• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Running Mate?

Who should Clinton's VP be assuming she wins the Democratic Nomination?

  • Bill Clinton

    Votes: 5 14.7%

  • Wendy Davis

    Votes: 4 11.8%

  • Mark Warner

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 23 67.6%
  • Total voters
    34
tres borrachos said:
Thanks.

They do have their bases but I don't think their bases are large enough even when combined. The media would like it but I think it would be a hard sell for most Americans, and I think the moderates would stay home in droves.
Click to expand...

I believe that their bases are pretty much the same.

The "base" is typically those towards either extreme, who are very politically active, make contributions, and vote nearly 100% of the time. Those people always vote for the candidate that their party selects, regardless of if that candidate is extreme enough for them.

Nearly ALL liberals think that Clinton is a moderate, and most moderates thing she is a moderate. Warren would be more to most liberals liking (however would lose the moderate vote), but Clinton is close enough to a liberal to get the base vote, plus she will draw in a heck of a lot of moderates, centrists, and those who are just slightly liberal, plus all the women voters who desire to cast a vote for a woman, regardless of lean.

I fully expect a moderate republican candidate as republicans realize that Romney lost the election by pandering to the rich (and assumably far rightwing). Even when he tried to present himself as a moderate during the debates, it was too little too late. Assuming that Clinton get's nominated, both parties will be chasing the moderate vote hard. Moderates are going tho chose sides, and show up in large numbers.
 
tres borrachos said:
Thanks.

They do have their bases but I don't think their bases are large enough even when combined. The media would like it but I think it would be a hard sell for most Americans, and I think the moderates would stay home in droves.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I think moderates have no idea how much power they hold.


imagep said:
Probably less formidable than Clinton/anyone-else-of-merit.

All dems need to get 100% of the liberal vote is to have a democrat to vote for, and all they need to do to get close to 100% of the women swing vote is to a woman. Having two democrat women on the ticket adds no additional voting sector.
Click to expand...
Warren would get them the Native American vote. ;)


imagep said:
Regardless, if either of those candidates was on the ticket, that ticket would get all of the voters who have a propensity to vote for a woman democrat. In otherwords, either of those candidates would gain 100% of the base for both of them, so having both on the same ticket adds nothing.

I assume that Warren is perceived as being quite a bit more liberal than Clinton (maybe I'm wrong about that), but Clinton is liberal enough for nearly all democrats, that if she is on any ticket in the general election, she would still bring in the far lefties.
Click to expand...
I think that aspect is more overplayed than real. It depends on who they are. Two liberal women, who ostensibly would be more sympathetic to all, could do well.


DaveFagan said:
I would have no problem voting for Warren, but if Hilary is on the ticket, it's a no-go.
Hilary is responsible for the debacle in Libya. It has created a deathly morass for
millions of people. It was done under false pretenses as much as Iraq and I've had
enough of lies.
Click to expand...
Warren intrigues me. More than once she has said something against the government establishment that got me excited. Other times she falls right in with the same old political claptrap. I don't know what to think of her just yet.

Only way I could vote for Clinton would be if her opponent were someone like Michele "Bat Scheit Crazy" Bachmann.
 
radcen said:
I think that aspect is more overplayed than real. It depends on who they are. Two liberal women, who ostensibly would be more sympathetic to all, could do well.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of guys, who may be open minded to voting for a woman (either POTUS or VP), but no so open minded that they would accept an all woman ticket. I think that two women would cost the ticket far more of those votes, than a Gal/Guy or a Guy/Gal ticket would. All the ticket needs is just one woman to bring in the moderate female voter, two would probably cost more votes than having one woman would gain.
 
imagep said:
There are a lot of guys, who may be open minded to voting for a woman (either POTUS or VP), but no so open minded that they would accept an all woman ticket. I think that two women would cost the ticket far more of those votes, than a Gal/Guy or a Guy/Gal ticket would. All the ticket needs is just one woman to bring in the moderate female voter, two would probably cost more votes than having one woman would gain.
Click to expand...
Possibly. Though I could see some progressive male voters salivating over an all-female ticket just to prove how progressive they are.

Not the sole reason I think it could work, of course. I think an all-female ticket would be accepted by black and some Hispanics more easily than a male/female if the male is the Pres candidate and the female is the VP candidate.
 
Michael Moore would go well with Hillary.
 
cpwill said:
Ironically, Republicans are now looking to fall in love, while Democrats are now looking to nominate the person whose "turn" it is.
Click to expand...

excellent observation
hillary is a dino
 
justabubba said:
excellent observation
hillary is a dino
Click to expand...

I heard that she started going to the gym again. Here's proof:

20090715_hillmuscle_250x375.jpg
 
imagep said:
I believe that their bases are pretty much the same.

The "base" is typically those towards either extreme, who are very politically active, make contributions, and vote nearly 100% of the time. Those people always vote for the candidate that their party selects, regardless of if that candidate is extreme enough for them.

Nearly ALL liberals think that Clinton is a moderate, and most moderates thing she is a moderate. Warren would be more to most liberals liking (however would lose the moderate vote), but Clinton is close enough to a liberal to get the base vote, plus she will draw in a heck of a lot of moderates, centrists, and those who are just slightly liberal, plus all the women voters who desire to cast a vote for a woman, regardless of lean.

I fully expect a moderate republican candidate as republicans realize that Romney lost the election by pandering to the rich (and assumably far rightwing). Even when he tried to present himself as a moderate during the debates, it was too little too late. Assuming that Clinton get's nominated, both parties will be chasing the moderate vote hard. Moderates are going tho chose sides, and show up in large numbers.
Click to expand...

I know some women here in NH who voted for Hillary in our primary in 2008 simply because she's a woman, and no other reason. She could kill their cats and they'd still vote for her. They're salivating at the prospect of voting for her in 2016.

I think Hillary is a pretty moderate candidate. I think her husband was moderate as well, which IMO is part of the reason for his success.

Warren's base is.....I don't know. I can't describe them and won't try to.

Hillary adding Warren to her ticket assuming she is on the ticket wouldn't add value for Hillary.
 
vesper said:
The majority of Republicans I have spoken with are liking the number of fresh younger looking candidates gearing up to run. Rubio, Walker, Cruz, Jindal are in their early to mid 40's and Rand Paul is a very fit, young looking 52. Christie is also 52 At 68, Hillary technically could easily be their mother. We have older ones contemplating a run but they are all younger than Hillary. Santorum 56, Huckabee 59, Bush 61, Kasich 62 and Carson 63.
Click to expand...

This is about running mates, not the too of the ticket. Both Cheney and Biden were older men upon taking the office of Vice president. I suspect that the next VP will fall along similar lines as the last 2.
 
rocket88 said:
This is about running mates, not the too of the ticket. Both Cheney and Biden were older men upon taking the office of Vice president. I suspect that the next VP will fall along similar lines as the last 2.
Click to expand...

I will have to disagree. Often the running mate is chosen simply because of a key state needed for the electoral votes. Age has nothing to do with it. As someone who will vote Republican, I think a younger candidate will emerge as the nominee. At least I am hoping so. And if I am right, I can't wait for the debates between this fresh faced candidate against a 69 year old Hillary Clinton. I hear Rubio polls rather well with women. Krauthammer calls him the dark horse and thinks he will be the next nominee or very least the VP. Gee that's bad news for Hillary. It's going to be quite interesting to watch all unfold.
 
AGENT J said:
since people keep bringing it up ive been saying it for years, If hilary gets the nod she will be president, I cont see anybody able to challenge her besides christie and the GOP wont give him the nod. AGain as ive also said many times this isnt about what i want its about the culture of today politics.

as far as her running mate ive read some articles on them, maybe ill go dig them up later but i think the only one on the list that was a serious possibility was Mark Warner
Click to expand...

heres two I was talking about a top 15 and a top 6, i thought i saved a bunch of them but this is all i had
Top 15 Hillary Running Mates for 2016 | Democrat Cafe
A veep for Hillary Clinton in 2016? | TheHill

IMO and like others said it will be a person like booker, castro or dean

I don't see her pickin a woman, while sad I honestly dont think the american people are ready for that
 
justabubba said:
Corey Booker












but her is an example of one of the reasons hillary cannot win:
Click to expand...


why do you think that video has a negative impact?
now this doesnt mean there aren't OTHER things that can impact her negatively lol but why the video
 
AGENT J said:
why do you think that video has a negative impact?
now this doesnt mean there aren't OTHER things that can impact her negatively lol but why the video
Click to expand...

shows how politically tone deaf she is ... unlike her spouse
 
tres borrachos said:
I know some women here in NH who voted for Hillary in our primary in 2008 simply because she's a woman, and no other reason. She could kill their cats and they'd still vote for her. They're salivating at the prospect of voting for her in 2016.

I think Hillary is a pretty moderate candidate. I think her husband was moderate as well, which IMO is part of the reason for his success.

Warren's base is.....I don't know. I can't describe them and won't try to.

Hillary adding Warren to her ticket assuming she is on the ticket wouldn't add value for Hillary.
Click to expand...

Warren, I think, if she wanted to, could pull the same success as Dean did a while back, claiming to represent the Democrat Wing of the Democrat Party. Presumably we wouldn't get any "HEEEYYAHHHHH!" action out of her, however.

And yeah. It's unfortunate now that we've fallen off the other side of the horse when it comes to sexism/racism, but :shrug: there we are.
 
AGENT J said:
why does that make her politically tone deaf?
Click to expand...

old white woman trying to talk black to a predominantly black audience
an affectation
don't know anyone who is found of them
 
vesper said:
I will have to disagree. Often the running mate is chosen simply because of a key state needed for the electoral votes. Age has nothing to do with it. As someone who will vote Republican, I think a younger candidate will emerge as the nominee. At least I am hoping so. And if I am right, I can't wait for the debates between this fresh faced candidate against a 69 year old Hillary Clinton. I hear Rubio polls rather well with women. Krauthammer calls him the dark horse and thinks he will be the next nominee or very least the VP. Gee that's bad news for Hillary. It's going to be quite interesting to watch all unfold.
Click to expand...

So age is only a problem if it's a Democrat? 69 was the same age Reagan was when he took office. I'm not saying it's an asset, but I don't think it's as big of a problem as you think. It's also younger than McCain was in '08 I believe.

I don't think it'll be an issue anyway. As long as the GOP manages to nominate someone with half a brain, they should win in '16.
 
AGENT J said:
heres two I was talking about a top 15 and a top 6, i thought i saved a bunch of them but this is all i had
Top 15 Hillary Running Mates for 2016 | Democrat Cafe
A veep for Hillary Clinton in 2016? | TheHill

IMO and like others said it will be a person like booker, castro or dean

I don't see her pickin a woman, while sad I honestly dont think the american people are ready for that
Click to expand...

Just from skimming through the list in your link, I would think that Wesley Clark or Charlie Crist would make great choices.

Crist because he's got some name recognition, he could pull in a lot of moderate conservatives, and could win the state of Florida, assuming that there isn't a republican candidate from Florida. Also, it's possible that Crist would pick up some of the low information republican voters, as they may get him confused with Chris Christie (particularly in Florida, where apparently the voters become total morons in the booth).

Clark also because he has a lot of name recognition, and he could win the military vote, which would be a huge plus for democrats. The down side of Clark is that he's connected to Arkansas, which will already go to Hillary assuming that there isn't a republican candidate from Arkansas.
 
justabubba said:
old white woman trying to talk black to a predominantly black audience
an affectation
don't know anyone who is found of them
Click to expand...

oooooh i see where you are confused at now, you think she was just "talking black" . . . well then id say it would be you, who, if you were in that situation you would be politically tone death

she wasn't trying to talk "black" (like that is even a factual thing) she was actually quoting a very popular James Cleveland’s great freedom hymn/spiritual (that start line goes back even further) It's very popular to the people who she was addressing, did you happen to hear the cheers afterward? She was speaking at a church rally . . . .and it went very well. Not to mention if one would see the WHOLE speech or even a couple minutes before/after the clip you showed we would see her announce the qoute and refer to it before she says it. You hear MORE cheering and even people (black people) standing and clapping. Id say this would be the worse clip to show to try and sell the theory she is tone deaf to her audience.

again, im not saying Hilary doesnt have faults, SHE DOES! lol im just saying this wasnt one of them ..

here's little longer clip
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
Just from skimming through the list in your link, I would think that Wesley Clark or Charlie Crist would make great choices.

Crist because he's got some name recognition, he could pull in a lot of moderate conservatives, and could win the state of Florida, assuming that there isn't a republican candidate from Florida. Also, it's possible that Crist would pick up some of the low information republican voters, as they may get him confused with Chris Christie (particularly in Florida, where apparently the voters become total morons in the booth).

Clark also because he has a lot of name recognition, and he could win the military vote, which would be a huge plus for democrats. The down side of Clark is that he's connected to Arkansas, which will already go to Hillary assuming that there isn't a republican candidate from Arkansas.
Click to expand...

nothing wrong with those assessments . . .ive read similar one about the military vote.
Funny about Floridia and its votes too but i dont think that will happen lol
Castro is there for youth and minority voting according to some articles . . . .
 
justabubba said:
i don't think she stands for anything
nor has she accomplished anything
and you obviously have nothing to add to that
Click to expand...

So it was a strawman post then? I understand, thanks for sharing.
 
LaylaWindu said:
So it was a strawman post then? I understand, thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

asking you what the prospective top of the ticket stood for when discussing who the running mate might be is a straw man?
you apparently don't know what that term means
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom