The New American Politics thread

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Sounds good to me.................

Gavin Newsom ‏@GavinNewsom
. @timkaine has a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood and an "F" from the NRA...my kind of report card!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Kaine could easily to be the most likable of the four Pres/VP candidates, so I guess that counts for something. Warren would have been too polarizing even if she's good, plus they want her for Senate majority leader should they take back the Senate. The other Tom whose name I can't recall....yeah that sums that up. Kaine at least has some profile, I just would have thought she'd go a little younger. Safe and boring pick.

[Flash Walken]

A female/female ticket is a recipe for voter turnout disaster. It was a pipe dream that it would be Warren.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yeah, I can see the logic behind Kaine--but I think as much as Kaine is a pick that offends no-one, my feeling is that he also excites no-one.

And though he is from a "swing state," Virginia isn't really a "tipping point" state in my view. If the Democrats lose Virginia, they will also (likely) lose North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio--and if they lose those, that will be the election.

This whole mess needs some safe and boring (and competent). Or an actual adult as Corsi says. It doesn't come off as a particularly pandering choice, and I think the choice makes Hillary look good.

I also don't think Vriginia has much to do with the states you mentioned.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I don't see Trump putting too many resources into Virginia anyway. It's all about Florida for him, without it he has to win every other swing state, or flip something unexpected. Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania is his easiest path and probably only real path to winning.

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Make America Hate Again

I was also partial to "Orange Man Bores Nation."

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Disagree, it's an excellent pick...

A: He's from a Swing State
B: He's from a Swing State with a democratic governor (so if they win they don't lose a seat in the senate).
C: He's unquestionable competent. Heartbeat away and all that.
D: He's inoffensive. First rule of VP pick club... do no harm.
E: He'll be an effective campaigner.

Fact is with Trump as the opposing nominee you don't need to fire up the base... Trump will do that for you. You can't out anti-establishment Trump so you double down on experienced competence.

You forgot a couple of things.

He's a midwestern boy.
He's catholic who was a former jesuit missionary (or went on a jesuit mission)

These are traits that nullify any advantage Pence could give trump for those kinds of voters (midwestern and religious).

Apparently, he was also on Obama's shortlist way back in the day.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

This whole mess needs some safe and boring (and competent). Or an actual adult as Corsi says. It doesn't come off as a particularly pandering choice, and I think the choice makes Hillary look good.

I also don't think Vriginia has much to do with the states you mentioned.

It's not that it has anything particularly to do with those states--it's just that state level support tends to mirror national poll numbers--so if the Democrats lose Virgina they will likely also lose a bunch of other states that will be relatively close.

I don't know if I'm being clear at all and others can likely explain this better -- but I will try an example. If Clinton loses in Virginia, she will likely also lose North Carolina, as North Carolina is a slightly redder state overall. Ohio and Pennsylvania are more similar to Virginia in terms of how "red" or "blue" they are. What this means is that if Clinton's national poll numbers are sufficiently bad that she is losing in Virginia, she is likely also losing in enough other states that Virginia won't matter.

That's what I mean by not being a "tipping point" state. In my view the tipping point state is probably Florida right now, but there are some other possibilities.

The other stuff I more or less agree with. I just don't think he adds much "pizzazz" to the ticket, though it is an arguable point whether that would be a good thing anyway .

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It's not that it has anything particularly to do with those states--it's just that state level support tends to mirror national poll numbers--so if the Democrats lose Virgina they will likely also lose a bunch of other states that will be relatively close.

I don't know if I'm being clear at all and others can likely explain this better -- but I will try an example. If Clinton loses in Virginia, she will likely also lose North Carolina, as North Carolina is a slightly redder state overall. Ohio and Pennsylvania are more similar to Virginia in terms of how "red" or "blue" they are. What this means is that if Clinton's national poll numbers are sufficiently bad that she is losing in Virginia, she is likely also losing in enough other states that Virginia won't matter.

That's what I mean by not being a "tipping point" state. In my view the tipping point state is probably Florida right now, but there are some other possibilities.

The other stuff I more or less agree with. I just don't think he adds much "pizzazz" to the ticket, though it is an arguable point whether that would be a good thing anyway .

I get what you are saying. Ohio, Michigan and PA are kind of wild cards this time around. They have lots of blue collar democrats who could be seduced by Trump's sort of pro labor platform. The southern Republicans in NC, SC and Georgia probably don't see much to like in a vulgar, not-really-christian, dumbass.

My point is that Trump as a Republican is capable of flipping both red and blue states and maybe even some dark red or dark blue states. Virginia follows national trends closely because it has a pretty diverse population that represents a lot of demographics (Southerners, northerners, conservatives, liberals, black, white, Hispanic, educated urban, rural,etc.) So it's a nice state to shore up if a lot of the other states are going to be unpredictable.

[corporatejay]

Tom Perez was the other.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I get what you are saying. Ohio, Michigan and PA are kind of wild cards this time around. They have lots of blue collar democrats who could be seduced by Trump's sort of pro labor platform. The southern Republicans in NC, SC and Georgia probably don't see much to like in a vulgar, not-really-christian, dumbass.

My point is that Trump as a Republican is capable of flipping both red and blue states and maybe even some dark red or dark blue states. Virginia follows national trends closely because it has a pretty diverse population that represents a lot of demographics (Southerners, northerners, conservatives, liberals, black, white, Hispanic, educated urban, rural,etc.) So it's a nice state to shore up if a lot of the other states are going to be unpredictable.

Fair points. In that regard, Ohio is a much more likely Trump "pickup," for demographic reasons--and I can foresee an electoral college map where, say, Clinton loses Ohio but holds Virginia and Florida, and still wins the election.

Conversely, it is much harder to get Trump to 270 without Florida, even if he carries Ohio.

[GGG]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-the-election/

Here is fivethirtyeight statistical analysis in will a Tim Kaine Candacy make a difference in determining the electoral college outcome. 1/140 elections or the fifth best odds improvement if picking purely based on swing stateness

[metallicat]

A couple of recent tweets posted were from Cory Booker and Gavin Newsom...two guys I really wish would get involved and make a run for president at some point.

[photon]

[GirlySports]

Kaine is fluent in Spanish. He'll help turn out Latino vote everywhere but especially in swing states like Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. He has the better resume than Perez and can also connect with the Latino vote.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Kaine could easily to be the most likable of the four Pres/VP candidates, so I guess that counts for something. Warren would have been too polarizing even if she's good, plus they want her for Senate majority leader should they take back the Senate. The other Tom whose name I can't recall....yeah that sums that up. Kaine at least has some profile, I just would have thought she'd go a little younger. Safe and boring pick.

Chuck Schumer will be majority leader no?

[Methanolic]

Wow! Kaine speaks Spanish.

I can't find the words to accurately describe what an assault on my senses it is to see and hear Shrillary speak (yell).

[troutman]

Kaine impressed me. Next president after Hillary.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by troutman

Kaine impressed me. Next president after Hillary.

Kaine vs Ivanka in 8 years?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Kaine vs Ivanka in 8 years?

Would not surprise me.

Donald will take losing to Hillary very badly and will go nuclear on her.

He will double down and seek the nomination again in 2020, when he will be 74.