Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
40. Davis would be a terrible choice. There is a much better TX-focused choice.
Wed Jun 29, 2016, 08:24 AM
Jun 2016

I get that a lot of people here are enamored of Davis for her courageous stand (as am I)...but her subsequent race was rather demonstrative that she's a poor campaigner and a political lightweight. She's not politically adept enough to ever win even a blue Texas...she'd be a Palin level disaster on a national ticket.

Her race against Abbott was interesting for the wrong reasons...she managed to out-sleaze Greg Abbott, something I didn't think was possible...and given every opportunity to demonstrate who she was: progressive, moderate, Texan, feminist, Obama supporter, running away from Obama, pragmatic, idealist, or otherwise...she failed to stake out a consistent identity.

She had every opportunity Democrats in Texas have been able to muster within the last 20 years, if any capable Democrat could win, that was her opportunity...and she lost. She lost badly...badly enough that people called it the death of the TX Democratic party; her political career deserves to be ended for it.

If that's the direction Clinton wants to go...Cecile Richards would be a much better choice. She's smart, she's progressive, she brings "not a politician" outsider-cred to the ticket, she's a talented activist capable of compellingly laying out a vision and experienced debating difficult and contentious issues. The religious right would hate it and it would force Trump to keep talking about an issue (abortion) that he's clearly trying to avoid and can't really stake out a consistent position on without sounding both insincere to his RW supporters and like an asshole to everybody else. At the same time, Richards has weight in TX because she's the daughter of Ann Richards and can talk about Clinton as President being part of the legacy of her mother's career-long fight to break glass ceilings.

Texans love Ann Richards...even the conservative ones.

Richards moves TX to a state we can contest...Davis probably moves it further from winnable, just like she did in her gubernatorial race.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Plunk.... peace13 Jun 2016 #1
Always? frazzled Jun 2016 #4
I don't care if she is chosen. The damage is done to her career and that is my point. peace13 Jun 2016 #8
Damage? bvar22 Jun 2016 #17
You misinterpreted my concerns. peace13 Jun 2016 #31
I think ... frazzled Jun 2016 #20
Really?? If we got more Warrens in, then Wall Street would be the ones fearful adigal Jun 2016 #9
Clinton has no desire to make Wall Street fearful. peace13 Jun 2016 #14
What are you talking about? I was rude? What an odd response!!!!! adigal Jun 2016 #32
HRC should tell them to fuck off. nt cyberswede Jun 2016 #2
I agree...against Trump, who is self-imploding, does she really need Wall Street money?? adigal Jun 2016 #10
Agreed big time bjobotts Jun 2016 #25
Makes no sense since Warren does more damage as a senator than she ever could as VP besides bjobotts Jun 2016 #24
Theater. joshcryer Jun 2016 #3
I never thought she was an enemy of capitalism mdbl Jun 2016 #7
Actually it's 'unregulated' capitalism. Warren is definitely NOT Wall street's dream since she bjobotts Jun 2016 #26
A government facilitated breakup could be crooked. joshcryer Jun 2016 #29
The banks are already CROOKED. TBTF banks were convicted of rigging markets among other things think Jun 2016 #34
A government facilitated breakup would soften the blow. joshcryer Jun 2016 #35
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #36
I can see where this is headed, if Warren The_Casual_Observer Jun 2016 #5
Hardly... Chan790 Jun 2016 #37
Why would anybody want Elizabeth Warren as VEEP? longship Jun 2016 #6
Yeah, what he said...nt Wounded Bear Jun 2016 #11
Agreed. nt. BootinUp Jun 2016 #15
I agree. cali Jun 2016 #19
A hundred times this. Saviolo Jun 2016 #21
Part of me thinks they're using Warren as a trial balloon justiceischeap Jun 2016 #12
Davis would be a terrible choice. There is a much better TX-focused choice. Chan790 Jun 2016 #40
If Wall Street wants to keep Warren out of the way, VP is the BEST place to put her. hughee99 Jun 2016 #13
Maybe it's a con... Saviolo Jun 2016 #27
I guess that this rules her out RoccoR5955 Jun 2016 #16
I don't want Warren in the VP slot the ticket, either, because she is more powerful and tblue37 Jun 2016 #18
Hillary could call their bluff. They won't fund Trump because he is a doofus. Her choice, still. . n Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2016 #22
The thing is "big wall street donors" can't give more than $2700. George II Jun 2016 #23
Yeah--this the third time I've seen this article ismnotwasm Jun 2016 #33
Good. She can do way more damage to them in the Senate. n/t Bonhomme Richard Jun 2016 #28
Regardless, I prefer Xavier Beccera BainsBane Jun 2016 #30
After Brexit jcgoldie Jun 2016 #38
I would think Wall Street would love Warren as VP davidn3600 Jun 2016 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Wall Street to Clinton: ...»Reply #40