vice presidential candidates

ok but what really scares me about this election is that, in the event he does win, trump is facing criminal lawsuits in the very near future (including one for the sexual abuse of a child). so, if trump does win, is prosecuted and found guilty, his vice presidential candidate becomes the elected president by default. meaning mike pence, governor of indiana, a man who has an actual record of passing terrifying legislation (including mandating people who receive abortions to pay for the cremation or funeral for the aborted fetuses), becomes the president. and he scares me a hell of a lot more than donald does.

Campaign-ending moves:
  • 2004: Candidate’s voice cracks in a funny way while celebrating his campaign’s momentum in primaries. Losing candidate in general kind of rich and stiff and out of touch.
  • 2008: Vice Presidential candidate says being able to see Russia from parts of Alaska means she has foreign policy experience.
  • 2012: Candidate is kind of rich and stiff and out of touch, clumsily refers to his collection of resumes submitted by women’s groups as “binders full of women.”
  • 2016: Nothing. Bragging about sexual assault? Calling for the assassination of your opponent? Claiming you’ll only accept the results of the election if you win? All totally fine apparently.

I’m thrilled to announce my running mate, Tim Kaine.

Tim is a lifelong fighter for progressive causes and one of the most qualified vice presidential candidates in our nation’s history. But his credentials alone aren’t why I asked him to run alongside me.

Tim’s a man of relentless optimism who believes no problem is unsolvable if you’re willing to put in the work. That commitment to delivering results has stayed with him throughout his decades-long career as a public servant.

I could give you a laundry list of things he accomplished as mayor of Richmond, governor of Virginia, and in the United States Senate. But here’s what’s important: Tim has never taken a job for the glory or the title. He’s the same person whether the cameras are on or off, motivated by the belief that you can make a difference in people’s lives through public service.

I didn’t make this decision lightly. I’ve had the privilege of seeing two presidents and two vice presidents up close, and I wanted to pick someone who will be able to give me their best advice, look me in the eye, and tell me they disagree with me when they do. But what matters most is a simple test that’s not easy to meet: whether the person could step in at a moment’s notice and serve as president.

I have no doubt that Tim can do the job, and I want him by my side on the trail and in the White House. But we’re going to need your help to get there. So join me and Tim, and let’s get to work and go win this thing.

Voting in US presidential elections matters (even though the president isn’t quite directly elected)

Anonymous asked: Re: voting: Why does your vote for president matter when the electoral college chooses the president?

Realsocialskills answered: Your vote for President matters because the voters determine who the electoral college chooses in your state.

Each state gets a certain number of electoral college votes. After the state’s polls close and the votes are tallied, the electors meet. The electors vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates the majority of voters voted for. So, the voters in your state, including you, determine how your state will vote.

(The legal mechanics of this vary state-by-state, and in some states they are technically not legally required to vote this way. But in practice there is a very, very strong tradition of always doing so, to the point that there may as well be a law.)

Your vote also matters even if it doesn’t influence the outcome of the election. It doesn’t just matter who wins, it also matters how much they win by. Because politicians and political parties want to keep winning elections, they pay close attention to what’s popular and unpopular with voters.

When a large majority of American voters vote for a particular candidate, it shows that their strategy for getting elected was really effective. Other politicians, and political parties, take this into account when they make decisions. Anything that wins a lot of votes will influence what politicians do to seek political power, and what they do with their power once they have it.

This means that presidents who win by a huge majority of votes have much more power to keep their campaign promises. Most campaign promises are in significant part about changing the law. There are some things the president can do unilaterally, but most of the really important changes require Congress to vote on new laws.

Senators and members of Congress can decide to support the change, oppose it, or remain neutral. When a president wins by a large majority, politicians have to consider the possibility that opposing the president’s agenda would cost them votes.

If the president didn’t win by so much or even lost the popular vote, senators and members of congress don’t have to worry so much about opposing them — and may even get the message that opposing them will get them votes. (It’s particularly important how people in their state or district voted, even if it doesn’t influence the outcome of the national election. Even if the candidate lost in your state, if they got more votes than expected, your politicians will notice.)

The outcome of the popular vote also influences how likely presidents are to keep the campaign promises that they *are* in a position to keep unilaterally. Presidents want to get elected for a second term, and they want candidates from their party to keep winning after they leave office. When they win a strong majority of the popular vote, it sends the message that keeping their campaign promises will help them to get reelected and will make their party stronger.

It also influences the positions and strategies of the political parties. When a president wins by a lot of votes, their political party will usually focus on continuing to appeal to the voters who voted for them. The other party will also usually try to figure out how to appeal to those voters more. This affects which candidates they pick, and which positions they support and oppose.

Politicians want to get elected, parties want to run candidates who can win. When appealing to a certain group gets a party a huge number of votes, they’re more likely to keep doing it. When it doesn’t influence the election much, they’re more likely to conclude that that group isn’t an important demographic for winning elections. When it makes them lose, they’re likely to distance themselves.

For instance, a political party may run a campaign based on appealing to marginalized groups. If this wins them the election by a large margin, they get the message that winning elections depends on continuing to work on issues those groups care about. That will influence how winning candidates vote, and it will influence how all candidates campaign.

Similarly, a party may run a presidential campaign based on appealing to xenophobic racists. If this causes them to lose an election by a wide margin, they’re more likely to distance themselves from xenophobic racists. Likewise, if a party’s position on immigration, education, taxes, or whatever else gets them a lot of votes or loses them a lot of votes, it will influence their choices about whether and to what extent they continue to promote that policy.

Also, your congressional representative, your senator, and your state officials are directly elected. So is your school board, your city council, your mayor, and probably your county sheriff. So if you’re going to show up and vote for them, you may as well also vote for president. Every elected office matters, and every vote ultimately counts.

Tl;dr The mechanics of voting for President of the United States are fairly odd, but your vote matters anyway. Scroll up for an explanation of why.

A new ad from a political action committee is focused on the possibility of Hillary Clinton making history as the first woman president of the United States.

The ad — titled Man Smart (Woman Smarter) and featuring the song of the same name — opens with a shot of Michelle Obama and her quote: “So much history yet to be made.” It then rolls through a “who’s who” of pioneers in women’s political history including the first woman Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman vice presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the first African-American woman secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

The ad then pauses on a still of an open presidential lectern in the White House with the words “It’s time” suspended above. Next, we see a black-and-white still of a smiling Clinton. “Vote Hillary. #FirstWoman,” the ad concludes.

Michelle Obama featured in #firstwoman ad from pro-Clinton PAC

(Photo: Patriotic Artists and Creatives)

Hilda Solis, former U.S. labor secretary, took the stage at a meeting of the Hispanic caucus in Philadelphia this week and immediately launched into Spanish.

Solis, who is the first Latina to have served in a cabinet position, issued a ringing endorsement of the vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket.

“We are here to support Tim Kaine, our next vice president,” she said. “Que habla muy bien Español. Mejor que yo!” (Who speaks good Spanish, she said, Better than I do.)

Solis is a superdelegate form California who supports Clinton.

She believes that Kaine’s Spanish abilities are matched by his understanding of the Latino community — she cites his time in Honduras, and support for immigration reform.

But some Latinos here at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia feel that Kaine’s ability to speak Spanish doesn’t actually translates into understanding and advocating for Latinos.

Kaine En Español: Pandering Or A Symbol Of Understanding For Latinos?

Photo: Gustavo Caballero/Getty Images

HUGOT FROM VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' LAST STATEMENTS:

“Sabi raw nila hindi namin kaya ni DU30 but we will try and die trying to give it to you in six months.” - Cayetano

- Dapat pala ganito ang jinojowa, yung handang mamatay maibigay lang sayo yung ikapapayapa ng puso at isip mo.

“Ako ay honest at hardworking na mambabatas.” - Honasan

- Minsan kahit gaano ka pa ka-honest sa jowa mo at kahit na sobra sobra na yung pagod kakaisip ng paraan para mag-work kayo eh kung talagang di ka na mahal, iiwan at iiwan ka pa rin.

“Subalit sa huli, ang halalang ito ay hindi tungkol sa amin. Ito po ay tungkol sa inyo.” - Escudero

- Siguro nga tama sya, hindi nga ata siguro ito tungkol sa amin.. Tungkol na nga ito sa kanila ng bago nya.

“We should look to the future not in the past.” - Marcos

- Hala, eh kahit anong gawin ko.. yung past pa rin talaga eh. Sya pa rin talaga. Hindi ako basta basta makakalimot. Hinding, hindi!

“Ako ay para sa mga kababayang umaasa na hindi sila papabayaan.” - Robredo

- Sya na nga ata ang icing sa ibabaw ng cupcake ko, hindi hindi ako paasahin at lalong hindi ako pababayaan.

“Buong tapang na haharap at babanggain sila nang sa gayon ay malinis natin ang ating lipunan.” - Trillanes

- Ganyan ata ang kailangan ng mga sawi sa pag-ibig, yung may tapang at kaya na silang ipagtanggol..

Meet Marietta Stow

Marietta Stow ran for Governor of California in 1882 as a member of the Women’s Independent Political Party.   Two years later, Belva Lockwood ran for president of the U.S.; Marietta joined Belva on the ticket as her vice presidential candidate. The women represented the Equal Rights Party.  Their platform focused on suffrage as its primary cause.  Marietta Stow died in 1902, nine years before women gained the right to vote in California.

anonymous asked:

Do you think either Julian or Joaquin Castro will be tapped for Hillary's vp?

They are frequently mentioned as potential VPs (Julián more than Joaquín), but I’m sold on either of them. I think it’s a little too soon and that both of them are still lightweights. Julián is put forward more than Joaquín, but at least Joaquín has spent a few years in Congress and a decade in the Texas legislature. Julián is mentioned because they see his time as Mayor of San Antonio as executive experience, but it’s not. The Mayor of San Antonio is one of the weaker Mayors of any major American city; it’s the City Manager who possesses pretty much all executive power in San Antonio. Now he’s the HUD Secretary, but that’s not exactly a stepping-stone to the Vice Presidency (and his appointment as HUD Secretary was seen as a way to pad his resume before 2016).

I think the Democrats could do much, much better when it comes to a running mate for Hillary Clinton. Senator Booker would be a very strong candidate and balance the ticket. I’ve heard Labor Secretary Tom Perez’s name mentioned and he’d be another strong candidate that checks a lot of the boxes that Hillary should be looking for in a VP – he’s Hispanic, he has a mix of experiences in and out of the government, he’s got major civil rights credentials, and much more. The Virginian Senators – Mark Warner and Tim Kaine – are always a possibility. An outsider might appeal to the folks who have been supporting Bernie Sanders, but I’m not sure who that could be.

If Hillary Clinton asked me to pick her running mate, I’d actually choose Senator Al Franken – yes, “Stuart Smalley”. Senator Franken would be a very interesting pick. He’s a true-blue progressive and a really good Senator now in his second term. Despite his Senate service, Franken is still a bit of an outsider after spending most of his career in entertainment; at the very least, he hasn’t spend most of his adult life in the Washington bubble. I think Senator Franken would be great on the campaign trail and be able to balance the ticket in various ways. Minnesota is a solidly Democratic state, so he wouldn’t be bringing a state into the fold. But another way to look at it is that a Franken Vice Presidency (which would result in the loss of a sold Democratic Senate seat), likely wouldn’t cost the Dems a Senate seat because Minnesota Democrats should be able to fill it without too much trouble. Some people will roll their eyes and say, “Yeah right, the guy who played Stuart Smalley is a terrible idea”, but that’s what in the Obama campaign when I was suggesting Joe Biden as VP while he was still in the 2008 Presidential race, as well as when I predicted Mitt Romney would choose Paul Ryan MONTHS before Romney became the 2012 frontrunner. I’m good at choosing Vice Presidents. 

anonymous asked:

Sorry, that was a bit of a joke, I couldn't resist. (I could have suggested Vince McMahon.) Seriously now, though, what about Jon Huntsman? He's an office holder, very successful governor, might defuse some of the "crazy" factor, and would be popular with swing voters. Trump has indicated recently that he's interested in someone with political experience. Would it work.

I’m one of the biggest Jon Huntsman fans in the country, and have been for a long time. In fact, in 2011 I even suggested that I would vote for Huntsman if he was the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee. He’s definitely not crazy, and that’s why he’d never accept the 2016 GOP Vice Presidential nomination and share the ticket with Donald Trump. 

In 2012, when Huntsman was unsuccessful seeking the Republican Presidential nomination, most of the GOP candidates made a trip to Trump Tower to try to win over Trump’s support. Huntsman refused and said that he wasn’t going to placate Trump or “kiss the ring” – and this was back in 2012! I had a ton of respect for Huntsman before that – resigning as Governor of Utah to accept the nomination of a President from the opposite party to serve as Ambassador to China was a truly patriotic move. Refusing to bow to Trump for what Huntsman’s campaign called “Presidential Apprentice” reinforced my respect for him. Huntsman would never join Trump’s ticket, and Trump is so insecure that I’m sure he still holds a grudge against Huntsman for not joining the other 2012 candidates in “kissing the ring”.

anonymous asked:

do you have any thoughts on who'd be the best running mate for Hillary?

There are a lot of possibilities. I’d actually like to see Hillary get someone who isn’t in Washington – a statewide elected official (like a Governor or Lieutenant Governor) or Mayor, or a total outsider, like a major CEO or progressive business leader.

If she wants someone from Washington, I’m really thinking that Senator Al Franken – who I mentioned would be a great Senate Majority Leader if the Democrats regain control of the Senate – would be a fantastic branch to the more progressive branch of the Democratic Party. He’s a smart guy, he’s well-known, he’s great on the campaign trail and on television, he’s experienced, and he’s a perfect balance in every way for Hillary Clinton. I think there are some members of the party that the party needs to start turning to, and Senator Franken is one of them.

And, yes, I just earnestly recommended that Stuart Smalley be the next Vice President of the United States.