Clinton's VEEP choice

NJlonghorn

NJlonghorn

2,500+ Posts
The usual suspects are still dominating the chatter, but I've heard suggestions lately about Tom Vilsack. I know little about him, but what I know I like. On the Issues rates him as a true centrist, at 60% liberal and 40% conservative on both social and fiscal issues. I haven't looked at the breakdown yet, but I see that as promising.
 
It will be interesting if Clinton treats Sanders and other left supporters as scum, sort of like what Cruz did to Trump.
 
It's not good to have the word "sack" in your name, but Vilsack would probably be a respectable VP and a smart pick.
 
She picked Kaine. To paraphrase Hitlery herself about the Benghazi murders, "What difference at this point does it make?"
 
I think Kaine almost assures a Trump victory. Bernie voters will be turned off by the wiki leaks and black voter turnout will be low with this team of establishment white democrats. Mix in more police/terrorist attacks and independents lean heavy to Trump.
 
I agree that this pick doesn't make a lot of sense. Kaine isn't going to excite the Democratic base, but he also isn't going to attract the Trump demographic (white dudes who didn't graduate from college). He's not going to turn them off, but he won't attract them. She should have gone with a younger liberal who's an ethnic minority to motivate the base, or she should have gone with a labor-friendly Rust Belt liberal like Sherrod Brown to try to undercut Trump.

One other point, Michael Moore will vote for Trump. I'll never be able to prove that, because he'll never admit it and will endorse Hillary out of political necessity, but if you look at Trump's agenda, it's actually pretty consistent with Moore's priorities.
 
My new, more detailed wish list:
  • Hillary gets indicted (or pardoned), or something else happens that makes her step down.
  • Kaine moves up to the top of the ticket, and names a progressive (Warren? Booker?) as his VEEP choice.
  • Kaine spends most of his energy bashing not only Trump but also the DNC, screaming about the need for change.
  • Kaine wins in a landslide.
 
Yes, there is a mechanism to deal with this situation. No, I didn't describe it accurately.

Each party has a mechanism to replace a candidate who withdraws. According to this article on TeachingHistory.org:

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have rules in their bylaws governing how to fill the vacancy. The Party Chair calls a meeting of the National Committee, and the Committee members at the meeting vote to fill the vacancy on the ticket. A candidate must receive a majority of the votes to win the party's nod.
Click to expand...

Each state has laws regulating the printing of ballots. If the change is made before the state's deadline, then the transition is easy. If it is made later, you could have a clusterfuck.

A similar issue came up when incumbent senator Robert Toricelli (D - NJ) withdrew his re-election bid in the fall of 2002. The state Democratic party named Frank Lautenberg (who had recently retired as NJ's other senator) to replace Torricelli on the ballot. The ballot-printing deadline had passed, but the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the deadline was arbitrary and thus unconstitutional. There was enough time to make the switch, so the switch was made.

So, imagine if Clinton withdraws and the DNC names someone else as the Democratic nominee. The ballot is changed in some states but not others. The DNC sues those states and the case goes to SCOTUS, which deadlocks 4-4....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top