And since Hillary is probably the most risk-averse person imaginable I'll say she chooses the safest pick of all for her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. (He's currently second or third on most betting websites and a bona fide Boring Old White Guy.) Elizabeth Warren may be too much of a reach, both personally and politically, Julian Castro doesn't have the experience (and, let's face it, looks too darn young) and Sherrod Brown, like Warren, would be replaced at least temporarily by a Republican governor.
So I'll say it's Clinton/Kaine in a walk in November. And Kaine's replacement in the U. S. Senate? Why not Creigh Deeds?
* Don't most presidential elections? The last risky choice that I can think of was Reagan. And with a weak economy and hostages in Iran, Carter was very unpopular. Right now Obama's approval ratings are over 50 percent and the economy is still expanding, if less so than last year.
1 comment:
I hope you're right. I worry that Trumps alarmist rhetoric will sound like "security" to some. Clinton's response was obviously the more rational but as your Scott Adams post discussed voters do not always act rationally. Moreover, I don't think connecting emotionally has to be a bad thing. Obama's apirational tone was both effective and what the country needed in a time of serious turmoil. I just hope the Clinton campaign understands the power of emotional connection and how weak they currently are on that front.
Post a Comment