VP picks, when chosen and timed well, can indeed make a significant difference. HRC did well, very well. Tim Kaine is a really solid choice. Ryan was fine; Palin was horrible. Biden was decent. What is good about this is that it puts attention back on HRC with an example of solid decision making immediately following a problematic (to say the least) GOP convention.
That’s a great point.
The last six Democratic VP picks prior to Kaine have been Ferraro, Bentsen, Gore, Lieberman, Edwards, and Biden. With the exception of Ferraro, all would be seen more as the “safe, well qualified” person rather than a flashy, “gimmicky” pick, though I suppose you could quibble about Edwards(who was the only VP nominee who didn’t substantially increase the vote total in his home state).
On the other hand with the Republicans you’ve had Quayle, Kemp, Cheney, Palin, and Ryan. Other than Cheney and maybe Kemp, they’re more in the gimmicky category.
Edwards was qualified, but he was also kinda gimmicky too. Kerry went for the guy everyone wanted him to pick and it was just not a good match. Kinda in the Ryan category of not an irresponsible pick, but obviously chosen more for the excitement level than his suitability.
(bolding mine)
I was impressed with his story, with his easy-going stage presence and with the depth of his commitment to what he sees as a lineage and legacy of public service that he is continuing and building upon. But mostly I was impressed by a quality he displayed (in spades) that Hillary Clinton is often lacking (or at least terrible at showing): he seemed genuine.
That’s the kind of thing that wins elections.
Yeah, but that wins elections when the person at the top of the ticket has it.
Well, some made the point that Clinton would want a successor as well as a partner. Kaine will be 65 in 2024 and 61 in 2020. By selecting him, and with no obvious progressive standard bearers due to Warren and Sanders’ age, that makes Kaine the prohibitive favorite to be at the top of the ticket next.
I think that the unique dynamic of the Clinton-Kaine ticket will see a measurable net benefit from Kaine’s presence, and I think a big part of it is going to be because of his genuine & genial nature and specifically because voters will like the complimentary nature of their contrasting personalities (there’s just enough of an undercurrent of gender role distinction to make people comfortable without having to acknowledge it, too).
I’ve been on record for months now as saying that Trump will win this election. Tim Kaine’s presence is the only thing I’ve seen or heard that’s caused me to think there might be some new factors to work in, but it’s also the case that he’s the only real new factor there’s been for months. No, I’m not counting the presence of Mike Pence; no one cares about him, not even Republicans. ISTM Pence’s greatest quality is that he’s not hugely detrimental to have on board.
Yeah, but Pence is going to be the actual President should Trump get elected. He’ll be even more powerful than Dick Cheney was in a Trump administration. So he’s someone the voters better take into account.
I don’t think Kaine helps Clinton much except it makes Virginia a lot harder for Republicans to win, plus it reaffirms the “steady leadership” narrative of her campaign. But I also think a lot of other candidates could have done the same for her, such as Vilsack or Wes Clark. John Mace has it essentially right I think: Kaine’s personability and genuineness won’t matter at the bottom of the ticket. It will matter a great deal when he runs to succeed her.
I’d also note that Kaine’s genuineness as a person is believable, but he’s also got a history of being a panderer. He ran as a centrist when he had to and has since become more liberal on issues like guns and abortion. That screams “typical politician”, which can undercut his authenticity if it’s skillfully exploited.
I think this is the silliest thing you’ve written in this thread so far.
Why? I keep hearing that these politicians evolve the same way people do, but it’s interesting how they always, 100% of the time, evolve in the direction they need to to win. It’s a lot more likely that Kaine was always moderate left, but played centrist because that was the role he needed to play to win in Virginia at the time.
I’d sure love to see that. This right-of-center Democratic Party we’ve had since '92 has been both disorienting AND demoralizing.
Question: Who actually organises and runs the “get out the vote” stuff before and on election day. Is that done by the candidates organisation or by the DNC / RNC?
Because if it’s down to the candidates organisation, Trump seems to have very little of that.
Oh darn… Trump make billions. That is fine with me as long as he doesn’t get elected.
Normally by the candidate’s organization, but there’s no reason why the the parties couldn’t do it. I’ve heard that Trump is going to rely on the national and state parties quite heavily. This presents a problem for him in Ohio, where the party is effectively run by John Kasich, someone he is currently fighting with. Kasich has pulled his people back from assisting the Trump campaign, and is now now musing about how Trump probably won’t win Ohio anyways. The implication being that there’s no point even bothering to throw the party’s good money away on such a frivolous undertaking.
There isn’t, except that the national and state party organizations are unprepared (in terms of people and money) to do so. Normally, they are a backup to the candidate’s organization, an organization that does not exist this year. It’s going to be a major problem for the party committees to gear up to fulfill a role they’ve never had to play before.
Kasich is probably not the only one musing, “Let’s just sit this one out.”
No need to pick a risky running mate, you mean. Like Elizabeth Warren, I presume?
I think it comes down to known versus unknown variables. If Hillary chooses Warren, she loses the support of Wall Street, which means her chances of winning the election are lower. There’s a risk that she might not inspire ANYONE to vote for her, but she’ll take her chances by contrasting maturity and mainstream American views rather than presenting a stark contrast between the extremes of the right and what could possibly be perceived as an extreme on the left.
If Trump loses in Ohio, he has no chance. Zero.
Still, Trump could conceivably win in Ohio with Kasich’s support. Odds are against it, but it’s possible. Some people hate Hillary that much.
Not since 1992, since 1994. Clinton was a liberal until he got crushed at the polls for supporting gun control and health care reform…and the fact that people who supported him in 1992 abandoned him in 1994. There’s a reason why Bill Clinton became a Vichy Progressive. And many of the same people who criticize him, her, and democrats in general probably bear some of the responsibility.
That website is based on what it describes as “current polling” (which is of course the only logical thing to be based on. )
But that’s the big problem: we want to believe that " the polls" are true and accurate.
In the past, that worked pretty well. But the world has changed. This year, polls may turn out to be surprisingly inaccurate.
I have a deep feeling in the pit of my stomach that LOTS of people who will vote for Trump won’t admit it in public.
People who are not cliched Trump supporters…angry uneducated factory workers; but rather white-collar folks who understand political correctness. Good people, but they feel uncomfortable when they take a coffee break at work and sudddenly find that they are the only English-speaker in the room. They are smart enough not to say anything out loud,( and also not to say it to a pollster)…but in the privacy of the voting booth…
My gut feeling is that these people could add 2% or even 5% to Trump’s numbers
Also over the past 5-10 years, polling in general seems to be suffering a serious decline in accuracy. This is due to technological and social changes: The abandoment of landlines, laws limiting unsolicited calls to cell phones, and changes in people’s behavior regarding phone calls.*
This means that the polls are inaccurate–as we saw in the Brexit vote. Maybe 2%, maybe 5%.
So give Trump an addiditional 2-5% from “secret” voters, and 2-5% innaccuracy in the polls–and Hillary’s 10% advantage disappears…Trump wins.
My cite: absolutely nothing except the churning feeling in my guts.
Can anybody calm my stomach for me? 
*(examples:
Screening calls, refusing to answer unknown numbers–an almost unknown phenomena 10-15 years ago, but now standard behavior.
Texting has created a general dislike for phone calls, seeing them as an irritating nuisance.
Perhaps even fear that “your calls may be monitored” is okay for a business call, but a little scary when telling a stranger your voting habits.)
Although the polling average favors Clinton, Trump leads in three of the last four one on one polls:
And she hasn’t led a likely voter poll in a month now. Trump has five straight leads in likely voter polls in a one on one race.
A three or four way race shows a better result for Clinton and is probably more realistic(we hope, because I want to see Johnson do well):
Trump has only one lead in a four way poll and it’s only 1 point. So root for Johnson!