Pokemon Go or Go Away?

Doug:
So, maybe we can avoid talking about anything depressing this week. Have your heard of Pokemon Go? Have you tried it? How would you describe it to someone who hasn't seen it?

David:
You might find me a bit weird (perhaps I should say, weirder), but I really don't play any video or computer games. Neither do the kids. One of the twins is playing The Legend of Zelda on my vintage GameBoy (1986) right now, and the kids do have some game apps loaded on my phone, like Stupid Zombies, and Angry Birds, but that's about it. One of my favorite game apps the kids enjoy is Scribblenauts. When they were younger, we had multiple teaching apps that they could use. For the most part, I believe them to be a big time-waster.

Doug:
I, too, am not a game player. (But as my roommates will attest, I played some games in college, but didn't inhale. Just a little Rogue.) But my wife and kids are game players. The kids are about 5 to 10 years older than your kids. Between my two kids and wife, they know everything about all games, from World of Warcraft to Candy Crush. For them, games are relaxing, a release of stress.

David:
I did a bit of research, and Pokemon Go is a fascinating take on the video game. The attention it has spawned is surely going to force the gaming world to take note, and drive a new generation of interactive, real-world games development. The whole idea of immersion is not new, but rather than introducing your self into the game's world, bringing the game characters into our world seems a novel idea.

Doug:
The Pokemon Go game has already had a pretty big impact in our house. Check out this note left by our daughter this past week:

"Gone for a walk! Gonna find more Pokemon than you :)" This is weird: our daughter is out walking about our neighborhood.

David:
I've heard quite a few proponents praising Pokemon Go for getting kids out of their house. Of course, a house fire would have the same effect...

I think this is likely more than just a passing fad, although I'm not sure exactly how other games would reproduce this idea. Ghostbusters seems an easy choice to copy the exact game (find the missing ghosts and capture them...), but where do you see the technology heading?

Doug:
The technical term for the Pokemon technology is "augmented reality." Pokemon Go is definitely the beginning of much more to come in this space.

There have been some reported downsides to Pokemon Go, such as this story of a man crashing into a police car:

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/1111889695567820/

David:
And just when we had started to make some inroads to get people to stop texting while driving.

Doug:
Actually, you have to be moving at 10 MPH or less, or else you can't catch the Pokemon.

David:
Great. Teens driving around town at 10 MPH. Maybe this is a good thing.

More worrisome are the reports of gangs of muggers hanging out at "Pokespots", the locations where you can find and catch the game denizens. People playing the game are so engrossed in their phones, that they aren't paying attention to their surroundings. That makes them easy pickings for criminals.

Doug:
That sounds a bit over the top. But of course people need to pay attention.

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/7/24/12265552/iowa-lineman-faith-ekakitie-pokemon-go-police

David:
One of the hot spots in Indiana is within a cemetery, which was causing quite a bit of grief for families trying to hold funerals, with people running around shouting about fictitious monsters. The cemetery director has contacted the company to encourage them to move the spot to another location. The company made a poor decision in this instance. But the idea to get people out into their communities is a good one, and certainly has some benefits, especially for young people who would otherwise be sitting at home.

Doug:
If anyone would like to catch Pokemon at my funeral, I fully support that. But remember kids, always get permission first!

David:
Do you see some key differences between this technology and other tech and games that are already out there? These articles describes how new "augmented reality" may find its way into business applications much faster than virtual reality. Some of the examples they give are easy to imagine.

[Doug: This link may not work. I never could get it to load, and had to restart by browser. Copy and paste URL at your own peril:]

 http://www.cityam.com/246034/prepare-augmented-reality-workplace-tech-behind-pokemon-go

(David: The link works for me. Maybe you're on a government watch list...)

Here's another link about the business benefits of Pokemon Go.

https://www.tenfold.com/pokemon-go-business-lure

Doug:
Combining generated images on top of actual images can be quite useful. Image the medical profession if you could "see" into the body through soft and hard tissue? Imagine home design where the plans of a remodel could be seen in the real world. Imagine a projected image onto a wall to see what was behind it. You can already look at the night's sky using a star map app (like Google's Sky Map). A windshield in a car would make for a great "heads up" display. Many of the technical problems have been solved, and now software designers can be creative in their uses.

David:
Whatever happens, I think our world will continue to change due the the innovation of individuals as the technology continues to develop. Of course, there will always be those who use the technology for harmful purposes, but our world will continue to open up in new ways to make our lives better.

As long as the government butts out.

Doug:
How about we let the government butt in when we need them? Dogmatic blanket statements about "keeping the government out" make you seem like you don't actually care about other people.

David:
In order to care for other people means you need to support big government? The reason I want the government to butt out is that I do care about people, and their dreams, and their ideas for new products that make all of our lives better.  Several recent studies have noted that more than half of all Americans have had an idea for stating their own business in the past year, but less than 1%  actually tried it. This is much lower than in previous decades. The number one reason they gave up? "It's just too complicated because of red tape." Here's an article that backs that up:

http://smallbiztrends.com/2015/01/rising-small-business-regulation.html

Perhaps I digress. However, it is a very close tangent to the current discussion, and how this new technology will find its way into our lives.

Doug:
Now, Go catch some Pokemon! If you run out of Pokeballs, you'll be in trouble!

The Debt versus Climate Change. Which is the Greater Threat?

David:
I'll let you start this one.

Doug:
Ok. Your title gives me insight into why you think a regular person would care about these things. First, let's consider the national debt. Here are two charts that probably capture the essence of the issue:

The top chart shows the US debt growing over time, and the bottom chart shows that value divided by the Gross Domestic Product. Note that debt as a percentage of GDP has consistently increased since 1973, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Keeping debt in check seems like a reasonable goal. And it can fluctuate wildly, in just a few years, regardless of past behavior (consider Clinton's years).

David:
Here's an article that helps to explain the numbers better than your Wikipedia graphs, which have no real meaning behind the numbers:

http://www.moneytips.com/national-debt-vs-gdp

The real value of the debt has increased significantly, and as the economy has languished at around 2% growth, our ability to address the debt has been significantly burdened. The real debt has doubled under Obama's watch, up 116% to over $20 Trillion. The interest on this debt continues to eat up more and more tax revenue, leaving less to spend on programs to  meet the needs of Americans.  Over time, this leads to a decreased standard of living for average Americans.

Doug:
I think it would be fair to say that whomever was president these last 8 years that it was a tough economy on the heels of the largest amount of money spent on war in our history. And on top of that, we had the sequestration, which severely limited the economic stimulus. And very lowest tax rates. But gee, if there were only some way to get more money to pay off the debt?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally

David:
Democrat:"Wow, I've maxed out all of my credit cards by buying a lot of stuff I can't afford.  I need someone to force my boss to pay me more for doing my job, because I have an income problem."
Republican:"Let's see, I only make this much money, and my bills are this much, so to get that new car, I'll have to save over the next 8 months. And I'll have to skip going out to that expensive restaurant to make sure I don't go into debt."

Doug:
Democrat: "You have to make money to spend money. And I'd like to make sure we have money for a rainy day. We all have rainy days. Let's get through this together."
Republican: "If you don't make money, then you can't spend it. And I really don't want to make your life as good as mine. Rainy day? Screw you... get a job!"

David:
Perhaps you don't realize in your examples, the Democrat wants to take money from working people and give it to those who aren't, while the Republican just wants to get everyone working. I don't know why you equate that with wanting someone to have a poor life. If everyone has a job, they can improve their lot the same as everyone else. I'm for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Doug:
Translation: if you don't have a job, get a job! And while you are trying to get a job, get another job!

David:
Here's another article that helps to put the numbers into real terms people can understand:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/national-debt.asp

The problem with comparing the debt to GDP, is that we don't pay off the debt with the GDP. We pay off the debt with taxes, which can be related to the GDP, but not always. Think of it this way: You don't pay off your credit cards each month with the value of goods and services you provide when you do your job at work. You pay your bills with the money you actually receive in your paycheck. When you say that the debt is over 100% of GDP, that is hard to understand. When you say that every man, woman, and child in America owes over $80,000 to pay this debt, it takes on real meaning. Since many people don't actually pay anything in taxes, the burden for taxpaying individuals is over $160,000 per individual. Those are real numbers, and since spending has increased another 7% this year, the numbers keep rising.

Doug:
You said that-word-that-must-not-be-spoken by Republicans: taxes. Indeed, the article states that "The national debt has to be paid back with tax revenue". How could we possibly solve this issue?

David:
You like to talk about increasing taxes. But then, you are a Democrat. The government runs on taxes. That isn't an issue. It's the reckless way Democrats spend the money, running us into debt, that bugs Republicans. When we desire lowering taxes, it's to serve two purposes: More money in people's pockets leads to economic growth, and putting the government on a budget leads to wiser spending. At least it does when adults are in charge.

Doug:
You say it is "reckless" to not raise taxes, but you also complain that we don't have enough to pay our debts. It is reckless to not pay taxes. For you, any amount of tax is reckless. I want to have enough money to pay for what we spend. That sounds rational, not reckless.

David:
I said Democrats spend our money recklessly. Everything else you're saying is reflecting your crazy view that Republicans are all rich people with money stuffed into their mattresses. Just not true.

Doug:
No, that's the irony: many poor republicans vote against their own self interest. Why? Because of the strawman argument that you make.

David:
Here's another way to look at how this affects each of us, and our children:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2015/04/24/national-debt-tops-18-trillion-guess-how-much-you-owe/#64dca49f5ebd

Doug:
Now, let's consider climate change. Whatever you wish to measure (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, temperature, etc) they all are heading into uncharted territory:

As most any scientist will tell you: this is caused by human activity over the last 100 years, and can't be reversed.

Which is the greater threat? The one that is irreversible and will affect every living thing on the planet, of course.

David:
You make several unsubstantiated comments there, in rapid fashion (faster than the former Bruce Jenner ran the 100 meter dash). The temperature appears to have have risen compared to what we have documented in the past. However, the first thermometers were created in 1641. The Fahrenheit scale wasn't developed until 1724, and thermometers were often calibrated by hand (leaving a relatively large margin of error. At least 1-2 degrees). In fact, temperature readings couldn't readily be accurate to within a single degree until the 20th century. Climate scientists now marvel that the temperature has risen by tenths of a degree, but the international temperature scale was only developed in 1990. Before that time, there was no standard to use between different thermometers. When comparing the data over more than a decade or two, the data all falls within the margins of error. Comparing the temperature reading further back than that is just folly. The thermometers just were not accurate enough.

Doug:
Of course, there are many ways to estimate the temperature (locally and globally) going back millions of years. Climate scientists know a bit more about environmental temperature changes than you and your cursory dismissal of thermometers.

David:
They are talking about tenths of a degree. I'm sure Caveman Joe was calculating temperatures with a digital thermometer. How else would he know when his Brontosaurus steak was thoroughly cooked? The ways in which scientist estimated temperatures even 100 years ago do not match the small measurements they are talking about now. It just isn't possible. One example of estimating temperatures in the past is measuring tree-ring growth. You remember from grade-school, larger tree rings equal warmer temperatures for that year? Unfortunately, you can't measure what the  actual temperature was, or even nail it down within any range of temperature at all. Also, in the past 50 years, we've found that on some of the coolest years, tree-rings were much wider than on warmer years. Why? No one knows, but the facts now make that system of measurement totally invalid.

The second problem you illustrate is that the accumulation of gasses, which was predicted to result in increased temperatures, didn't materialize. As carbon dioxide has doubled in the atmosphere, temperatures remained constant.

Doug:
Oh, now you can trust those pesky thermometers! But of courses, in reality, temperatures are on the rise. But you have painted yourself into a corner: either you have to trust thermometers (and claim that temperatures have not risen) or argue not to trust thermometers (because temperatures have risen.)

David:
We've only been measuring the accumulation of those gasses in the atmosphere for the past 30 years. Thermometers are reliably accurate during that  time frame. Maybe your brain is overheating?

Doug:
One can "do science" to determine the composition of the atmosphere for millions of years. You are not a climate scientist, but you want to argue science with them. Let me introduce you to two additional scientists: Dunning and Kruger.

David:
Anyway, scientists  had to "reassess" their models to account for this. They theorize that the oceans are a "carbon sink", that blunts the effects on temperature. In fact, all of the predictions that climate scientists have made have had to be "reassessed". To say that global warming is irreversible would be to claim that you know much more about the climate than is actually known. The models are improving, and climate scientists are the first to admit their models have been flawed. To mandate large-scale economic policies based on admittedly flawed models is not good economics or science.

Doug:
Everything is reversible, given enough time. I just meant that it cannot be undone in the same amount of time that it was done. But realizing that the oceans are a carbon sink is also a bad thing to have happening. It does have an effect of the speed of the climate change, but is also an even worse outcome than we thought.

David:
Worse outcome? Says who? The same guys who don't understand how this process works in the first place?

Doug:
Yes, those same "guys." They are scientists who are attempting to study and understand. The debt can be undone even faster than it was done. Look at the Clinton years. We had a surplus when W took the reins. He killed that with his rebates and tax cuts.

David:
Right. People pay off their debt easily all the time, in the magic land of Democratic economics you live in. Perhaps you haven't heard all of the commercials offering to help people get out of debt or decrease their credit card debts? Getting out of debt is difficult. Paying down the national debt, during a time of economic stagnation  is nearly impossible. And it is a serious problem facing our children and grand-children.

Doug:
If we had to on take a 40% loan to pay off our 20% loans, then, yes, it would be hard. But we can simply collect more money from billionaires. This isn't rocket science. It isn't even environmental science (which is just as complex as rocket science, in case you misunderstand.)

David:
Unfortunately, there isn't enough money to take from successful Americans to cover the wasteful spending of government. That's just a tired, and untrue Democratic talking point: Let's take the money from the filthy, evil, rich people, and we'll have a fountain of unlimited cash. Hey, we'll even add more spending, like free college tuition!

Doug:
Yes, I understand that is your image of what a Democrat stands for because you have not really paid much attention to what I am actually saying. Not much I can do about your misunderstandings.

David:
So, the debt is real. It is a hard number. It is accurately measured by the Treasury Department. And it affects us all, within our lifetimes. Our children will likely have less economic opportunity than we did because of the debt. Climate change makes many assumptions, all of which have been wrong so far. It speculates that changes will occur hundreds or thousands of years into the future, and guesses that those changes will be bad, even though many leading climate scientists have noted a moderate degree of warming would be beneficial to mankind. So which issue is a greater threat? Obviously, the debt.

Doug:
I do not want you managing my risks, or the country's. We could raise taxes, and fix the debt in a few years. Climate change will effect the Earth and our descendents for generations.

David:
You and Hillary can raise those taxes by $160,000 on every American and the debt will just go away. You're a genius. How did I miss such an easy answer? Climate change has been ongoing, well, since creation. The climate affects us everyday, and we've managed pretty well. You're following an unproven religion of global warming, that's been wrong more than it's been right.

Doug:
You do not understand that 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth. You don't raise taxes on every American. You miss easy answers because you don't want to see them. The climate is being changed by us. Science is not religion. Funny that you would try to besmirch science by tainting it with religion. Science is not perfect, but that is the goal.

David:
Apparently you don't understand that 50% of the population pays no taxes, and the top 10% pays over 70% of all taxes.  The top 1% pays 50% of all taxes.  To pay off our debt, you'd have to confiscate all of the money from every working American, and you'd still fall short. (Remember, our debt is now 116% of GDP.)

Unfortunately, and I think we can agree on this point, neither economists or scientists will get much of a say in either of these issues. Both issues are firmly in the hands of politicians. With that in mind, I don't see how any of this ends well....

Doug:
Then you don't have much imagination. I do not agree with you! You want to denigrate the scientists (economists and environmental scientists) and then wring your hands that they don't get their say? No! How about we let the economists and environmental scientists do their jobs, rather than attempting to block them.

David:
I was hoping to let you have the last say, but then you went off on a crazy, unrelated slant. How you ever reach your conclusions, I'll never guess. Climate scientists are continually wrong, yet Democrats want to spend money we don't have, to enact laws that further harm our economy, based on those predictions. I encourage those scientist to keep at it. Maybe someday they'll get it right. Economists (and first-graders)  all agree that if you spend much more than you have, you go into debt. If you continue to spend more and more, you never pay off your debt. I believe that's what I've been consistently saying.  We have a spending problem.

Doug:
There's your problem: first graders (and you) do not understand economics nor environmental science. These areas are complex and often times non-intuitive. You hope to let me have the last say, but you realize that you can control that right? Well, maybe you'll let me have the last say with this: I think that we can work towards getting politics out of science. With that in mind, I can plainly see how this could go well. But it is an everlasting battle that never ends, unfortunately. Perhaps we can agree on that.

David:
Yes, I believe we can agree on that! Wait! Scratch that. You get the last word. (Am I too late? Dang it!)

Brexit and the United States

Doug:
This week, we could discuss violence in the United States, classified email, or a host of other topics. But I am interested in exploring the recent vote by Britain to leave the European Union (sometimes referred to as Brexit, as in "Britain Exit"). Do you think that this vote has analogies in the U.S. with state government versus federal government?

David:
Sure. We're known as the United States of America for a reason. The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation in 1789. Our government, with the House representing citizens by number, and the Senate giving each state an equal vote was designed to give states parity in their representation. The 17th Amendment gave voters the ability to elect their senators. Before 1913, individual state legislatures selected Senators from each state, providing for even more state's rights being protected at the federal level. There has been some call in the last 15 years for repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Doug:
There have been some Tea Party members advocating repeal of  17th amendment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/opinion/01tue4.html?hp&_r=0 These Tea Partiers think that removing the vote from the people for electing senators would give the states more control. Also, they think that this would shift senator's attention away from lobbyists' interests and toward the state's interests. Such a  change would be unlikely to deter the influence of lobbyists' money. But it could indeed lead to more stability in the senate, and away from the fickle swings of the active voters.

David:
That almost sounded like you agree with the tea party. There may be hope for you yet.

Doug:
Unlike you, I will agree with a good idea no matter where it comes from. I do believe that our country is more stable because not everything is left up to a vote of the people. The founding fathers very much feared the tyranny of the masses, and designed the government to be somewhat protected from such sways. The Tea Party is interested in repealing the 17th amendment because they think it would benefit them. It might, for a time. But over time it would just benefit the status quo, whoever that might be.

David:
I always agree with an idea that works best to accomplish the stated goals, no matter where it comes from. The framers of the Constitution designed the Senate in a way they thought would guarantee state's rights the best. The tea party, and you, recognize their wisdom. The tea party arose to promote fiscal responsibility. That benefits us all.

For the Europeans, they have a very long history of individual state sovereignty for each country. Europe's history is one of constant wars and animosity towards each other. I'm surprised that they were able to hold things together as long as they did. But there are also many reasons that a large confederacy of sovereign nations would struggle.

Doug:
Well, the European Union hasn't collapsed yet. Tension between local government and more broad government is natural. This is true with county vs. state, state vs. nation, or nation vs. multi-national organizations.

David:
They lose flexibility as well, and some degree of self-management.

Doug:
I agree. And that is a good thing, as it makes a compromise between self and group.

David:
That works for some things, but not for others. Just one example would be monetary policy. Greece and Spain are both countries that are tourist destinations, with beaches and islands along the Mediterranean coast. When the economy tanked, they would both have been better served to devalue their currencies, to entice visitors to spend their vacations (and spend their money) in each of those two countries. Being hooked into the Euro, and the inflexibility that went along with that, eliminated that option for them. But a stable currency can also benefit the union members in other ways.

Doug:
If that were true, then South Carolina and Alabama should have their own currency. I'd argue that the EU needs more pressure from the top level, not less. For example, more standards for retirement packages and benefits could ease tension between those countries with differing options.

But I do think that people should not be able to vote to leave the EU. That (like the 17th amendment) puts too much power in the hands of the people. This is one place where stability should trump voter's rights. Imagine if people could vote to leave the United States. Texit (Texas Exit) would have already happened, and Texas would be a third world country.

David:
There are a few things that a larger union of countries improves. They all have an interest in protecting themselves, and combining military forces provides for a greater show of strength. That is the whole point of NATO. But each European country doesn't need the union to provide for retirement. You're saying that the French should pay for the retirement of Greeks. That's a transfer of wealth from one country to another, with no benefit to the one losing the money. That's no partnership, that's robbery. I'm also opposed to Hoosier money being used to salvage the economies of California or Illinois, who have mismanaged their resources.

Doug:
You must really hate the very idea of insurance. Imagine that your money is being used to rebuild someone else's house! That would be transfer of wealth! When a hurricane strikes Florida, then yes, some of your Hoosier federal dollars go to support Florida. That is the whole idea of a social contract: you pay in a little for the greater good.

David:
If a man burns down his own house, my insurance doesn't rebuild it for him. Insurance is for accidents and acts of God. Not bureaucratic mismanagement.

Doug:
"The Lord works in mysterious ways."

David:
And I'm certainly not interested in paying the retirement benefits of people in other states, whose state governments promised what they couldn't deliver. On the other hand, we'll all contribute to Social Security, as Congress voted for that program.

Why would Texas be a third-world country? They'd likely be more successful than all of Central and South American countries. The economy of Texas currently ranks 14th in the world. The GDP of just Dallas-Fort Worth is larger Greece's GDP. (Of course, there are a great many things that Texas, or any state, doesn't pay for because they belong to our union of united states.) California and Illinois, on the other hand, more closely resemble Venezuela due to financial mismanagement.

Doug:
Texavania would have a wall built around it to keep out the immigrants (eg, people from Indiana, like that "Mexican" judge and you). You'd need a passport to visit Texavania. U.S. companies would stop building factories there, as it wouldn't be "made in the USA". There are indeed a great many things that benefit Texas because they are a state in the US of A. That is the point. Without it, they would fail. You know, united we stand; divided we fall.

David:
They're not interested in leaving the country. At least not yet. But if the agencies of the federal government continue to over reach their boundaries, that could change. The Bureau of Land Management continues to regulate how Americans can use the land they own. Small businesses continue to struggle under mountains of new regulations every year. At some point, belonging to a larger group becomes more painful than beneficial. Just ask average Britons.

Doug:
Sure.... we'll see how long this lasts.

David:
The states have faired very well as a union, but that's largely because most of our laws and rules have been agreed to and developed under that system, with input from every state in Congress. European countries have very different ideas about how to govern, and are very suspicious of each other's motivations going back centuries.

Doug:
It sounds to me like you are suspicious of California and Illinois. I'd argue that the USA still exists because we have of a strong federal level of government. Without it, we'd have something much like the EU.

David:
Again, that's because traditionally, every state has been on an equal footing in deciding the important matters that govern our land. In the past decade we've seen an erosion of that balance of power. Every time the president acts unilaterally, he dictates policy without compromise. Obamacare was dictated without compromise. And the next election illustrated that Americans were upset with the Democrats. While Democrats enjoy Obama's lawless executive actions (none of which has been upheld in court), those actions disenfranchise other Americans. That's a breakdown in our system. I'd argue that heavy-handed mandates from Germany led to England's departure from the EU. Germany is not trusted by many in the EU ( they started two world wars last century), and as Germany expresses a louder voice, more members will bail out.

Doug:
Erosion of balance of power! Unilateral acts! Dictator! Without compromise! Lawlessness! Breakdown! Heavy-handed! Hyperbole much? Don't you think that people take you less seriously when you are always so extreme? Or do you think if you keep using that language you'll convince someone that you must be right?

David:
Again, Obama has been challenged in court on these matters, and has not won a single case. I suppose you don't take the court system seriously? That, after all, is where differences in the rule of law is settled.

There must be a balance between individual freedoms and group unions. When the balance is maintained, all of the players benefit in useful ways. When one side outweighs the other, trouble and dissatisfaction develop. But whenever there's a question, individual freedom should be the default.

Doug:
No.

David:
And that appears to be the crux of our differences. I'll let our readers decide which is better, individual freedom to live your life, or bureaucratic management of your life.

Vice-Presidential Picks

David:
Do you have any preference or predictions for Hillary Clinton's Vice-Presidential running mate? Why?

Doug:
I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren on the ticket. She would be a good, progressive voice. However, as a VP, she wouldn't have much power, and she would be missed in the Senate. Who do you think would make a good VP pick for Clinton?

David:
I hope she picks Warren. Although that might be the only way for Clinton to hang onto Sanders' backers, and get them to come out on election day, it moves the entire ticket further left, and likely alienates more independent voters.  Although an all-woman ticket would be appealing to people who only care about gender, rather than anything else, I'm not sure that Warren balances the ticket in a significant way. Two older, liberal women from the Northeast? And all of Warren's comments about Hillary's Wall-Street ties will play in campaign commercials from now until the election. It really doesn't seem a good match.

You have hit on a problem for Democrats. Warren may be the only reasonable person Clinton can pick up as a running mate. Many other qualified people, that might balance her on the ticket, can't realistically join her without guaranteeing that Republicans will maintain control of the Senate. Many of the people listed on her "short list" are currently senators in states with Republican governors. If she picks one of them, the governor will be able to appoint their replacement. And their replacement would then be a Republican. That means that Democrats will need to pick up even more seats in this election to have any hope of gaining control of that legislative body.

Even if Hillary gets elected, she'll have a hard time pushing a liberal agenda with all of Congress in Republican hands.

Doug:
We'll see if the Congress stays in the Republican's hands. This could end up causing some big changes across the board.

David:
If Clinton picks a senator like Cory Booker, the Senate will undoubtably remain in Republican control.

Doug:
Cory Booker would be another excellent choice.

David:
But, for the reasons I mentioned, can't be her pick. Winning the Senate has to be part of the bigger plan. It's more complicated than just getting a VP pick for Clinton.

Who would you pick for Trump, and do you think he'll follow anyone's advice for this pick?

Doug:
I doubt Trump would pick anyone that would be seen to have too much of a better political profile than himself. He is too narcissistic. He'll want someone to be his underling. Chris Christie seems to be a fine lapdog. But maybe he'll continue to buck the system and go with another wingnut. Maybe Clint Eastwood. Or Sarah Palin.

David:
Interestingly, he met with Mike Pence from Indiana last weekend. From reports I've heard, interviews with Mrs. Pence, and from other people he's met with, it appears he is a much different person in private than he is on the public stage. This matches what he's said about himself, that he can be a different person if needed, and he's created somewhat of  a persona for the public. I don't like it if that's true, as it makes it appear that this is all an act, but it opens up a lot more venues for him in his VP choices.

This week he met with  Iowa Senator Joni Ernst. I think she'd be a good compliment to his style, and is certainly qualified. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin would also be a good choice. Either way, I believe he needs a woman on his ticket that he can work with. It would go a long way to quell some of the criticisms against him, and there are plenty of excellent candidates, including several governors.

Which means he probably won't do it.

Doug:
Sounds about right.

David:
Are you prepared to make a prediction before the conventions?

Doug:
I'll make my predictions afterwards; I find that my accuracy is better after the fact. But, I'd be willing to say that Trump will pick someone weird and unconventional, and Clinton will pick someone exceptionally boring and standard.

David:
I believe that may be one of your best predictions yet.

I don't know about the weird part, but Trump will probably have a pick that will give us much to blog about in the coming months. Christie is the most likely candidate for the job. We'll hear a lot more about Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, and email law-breaking from this former prosecutor. But for me, he's too much like the bombastic side of Trump. He'll get the job done, but I'd prefer someone a bit more statesman-like.

Once again, I think we agree wholeheartedly.  Something new and different will challenge the old, status quo. We'll have to see how many people are really ready for something unconventional.