Music to my ears

[Rolando]

deckeda wrote:
[quote=Acer]
Hillary's campaign thought they smelled blood in the Texas water at the high point of her campaign. Turned out to be a red herring while PA, MI and WI fell.

Yes this is the trap of Texas. It'll have to move bluer essentially organically and county-by-county over time, not with some one-and-done, large statewide push. The eventual nominee will be smart to stick to the states legitimately in play.
Clinton wanted the blandest VP available, to give her a little more shine. Biden wouldn't have that problem. He's a Midwesterner/Northeaster, and would campaign hard there. I think K Harris would campaign hard in CA and the West Coast, to show that they are not being taken for granted. Beto or Castro as VP would at least divert Republican Attention back to Texas.

[Dennis S]

"Clinton wanted the blandest VP available..."

You got that right. I had to google who it was and I normally know all the tickets since Truman.

[Speedy]

Dennis S wrote:
Didn't Cruz run in 2018?

Yes, Suzanne was talking about an old article.

[deckeda]

Most VPs are intentionally bland and/or an "opposite" of the main candidate in some way that of course never includes policy differences. You get all these candidates running for president and then who gets picked as VP? Some seemingly random senator, Governor, or has-been most have never heard of, intended to shore up some focus group weakness in the main draw.

When (or how often?) has a nominee picked a front-running opponent challenger as a running mate?

[samintx]

Speedy wrote:
[quote=Dennis S]
Didn't Cruz run in 2018?

Yes, Suzanne was talking about an old article.
Cruz isn’t running but still fears TX blue. A Republican local newsletter I get is fearing currently a Blue Tx which surprises me.. this is a staunch Republican at any price God ordained Trumps election group.

[Speedy]

samintx wrote:
[quote=Speedy]
[quote=Dennis S]
Didn't Cruz run in 2018?

Yes, Suzanne was talking about an old article.
Cruz isn’t running but still fears TX blue. A Republican local newsletter I get is fearing currently a Blue Tx which surprises me.. this is a staunch Republican at any price God ordained Trumps election group.
Just an attempt to sow fear in order to drive turnout at the polls.

[samintx]

Yes, Speedy that is possible but I am encouraged by the fear I read in local Rep newsletter. They are wetting their pants over guns and the position of the Gov and vice Gov.

[RgrF]

deckeda wrote:
Most VPs are intentionally bland and/or an "opposite" of the main candidate in some way that of course never includes policy differences. You get all these candidates running for president and then who gets picked as VP? Some seemingly random senator, Governor, or has-been most have never heard of, intended to shore up some focus group weakness in the main draw.

When (or how often?) has a nominee picked a front-running opponent challenger as a running mate?

There haven't been many.
Kennedy picked Johnson
Reagan picked Bush I

Both led down roadways best not trod.
Johnson's nose ring was firmly tied to the Pentagon's wrongheaded Vietnam policy and without the Regan pick of Bush it's likely there never would have been a later Bush I presidency nor the disaster that followed with Bush II.

[pdq]

RgrF wrote:
[quote=deckeda]

When (or how often?) has a nominee picked a front-running opponent challenger as a running mate?

There haven't been many.
Kennedy picked Johnson
Reagan picked Bush I
Kerry picked Edwards. While I wasn’t a fan of Edwards, seemed like a decent move at the time, but sure didn’t turn out that way. Big disappointment in several ways.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

It might have something to do with the 15 (so far) Texas Republican House members quitting. Too bad none of the Senate members are.