[besson3c]

I know that the HuffPo is a liberal site, but I've been impressed with what I've been hearing about Warren going after some of the large banks and the too big to fail stuff, I'm wondering if these feelings are shared? Here is Warren questioning why big bank money laundering of nearly a billion dollars did not trigger a hearing for the individuals involved:

Elizabeth Warren: Banks Get Wrist Slaps While Drug Dealers Get Jail

[besson3c]

Whatever you think about Warren's politics, she seems like a rising political star.

[subego]

I don't have a problem with HuffPo being liberal, they're just so... scummy.

It's like Nick Denton squared.

I refuse to give them traffic.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't have a problem with HuffPo being liberal, they're just so... scummy.

It's like Nick Denton squared.

I refuse to give them traffic.

Strong words.

[subego]

If they were just sensationalist, or just ripping off everybody else's work, or just spamming the **** out of reddit, I could handle it.

All three is too much.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't have a problem with HuffPo being liberal, they're just so... scummy.

It's like Nick Denton squared.

I refuse to give them traffic.

I agree, I wish I knew of a better site for general comedy and weird stuff.

[besson3c]

Anyway, since we all seem to be in basic agreement over HuffPo, thoughts on Warren?

[subego]

She hasn't done anything yet to make me hate her.

I like Hillary. I still regret not voting for her in the 2008 primary.

[The Final Dakar]

When was the last time you saw a one term legislator from a heavily blue state win on a presidential ticket?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

She hasn't done anything yet to make me hate her.

Sounds like an endorsement of sorts

Didn't Al Franken get a of attention when he was first elected too? Maybe the spotlight on Warren will diminish as time presses on, but it seems like she has a fair amount of knowledge on these sorts of issues that propelled her to where she was, whereas Franken was no doubt propelled at least in part because of his charisma and general sense of reasonableness coupled with his prior celebrity status.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

When was the last time you saw a one term legislator from a heavily blue state win on a presidential ticket?

Other than Obama?

I'm not making any predictions, but it would be interesting to see a joint Hilary + Warren ticket, wouldn't it? Warren would probably be a fine VP.

[subego]

We're not ready for that IMO.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

We're not ready for that IMO.

The double V ticket?

[subego]

Yup.

[subego]

Let me rephrase:

We're not at the point you could sell a campaign team on it. There's too much risk with too little reward.

To be clear, I personally like the idea.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

To be clear, I personally like the idea.

Stop bragging about your heterosexuality

[subego]

If we're going down that road, can we throw in Huma?

[andi*pandi]

We elected Warren to protect consumer rights. It was her platform, and I'm glad to see her sticking to it.

I would vote for her again, and for higher office, but I'd like to see her earn her stripes for a term or three. There's too much weight in the "not experienced" enough attacks that are lobbied against candidates, and I'd be a hypocrite for using that tactic myself against Palin and not applying the same brush to Warren.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

If we're going down that road, can we throw in Huma?

pix pls

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

We elected Warren to protect consumer rights. It was her platform, and I'm glad to see her sticking to it.

I would vote for her again, and for higher office, but I'd like to see her earn her stripes for a term or three. There's too much weight in the "not experienced" enough attacks that are lobbied against candidates, and I'd be a hypocrite for using that tactic myself against Palin and not applying the same brush to Warren.

Would this really be an effective argument if Warren was the VP candidate? It didn't ultimately work on Obama as the presidential candidate.

Besides, I think experience might be an overrated variable. Obama has mostly done okay with getting his own party behind him throughout his first term, including the more experienced members, and even with former primary competitors such as Clinton. It has been the Republican party that he has had a problem connecting with, but that party has also had times connecting with itself with the infighting that has existed there and lack of general leadership and direction, and at times the party has shown little interest in negotiating with any Democrat in my opinion. Would greater experience have helped here? Maybe, but I'm not so sure. Is Obama's experience his biggest problem right now?

I think there were reasons to not vote for Palin that had nothing to do with her experience, whether she had an abundance of it or none at all.

[andi*pandi]

I'm not saying it's not insurmountable (obviously) but there would be enough other weapons against her that having good experience would help. Obama has done well by good appointments etc and that may come from the Dem party just as much as from him.

I'm also a little sick of candidates using MA as a jumping point, to keep MA behind her (and derail the "carpetbagger" insult she gets) she needs to prove our votes were right.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm not saying it's not insurmountable (obviously) but there would be enough other weapons against her that having good experience would help. Obama has done well by good appointments etc and that may come from the Dem party just as much as from him.

I'm also a little sick of candidates using MA as a jumping point, to keep MA behind her (and derail the "carpetbagger" insult she gets) she needs to prove our votes were right.

If she is instrumental in putting an end to Too Big To Fail and is polling high and stuff, would you change her mind about her as a VP?

I mean, it's not like Joe Biden or Paul Ryan were huge political superstars, and certainly not Palin, nor John Edwards, right?

[andi*pandi]

All those candidates were to balance the ticket. Old white guy with young black guy (to counter inexperience), midwestern evangelical (to counter Mormon rich east coast elitist) young woman with old guy.

Warren and Hillary would be different, a Cagney and Lacey instead of an Odd Couple. Hmm. I think they are too similar to get on the ticket together. Dem management will be telling hillary to find a young male minority candidate from the west.

I can't wait to see her succeed, and yes would vote for her given the chance, but not sure it is her time.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't have a problem with HuffPo being liberal, they're just so... scummy.

It's like Nick Denton squared.

I refuse to give them traffic.

Smarmy is the word that comes to mind.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

She hasn't done anything yet to make me hate her.

I like Hillary. I still regret not voting for her in the 2008 primary.

Yup. I wish she were in now, I would have voted for her, which isn't something I can't say about Barry or Mitt.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

pix pls

We're not ready for that IMO.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

All those candidates were to balance the ticket. Old white guy with young black guy (to counter inexperience), midwestern evangelical (to counter Mormon rich east coast elitist) young woman with old guy.

Warren and Hillary would be different, a Cagney and Lacey instead of an Odd Couple. Hmm. I think they are too similar to get on the ticket together. Dem management will be telling hillary to find a young male minority candidate from the west.

I can't wait to see her succeed, and yes would vote for her given the chance, but not sure it is her time.

Good point about the balance thing!

[cgc]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

All those candidates were to balance the ticket. Old white guy with young black guy (to counter inexperience), midwestern evangelical (to counter Mormon rich east coast elitist) young woman with old guy.

Warren and Hillary would be different, a Cagney and Lacey instead of an Odd Couple. Hmm. I think they are too similar to get on the ticket together. Dem management will be telling hillary to find a young male minority candidate from the west.

I can't wait to see her succeed, and yes would vote for her given the chance, but not sure it is her time.

I'd LOVE to see elections like this: whoever wants to be President runs a campaign and we vote for President. The person with the most votes is President and the person with the second most votes is the Vice President. Makes sense to me since the VP may be President so they need to be the most qualified, not ride the coat tails of the most qualified.

Regarding variety on a ticket, I think you're right, but would extend it to include the President, the Senate, and the House. As long as they are not all the same party we're ok. Once they become all Democrat or all Republican we're screwed...always need the opposing viewpoint. America is at its best when our politicians compromise.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by cgc 

I'd LOVE to see elections like this: whoever wants to be President runs a campaign and we vote for President. The person with the most votes is President and the person with the second most votes is the Vice President. Makes sense to me since the VP may be President so they need to be the most qualified, not ride the coat tails of the most qualified.

Regarding variety on a ticket, I think you're right, but would extend it to include the President, the Senate, and the House. As long as they are not all the same party we're ok. Once they become all Democrat or all Republican we're screwed...always need the opposing viewpoint. America is at its best when our politicians compromise.

I think it comes down to figuring out how much gridlock we want, and at what point, if any, checks and balances become onerous. Many are quick to point out that a lot of checks and balances are a good thing, and is how this country was designed. I dont disagree, but I'm undecided on whether there is a point where one can go overboard.

I think what you are describing here is an additional check and balance, but with a record number of appointments being held up, is there a point where squabbling over this structure and playing political chess matches prevents us from getting stuff done?

[mduell]

Who are you going to put on top of the ticket? They have a combined zero years of government executive experience.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Who are you going to put on top of the ticket? They have a combined zero years of government executive experience.

Former senators are ineligible?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Former senators are ineligible?

I made no comment about eligibility.

[andi*pandi]

Hillary's got experience, I'd say.

[subego]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Who are you going to put on top of the ticket? They have a combined zero years of government executive experience.

Who do you think would be at the top of the ticket?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I made no comment about eligibility.

So what is your argument then? Senators don't make good presidents in comparison to governors or congressmen and women?

[subego]

Congressperson.

[besson3c]

Plural? Congresspeople?

[subego]

Congresspeeps.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by subego 

Who do you think would be at the top of the ticket?

I don't think either of them make a very good top ticket. Warren is an unknown outside of the left-wing echo chamber, and Hillary is pushing 70 in a couple years. Neither has any governing experience.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So what is your argument then? Senators don't make good presidents in comparison to governors or congressmen and women?

A ticket with no executive experience and less than a decade of combined legislative experience isn't very strong. The current administration, also with zero executive experience, at least had 4-5 decades of high-level legislative experience. The previous 9 or so winning tickets all had years of government executive experience.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I don't think either of them make a very good top ticket. Warren is an unknown outside of the left-wing echo chamber, and Hillary is pushing 70 in a couple years. Neither has any governing experience.



A ticket with no executive experience and less than a decade of combined legislative experience isn't very strong. The current administration, also with zero executive experience, at least had 4-5 decades of high-level legislative experience. The previous 9 or so winning tickets all had years of government executive experience.

President Obama had no governing experience and everyone thought he was a fantastic candidate. I'm not a fan of Hillary but I think it would be interesting to see what a woman would do in the White House. For the record, I'm a conservative, but I am curious about Hillary as she seems like a more middle-of-the-road liberal than most. Anyone other than Joe Biden would be tough for us to beat in 2016...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by cgc 

I'd LOVE to see elections like this: whoever wants to be President runs a campaign and we vote for President. The person with the most votes is President and the person with the second most votes is the Vice President. Makes sense to me since the VP may be President so they need to be the most qualified, not ride the coat tails of the most qualified.

Regarding variety on a ticket, I think you're right, but would extend it to include the President, the Senate, and the House. As long as they are not all the same party we're ok. Once they become all Democrat or all Republican we're screwed...always need the opposing viewpoint. America is at its best when our politicians compromise.

I used to think this, but then I thought about it some more. The Vice President is supposed to carry out the President's agenda. So already there's a conflict of interest. Men may have been principled enough to overcome such obstacles 200 years ago, but today politics trumps that.

Second, you're giving a lot of incentive for the sitting President to get assassinated, because then the losers come to power.

Maybe if we had 4 presidential candidates up for election, and there were no party restrictions.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Who are you going to put on top of the ticket? They have a combined zero years of government executive experience.

Is secretary of state a cush job? I get the impression its one of the more important cabinet positions.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...
Second, you're giving a lot of incentive for the sitting President to get assassinated, because then the losers come to power.

Maybe if we had 4 presidential candidates up for election, and there were no party restrictions.
...

I'd want as many candidates from every party, maybe as many as ten candidates. Do you think there would be issues if the President were a Democrat and the Vice-President were a Republican? They already get pretty heated but I wouldn't expect such issues.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by cgc 

I'd want as many candidates from every party, maybe as many as ten candidates. Do you think there would be issues if the President were a Democrat and the Vice-President were a Republican? They already get pretty heated but I wouldn't expect such issues.

Honestly, I feel a run-off election would serve our interests better.

And yes, I see issues cropping up from something as simple as casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Does he vote with his party or his boss?

[subego]

You're not the boss of me!