Would two women on the ticket be a smart play?

feedback.pdxradio.com forums feedback.pdxradio.com forums Politics and other things Would two women on the ticket be a smart play?

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #21134
    paulwalker
    Participant

    Elizabeth Warren certainly had good chemistry with Hillary on the stump today and it is known she is being vetted for the VP slot.

    However, there is this:

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/women-worry-about-clinton-warren-ticket/ar-AAhGh5M?li=BBnb7Kz

    #21137
    LurkingGrendel
    Participant

    It’s an interesting discussion, though historical precedent would suggest that whomever the vice presidential selection is (for either candidate) will ultimately have little to no effect on the election’s outcome.

    Having said that, the primary role of a vice presidential selection during the campaign is twofold. First and foremost, do no harm. Second, be an effective political attack surrogate for the nominee.

    Senator Warren’s positives eclipse that of both Hillary and Donald, she’s a beloved figure among the Democratic base (the actual left; as opposed to the Democratic party itself which is actually in most respects looks a lot like the Republican party did a couple of decades ago sans the social issues) and is largely an unknown or ill-defined to the non-politically engaged. I.e. A sizeable majority of the country. The Hillary campaign and the DNC have both the money and the infrastructure to help ameliorate the last in quick order this fall. Should she become the VP nominee, her prime time role at the convention in Philadelphia will go a long ways towards addressing that as well.

    Broadly speaking, Wall Street does not like Senator Warren and have already (preemptively) threatened to withhold further financial backing should she be named Hillary’s running mate. It’s tough to gauge how concerned or not the Clinton campaign might be by that threat; though I suspect the answer is also little to none. Also broadly speaking, the base of the GOP and Donald Trump loathe Senator Warren. Which, of course, matters not in the least. Her presence on the ticket would not be to woo Donald Trump supporters. Therefore, that’s just noise and they can (and will) hate away. Their attacks have largely been ridiculous and have clearly not resonated with anyone whom is not already a Donald Trump supporter.

    I suspect whatever concerns exists about an all-female ticket are overwrought. After all, since when have two men on a national ticket given anyone a moment’s pause? The kind of individual likely bothered by that dynamic is no doubt already voting Republican. All national elections ultimately come down to whomever is at the top of the ticket. It’s highly likely the fall is going to come down to a referendum on Donald Trump. Not whomever Hillary (or Donald for that matter) choose as their running mate.

    I have a few questions and reservations about Senator Warren. The main one being, should something happen to President Clinton is she truly ready to assume the presidency? She’s inarguably a brilliant academic with a (to date) impressive political career, though on the whole her overall governmental experience is somewhat limited. That stated, I’ll take incredibly intelligent and somewhat inexperienced over dumb any day of the week and twice on Sunday, it’s not a matter I’m overly concerned with.

    On a both sad and humorous note, that was my basic pitch to a number of people back in 2000: Ok, I get it. The governor of Texas seems nice, charismatic, and personable. Al Gore is a stiff. Granted. But, he’s truly brilliant and George W Bush seems like an in articulate boob. All things being equal, shouldn’t you be voting for IQ? We see how that one turned out. LOL.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.