2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTom Perez would make a great VP
He is super smart. He genuinely cares about working Americans, and he is not afraid to fight big business on their behalf. His experience as Secretary of Labor would be a huge asset. Damn, he is even likable. And we don't lose a Senate seat if he is chosen.
I really hope Clinton chooses him.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)He has a wonderful resume and history of standing up for justice. He is the real deal.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I guess the problem with his candidacy would be his support for TPP. I am not sure how strong that support is and whether he could now sincerely express reservations about TPP. The last thing we need is a VP candidate trying to pretend to be against TPP.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)if she is to support it. That is not rejection.
Here's the liberal The American Spectator's take on Perez and the TPP. Objective enough, but it's clear that labor leaders are not the only ones who like him.
Hes long been in an awkward position on his support for the deal, given that his allies at the labor unions vehemently oppose the deal. Still, labor leaders have largely given Perez a pass on his TPP support, as they understand the position hes in and are huge fans of everything else hes done as labor secretary.
...
In an interview on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd on Sunday, Perez said that his work constructing labor protections and promoting the deal was part of his job. This is what the president tasked me with doing, Chuck, and I was proud to do it, he said. The rift, he says, is regarding whether the deal ensures "the strongest protections for the workers that we've ever had. The president and Clinton have a disagreement on whether TPP has gone that far. This is not the first time in the history of the Democratic Party that there have been differences of opinion," Perez said. ... Thats a stark change from when he said just over a year ago that [t]rade agreements like the TPP are critical to our 21st century competitiveness."
...
And thats precisely where the dividing line is in the Democratic Party. On one side is Obama and those who support the deal as is. On the other side, the full spectrum of opposition runs from Clinton, who has sharpened her position to calling for stronger trade prosecution against China and protections for the U.S. auto industry, to Bernie Sanders, who thinks the deal should be thrown out altogether and is lobbying DNC delegates to support a platform amendment explicitly opposing the TPP. ... In any case, Perez will be an important bellwether in monitoring how the party ultimately handles an Obama-to-Clinton TPP transition.
http://prospect.org/blog/tapped/how-tom-perez-embodies-democrats%E2%80%99-tpp-rift
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)said, no, he was being talked about for the Supreme Court. Regardless, a WaPo article is promisingly titled, "if Clinton wins, Tom Perez does too," though disappointingly it neglects to suggest possible positions other than VP. His work for employee rights relations with labor unions are excellent, as is his record of fighting for civil rights in the Justice Department.
Perez had a message for voters who might be having doubts about trusting Clinton. He said they should look to the "body of her work across her life, including the work she did when she was not in the spotlight" to see that "her moral compass is about helping those who are in the shadows."
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)be a good pick for SCOTUS, that is definitely a consideration.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)I worry about him as a candidate. He's only run for one local office and, while he's good in person (at least in small groups, which is how I've seen him) he doesn't come across that well on TV. He probably also doesn't have a politician's instincts, which can be a real detriment in a national campaign. Guess we'll see.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Voters this year are weary of politicians who sound like politicians.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Can lead to easily being tripped up by reporters and opposition surrogates. That's what concerns me.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)What cares is if voters like him and most voters don't bother to dig beyond the surface. Sad, but true. After seeing Mr. Perez doing an interview, I don't think he'd add the badly needed oomph to the ticket.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)VP can be a stepping stone to being President, but maybe you also think that Perez would be an unlikely pick for the presidency.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)I read about the candidates and know about the candidates, but the vast majority of Americans don't bother. They vote based on superficial qualities when they bother to vote at all. I'm not saying he is not qualified or the VP position is irrelevant, I'm saying Hillary has to pick someone who will capture the imagination of the voters so people will bother to get out and vote for her.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)She shouldn't make the choice entirely on the basis of who will best help her to win. She should also consider who might make a good VP and a good POTUS. That is especially true this year because the probability that she can beat Trump regardless of who she chooses among likely VP candidates is so high.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)It won't matter who is chosen for VP if people are not interested enough to go to the polls and vote.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)And reasonable people can disagree, of course, on who is, on balance, the best choice.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)so it's typical that they form opinions after. You suggest it's all appearance, but everything the typical Democratic voters learn about him they're going to like, a lot. Especially in this fed-up populist surge year.
Note that, though Perez's strong civil and labor rights records might be too much for the strongly conservative Democratic bloc (but would appeal to some), they reliably vote Republican for president anyway. So no loss there.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)You either have "it" or you don't. Although politicians shouldn't be confused with celebrities they most often need a bit of the "it" factor to win elections. Obama, of course, is off the charts with "it." John Kerry, unfortunately, lacked "it" in 2004. It is superficial. No doubt about it. But the vast majority of the population couldn't name 3 members of the Supreme Court for a million dollar prize. About a third couldn't tell you who the sitting VP is. This is one thing Donald Trump, in all his vileness, has figured out. The election is pretty much a reality show. Hillary has struggled to have mass appeal, although she seems to be getting better. She needs a running mate who is smart and capable, but at the same time has charisma and popular appeal on the surface. The biggest hurdle of this entire election is getting enough people to like the candidates enough to give up their smart phones long enough to go to the polls and vote.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)quality, nor does she speak in inspirational quotable clips; she favors complete sentences with plenty of detail. Warren is the one on the VP list who fills this in for her. And something special happened when they were up there together. I didn't wishfully imagine it, even the hostile crew on Morning Joe noted and commented on it.
Also, as far as Warren goes, none of the other reported candidates bring the specific passionate focus on economic reform that she does either. I want that.
They're all fine progressive liberals, though, and Tim Kaine earned his BA long ago in economics, so at least he presumably understands how economies work far better than most in DC. I'm afraid he and Clinton would look like two plump, genial loaves of white bread on the podium, though, while Perez can look like the aggressive labor reformer and civil rights activist that he is, a far better complement to Clinton.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)further fragment the party than Kaine as a running mate.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Most people do not want the gov't to redistribute the wealth even though they see their income declining.
Perez seems to want to help working people get their fair share by making sure they get paid enough, not ripped off and by supporting unions.
If we strengthen and expand union membership the gov't will not have to redistribute the wealth. Workers will be able to get decent pay, and benefits themselves by bargaining.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and the resistance of half the population to government action. Certainly any methods that didn't require government involvement would be desirable.
However, don't underestimate that fact that, under the last 35 years of conservative dominance, the government HAS become heavily involved in redistribution of wealth in many different ways, but virtually all upward, unlike the previous 50 years. Many federal and state laws in many different fields that were enacted since 1980 will have to be rewritten to get us out of this economic hole, including state and federal anti-labor laws designed to make unionizing and collective bargaining difficult if not effectively impossible.
It's not whether government is involved, because it just has to be, but how and how much.