Jump to content

Hillary's Veepstakes


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted
So Hillary is looking at two guys from swing states, while Trump picked a guy from Indiana....Sounds about right.
So once again Hillary is pandering? Or are these the most qualified options...if the only reason to pick them is because they are from a swing state, it is just more pandering from her.

 

Trump doesn't need help in Indiana, his pick really only helps him with the Republican National Committee.

Posted
So once again Hillary is pandering? Or are these the most qualified options...if the only reason to pick them is because they are from a swing state, it is just more pandering from her.

 

Trump doesn't need help in Indiana, his pick really only helps him with the Republican National Committee.

 

It may be pandering, it may not be. Doesn't matter. Hillary is going with someone that can help her in the handful of states that decide an election whereas Trump went with someone who won't sway anyone in the states that matter...

Posted
It may be pandering, it may not be. Doesn't matter. Hillary is going with someone that can help her in the handful of states that decide an election whereas Trump went with someone who won't sway anyone in the states that matter...

 

I think Pence matters in Iowa. And maybe, because of his connection with Ryan, a tad in Wisconsin but I think that may be too far gone. I think those are the only swing states impacted. Vilsack would help with Iowa which I truly believe is up for grabs. I think Virginia is farther blue.

Posted
It may be pandering, it may not be. Doesn't matter. Hillary is going with someone that can help her in the handful of states that decide an election whereas Trump went with someone who won't sway anyone in the states that matter...

 

So its not about picking who you think will be the best VP, it is about picking someone who will potentially pick up more votes?

Posted
So its not about picking who you think will be the best VP, it is about picking someone who will potentially pick up more votes?

 

For the most part yeah. That or someone who's strengths match your weaknesses.

 

It's not the way it necessarily should be, but that's the name of the game. You pick the person who gives you the best chance at winning come November.

Posted
For the most part yeah. That or someone who's strengths match your weaknesses.

 

It's not the way it necessarily should be, but that's the name of the game. You pick the person who gives you the best chance at winning come November.

 

Its kind of sad honestly. Although not a surprising move by her.

Posted
So its not about picking who you think will be the best VP, it is about picking someone who will potentially pick up more votes?

 

Always has been.

 

Kennedy chose LBJ for the South and unity.

 

Reagan chose Bush to unify party.

 

It's long been a policy.

Posted
Always has been.

 

Kennedy chose LBJ for the South and unity.

 

Reagan chose Bush to unify party.

 

It's long been a policy.

 

Not really a policy. I would say if anything it would be considered a practice.

Posted
Its kind of sad honestly. Although not a surprising move by her.

 

You call it sad. I call it smart. The name of the game is to win. IMO, either of these picks help her in that regard.

Posted

So none of you have a problem with her picking someone not based on merit, but based on who might be more popular, as her potential replacement?

Posted
You call it sad. I call it smart. The name of the game is to win. IMO, either of these picks help her in that regard.

 

The name of the game is to get the best administration in office that we have to offer. When was that lost?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...