Paul Ryan 2016? David Brin speculates.
December 14, 2015 10:41 PM Subscribe
If the GOP ends up with a brokered convention, who would they choose? David Brin considers the possible presidential path for Paul Ryan. And VP? You can't go wrong with Ted Cruz.
If by then the fundie-teaparty wing has coalesced around Ted Cruz, then odds are Cruz would get Ryan’s nod to be the ticket’s running mate.
That would, after all, be in keeping with the GOP’s other grand tradition – of almost never choosing a VP candidate who is remotely qualified to be president. Almost always they choose an unqualified caricature, to pander to the crazy wing and to make the main nominee look sage, by comparison. That is, after all, how we got Richard Nixon. All right, except Romney chose Ryan. That jury is still out.
This post was deleted for the following reason: hey there, in the spirit of a) trying to keep US election posts to a manageable number on the site, and b) making those posts as useful and productive as possible, this would probably be better as a bit more in-depth thing on the various possibilities of a GOP brokered convention rather than a single-link "this-one-guy-kind-of-spitballing" thing. Please contact us if you'd like to discuss, or edit this post to change it up in the next hour or two. -- taz
That article is a little... And that comment section is all sorts of uncomfortable. And in a way I didn't expect. I didn't know who David Brin was when I started reading, but now I know, right or wrong, he's sort of a jingoistic asshole.
posted by moink at 11:28 PM on December 14, 2015
posted by moink at 11:28 PM on December 14, 2015
That would, after all, be in keeping with the GOP’s other grand tradition – of almost never choosing a VP candidate who is remotely qualified to be president.
As opposed to the Democrats, who most recently chose Joe Biden, eh? And Joe Lieberman and Honest John Edwards before that?
Both parties do this. It isn't anything unique to the Republicans.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:37 PM on December 14, 2015
As opposed to the Democrats, who most recently chose Joe Biden, eh? And Joe Lieberman and Honest John Edwards before that?
Both parties do this. It isn't anything unique to the Republicans.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:37 PM on December 14, 2015
I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Fiorina is going to be the VP candidate, because they're expecting to run against Hillary.
Really?
What voters would Fiorina bring with her? Palin was possibly a stronger candidate than Fiorina (at least she had been elected to an office and had some political experience). If they wanted to put a woman on the ticket, Fiorina isn't even close to the best one out there (Janet Brewer springs to mind, as does Condoleezza Rice).
But I'm not convinced that there will be a woman on the republican ticket. It's possible. As far as defusing the war on women accusation (which is a good characterization of the republican position in my mind), they will probably do that they've done in the past - say that the entire thing is a lie constructed by the left, and they love women and want nothing but the best for them. Their anti-woman positions and rhretoric haven't stopped them from getting office in congress, nor controlling entire state legislatures and electing anti-woman governors.
posted by el io at 11:48 PM on December 14, 2015
Really?
What voters would Fiorina bring with her? Palin was possibly a stronger candidate than Fiorina (at least she had been elected to an office and had some political experience). If they wanted to put a woman on the ticket, Fiorina isn't even close to the best one out there (Janet Brewer springs to mind, as does Condoleezza Rice).
But I'm not convinced that there will be a woman on the republican ticket. It's possible. As far as defusing the war on women accusation (which is a good characterization of the republican position in my mind), they will probably do that they've done in the past - say that the entire thing is a lie constructed by the left, and they love women and want nothing but the best for them. Their anti-woman positions and rhretoric haven't stopped them from getting office in congress, nor controlling entire state legislatures and electing anti-woman governors.
posted by el io at 11:48 PM on December 14, 2015
This, as with most things emanating from David Brin, is nonsense. There are still a dozen candidates in the primary race and he thinks there's at least a 20% chance they're going to go with a guy who will have received zero votes?
Nor does he actually present anything resembling a coherent argument. It starts with some irrelevant bits about Hastert and ends with an irrelevant rant about helium reserves, with some random speculation about a fifth round ballot at a convention for which we haven't had a single primary yet.
posted by zachlipton at 11:51 PM on December 14, 2015
Nor does he actually present anything resembling a coherent argument. It starts with some irrelevant bits about Hastert and ends with an irrelevant rant about helium reserves, with some random speculation about a fifth round ballot at a convention for which we haven't had a single primary yet.
posted by zachlipton at 11:51 PM on December 14, 2015
« Older Don't expect an invitation | What does Facebook think you're into? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:26 PM on December 14, 2015