Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)23. No, I don't.
50 years ago, maybe, but in these hyper-partisan days it just wouldn't work.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
88 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

I don't think she SHOULD, but I absolutely think she WOULD if she thought it politically expedient.
Svafa
Mar 2016
#5
I live in Texas. My beloved homeland is at least 20 years, more likely 30, from flipping
Bucky
Mar 2016
#41
The two things are not mutually exclusive as demonstrated by the OP's offer of Sandoval.....
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2016
#43
It's a moo point. Even if she did consider such a thing, no Republican would dare accept it.
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2016
#14
She could tap Rush Limbaugh for VP and Republicans still would not vote for her. If she's the
GoneFishin
Mar 2016
#15
Horrible idea. Selecting a truly Progressive VP would convince more people to stay...
highprincipleswork
Mar 2016
#29
It would be nice if she did -- then we'd have someone more liberal than she is. nt
nichomachus
Mar 2016
#39
Then there would be a moderate republican at the top and bottom of the ticket. nt
Joe the Revelator
Mar 2016
#48