Who will be Hillary's running mate next year?

[Stephen Retired]

Personally, I'm pimping for Tom Brady, whom, sixteen days from now, will demonstrate that he is the Greatest Quarterback of All Time. But I'm also a realist, thus...

12 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Booker
	1 (8%)
	O'Malley
	1 (8%)
	Sanders
	0 (0%)
	Warren
	0 (0%)
	Other (please specify)
	10 (83%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Erose999]

1. Well, Booker is kind of a 3rd way neolib, so probably him.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. Along those lines, Im bettin Hillary pix her "brotha from anotha motha" Jebbie Bush as her VP after he loses the Rethug nomination.

[Skink]

2. Julian Castro

[MohRokTah]

11. Yep, agreed 100%. eom

[SidDithers]

18. I think it'll be Castro too...nt

Sid

[MoonRiver]

21. That's who I want!

[Gothmog]

34. The Texas Democratic Party has printed some Clinton/Castro 2016 bumper stickers

We don't care which Castro brother is on the ticket but I would favor Julian

[former9thward]

48. Not a chance.

Castro does not give her Texas and brings nothing else to the ticket.

[elfin]

73. No doubt about that for me

Young, accomplished enough, Latino, energetic, smart, personable etc. etc.

Unless some troubling skeletons pop up, he's the one.

[Rosco T.]

77. yup, almost a no brainer n/m

[joshcryer]

88. Easy call.

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. Other: M$M n/t

[cloudbase]

4. Hillary has to win the nomination first.

We're putting the cart before the horse at this point.

I believe she's expecting a coronation in 2016 just as she did in 2008. That might not work out very well for her. Add to that the Clinton/Bush fatigue among the voters, and it's not looking as good this time around.

As the great American philosopher Lawrence Peter Berra said, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

[winetourdriver]

5. running mate

One of the Castro brothers.

[blackcrow]

6. Benny Netanyahu

[Peregrine Took]

80. "Bibi!" Of course! n/t

[LeftyMom]

7. She's not going to be in the process that long.

And Mr. Bundchen is nowhere near the QB Joe Cool was.

[Stephen Retired]

90. Come on, man!

Why ya gotta be going there? Montana is great; no argument! But fifteen days from now, when Brady is hoisting the Lombardi Trophy over his head, he'll have played in 6 Super Bowls and won 4. How is that not the Greatest Ever???

Why, man? Just...why?

[LeftyMom]

91. How many did Joe lose?

Exactly.

[thelordofhell]

8. Gen. Wesley Clark

[elleng]

62. Oh, if ONLY, lord!

He should be Sec of Defense (or State or National Security Adviser.)

I don't think he has enough/any political clout, to recommend him as VP.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Whoever Goldman Sachs approves.

[Octafish]

22. +1

"Summers looked at Stiglitz like Stiglitz was some kind of naive fool who'd read too many civics books."

[AtomicKitten]

83. Jamie Dimon

He'll help her unwind the reforms, anemic as they are, that aren't being sensitive to Wall Street's needs. The Clintons' bookend coup d'etat against meaningful regulation will then be complete.

Clinton/Dimon 2016

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem

[L0oniX]

95. +2

[ChosenUnWisely]

10. Why does it really matter? No matter whom she picks many democrats won't vote for her.

No Hillary vote from me and I know I am not the only one.

[MohRokTah]

12. We'll miss you when election season hits. eom

[ChosenUnWisely]

15. No you won't.

[MohRokTah]

16. Sure we will. You'll no longer be able to post once Election Season hits.

As soon as it's clear that the candidate is chosen, everybody on DU MUST get behind the Democratic nominee.

No exceptions.

It's the rules.

[ChosenUnWisely]

17. Actually I don't have to do diddly squat

I just can't make posts against the 'democratic' candidate.

Actually if she is the candidate, I will end up leaving the party I have been a member of since 1975, because the party will have changed to the point that it no longer reflects my values.

But I can still post here if I want.

[MohRokTah]

19. Ah, but I've saved a link to your post above.

[ChosenUnWisely]

20. Damn you really need a life, enjoy saving the link!

[The_Commonist]

35. Yeah, that was pretty weird.

"...everybody on DU MUST get behind the Democratic nominee. No exceptions."

I just kept quiet when Kerry/Edwards were the nominees. I didn't MUST do anything.

And of course, the 2008 primaries made this place just about the worst place on the internet. I just disappeared from here for much of the year.

And the truth is that I haven't voted for a "Democrat" in years.
In my state (New York), a candidate can be on more than one party ticket at once. I always vote Working Families Party, because I think the Democratic Party sucks. So, I've never helped elect a Republican, but I also have let the Democratic Party know that I think it sucks. It might not be the greatest solution, but it's something.

[Autumn]

56. Don't worry, so he saves the post, if he alerts on it when a nominee is chosen it won't go to a jury

all he will do is harass you with it. People who keep a data base on DUers are hilarious.

[ChosenUnWisely]

82. DU STASI?

[earthside]

76. Are you the scold police?

Some pretty undemocratic posts here.

[karynnj]

38. Note quite that strong

In 2004 and 2008, you could not attack, smear or argue against the nominee -- though it often took some pretty negative posts to actually get the poster tombstoned.

However, there were many who continued posting - not really jumping on to the bandwagons - but not breaking that rule. They continued to post on other races, issues and events.

As you know that DU leans left, you know that many are not AT THIS POINT behind Hillary Clinton. She is very much a prohibitive frontrunner. I wonder if it might be better strategy not to threaten other Democrats with the prospect that they will be kicked out when she wins the nomination.

In 2008, the same thing happened and it took a significant event - Bush vetoing the extension of SCHIP - that made me recognize that Kerry was not just being political in 2007 when asked about the 2008 race at a point before he endorsed anyone. His answer was to say on all the issues that were important to him - and he listed many obvious issues, EVERY Democratic candidate - even if not completely where he was - was MUCH better than Every Republican candidate. It took that veto to make me see that NO Democrat would have vetoed that bill and most Republicans would.

For 2016, I likely will be in the same place I would have been had a Democrat I did not want won the nomination. The motivation in that case might just come from comparing what the country would be like under that nominee or the Republican nominee. However, at that point, I will make an effort to identify what I do like in the nominee. This used to go without saying -- ie in 1992, when Clinton was nowhere near my favorite, I did not whine that I was just anybody but Bush -- as Clintonites Begala and Carvelle did in 2004. I looked and found reasons I could use to convince others to vote for Clinton.

However, if this place becomes nasty and seems to gleefully want to exile many long time posters, it might become a less broadbased place. I don't think that will make it better.

[cyberswede]

86. Have you ever been here during a general election?

[Fearless]

46. That sounds an awful lot like a threat.

That's not how to get people to agree with you.

[MohRokTah]

47. A threat?????

DU Rules about Democratic nominees, dude.

[Fearless]

49. However what you said comes across as hostile.

Is the point to piss off democratic voters or to convince them to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee?

[MohRokTah]

50. Just remarking on the poster's remark in the context of DU rules.

They know the rules since they agreed to abide by them when they signed up, just like everybody else.

[Fearless]

51. Being passive aggressive and dismissive of another point of view does not help.

[MohRokTah]

53. I was being honest in the context of this fourm. eom

[Fearless]

54. To what end?

To tell them to get back in line or not be here a year from now?

[daleanime]

55. Uh huh.....

sure.

[Autumn]

60. Honest?

[backwoodsbob]

57. there is no rule saying you must post positive posts about the nominee

You just cant post negative posts about the nominee

[TeamPooka]

89. This must be your first time on the internet. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. You are not the only one. Neither will I. But, expect a lot of Loyaly Oath demands.

[ChosenUnWisely]

25. Bullies always do

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Bullies that demand "Free Speech"....for themselves but not for others.

Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently.

Rosa Luxemburg

[ChosenUnWisely]

29. This is a free private forum and the owners of this place can do what they want, free speech

does not apply here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. About anything?

It seems to me to be a bit self-defeating if a political forum curtails political speech.

I have the archaic notion that my vote belongs to me. Not the party, not DU, not to the party purists.

[ChosenUnWisely]

33. Well I do too but the owners of the site don't share the same POV

If we don't like it we can leave.

The question you need to ask is do you want to participate in an echo chamber or have actual political discussion?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. I've been here since 2001 and have yet to have DU tell me how to vote.

Some DU'rs seem to think that they have that right but, I ignore them.

[benz380]

32. Me neither. Tired of all the Corporatist BS.

I will leave that space empty on my ballot and vote for local candidates with real Democratic values.

[Renew Deal]

81. That would be an unwise choice

At least in the GE.

[wyldwolf]

96. Many Democrats never vote for the nominee

[tabbycat31]

13. Not sure yet

I love Booker (who is my senator) but I don't think he's ready for prime time yet (he's one of the few younger Democrats I can see going places, so IMO he needs to stay put for now) and he gives no geographic advantage (unless Christie on the other ticket) as they were both elected statewide in neighboring states.

The other I really like as a running mate (or top of the ticket) is unpopular on DU is Andrew Cuomo, who can't legally be on the same ticket as her (representing the same state).

Of all the possible selections, I like Castro the most. He gives a geographic and demographic advantage that an Elizabeth Warren or Martin O'Malley cannot (young, Latino, southern).

I could care less about a progressive purity test for candidates. According to DU, 2 of the 3 Democratic presidents in my lifetime are DINOs and the 3rd, well I was an infant when he was in office and have zero knowledge of his administration firsthand. I'm not about a purity test, I'm about electability. I'd much rather have a centrist Democrat that can win a national election than run a progressive who will put up Walter Mondale numbers and end up with a President Walker/Christie/Bush/Jindal/Paul/Rubio. If that makes me a DINO so be it.

[brooklynite]

14. Not someone from the northeast...

...someone with geographic balance.

[blackcrow]

85. Democrats in the NorthEast

have brain cells. That automatically disqualifies them.

[MineralMan]

23. I don't know. I won't guess.

[hrmjustin]

26. Brown of OH.

[Man from Pickens]

28. Who says she's running?

If there's one thing Hillary is good at, it's cold, hard, and ruthless calculation. And if she's applying that skill to her own chances of becoming President, she will have to conclude that she doesn't have a realistic shot of pulling it off. She lost the only competitive election she was ever in, even though she started with such a massive lead that she herself believed the nomination to be a fait accompli - then got spanked by a junior Senator.

The only reason she is in the conversation at all is because the options for Democrats right now are so thin.

If Hillary runs, she loses. The obstacles before her - the biggest of which is her own off-putting personality - are far too large for her to overcome.

[benz380]

30. Rupert Murdoch

[bigwillq]

37. Hillary and Brady in the same post. Unrec.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. She won't need one if she isn't nominated.

[deaniac21]

40. The Big Dog

[madinmaryland]

63. ...

?t=1415793660

[Motown_Johnny]

42. I'm not convinced she will win the nomination.

Measuring drapes at this point, or even picking a running mate, is premature.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

43. Other: Randy of the Redwoods. nt

[CentralMass]

44. Goldman Sachs

[Fearless]

45. It doesn't matter. It's irrelevent. She will lose. But for kicks let's say ... Lieberman.

[SummerSnow]

52. General Wesley Clark

[femmocrat]

64. He will be Secretary of State.

IMO.

[elleng]

66. You too, Snow!

lordofhell, #8, said the same thing! Makes me happy that some are thinking of him.

As I said, I don't think he has political clout to justify a VP slot, but Sec Def/State/National Security Adviser SHOULD happen! (Should HAVE happened. )

[Mike Nelson]

58. There are some good choices...

...I think Warren (gender/age) and Clark (military minded) would be considered much like her to balance the ticket - although I like them both.

[CK_John]

59. Michelle Obama would be a great candidate.

[backwoodsbob]

61. Jamie Dimon?

[Warren DeMontague]

65. JESUS

[hifiguy]

67. Whomever her owners (Goldman) tells her to pick.

That is all.

[HappyMe]

68. Ming the Merciless

[Basic LA]

69. Haha

Ming doesn't get mentioned enough anymore. Made me laugh.

[shenmue]

70. I'm hoping for Rep. Conyers

[crazylikafox]

71. Castro

[Thinkingabout]

72. O'Malley, Castro brothers,Brown, Warren, Cuomo, too many.

[Vattel]

74. Given Ferguson and Garner, I think O'Malley is out of the running for anything.

Right now Dems are not too fond of police officers violating the rights of citizens and O'Malley got his police force to do that big time in Baltimore when he was mayor.

[Logical]

75. SATAN! nt

[SheilaT]

78. Wait, she's already been nominated?

Did I miss something?

[genwah]

84. Ooooh! Oooh! ME! Pick ME!

[Katashi_itto]

87. Raul Castro.

[Erose999]

92. Kissinger

[L0oniX]

93. Lloyd Blankfein

[benz380]

94. Bank Of America. n/t