Does this all end with a Hillary/Bernie unity ticket? If not, who are some of the prospective VP candidates?
Elizabeth Warren is sure to be on both shortlists as a courtesy but won't be chosen.
Makes you so sure that she wouldn't be chosen?
Don't think they will push a ticket of either a) two women or b) two liberal senators from New England. In fact I would be stunned if either happened.
Exactly right. I can't see any scenario where Warren makes sense for the dems this time around. The party typically tries to broaden the appeal of their ticket by adding a running mate who is complimentary, but appeals to a demographic that the presidential nominee doesn't necessarily have in the bag, while also providing a positive juxaposition for a perceived negative that the pres candidate has (ie, a young running mate for an older candidate, a male running mate for a female candidate, a southern running mate for an establishment New England or Beltway candidate, a governor as a running mate for a legislator candidate, etc...). Warren and Sanders are too much alike so that doesn't really help broaden Bernie's appeal. And a ticket with 2 women seems like a battle that they won't want to force yet. Once we've had a woman pres, we'll see 2 women on a ticket, but I can't see it happening before then.
Disclaimer: I typed "I can't see..." but that apparently means jack shit this year, since I didn't see Trump dominating the Republican race, and didn't foresee Jeb being bounced before Super Tuesday. And didn't see Bernie doing so well this late in. This is the strangest election cycle I've seen.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Emerson College's latest poll has the Democratic race here in Massachusetts as a dead heat. PPP's latest poll has Bernie Sanders up by 7. The Boston Globe, meanwhile, has endorsed Hillary Clinton. So suspicious minds may question the motives of the paper of record here when it urges the Commonwealth's largest block of voters - independents - to not participate in next Tuesday's Democratic Primary.
How long will Bernie stay in the race after Super Tuesday? We know he can't win the nomination, based on the super delegates all lining up with Clinton. Bernie only really has a shot at a few more wins in northeastern states. Once Super Tuesday is done, does Bernie stay in with the hope of continuing to force Hillary to the left a little bit, or does he bow out?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
How long will Bernie stay in the race after Super Tuesday? We know he can't win the nomination, based on the super delegates all lining up with Clinton. Bernie only really has a shot at a few more wins in northeastern states. Once Super Tuesday is done, does Bernie stay in with the hope of continuing to force Hillary to the left a little bit, or does he bow out?
i am supporting sanders.
if he runs out of money he bows out.
if he gets trounced on super tuesday he won't recover if there is no money. he has pulled clinton to the left, which was his entire goal when he was kicking around the idea of running last year.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
A little tidbit from an aunt's friend who lives in Jersey.
I haven't mentioned this before because I was sure that the media would. Here's what I know first hand about Donald Trump because my husband, Pete, is a carpenter in South Jersey and so has many, many associates in all of the construction disciplines in the area. Donald Trump came to South Jersey in the early 80s and started building casinos and accommodations. PEOPLE WE KNOW worked on these projects. When the invoices were submitted for work completed, Donald Trump responded by saying that despite bids proferred and agreed upon, despite contracts signed, that he was happy to pay pennies on the dollar and if the contractors didn't like it, they could take him to court where he would tie them up in legal red tape until their great grandchildren were great grandparents. For the last 30 years, he has casually ruined real people because everyone is a "fat loser" except for him. I can't think of anything bad enough for Donald Trump. Can you?
So how long are we going to wait until we see trumps tax returns and Hillary's transcripts? What do these to have to hide?
well, since trump is reportedly being audited, you probably won't see them for awhile.
does it concern anybody else that the gop frontrunner is audited nearly every year?
I have heard for a few sources that his net worth is incredibly low, he owes a ton of money and has very little in the way of income. The only reason he is still afloat is because too many big shots are invested in his failing ventures and they don't want to go down with him.
I think it is hilarious that venture capitalist Mitt Romney who in 2012 fought tooth and nail before finally releasing his tax in September is now suspicious Donald Trump won't release his in February. Romney has been part of my political life since 1994 and I have never trusted him. Which is in no way a defense of Trump. I don't trust him either.
Everyday that she delays releasing the Wall Street transcripts extends the life of that story. The Clintons are savvy political animals who have been planning Hillary's return to the White House since they were in it before. What could she have possibly said in a planned speech that could be so damaging? Not a set of off-the-cuff remarks...these are written, planned speeches.
I would have guessed this was much ado about nothing. Her refusal to refuse them is what makes me question that.
Everyday that she delays releasing the Wall Street transcripts extends the life of that story. The Clintons are savvy political animals who have been planning Hillary's return to the White House since they were in it before. What could she have possibly said in a planned speech that could be so damaging? Not a set of off-the-cuff remarks...these are written, planned speeches.
I would have guessed this was much ado about nothing. Her refusal to refuse them is what makes me question that.
Your really think that paying $250k a pop for a "speech" to a political powerhouse, ex - first lady, NY senator, sec of state and shoe in for the next democratic nominee for president is much ado about nothing?? If so then, what is she saying to wall street that is so "valuable"? Since you have some basis to think what what was said was much ado about nothing you must then have some idea about what was said in general? Now I understand that in wall street world $250k is chump change but to the average Joe it's a fortune! Most people don't earn $250k a year let alone in one day.
Everyday that she delays releasing the Wall Street transcripts extends the life of that story. The Clintons are savvy political animals who have been planning Hillary's return to the White House since they were in it before. What could she have possibly said in a planned speech that could be so damaging? Not a set of off-the-cuff remarks...these are written, planned speeches.
I would have guessed this was much ado about nothing. Her refusal to refuse them is what makes me question that.
Your really think that paying $250k a pop for a "speech" to a political powerhouse, ex - first lady, NY senator, sec of state and shoe in for the next democratic nominee for president is much ado about nothing?? If so then, what is she saying to wall street that is so "valuable"? Since you have some basis to think what what was said was much ado about nothing you must then have some idea about what was said in general? Now I understand that in wall street world $250k is chump change but to the average Joe it's a fortune! Most people don't earn $250k a year let alone in one day.
Calm down.
I would think they were much ado about nothing because I can't imagine Hillary Clinton, in the runup to her second run for the presidency, giving speeches that were not vetted word for word. No matter who was paying the tab. That she refuses to release them calls that assessment into question.
Comments
Disclaimer: I typed "I can't see..." but that apparently means jack shit this year, since I didn't see Trump dominating the Republican race, and didn't foresee Jeb being bounced before Super Tuesday. And didn't see Bernie doing so well this late in. This is the strangest election cycle I've seen.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-hillary-clinton/
Oh, and no, the game did not help my headache go away, haha!
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/02/22/mass-voters-should-stop-trump/v6qudgMmpU0bMWbDTdQ00H/story.html?event=event25
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
if he runs out of money he bows out.
if he gets trounced on super tuesday he won't recover if there is no money. he has pulled clinton to the left, which was his entire goal when he was kicking around the idea of running last year.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/bernie-sanders-is-the-worst-presidential-candidate.html
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
does it concern anybody else that the gop frontrunner is audited nearly every year?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I would have guessed this was much ado about nothing. Her refusal to refuse them is what makes me question that.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
If so then, what is she saying to wall street that is so "valuable"?
Since you have some basis to think what what was said was much ado about nothing you must then have some idea about what was said in general?
Now I understand that in wall street world $250k is chump change but to the average Joe it's a fortune! Most people don't earn $250k a year let alone in one day.
I would think they were much ado about nothing because I can't imagine Hillary Clinton, in the runup to her second run for the presidency, giving speeches that were not vetted word for word. No matter who was paying the tab. That she refuses to release them calls that assessment into question.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/27/us/elections/south-carolina-democrat-poll.html?_r=0