My thoughts regarding this is when you recruit a prospective AG, you tell them what your prosecutorial priorities are, listen to what they think they should be, and if you agree, you agree to vocalize those in debates with prospective counterparts.
It's good for the candidate because they have demonstrated not only what they intend to do in their debates but they have demonstrated the ability to appoint somebody who will execute that policy faithfully.
And if the candidate loses the nomination, but the prospective appointee performed well, the ultimate NOMINEE has that person in the talent pool to draw apon if their original pick becomes unavailable or performs badly in debates.
the nominee can POACH talent from the other candidates for the GENERAL ELECTION.
I don't see that as a problem.
Every candidate is likely to make a few bad choices. Espescially if they wait until January AFTER Inaguration.
But think of the primary first:
Your candidate picks a GREAT Secretary of Agriculture, Treasury, Defence, AG, but screws up a little on Veteran's affairs and some scandal erupts near the end of the primary.
But they win anyway, because they ran the best campaign.
Now they have a dozen other prospective VA choices that have already been VETTED by the press, the public, and the congress....
These are not elected offices, so I'm not suggesting that the nominee rearrange the entire deck and pick the MOST POPULAR from every opponant.
I just don't see a problem if a candidate who loses recruited the best possible Secretary of Defence, then loses the nomination and the nominee poaches them.
It's PUBLIC SERVICE, not a PRIZE.
Anybody who agrees to serve under Warren should be agreeable to do it under Harris should the need arise.
Except in radical platform differences.
= new reply since forum marked as read