PDA

View Full Version : An all female ticket: good move or bad move?



Peter1469
04-24-2016, 10:27 AM
Now that Hillary is no longer getting "Berned" she is thinking about the future. Specifically who should she pick for her vice president. I think, and the Telegraph agrees (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/hillary-clinton-considers-all-female-ticket-by-choosing-woman-as/), that Elizabeth (Big Chief) Warren would make a good pick. Because she would capture many of the Bernie supporters.

But is it a good idea for two females to make up the ticket?


Following her convincing win over her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders in New York last week, she has already begun turning her attention to November's general election.

This offers the intriguing possibility of not just the first female party nominee but the prospect of an all-woman ticket.


One name much discussed in political circles is Elizabeth Warren, the senator for Massachusetts and former Harvard professor, who disappointed many on the liberal wing of the party by opting not to enter the nomination race herself.

She would help Mrs Clinton win over progressive Democratic voters, including some who have backed Mr Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont who has made a surprisingly strong challenge.


She also enjoys national name recognition and a reputation as a prolific fundraiser. And Cherokee war chief.

Private Pickle
04-24-2016, 10:29 AM
Great idea. They can get together, do each other's hair and watch Hugh Grant movies when the going gets tough.

Bo-4
04-24-2016, 10:36 AM
IMHO no Pete. America is probably ready for a female POTUS (Hilly wouldn't be my pick of course) but two is one too many.

Plus i don't think she gets along with Liz very well.

Former Mayor of San Antonio and now HUD Director Julian Casto would be a great choice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jx3m7jk1CY

Tahuyaman
04-24-2016, 10:37 AM
That could cause irreparable damage for future Democrats.

Subdermal
04-24-2016, 11:10 AM
I don't see the benefit, and I do see a detriment.

Green Arrow
04-24-2016, 12:21 PM
It wouldn't be enough to change my vote. Still refuse to vote for Hillary.

Tahuyaman
04-24-2016, 12:29 PM
I don't understand how anyone could believe that Hillary Clinton would be a good POTUS? The idea that she would be a great or even adaquate leader in any aspect is preposterous.

Peter1469
04-24-2016, 12:31 PM
I don't understand how anyone could believe that Hillary Clinton would be a good POTUS? The idea that she would be a great or even adaquate leader in any aspect is preposterous.

The word fan derives from the word fanatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_(person)).

IMPress Polly
04-25-2016, 02:33 PM
Tahuyaman wrote:
That could cause irreparable damage for future Democrats.


Subdermal agreed:
I don't see the benefit, and I do see a detriment.


Bo-4 agreed:
IMHO no Pete. America is probably ready for a female POTUS (Hilly wouldn't be my pick of course) but two is one too many.

Plus i don't think she gets along with Liz very well.

Former Mayor of San Antonio and now HUD Director Julian Casto would be a great choice.

Why is the very idea of an all-female ticket a moral outrage? It's not as if all-male tickets are controversial or as if we've ever lived under anything else.

Incidentally Bo-4, while Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren may have differences and while Warren has yet to endorse a candidate, it's not exactly like they're enemies. Elizabeth Warren, in fact, urged Hillary Clinton to run for president in the first place (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/) and has praised her Wall Street plan (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/elizabeth-warren-praises-hillary-clintons-wall-street-plan/), while for her part, Hillary Clinton, shortly after declaring her candidacy, wrote a glowing article about Warren explaining how Warren has influenced her views (http://time.com/3823064/elizabeth-warren-2015-time-100/). I think they'd get along fine.

Picking a known populist and Wall Street opponent like Warren would also have the practical advantages of bringing over many Bernie Sanders supporters (the youth being a particularly key element thereof that needs to be mobilized in the general election) because it would prove that Clinton is serious about the additional financial regulations she's proposing; serious enough to risk losing what support her campaign has from the financial sector.

Conversely, I don't think the other prospects mentioned in the OP article would have the same energizing effect on the youth vote or on working class voters like myself. That's particularly true of Tim Kaine, who is well-known for being among the most conservative and pro-corporate Democrats out there. If Kaine were selected as Clinton's running mate, I definitely wouldn't vote for the Democratic ticket in the fall. That would be a definite dividing line for me because it would clearly signal that Clinton is NOT serious about her economic reform proposals.


Private Pickle wrote:
Great idea. They can get together, do each other's hair and watch Hugh Grant movies when the going gets tough.

Nothing sexist there. :rollseyes:

Cigar
04-25-2016, 03:27 PM
IMHO no Pete. America is probably ready for a female POTUS (Hilly wouldn't be my pick of course) but two is one too many.

Plus i don't think she gets along with Liz very well.

Former Mayor of San Antonio and now HUD Director Julian Casto would be a great choice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jx3m7jk1CY


A Woman and a Hispanic would just send The GOP into Full-Meltdown Mode :laugh:

Safety
04-25-2016, 03:30 PM
A Woman and a Hispanic would just send The GOP into Full-Meltdown Mode :laugh:

It'd be worse than the Goldwater/Johnson election results.

Bo-4
04-25-2016, 03:34 PM
It'd be worse than the Goldwater/Johnson election results.

Yep guys .. Julian is flipping awesome and would be a GREAT campaigner.

Plus his youth would counter-balance Hillary's years on the planet.

Green Arrow
04-25-2016, 10:04 PM
Yep guys .. Julian is flipping awesome and would be a GREAT campaigner.

Plus his youth would counter-balance Hillary's years on the planet.

He has hitched his wagon to the establishment, that disqualifies him for me.

Besides, Hillary could pick Bernie as her VP and I still won't vote for her. The VP has virtually zero control over the president and won't make much difference.

Captain Obvious
04-25-2016, 10:15 PM
I don't care what's between (or not) a candidates legs, unless it's special interest's junk, which more often than not it is.

The Xl
04-25-2016, 10:20 PM
I have no problems with an all female ticket. I have problems with a shitty female ticket, and Hillary and anyone is a shitty ticket.

HoneyBadger
04-25-2016, 10:44 PM
But is it a good idea for two females to make up the ticket?





No.

HoneyBadger
04-25-2016, 10:49 PM
We've already had 7 years of bitchy whininess, why double down for more?

Tahuyaman
04-25-2016, 11:57 PM
An all female ticket: good move or bad move
Personally, I would have no problem with an all female ticket if the females in question were strong constitutional conservative types. If they were Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or Nancy Pelosi types, I would have a problem with that.

IMPress Polly
04-26-2016, 03:57 AM
Green Arrow wrote:
He has hitched his wagon to the establishment, that disqualifies him for me.

Besides, Hillary could pick Bernie as her VP and I still won't vote for her. The VP has virtually zero control over the president and won't make much difference.

We've had some pretty powerful vice presidents before. On the Republican side, we could take Dick Cheney for example. More importantly though, I view the running mate selection as symbolic of one's political alignments and also as a potential transition point vis-a-vis election cycles to come. The sitting vice president is, after all, generally in the best position to run for president themself after the sitting president (the possibility of extraordinary circumstances such as those Joe Biden has confronted this last year intervening notwithstanding), at least for the party that holds the office. Selecting Warren as the running mate best positions her to run for president herself when Clinton's term has expired, which would clearly mark the emergence of the Democratic Party's populist wing as its dominant one. Therefore it matters to me. It also matters because selecting Warren would quite possibly cost Clinton her support from Wall Street, which in turn would give her no reason not to indeed go ahead with the new financial regulations she has proposed. It would be reassuring in that sense to me. By contrast, selecting anyone else mentioned in the OP article would not carry the same political risk and would therefore not be as bold.


Cigar wrote:
A Woman and a Hispanic would just send The GOP into Full-Meltdown Mode :laugh:

Look who they're picking as their nominee! I think it safe to say that they're already in full meltdown mode regardless!

Personally, I view their selection of Trump as what some call a "blacklash". Trump, after all, first popularized himself with Republicans four years ago by demanding to see President Obama's birth certificate and then idiotically denying that the one provided was authentic (:rollseyes:). Just about everyone on Earth recognized that, and birtherism in general, as racially motivated. That is how Trump became popular among Republicans in the first place. To this end, his emergence as the dominant candidate in their contest this year IMO reflects little more than generic anger over having to endure a full two terms under a black president who actually sometimes displays the audacity to stand up for the interests of African Americans (unlike his Republican counterparts) and is clearly rooted in thoroughgoing racism, as additionally marked by the fact that each surge he has enjoyed in the polls has just happened to correspond to the announcement of some new racially charged position, like supporting the mass deportation of Mexican American immigrants and their citizen children and the barring of Muslims from entering the country because "the Muslims hate us" and so forth. This stuff is clearly what drives people to support Trump and it's why I've long considered him a particularly dangerous candidate.

But anyway, yeah I consider them to already be in full meltdown mode for even pettier reasons than you suggest would drive them to that point.


Safety wrote:
It'd be worse than the Goldwater/Johnson election results.

Not without the youth vote! Johnson's strong support among the youth in 1964 was a crucial ingredient in what made that election a landslide and the lack thereof for Humphrey in 1968 a crucial ingredient in Nixon's election. I have doubts that Julian Castro is a politically bold enough choice to drive younger voters to the polls this fall. I mean it might appeal to Latino voters for sure, but frankly when you see news reports like this one pointing about Hispanic immigrants rushing to obtain citizenship specifically to vote against Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/us/trumps-rise-spurs-latino-immigrants-to-naturalize-to-vote-against-him.html?_r=0), I think you can see what I mean when I say that they're going to turn our for the Democratic nominee in record numbers regardless of who is selected as the running mate simply in order to stop Trump from being elected for reasons that are extremely obvious. The loyalty of Hispanic voters to the Democratic ticket this fall is guaranteed by virtue of who the Republican nominee will be. The loyalty of the youth to the Democratic ticket, by contrast, is not. It is therefore more practical and important, in my view, for a Democratic nominee like Hillary Clinton, who presently lacks much support from the youth, to select a bold progressive as her running mate, if only to draw that crucial block in.


Peter wrote:
But is it a good idea for two females to make up the ticket?

Honeybadger responded:
No.

...and...


We've already had 7 years of $#@!y whininess, why double down for more?

And you people wonder why Republicans struggle with female voters!

Peter1469
04-26-2016, 04:48 AM
I think turn out will be low for democrats this election cycle. Clinton has the charisma of a water moccasin. In the end, people don't get motivated so much over negativity.

Plus large numbers of dems are voting Trump.

IMPress Polly
04-26-2016, 05:15 AM
Peter wrote:
Plus large numbers of dems are voting Trump.

I don't see that theory born out in data. Almost every poll that's done head-to-head match-ups between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the last two months that I've seen has shown Clinton leading Trump by double-digit margins. Broken down state-by-state, furthermore, the larger studies additionally find Clinton leading Trump not only across all the so-called swing states by double-digits, but also leading Trump even in a number of states that have traditionally been considered safe Republican territory like Arizona and Utah. How do you square Mr. Trump's claims to be bringing over "Reagan Democrats" in droves with such a mountain of empirical evidence that the exact opposite is happening, with even "safe red states" coming into play now?

Quicksilver
04-26-2016, 06:53 AM
I think turn out will be low for democrats this election cycle. Clinton has the charisma of a water moccasin. In the end, people don't get motivated so much over negativity.

Plus large numbers of dems are voting Trump.


Amazing how hope springs eternal.. just like when waiting for that indictment huh?

Green Arrow
04-26-2016, 09:10 AM
We've had some pretty powerful vice presidents before. On the Republican side, we could take Dick Cheney for example. More importantly though, I view the running mate selection as symbolic of one's political alignments and also as a potential transition point vis-a-vis election cycles to come. The sitting vice president is, after all, generally in the best position to run for president themself after the sitting president (the possibility of extraordinary circumstances such as those Joe Biden has confronted this last year intervening notwithstanding), at least for the party that holds the office. Selecting Warren as the running mate best positions her to run for president herself when Clinton's term has expired, which would clearly mark the emergence of the Democratic Party's populist wing as its dominant one. Therefore it matters to me. It also matters because selecting Warren would quite possibly cost Clinton her support from Wall Street, which in turn would give her no reason not to indeed go ahead with the new financial regulations she has proposed. It would be reassuring in that sense to me. By contrast, selecting anyone else mentioned in the OP article would not carry the same political risk and would therefore not be as bold.

I think powerful VP's and VP's that run for president (and win) are small compared to the number of VP's that most people forget exist. VP's like Dick Cheney are the exception, not the rule, and Cheney benefitted from serving under a weak president.

Besides that, choosing a VP can easily be done to gove the APPEARANCE of ideological alignment without actually resulting in any ideological alignment.

IMPress Polly
04-26-2016, 11:29 AM
Green Arrow wrote:
I think powerful VP's and VP's that run for president (and win) are small compared to the number of VP's that most people forget exist.

Frankly, the same thing could be said of actual presidents. :wink:

Green Arrow
04-26-2016, 01:29 PM
Frankly, the same thing could be said of actual presidents. :wink:

I would agree with that.