Just to get this off my chest I was a Bernie supporter (even had a diary hidden for “encouraging a third party run” which isn't what I was doing...but was accused of it in the comments and it got reported and then it was hidden. Sad day for me. Twice on the Rec list (back in the day when you could only write a single diary a day and it kinda meant something more) and as an Obama supporter in 2008 I had never felt the wrath of the Great Orange Satan. It stung. But I still love this place and nothing would ever change that.
I wholeheartedly support Hillary for President. I find her extremely trustworthy and I hate that the fact that she has spent the last almost 30 years being in the spotlight of the Right Wing Noise Machine and well...obviously if you say the same thing over and over, loud enough...its true right? That entire meme is complete BS in my book. She would be an incredible President.
And there is another meme I’d like to take apart so we can move on and discuss things on their merits and not which State a Vice Presidential candidate is from.
I’ve been hearing recently that if Hillary chooses Warren as her running mate it will somehow not bring the advantages of someone in a place like Ohio, Colorado or any of the other lean purple battleground states.
I’ve been giving it a bunch of thought. Senator Warren is my Senator. I voted for her and absolutely love that she represents me here in Massachusetts (the beautiful Berkshires) and I want her to be chosen as Hillary’s Vice President. Not because she is a woman. Not because she is from my home state. No, neither of those things. I judge folks not by their gender, skin color (i have three beautiful mixed-race kids that I love very much) sexual orientation, religion or any of the other insane labels people judge others by; I judge people by the content of their character and let me tell you: Senator Warren has the character to be the perfect VP. What do you really want out of a VP? You need an attack dog that can jump into the fray so that the Presidential Candidate can stay above it all. And most of all you need someone who does no damage to your campaign.
Looking back over the last 60 +/- years of Presidential elections how many times DID the VP choice actually help win an election? One could point to the Kennedy/Johnson ticket in 60. Without Johnson carrying much of the South I think we have a Richard Nixon Presidency in 1960 instead of 1969. However after that there really aren't any elections that were competitive enough to say for certain that the VP choice actually helped.
In fact..this has been studied extensively...and yet still the idea persists. Here is a great article that I think everyone should take a look at no matter who you think the best choice for VP would be.
Like all unquestioned shibboleths, it’s come to seem almost a law of nature by now. Analyzing news coverage between 2000 and 2012, we found that journalists invoked geographic strategy in about 50 percent of their profiles on potential veep candidates. But it’s wrong. According to our analysis of election and voter data over the course of a little more than the past century, a vice presidential candidate’s state of residence generally has no effect on how a presidential candidate performs in that state. The vice presidential home state advantage is, essentially, zero.
Pundits who tout the notion of a home-state advantage clearly believe in it. So do the journalists who report on it. But the most eminent constituency for this belief, of course, is the presidential candidates themselves. Despite ultimately selecting Dick Cheney as his running mate in 2000, in his autobiography George W. Bush revealed that he was tempted to pick Tennesseans Lamar Alexander, Bill Frist or Fred Thompson, each of whom seemed sure to deprive Al Gore of a victory in his home state (a feat that Al Gore would later manage by himself). Bush never may have faced Gore in 2000, but instead Bob Graham, had Bill Clinton chosen the Florida senator as his running mate in 1992—a candidate, Clinton later wrote, who “would almost certainly bring Florida into the Democratic column.”
The entire article is here: Why VPs Matter Less Than You Think
On the other hand there have been countless cases of a VP pick being destructive to a candidacy. Look at Sarah Palin. Look at Dan Quayle. Hell Paul Ryan certainly didn’t help the Romney train wreck. Lets not pick some safe “moderate” that does nothing for the campaign and could possibly even be a liability. With Senator Warren we have a known commodity. She is the real deal.
I believe Senator Warren would be an almost perfect VP. She would be an effective attack dog. She would rally the base. She would negate some of the flak Hillary has gotten for her Wall Street speeches (not saying its deserved...but I am acknowledging it’s out there). And the fact that we would have both the first Madam President AND Madam Vice-President. It would be historical.
And look...all you folks who are still not on board with Hillary. Its over people. Bernie will not be the nominee. Trump needs to be destroyed. Lets all get on the same page. And to the folks who have Been With Her since the start. Could ya stop rubbing our noses in it? I find myself scrolling through more and more pie fights and less and less solid discourse here in the comments which I read religiously and is one of the reasons I love this place and have kept coming back these last 9 years. That and Darksyde. He’s my hero.
Lets all come together and win this thing.
Hillary/Warren 2016