I'd love to see Warren, for all the reasons you stated. And also because a Veep can be very influential on the President, even if it's somewhat under the radar. By all accounts, Biden may not have been given high-profile "jobs" as Veep, but has been very influential in private. And I'd love to see Warren's influence in the White House. (And of course, Cheney was hugely influential on Bush as well, more's the pity). Apparently Harry Reid gave his blessing to that choice, or at least took away his objection. He was thought to be disinclined because MA's GOP governor would appoint her replacement, though a special election under MA rules would have to come pretty quickly, and that apparently makes the difference for Reid. The same thing is working against the selection of Sherrod Brown (another guy that Sanders supporters tend to like), but more so - Ohio's GOP Gov. would also appoint a Republican, and under Ohio rules, a special election wouldn't come till 2018 IIRC. My question is whether Warren would want the job. Any VP pretty much has to back up the President, in word and deed, even if he/she does something the Veep doesn't like. Warren may be too independent for that, and may see herself as more effective (and less likely to chafe under "gotta support the President"-ness) in the Senate. And basically, a Veep is given as much power and influence as the President wants to grant, and Clinton's control-freak nature may not allow her to grant as much as she should. Besides, Warren has already shown that she can get under Trump's skin and serve as a very effective attack dog right from where she is. They always say that "attack dog" is one of the Veep candidate's primary jobs, and it's possible Clinton could choose someone else who will fill that role WHILE Warren continues to do so as well. I'd love to see Warren, but my guess is that Clinton will pick someone solid, safe, and kinda boring, like Tim Kaine. But I could be wrong. My fear about this race is that the media, in their undying service to their real interest - which is ratings/money/controversy - may create a false equivalence where semi-slimy moments from Clinton (and yes, she and Bill are both capable of that, at minimum) may be blown up to "match" Trump's major-slimy moments. It's not in the media's interest to have a race where someone pulls away and stays ahead. It's to create a roller coaster nail biter where we all keep watching.
Being me, I have a hard time seeing the gloom and doom. I see the Republicans crashing and burning while the Democrats are coming together. I wouldn't be surprised if after the conventions Hillary led in the polls by 15+ points. I know we can't dismiss Trump, but I think you see him as a more viable candidate than he really is. I remember a certain Mr. X who was also rather gloom and doom back in 2008, convinced that the U.S. Stock Market and Economy was headed for absolute, irreversible disaster. My portfolio is doing just fine right now, thank you. At times a little optimism isn't a bad thing.
Me neither. And then four days later, Bill is caught on hidden camera in a Nevada brothel, with the CEO of Monsanto, five or six Kardashians, 37 pounds of cocaine, and a laptop containing details of a pending arms-for-hostages deal involving North Korea, ISIS and FIFA. THAT'S why I'm worried about doom and gloom.
Well, to be fair, I was right. Not the irreversible part, thankfully, but the stock market, and economy, experienced an absolute disaster in 2008/2009. Even I was surprised it was as sharp as it ended up being, and I was Mr. Doom! Remember the stock market lost HALF its value during that period (and yeah, I called it very early on too...too bad I didn't have the guts to short the market like I knew I shoulda lol). Well, sure. And I'm certainly glad to hear it. But be honest, did you think back in 2009 or so that the market would've rebounded completely within just a few years? That was as unprecedented as the crash itself really. Perhaps it's a testament to American resilience (I hope so!), but I think what we're seeing now with the endless quantative easing and negative interest rates is a result of some of that financial alchemy the powers-that-be performed back then to get things rolling again. And I hope they can find their way out of it, because I smell a new crash coming. And Trump would certainly jump start it for us!
It was certainly a little scary for awhile, though I didn't take as big a hit as some because I had a decent holding in government bond funds which tended to offset the total collapse of the growth funds. Also, my investments have always been frosting on the cake... the cake is a defined benefit pension from the University of Minnesota. If I had been totally dependent on my investments I would have worried a lot more. As for the future, the fact that I won't be around much longer makes me worry somewhat less about the Fed's hocus-pocus and whether or not they can keep it going.
Well I hope that prediction doesn't come true, assuming you're feeling well enough to enjoy sticking around a while longer.
I'm searching for the answer to that. When is it not worth it? My activities are very limited; I rarely get out of the house anymore. I would never attempt a long trip without Annie... I never know when I may need help to survive. Yes, I still enjoy my days exchanging views with people I know on the Internet and stuff, but I HATE knowing that I make more work for Annie. She always says she takes her wedding vows seriously, in sickness and in health, and that she has no problem helping me. But I still feel pretty worthless at times. It is a struggle.
For what it's worth, I wrote a letter to Kaine over a month ago to bring his attention to some of the problems the DC region is facing with the near-collapse of Metro, but I didn't get a response until yesterday. I realize that he doesn't read those sorts of things himself, but it's pretty embarrassing that his interns can't get back to a constituent in a timely fashion (it was specifically about the round-the-clock service reductions that began last week), and when they do it's with a form letter that's vaguely-related to the general subject but completely ignores any elements of the actual problem If you want a "safe" choice from Virginia, Terry McAuliffe seems like an obvious option. He's been angling for this sort of thing ever since his stint as head of the DNC in the mid-00's. His term as governor runs up at the beginning of 2018 and he can't run again, so it could be a relatively easy transition
McAuliffe's currently under federal investigation for campaign contributions. Who knows what will come of that, but it's not the sort of thing that looks good on a Veep candidate. I would think Kaine is a safer choice, and he certainly has more Veep buzz around him that McAuliffe, even though the latter has been a Clinton friend for years. The five names I see mentioned the most in the "Veepstakes" are Warren, Kaine, Sherrod Brown, Julian Castro, and Thomas Perez. Less mentioned (but still usually in any Veep story) are Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Evan Bayh, Bernie Sanders, and John Hickenlooper. Depending on the length of the story, there are sometimes others. I think I see Mark Warner mentioned more than McAuliffe right now, probably because of the investigation. I did see him mentioned more before that was announced.
My husband and I have talked about just having Joe Biden serve another term as VP. It would add to the sense of a calm and orderly transition that is lacking under the GOP choices, I think he's reasonably liked and allows him to retain an active role (it's unfortunate that his son's illness and death prevented him from throwing his own hat into the ring). Not that I think it would be under consideration.
Quoting myself (how very Trumpian) from #41: "I'd love to see Warren, but my guess is that Clinton will pick someone solid, safe, and kinda boring, like Tim Kaine." Did I call it? I mean, DID I CALL IT??!! (Yeah, along with a zillion other people. But still...)
You called it, but did you see his speech? NOT boring. Not boring at all. I'm feeling much more hopeful after last week's plumbing convention.
Here in the People's Republic of California, it doesn't really matter who I vote for, northern California will just overrule it.
What does this mean? Does Northern California have more voters, or is it more organized, or? (I know next to nothing about California except that I love the place)
