states which professed an end goal of communism that weren't command economy one-party dictatorships? If so, I'll need to reexamine my views on the subject.

C'mon dude, give us the quotes where Bernie was praising two separate Marxist governments. What was the context for those remarks?

[FireNexus]

Ah. My fault. Misinterpreted what you were asking to source. I thought that was weird...

I have to concede the point because I'm an idiot. He was condemning US invasions of Cuba and support for the contras. He said he didn't like the Sandinistas or Castro but the residents wouldn't want an invasion and they might feel like there were good things about those governments.I clearly was a victim of my own dislike for Sanders (which is considerable, by now) tainting my perception of the facts.

I withdraw the specific criticism.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, not a Communist.

In America, socialism of any variety is the same thing as communism. I fucking love Joseph McCarthy! Wait, no I don't.


With regards to the election come November, it's going to be very interesting to see how votes go in Utah. Earlier polls indicated that Clinton vs Trump would result in a lot of people staying home, with the two of them basically being neck and neck. I've heard more recent polls indicate Utah could potentially go blue this November, with regards to the electoral college. If Il Douche manages to drive enough Republican voters to stay home, it's not impossible that we could even end up having blue in Congress, which would be fucking amazing.

[maraxus2]

With regards to the election come November, it's going to be very interesting to see how votes go in Utah. Earlier polls indicated that Clinton vs Trump would result in a lot of people staying home, with the two of them basically being neck and neck. I've heard more recent polls indicate Utah could potentially go blue this November, with regards to the electoral college. If Il Douche manages to drive enough Republican voters to stay home, it's not impossible that we could even end up having blue in Congress, which would be fucking amazing.

True enough. I would like to rescind my previous statement that your vote doesn't matter this year, mainly because I never expected Trump to be such an outhouse fire.

It all depends on how well Gary Johnson does. The average Dem candidate in UT can expect to get around 30% of the vote in any given election. If Utah has extraordinarily high turnout against Trump and Johnson splits the right-wing vote, Hillary could theoretically squeak by with 35-40%. It is extremely unlikely that this will happen, but Johnson stands a better chance of doing well out in the Western states than he does virtually anywhere else.

[The Romulan Republic]

Breaking news on the VP front: the Clinton campaign has vetted Adm. James G. Stavridis. This is probably in response to Donny Jingles vetting Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn

If so, its stupid.

She isn't going to outdo Trump in the field of Tough Guy Jingoistic pandering. She shouldn't try to play up her tough militarism credentials. Pretty much all that'll do is alienate a bunch of her base.

Edit: I'd also like to say that I'm very happy, on the whole, with Bernie's endorsement of Clinton. It may be unpalatable to a lot of his supporters, but its what he had to do now, and it was a fine speech.

[Dalton]

Veepstakes news: Donny Jingles will announce this Friday at 11am in Manhattan. I'm guessing either his garish monstrosity of a hotel or on Fox News.

[Patroklos]

If so, its stupid.

She isn't going to outdo Trump in the field of Tough Guy Jingoistic pandering. She shouldn't try to play up her tough militarism credentials. Pretty much all that'll do is alienate a bunch of her base.

Do you have any idea about who Stavridis is and what he is about? The above points to no...

[Gaidin]

Did RBG just throw us back to the days when SCOTUS justices were running for governor WHILE sitting on the court?

[The Romulan Republic]

If so, its stupid.

She isn't going to outdo Trump in the field of Tough Guy Jingoistic pandering. She shouldn't try to play up her tough militarism credentials. Pretty much all that'll do is alienate a bunch of her base.

Do you have any idea about who Stavridis is and what he is about? The above points to no...

No, I don't know who he is, and I have nothing against him personally.

But I got the impression that Dalton was suggesting that Clinton had vetted a military officer to compete with Trump vetting a military officer (and Trump's likely does fall under "jingoistic tough guy", I'd say, since he apparently has similar views on Muslims to Trump).

In other words, I was questioning Clinton's motives more than Stavridis's suitability.

[Gaidin]

In other words, I was questioning Clinton's motives more than Stavridis's suitability.

"Because why not if you find the right guy."

We're talking about vetting here. Not actually selecting the VP.

[The Romulan Republic]

If you have any doubts about which party to support, take a look at the Republican Platform- an ode to theocracy and bigotry:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/po ... s.html?r=0

CLEVELAND — Republicans moved on Tuesday toward adopting a staunchly conservative platform that takes a strict, traditionalist view of the family and child rearing, bars military women from combat, describes coal as a “clean” energy source and declares pornography a “public health crisis.”

It is a platform that at times seems to channel the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump — calling to “destroy ISIS,” belittling President Obama as weak and accusing his administration of inviting attacks from adversaries.

But the document positions itself far to the right of Mr. Trump’s beliefs in other places — and amounts to a rightward lurch even from the party’s hard-line platform in 2012 — especially as it addresses gay men, lesbians and transgender people.

As delegates debated in two marathon sessions here on Monday and Tuesday, they repeatedly rejected efforts by more moderate members of the platform committee to add language that would acknowledge or condemn anti-gay discrimination — something Mr. Trump has done himself.

The numerous additions to the platform on marriage, family, homosexuality and gender issues were a reflection of just how much society and the law have shifted since Republicans adopted their last platform four years ago. And the debate this week showed just how unsettled many Republicans remain with those changes.

In 2012, the Supreme Court had not yet ruled that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right, and transgender rights had not yet become a matter of intense national discussion.

But while public and legal opinion has moved steadily in one direction, the official declaration of Republican Party principles appears to be heading sharply in the opposite direction. The party’s approach to social issues now threatens to disrupt the convention next week. Moderate delegates pushing for gay rights language in the platform secured enough signatures on Tuesday to demand a vote on their proposals from all 2,475 delegates.

2016 Election Polls
Get the latest national and state polls on the presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump.


Social conservatives in the party exerted significant influence over the drafting and amending of the platform this week, succeeding in almost all of their efforts to add language that pushed the document more to the right.

And what Republicans will probably end up with when they formally vote next week to ratify the platform approved in committee on Tuesday is a text that can seem almost Victorian in its moralizing and deeply critical of how the modern American family has evolved.

The platform demands that lawmakers use religion as a guide when legislating, stipulating “that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights.”

It also encourages the teaching of the Bible in public schools because, the amendment said, a good understanding of its contents is “indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry.”

The pornography provision was not in an initial draft that the Republican National Committee drew up and released on Sunday. But delegates added it on Monday at the same time they were inserting many of the amendments opposing gay and transgender rights. It calls pornography “a public menace” that is especially harmful to children.

Much of the most combative debate centered on language in the platform that describes gay and transgender people, and efforts to strip those words out and replace them with language proposed by a minority contingent of socially moderate delegates.

An amendment to specifically recognize that gay people are targets of the Islamic State caused a stir among more conservative delegates who said they felt there was no need to single out any one group. As the delegate who offered the amendment, Giovanni Cicione of Rhode Island, argued his case — by saying he believed it was an “innocuous and important” way to tell gay people the Republican Party does not exclude them — another delegate moved to shut off the debate.

Jim Bopp, a delegate from Indiana, said the Republican Party had always rejected “identity politics.” Arguing against the measure, he said, “Obviously, there’s an agenda here.”

First Draft Newsletter
Subscribe for updates on the 2016 presidential race, the White House and Congress, delivered to your inbox Monday - Friday.


The amendment was defeated, as were others in a similar vein.

But nearly every provision that expressed disapproval of homosexuality, same-sex marriage or transgender rights passed. The platform calls for overturning the Supreme Court marriage decision with a constitutional amendment and makes references to appointing judges “who respect traditional family values.”

“Has a dead horse been beaten enough yet?” asked Annie Dickerson, a committee member from New York, who chastised her colleagues for writing language offensive to gays into the platform “again and again and again.”

Additional provisions included those that promoted state laws to limit which restrooms transgender people could use, nodded to “conversion therapy” for gays by saying that parents should be free to make medical decisions about their children without interference and stated that “natural marriage” between a man and a woman is most likely to result in offspring who do not become drug-addicted or otherwise damaged.

If Mr. Trump, who has children with three different wives, does not share all of the party’s most socially conservative stances, he could certainly be heartened by other additions to the platform, especially on national security and defense.

One section is titled “A Dangerous World,” echoing Mr. Trump’s assertions of the unstable nature of current geopolitics. There is specific reference to the failings of “the secretary of state” — a jab at Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s presumed Democratic Party opponent.

Mr. Trump’s influence was also evident in the absence of any mention of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that was promoted in the last Republican platform.

Another tweak to the platform’s language on immigration will also please Mr. Trump: Though the initial draft called for building a “physical barrier” along the United States border with Mexico, that passage was amended yesterday to call specifically for a wall.

Yet it was the lack of much interference by Mr. Trump or his aides that seemed to set the tone for the platform’s direction. That allowed conservative activists like Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, to exert greater influence. Mr. Perkins’s hand could be seen in dozens of amendments on issues like gun control, religious expression and bathroom use.

“He is going to be the nominee for the party. He has his own ideas,” Mr. Perkins told reporters on Monday. “But this is a statement of not Donald Trump’s campaign, but of the Republican Party.”

[The Romulan Republic]

From the Hillary Clinton Facebook page, Clinton speaking at the Illinois statehouse where Lincoln gave the House Divided Speech:

https://www.facebook.com/hillaryclinton ... 151324212/

Though recognizing that things were much worse then, she drew parallels between our current divisions and those of Lincoln's time, and eviscerated Trump, describing various bigoted and authoritarian positions he has taken, exposing his ignorance, and calling out the way in which "the party of Lincoln" is becoming "the party of Trump", calling it a threat to our democracy.

Very strong speech.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If so, its stupid.

She isn't going to outdo Trump in the field of Tough Guy Jingoistic pandering. She shouldn't try to play up her tough militarism credentials. Pretty much all that'll do is alienate a bunch of her base.

Do you have any idea about who Stavridis is and what he is about? The above points to no...

No, I don't know who he is, and I have nothing against him personally.

But I got the impression that Dalton was suggesting that Clinton had vetted a military officer to compete with Trump vetting a military officer (and Trump's likely does fall under "jingoistic tough guy", I'd say, since he apparently has similar views on Muslims to Trump).

In other words, I was questioning Clinton's motives more than Stavridis's suitability.

Stavridis knows what the hell he is doing. He is an admiral with a PhD in diplomacy who has served as NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, for four years. She is not trying to out-jingoist Donald Trump. Rather, she is signaling what she wants her foreign policy to be like, and selecting a VP who both wants to and will be able to help her get that done.

[The Romulan Republic]

In that case, I shall withdraw my criticism.

Although my first preference for VP remains Elizabeth Warren. And my fear remains Cory Booker or Tim Kaine.

[maraxus2]

In that case, I shall withdraw my criticism.

Although my first preference for VP remains Elizabeth Warren. And my fear remains Cory Booker or Tim Kaine.

What's wrong with Kaine? Why do you want Warren out of the Senate?

Stavridis knows what the hell he is doing. He is an admiral with a PhD in diplomacy who has served as NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, for four years. She is not trying to out-jingoist Donald Trump. Rather, she is signaling what she wants her foreign policy to be like, and selecting a VP who both wants to and will be able to help her get that done.

Does she really need to burnish her foreign policy chops? I can understand Dubya picking Cheney, since he very obviously knew fuck-all about foreign policy, outside of maybe Mexico. Stavridis is probably better suited to a cabinet position, or some high-ranking State Department spot, not on the ticket.

Did RBG just throw us back to the days when SCOTUS justices were running for governor WHILE sitting on the court?

Naw. She said some highly impolitic things in public, and they weren't appropriate given her 24-hour job. But as far as awful shit to come from SCOTUS? Bush v. Gore was less than 20 years ago.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its not that I want Warren out of the Senate per say. Just that I would be willing to trade having her in the Senate for having her as VP, especially as it would set her up to run for the Democratic nomination post-Clinton.

As to Kaine, its my understanding that he's a bit too friendly with the big money, and that picking him might undermine some of the good will Clinton has built up with progressives of late.

Plus he's not Warren.

[maraxus2]

Its not that I want Warren out of the Senate per say. Just that I would be willing to trade having her in the Senate for having her as VP, especially as it would set her up to run for the Democratic nomination post-Clinton.

As to Kaine, its my understanding that he's a bit too friendly with the big money, and that picking him might undermine some of the good will Clinton has built up with progressives of late.

Plus he's not Warren.

You want her to be president, though. Which means that she'll have to wait at least another four years, then win a fifth consecutive Democratic victory, or run as the former Veep from a losing ticket. Neither is a particularly good place to run from. And as Veep, she will be very much playing second fiddle to Hillary. Assuming she keeps her health, she could stay in the Senate for another 20 years. And she'll be very influential as a senior Senator.

What's your source for Tim Kaine? He's a US Senator who needs to raise lots of money to win his campaigns. Apart from that, what's your evidence?

[The Romulan Republic]

I am loath to use CNN as a source (though in this case, it might actually give the argument more credibility, since CNN isn't exactly a highly progressive or pro-Bernie source), but its mentioned here (I bolded some relevant text):

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/03/opinions/ ... n-zelizer/

(CNN)Hillary Clinton spent some time last week testing out one of her potential vice presidential running mates, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The two Democratic powerhouses made a series of stops where they promised to champion American workers and blasted Donald Trump.

Although Clinton and her campaign team are wise enough to understand that her vice presidential pick won't create a "game-changing" moment, they also don't want to make any big mistakes. In a campaign where the threat facing Democrats is uncertain and unpredictable, they also will want to make a choice that has the potential to become a tool against the insurgent Republican campaign.
Julian Zelizer
So who are the possible candidates being considered, and what value do they bring to the ticket? The selection will come down to the person who will be a good partner in governance and who will do no harm to the ticket. At the same time, the selection will really depend on what qualities Clinton wants to stress about her campaign.
Energize the progressives
If Clinton wants to make a pick that will energize her candidacy and excite the millions of voters who came out for Bernie Sanders demanding that the party embrace its progressive ideals, there are four main choices on the table.
Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren: Sen. Warren would clearly be the most energizing pick for Clinton and for the campaign. Selecting Warren would add the kind of star power to the Democratic ticket that would greatly enhance the historic nature of Clinton's candidacy.
Warren would excite for two reasons. First, she is the most commanding figure, other than Bernie Sanders, in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Selecting Warren would send a clear signal to Democrats that a Clinton White House will understand the need to address the economic struggles facing so many middle class Americans and the need to impose stronger regulations on financial and business institutions.
Second, in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, where Trump will make a play for disaffected Democratic voters, Warren could offer a powerful retort and remind these voters that the economic policies of Trump and the GOP don't really match up with the promises he is making about restoring their economic security.
Her negatives are clear. Most important, she will give Trump the opportunity to tag the Democrats as left of center. She doesn't have as much foreign policy experience as Clinton might like in these turbulent times, and Warren has already faced a small controversy by having claimed Native American identity earlier in her career. And if a sexist bias is a big part of this electorate, having two women on the same ticket could give Trump an advantage.
Sherrod Brown: The senator from Ohio is a swing state liberal with political experience who could energize the Democrats. He has a long record of hitting hard on the economic issues that have so concerned Democratic and Republican voters and he could help make sure that Trump does not steal the swing states that will be essential to his victory.
Sherrod Brown
Sherrod Brown
Brown has the ability to play well with blue collar workers who are looking for evidence from either party that they will keep listening to them once the ballots close. He has been one of the strongest voices against free trade agreements, which will help in states like Pennsylvania. Like Warren, he gives Trump the opportunity to paint Democrats as left of center, but without bringing the kind of excitement and energy that Warren adds to the ticket. Harry Reid would not be happy with Brown on the ticket, since that would give Republicans a chance to take back Brown's seat in the Senate.
Tom Perez: The secretary of labor is well liked in the liberal community for his progressive domestic agenda. His record at the Justice Department's civil rights division, fighting on issues like police misconduct, would be a compelling factor for Clinton to do well with African-American voters.
Thomas Perez
Thomas Perez
Like Julian Castro, he also would help to ensure that a large number of Hispanic voters come out in November. His problem is that he doesn't have the name-brand value of the other two progressive possibilities, Warren and Brown. He would create a ticket of two former Obama cabinet members, which could be less than thrilling for voters.
Cory Booker: The senator from New Jersey and former Mayor of Newark represents many of the values and outlooks about politics that younger voters have been clamoring for. He has worked hard to address some of the biggest domestic issues that concern millennial and Generation X voters, such as job growth, education and anti-corruption measures.
Cory Booker
Cory Booker
He has a strong progressive record on issues like criminal justice reform and financial regulation. He would also help bring out the African-American voter, which could prove to be crucial in a number of swing states. He is young, smart and savvy and knows how to work his Twitter account. His ties to Wall Street could be a problem in the current environment, and his support for charter schools might be a source of friction with teachers unions. But picking Booker would surely excite a significant part of the party and bring youthful energy to the campaign trail.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.
Aiming for Latino and Millennial voters
If Clinton wants a selection that will excite Latino and millennial voters and improve the odds that they will come out on voting day, two names loom larger than any other.
Julian Castro: The U.S. housing secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, only 41 years old, has been talked about frequently as a vice presidential pick who would energize Clinton's campaign by providing a younger political figure. Castro has tackled high-profile issues such as early education and urban planning. Coming from an immigrant family, he could also make sure that the high levels of immigrant voting anticipated for the Clinton ticket come to fruition.
Julian Castro
Julian Castro
This pocket of the vote could be extremely helpful in states like Florida, Nevada and Colorado, where Latinos are a major part of the population. He could also help with millennial voters who generally have been lukewarm for Clinton. The combination of the two would make a stark contrast with Trump's rhetoric, offering a reminder that Democrats are the party of pluralism, diversity and integration.
His negatives revolve around his lack of experience and the fact that he has not been tested on the national stage. Clinton, who is risk-averse, would take a huge gamble by putting him out front. He would also give Republicans an opportunity to undercut one of her central attributes -- experience and command of policy.
Xavier Becerra: The highest-ranking Latino in Congress would be a bold choice for Clinton. Though he doesn't have the same name recognition as Castro, Becerra has a stellar record on the Hill and is widely respected within the Latino community.
Xavier Becerra
Xavier Becerra
With a Republican candidate who spends much of his time railing against immigrants, this selection would send a strong signal that the Clinton administration would fight for legislation to liberalize immigration. At the same time, given Becerra's resume, he would also confirm the impression that the Democratic ticket is one with governing experience.
Appealing to Trump's base
If Clinton wants to make a pick that will appeal to moderate suburbanites and white male voters -- with whom Trump has been doing well -- while bolstering her case of being the ticket with the most governing experience, there are three choices that are being considered.
Tim Kaine: The senator from Virginia is often described as the safe and "boring" pick for Clinton. He brings to the ticket extensive experience -- having been governor, mayor and senator -- in governance, including foreign policy, and the potential to shore up Clinton's support with centrist Democrats who are worried about the Sanders wing of the Democratic party gaining too much of a voice at the table. Given that Clinton has seen some troubling data regarding the vote of white men in the election, Kaine's addition could help on that front.
Tim Kaine
Tim Kaine
His calm demeanor and moderate disposition could be assuring when many voters worry about the temperament of Trump. But there are problems as well. Liberal Democrats would see his selection as a rejection of everything Sanders has been discussing. His ties to Wall Street have already been a concern. His moderate views on abortion can also cause concern.
Given that one of Clinton's challenges has been to create excitement about her candidacy, taking the most "boring" person on the list probably wont help. The recent revelations that he has accepted more than $160,000 in gifts as governor and a political figure in Virginia, all of which were legal under Virginia law, can be a problem in the politics of perception. Clinton understands better than almost anyone that the way things look can matter as much as the technicality of the law. As Trump ramps up his attack on the Clintons as corrupt insiders who make money off of elected positions, this story will provide him more fuel for the attacks.
Tom Vilsack: Like Kaine, he is a white male candidate who could help Clinton with this important group of voters while also bringing an impressive record of governance, leadership and policy to the table. His work as governor of Iowa and as the U.S. secretary of agriculture would add to the long resume of the Democratic ticket.
Tom Vilsack
Tom Vilsack
Like Kaine, Vilsack certainly won't excite voters, and his presence won't calm concerns among liberals about Clinton's long-term commitment to Sanders' issues.
Amy Klobuchar: The Minnesota lawmaker is one of the star figures in the U.S. Senate. The choice is appealing, since Democrats could retain her seat even if she departs. A strong proponent of gun control and family-friendly policies, she could have immense appeal in suburban communities, which will play an important role in most key states.
Amy Klobuchar
Amy Klobuchar
She could be exciting, adding to an already historic female-headed ticket without being a real flashpoint of controversy. She can help compete in the Midwest where Trump will be making a strong play for voters. One of her flaws, like those of some of the other choices, is that she doesn't have much of a foreign policy record.
What should worry Republicans is the breadth of this field and the number of prominent politicians in the mix. The Democrats have a pretty strong range of candidates to take this job.

Kaine would be a blatant attempt to pander to centrists at the expense of progressives, and for a number of reasons would be unpalatable to progressives, including the fact that he is too cozy with the big money. He would be a terrible choice, even leaving aside the blatant racial/gender pandering of "I need to pick a white man so white men will vote for me."

Edit: As to the question of Warren's electability in future races, that depends on many things. But it is my view that a party should make its best effort every time, rather than assume that some races are un-winable. And part of that is making sure we have a strong slate of candidates, which means taking our rising stars and building their resumes via cabinet positions or VP slots. I think Warren would be a fine progressive Presidential contender, so I would like to see her resume built up for a possible future run.

Granted, their are possibilities other than Warren. I'd like to see O'Malley run again, and long-term, I have high hopes for Congresswoman Gabbard as well, just to pick two possibilities.

[Channel72]

In that case, I shall withdraw my criticism.

Although my first preference for VP remains Elizabeth Warren. And my fear remains Cory Booker or Tim Kaine.

Why don't you like Cory Booker? He did a pretty decent job in Newark, considering what he was working with.

Anyway, as much as I like Warren, she's probably not a good VP pick. Nothing against her personally, but you know you need to compensate for the "American public stupidity factor", and two women on the same ticket isn't going to help with that Midwest blue-collar angry-white-male vote, you know. You could dismiss that with a "they won't vote for Clinton regardless", but I don't really buy that. I mean there's a certain cohort of American society that leans conservative but won't vote for Trump, and it's not clear how large or influential this cohort might be.

[Dalton]

BREAKING: VP pick will be Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who REALLY hates gays.

[Borgholio]

And there goes any hope of courting the middle.

[Flagg]

BREAKING: VP pick will be Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who REALLY hates gays.

It's like he's being paid to throw the election. I almost wonder if real rich people like the Clintons are paying off fake rich Trump. I mean not really, they are clearly super stupid enough to lose all by their own. I just can't wait to cast my ballot for POTUS and write-in "Hillary Sends Her Regards" with a lil' drawing of Bill plunging his penis into Trump's heart. I mean I live in WA, my vote doesn't count thanks to the erectile college.

[Flagg]

BREAKING: VP pick will be Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who REALLY hates gays.

It's like he's being paid to throw the election. I almost wonder if real rich people like the Clintons are paying off fake rich Trump. I mean not really, they are clearly super stupid enough to lose all by their own. I just can't wait to cast my ballot for POTUS and write-in "Hillary Sends Her Regards" with a lil' drawing of Bill plunging his penis into Trump's heart. I mean I live in WA, my vote doesn't count thanks to the erectile college.

I swear to Bowie that was a typo "fixed" by spellcheck, it's electoral college, of course.

[maraxus2]

I am loath to use CNN as a source (though in this case, it might actually give the argument more credibility, since CNN isn't exactly a highly progressive or pro-Bernie source), but its mentioned here (I bolded some relevant text):

Kaine would be a blatant attempt to pander to centrists at the expense of progressives, and for a number of reasons would be unpalatable to progressives, including the fact that he is too cozy with the big money. He would be a terrible choice, even leaving aside the blatant racial/gender pandering of "I need to pick a white man so white men will vote for me."

Edit: As to the question of Warren's electability in future races, that depends on many things. But it is my view that a party should make its best effort every time, rather than assume that some races are un-winable. And part of that is making sure we have a strong slate of candidates, which means taking our rising stars and building their resumes via cabinet positions or VP slots. I think Warren would be a fine progressive Presidential contender, so I would like to see her resume built up for a possible future run.

Granted, their are possibilities other than Warren. I'd like to see O'Malley run again, and long-term, I have high hopes for Congresswoman Gabbard as well, just to pick two possibilities.

"Blatant attempt to pander to centrists." Right. Kaine is a middle-of-the-road Democrat, which doesn't mean much to you, but today means he's still well to the left of anyone in the GOP. Your evidence that he's too cozy with "big money" is to point out that he accepted $160,000 in gifts while he was Gov in Virginia, which is true but not super relevant since there's no evidence of any kind of quid-pro-quo. You're imagining the strategery on his selection in an extremely simplistic way; Hillary is not thinking "I need a white dude so white dudes will vote for me," largely because white dudes *won't* vote for her, regardless of whom she picks.

Re: Elizabeth Warren's electability, I don't think I was saying that the Dems shouldn't try to win every election they can. Obviously they should. But in eight years, Warren will be 75, which is mighty old for someone seeking the Presidency. More than that, though, she'll have to fight against the inevitable fatigue if Hillary wins two terms. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for the incumbent party to hold the Presidency in five consecutive elections?

You like Tulsi Gabbard because she endorsed Bernie and TYT loves her. That is not a good qualifier for the Presidency.

BREAKING: VP pick will be Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who REALLY hates gays.

And also may cost us any chance of picking up the Gov. mansion in Indiana. Damn.

[Borgholio]

I swear to Bowie that was a typo "fixed" by spellcheck, it's electoral college, of course.

I liked the first one better. It's actually more appropriate at times.