It Looks Like Kaine.
According to the NY Times, Hillary Clinton is expected to name US Senator from Virginia Tim Kaine as her Vice Presidential nominee. Of all the candidates under consideration, with the possible exception of the General, she appears to have chosen the nominee with the least progressive record. Pro-TPP, pro-bank deregulation, squishy on women’s rights.
Message to progressives from Hillary: You HAVE to vote for me, so STFU. That’ll stimulate voter turnout. This is a big mistake. She could’ve guaranteed a groundswell of progressive support and a high voter turnout with an inspired choice, but she chose against it.
Yeah, I’m gonna be sick.
Fuck
Message to progressives from Hillary: You HAVE to vote for me, so STFU.
Not helping you dick.
I’m awaiting DD’s reasoning as to why this is a progressive victory.
How much less progressive is Kaine than Joe Biden?
Before this goes any further. Progressives and “Bernie Bros” are not responsible for Clinton’s imminent and fully predictable loss to Trump.
This loss is ALL Hillary.
Here’s what she’s done in one fell swoop. Reinforced Trump’s meme that the elites don’t care about you; suppressed D turnout for the election; made it more difficult for Senate challengers to overcome the corporate coziness of the national ticket; depressed the likelihood of progressive involvement in races up and down the ballot.
Give me 5 more minutes and I’ll think of some more. Wait, it’s too depressing. I’ll stop now.
The corporations who paid big speaking fees to Hillary are slapping high-fives amongst themselves. And Fast Eddie Rendell just got the last of the corporate millions needed to fund the convention. Priorities, pipples.
Tim Kaine 2016 = Joe Lieberman 2000
Sanders and Warren should pull their endorsements … If this is true.. They still have political futures. Clinton has a humiliating loss and….. Given how justice will be done under Trump, jail time for “not putting America first”
It is a horrible pick. Clinton’s political instincts are shit. Trump is the new favorite to win.
Elizabeth Warren should start giving her speeches from key primary states.
I can’t even.
@puck That would give DD theory that Progressives are responsible for Clinton’s loss some shred of validity. And would that be a bad thing? Since everyone is into nihilism now, why not us?
Just sent a pretty heartfelt email to the campaign….. Worth a shot I guess…. Talking about how I am a hesitant supporter, but one who has been trying to convince people to vote for her. That she isn’t this DINO monsters the Facebook’s would have everyone believe.. And how it I’m turned into I lair, and who knows how many else, President Trump will be in their hands. Who knows, maybe it’s one last trial balloon
It’s bad.
Well, at least she’ll nail down Virginia. Other than that…
Who is gonna go into those heartland battleground states like Ohio, Pa., Wisconsin & Michigan, and argue that the D’s are fighting for the workers who have lost their jobs? I want to know. Our beneficiaries of corporate largesse? This ticket now represents THEIR interests.
BTW, three of those states have competitive senate races that the D’s need to win to take over the Senate. Those races ALL got a lot more difficult.
“Well, at least she’ll nail down Virginia.”
We’ll see. It doesn’t hurt in Virginia anyway.
Hillary is determined that her legacy will be TPP.
After watching that shit show last night, on November 8th she should have a plane fueled on the tarmac ready to leave the country. If this doesn’t go her way (and I have serious doubts now that it will) I think the Trump really will have her locked up.
I can’t figure out what Kaine even brings to the table.
Mother Jones tries to figure it out.
Sherrod Brown anyone? Seriously. With Ohio, Michigan, and the rest of the Rust Belt, why tf not Sherrod Brown?
I’m actually going to wait until we know. I sense a big head fake. All Kaine does is nail down Virginia, as others have said. That helps, but I don’t know him well enough to say anything else.
My order of preference is 1. Warren 2. Booker 3. Perez 4. Bercerra 5. Kaine 6. Vilsack.
So condolscences, at least it’s not the sack.
Well, maybe there’s hope. So far, only the NYTimes is reporting this, and with Kaine coming out and saying this, perhaps he’s not the choice:
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/21/hours-before-hillary-clintons-vp-decision-likely-pick-tim-kaine-praises-the-tpp/
“I sense a big head fake.” DD, I hope you’re right.
A head fake to Kaine could be intended to elicit howls of outrage from progressives and thus give her cover not to choose Kaine. Howl away!
Right. I saw Ben emailed the campaign. That’s great. So howl away.
Brian: I like Sherrod Brown as well. However, the Governor, who is a Republican, could name his replacement. It could actually determine who controls the Senate.
I forgot about Brown.
No head fake. Clinton don’t play that. It is what it looks like.
Here is why I do not think it is Kaine: the Florida events. Hillary is in FL today through Sunday. She is barnstorming the state. If it was Kaine, there would be an event in Virignia, a swing state, not in Florida, at least according to my logic. Same logic applies to Vilsack and Iowa.
No, Florida to me suggests Warren,Booker, Bercerra or Perez. Each is from a solid blue state, so it would make sense to hold the VP rally elsewhere.
She’s apparently gonna send out the announcement via social media.
While I hope against hope that it is a head fake, and what a great head fake it would be, I find it difficult to believe that her disciplined campaign would mislead the NYTimes. Guess I’ll go to MSNBC and find out what Andrea Mitchell is saying…
Are you kidding? The NY Times and the Clintons despise each other.
Booker not much better than Kaine.
Booker’s in the same boat as Brown. Christie would appoint his successor. I’d rather have Warren on the SCOTUS, though.
So, DD, do you think that they’re deliberately scamming the Times?
I have no clue who Clinton will choose, but any and all rumors at the end of the GOP convention is simply sucking air out of the convention replacing it with suspense and speculation. Is him or isn’t it? That’s the QOTD and tomorrow and the next day. There will probably be an announcement about 2 or 3 days prior to the convention so they are able to dominate the news cycle and then dominate the cycle again all during the convention, pretty much relegating the GOP to the back pages for a couple of weeks. There will be an attempt to counter that by Trump who will say something outrageous to get back on the front pages.
Of course would be safe choice with few negatives and he comes from a battleground state. So who knows?
Kaine would so not be my pick, but I don’t hate him. It’s not the end of the world, but this seems to be the year for that.
When Warren was floated as VP pick I cringed at the abuse leveled at her. She was called a sell-out, not a real progressive. When Booker was floated he also was called “not a real progressive” and a corporatist with ties to Wall Street. Hell, even when some people were pushing Bernie for VP there were cries that he would be selling out and the only reason Clinton would pick him would be to muzzle him. (BTW, where is Bernie? Is he campaigning for Hillary? I honestly don’t know.)
I’m not sure who she could pick that wouldn’t result in howling.
Do I want her to pick Kaine? Nope. I don’t see how he helps her. Altho, picking a white man in the year of the loud, angry white man (on both sides of the aisle) isn’t without merit.
What bothers me is how quickly people are ready to throw up their hands and walk away. What bothers me is how Dems/liberals/progressives have joined the GOP tactic of labeling people good or evil. I wouldn’t be thrilled with Kaine – and he sure isn’t my pick, not by a long shot – but to reduce him to the devil isn’t fair or honest. But that’s been the game plan this year.
True, Dave, but the Times is perhaps the least likeliest media outlet to run with an unsubstantiated rumor.
DD, do you honestly think it’s a headfake? IT seems like a typical and classic Democrat move to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Before the near vomiting, my first reaction was “of course”.
@Dave, the D Convention starts on Monday. So we are within the two or three day window now.
I was hoping they’d announce a pick TODAY to step on the Trump news today.
It’s not a bad strategy to leak names to gauge public reaction. I would guess that doing it for someone like Kaine, Vilsack, or Perez would be helpful, as they are not as well known throughout the country.
Pandora, the crowd that would have been a little upset with warren, and gotten over it, is nowhere CLOSE to the size of the crowd that will turn away for good for being so clearly cast aside.
Puck says, “Booker not much better than Kaine.”
See?
Kaine isn’t the end of the world, he would just make things more of a challenge. Much more.
Oh, please, Pandora. Yes, ‘some’ people may have called may have called Warren a sellout, although I can’t remember anyone doing it.
Progressives, and we ARE supposedly a progressive blog, would love a progressive pick, and you know it. Choosing Kaine, OTOH, would simply reinforce the notion that Hillary is most comfortable with the power elites who have funded her campaign, her coffers, and, yes, the Clinton Foundation.
If she wants to let the air out of the convention, choosing Kaine will do it. Which is, as I understand it, not the intent of conventions.
Oh, and substituting the anecdotal for the empirical, as you did with Puck, does nothing to validate your argument. “One person on a blog said such and such, therefore…” does not compute.
Right… like the next challenging 4 (or so) years of a Trump presidency and the subsequent challenge of the breakup of the United States.
So what, Som? If we don’t accept whatever pile of shit Clinton drops on us, we’re to blame for Trump. Shit, IVE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE THAT, hoping that she would pick a progressive and let me say “see? the Sanders revolution had an effect” nope.
True. And, of course, we’ll vote for her, lemming-like.
But, can you say the same for the disaffected voters that Trump is wooing if the D’s put forth a corporate ticket? The answer is no.
Oh jeez. Here we go…
“What bothers me is how quickly people are ready to throw up their hands and walk away. What bothers me is how Dems/liberals/progressives have joined the GOP tactic of labeling people good or evil. I wouldn’t be thrilled with Kaine – and he sure isn’t my pick, not by a long shot – but to reduce him to the devil isn’t fair or honest. But that’s been the game plan this year.”
Pandora, the “stabbed in the back” narrative has months to mellow and mature. You don’t have to go directly to it. Especially since it wasn’t Progressives idea to pick a VP candidate that is a genuine slap in the face to half of the party.
Yes, EL Som, I do think the Clinton camp would punk the NYT given their horrible treatment of her for 25 years. Absolutely.
Then they are petulant children who arent taking this seriously.
Ok, how has the civil war flared up again here on a rumor of a VP pick? I hope it’s not Kaine either, but I’m not making assumptions yet. What better vetting tool than the NYT? Also, Kaine has not been paraded orotund to the extent of Booker, Perez, or even Warren. Let’s all relax and see what happens. Then the circular firing squad can commence.
“Progressives, and we ARE supposedly a progressive blog, would love a progressive pick, and you know it.”
I would respectfully ask that you knock this crap off.
genuine slap in the face to half of the party
If progressives were really half of the party, it isn’t just the Presidential nominee that would be very different indeed — viz Tom Carper.
Clinton, like her husband, is a moderate republican, a neo-liberal, a war-hawk, a bought and paid-for Wall Street shill, and a death penalty supporter. She has not had a significant accomplishment in any position she has held.
Tim Kaine would be perfect for her.
By the way, Tim Kaine was Chair of the DNC in 2010 when the Republicans won the House.
Mission accomplished.
“What bothers me is how Dems/liberals/progressives have joined the GOP tactic of labeling people good or evil. ”
@Pandora, Have you forgotten the vitriol right here on DL during the primary? The D/L/P have always labeled people good or evil. They are no different than the GOP, except that Ds mostly have the sense to keep the label to themselves.
Geezer once said to me that labels were useful. I agreed that they are, but they are also simplistic and promote ignorance because there is no nuance and no exposition of what it means and why they have that label. They have been branded and once branded it becomes part of their identity, at least according to the puritans.
Good point. This might not be the party for progressives after all. The GOP will break into at LEAST 2 parties, maybe this is a chance to move to a more philosophically diverse government.
on the other hand…. Dem19703 has a pretty good point. And if DD is right and this is a poorly timed game, then we SHOULD be as loud as possible.
I’d say the Dems are 40-40-20 between liberals, progressives and moderates, respectively, with lots of cross over among liberals and progressives (mostly among pragmatic progressives and liberals, since both are willing to compromise on issues). What makes progressives weak however is that half of them are purist, who immediately throw up their hands and leave the field when they don’t get everything they want. That makes progressives in general an unreliable ally in the party. I know this first hand from my experience leading the PDD for 4 years.
Okay. Kaine is a genuine slap in the face to 1/3rd of the party then.
Better? My question is, even is we are 20% of the party, why the constant slapping? Why not view a decent sized subgroup in the party as legitimate partners instead of worthless losers who constantly need to be told their place?
I fully admit… I don’t get it.
The Rylan Leaf of VP picks.
“progressives weak however is that half of them are purist, who immediately throw up their hands and leave the field when they don’t get everything they want.”
Strange to think, but being constantly pissed on isn’t great for morale.
DD, I do not consider myself a purist. Im an IDEALIST and i wont shut up about what i want, but I get it that Im only ever going to get half of what I want, at most. This would make me throw up my hands.
“pragmatic progressives”
Wow! Is there such a thing? Has anyone seen one in flesh? In a zoo? In the wild? I mean really. It got pretty loud here awhile back when I was advocating for pragmatism vs idealism. I don’t remember very many progressives (those who self identify as such) buying into that paradigm.
“Strange to think, but being constantly pissed on isn’t great for moral.”
Neither is being constantly pissed off. 😉
Booker would at least help minority turnout. And maybe even increase the odds of Eugene Young winning his primary.
“picking a white man in the year of the loud, angry white man (on both sides of the aisle) isn’t without merit.”
Good try, but Kaine isn’t angry, and the kind of men you are talking about will consider it humiliating to have the woman on top.
Pragmatic Progressives are the Compassionate Conservatives of the Democratic Party.
Let’s assume that DD is right–that this is a head fake. And he could well be right, based on the fact that I have not yet seen another source confirm this. Let’s also assume that (a) she’s gonna announce the pick today, which is not a given and (b) that the pick may well appear with her today.
Let’s also assume that Clinton has decided that she can’t risk appointing a senator who could be replaced by an R governor.
Let’s also assume that she really wants to galvanize the convention.
Here’s the guy, and I would be super-psyched:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Perez
Oh, and no Pandora, I won’t stop it. The name of this blog is Delaware Liberal. Last time I checked, blind fealty to Hillary was not required to blog here.
Both parties are 90% tribalists.
Oh, you’re in a tribe as well. You just think you’re above the fray.
@Dave: At the end of the first Tuesday in November, almost all the progressives/liberals will have voted for Hillary. You’re mistaking the loud objections to the party’s direction for actual mutiny.
“You just think you’re above the fray.”
This is a go-to insult for you, and I don’t understand why. Some people do try to stay above the fray. Some people aren’t apologists for neo-liberalism.
We are all our own worst enemies. I now want Trump to win so he kills all of us.
Saying some progressives are purists is just dumb and adds nothing to the conversation. It is like saying some blacks are good at basketball. Maybe it is true, but is stupid, and off putting.
Dave – I know practical progressives exists because I am one. I’ve gone so far to say that ultimately I’m more practical than progressive. I come to progressiveness and liberalism because it works. Whenever it has been tried, it wins elections and gets shit done. For me, seeing moderate Democrats tilting at their 50% plus 1 windmills trying to woo “moderate” Republicans to their cause seems like the height of impracticality to me.
El Som, don’t stop. And don’t you dare ever tell Pandora to stop. She has an opinion which is every bit as valid as yours. This blog is called Delaware Liberal. If it was narrowly called Delaware Progressive, you would have more of a point. But it was called Delaware Liberal to encompass both sides of the Progressive divide between pragmatists and purists.
I agreed that people are tribalistic. I’ve yet to meet anyone who isn’t – only those who claim to be. It’s basic human nature.
See? Even you did it – by labeling me (putting me in a tribe) as an apologist for neoliberalism. Are you for real?
Neoliberalism def: Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector.
Is that really the way you’d describe me?
“Oh, and no Pandora, I won’t stop it. The name of this blog is Delaware Liberal. Last time I checked, blind fealty to Hillary was not required to blog here.”
Show me where I’ve called for blind fealty to Hillary, El Som. Go on, I’ll wait. It’s like there’s a whole other conversation going on in some people’s heads. I get it. I’ve lost my progressive card again – I’m now even a neoliberal. Who knew?
Pandora. I’ve told you that I’m not playing your phony game of ‘answer my question, answer it to my satisfaction, otherwise you’re full of shit’.
Anyone who has read your ongoing remarks during the entirety of the Hillary-Bernie wars would likely come to the same conclusion as I have.
‘It’s like there a whole other conversation going on in some people’s heads.’ Christ, I can’t figure out how what you’ve written can be interpreted any other way than I’ve interpreted it.
I guess it’s just proof that two parallel lines (of thought) can never intersect.
You accused me of calling for blind fealty to Hillary. I asked you to back up that claim. If you can’t back it up then I’d appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. That’s it. That’s all I’ve asked for.
Being an apologist for something does not make you that thing. If you’re going to parse people’s sentences so carefully, it would help if you yourself were more careful with your words. You constantly do the very thing you’re complaining about by putting words in others’ mouths.
It also would help if you would look into a definition of more than one sentence. Hillary supports, or at least fails to fight against, a whole host of policies that would fall into the modern definition of neoliberalism. Indeed, I think she’s well to your right on several issues, unless i have your positions wrong.
It’s one thing to support HIllary because she’s the best candidate on offer. It’s quite another to say you’re voting for her because of her position on the issues.
Also, one does not have to call for something if one embodies that thing. You don’t have to swear fealty to Hillary specifically if you defend her at every turn — your actions make the case themselves.
I didn’t put it in quotes, did I? The whole of your remarks clearly illustrates your position. Keep playing your silly games if you like. I’ve had enough of them.
I don’t think this election is going to be decided by the votes of either Progressive Democrats or Evangelical/Tea Party Republicans.
Progressives will hold their noses and vote against Trump, like the Tea Partiers will hold their noses and vote against Clinton (though there will be incrementally more enthusiasm on the part of the Tea Partiers).
This election will be decided by the elusive moderates of both camps, and the independents–you will see both candidates campaign actively toward the center. Trump will try to make the center afraid, and Clinton will try to re-assure it with competence (while still trying, curiously, to maintain that a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State can somehow be an outsider solely due to her gender).
Tim Kaine fits into that strategy. Tom Vilsack is in the “who the f–k is he and where the hell is Iowa” category. Cory Booker is (and, yes, I’m going to make this observation) too dangerous for a politically cautious Clinton in a campaign season based on fear, and when anything from more cop killings to more cops killing Black people could happen (he’s Black, you know, and she already has that base nailed down). I’d love to be proven wrong on that, but I doubt it; I think Booker is there for the optics of a Black man making the “short list,” just like Warren was the optic for, “see, I heard the Bernie revolution.”
Kaine is actually a good pick from the perspective of winning the General Election, and what other perspective really matters. He re-assures. Independents and moderates don’t actually care about TPP or bank regulation; they care about stability and the absence of daily conflict. Kaine radiates that.
As pandora has pointed out, Trump has to win without substantial votes from minorities or women; it is possible, but only through the narrow gate of fear; trade policy won’t do it for him, outsidery stuff won’t do it for him in the end–he has to make people afraid. He has to revel in every piece of violence from now til November. I predict that in the first debate he will tell people that he can make changes quickly as President by reminding them that Iran’s 444 days of holding American hostages ended the day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.
Agreed, Steve. I wouldn’t be happy with a Kaine pick (as I’ve repeatedly said), but it’s not the end of the world.
Here’s where I disagree, Steve. Trump’s only hope to win is to stoke the anger of the left-behind workers in the rust belt. He’s got to flip those states. Having a TPP and big banks supporter like Kaine as your Veep, and with your own record of supporting trade deals (she says she is now opposed to TPP, but those left-behind workers aren’t going to believe her, especially with Kaine on the ticket) and big banks, puts those states more in jeopardy for Clinton and, along with that, the hopes of three insurgent D senate candidates.
I think she needs someone to shore up support in those states. Pretty much any other candidate who has been mentioned would do that better than Kaine. The more I read about Secretary of Labor Perez, the better I like him as the choice.
“just like Warren was the optic for, “see, I heard the Bernie revolution.” …. and then decided they don’t matter.
That is what it says to me… and to a lot of people. Who thinks that is an invalid/silly/purtist opinion? why?
No, it’s not the end of the world. But it does reinforce the idea of her as a centrist, hence the wails from the left. If you can shrug off the Kaine pick, why can’t you shrug off the entirely predictable garment-rending from the leftists?
Pandora, it isnt the end of the world for you. Not because you “arent a real liberal’ or anything like that. You started this election season in one place, others of us started in another. For some of us, it is a slap in the face. Acknowledging that doesn’t mean you have to agree with it.
… and IMHO, yeah it could be the end of the World. she could lose the election because of a “safe choice”, like Gore and Kerry made, and that would do it.
Those left-behind workers aren’t listening to policy details. Most don’t know what the TPP is, what it does or anything else; they’re still stuck on NAFTA. And no VP choice is going to bring a single reluctant white male into the fold.
Also remember that naming a VP from a competitive state does not guarantee victory in that state, as illustrated by Paul Ryan.
That said, I think Steve is wrong. This election will be decided not by how any demographic splits, but by which demographics turn out in the greatest numbers. Obama’s candidacy erased decades of conventional wisdom about African-American turnout. I believe Trump’s candidacy will do the same for Hispanic turnout, which is why I think a Latino would be the best VP choice. Goosing Hispanic turnout would lead to an easy victory.
Remember, Texas has more registered Democrats than Republicans. Trump could gain the Rust Belt while losing the Hispanic-heavy mountain states. Hell, he might lose Utah. He wins only by holding every Romney state and then adding Ohio, Mich, Pa. and Wisc. He might add those states but if he loses even a single Romney state he still loses the election.
Tom Perez. He brings the T and the P.
@SN “This election will be decided by the elusive moderates of both camps”
I’m not sure this is right.
I think this election will be won by whichever party does a better job of turning out its base.
Hillary really does need to electrify her natural base.
This is the mistake that Hillary is making with Kaine.
He’s more like a bucket of cold water.
She is a centrist Dem on some issues, really progressive on others – just like Obama. Are we really debating that? I’ve never claimed she’s the most progressive candidate.
Steve makes some really good points, and I’ve pointed out that people floated for VP received push back as well. I’m not sure there’s a VP pick that makes everyone happy. A black man, a woman, a moderate Dem, etc. all come with problems for certain voting blocks. The voters needed to win are a mixed bag.
C’mon, LE. He’s more like a bucket of cool water. He’s not bold enough to be cold.
Just shows you nothing will change with Hillary. Kane is pro trade deals and not very progressive…….same old same old Clinton loyalist..
at least Sherrod Brown would have been a signal to the left.
“A black man, a woman, a moderate Dem, etc. all come with problems for certain voting blocks.”
I’m not really interested in courting the angry white man vote and neither should the Democratic Party.
“Are we really debating that?”
No, not debating it, citing it. Every centrist thing Hillary does is going to be accompanied by barking from the left, including me, for the next four years. For your own sanity, you might want to start getting used to it.
Nemski FTW.
LOL! I’m ready for the barking. I always knew it was coming.
OK, then. Just don’t let it raise your blood pressure.
Whenever the internal sniping starts getting me down, I go read Red State, where they think five of the seven seals signaling Apocalypse have already been broken. Their headline today:
“Trump’s New GOP Cheers Homosexuality And Boos God. I’m Done.”
No matter what else happens from here, the conservative movement is now officially dead as an electoral force on the national level. Even an unlikely Trump victory can’t change that.
“we really ARE a progressive blog.” well, according to its name this is a “liberal” blog. that includes progressives, but theoretically more moderate people on the left as well. (i now see dd pointed this out about an hour ago, so i guess i’m just agreeing with him even though he likes hillary too much.)
also, i don’t see anything “lemming-like” in voting for a clinton/kaine ticket. it is not self-destructive to vote for keeping trump out of office. hillary’s not my favorite candidate to do that, but voting against trump is crucial. what’s lemming-like is internal squabbling on the left that would threaten to leave us with trump.
ben: not sure about your distinction between idealist and purist. i guess an idealist who accepted compromises to get at least some of his ideals in play would represent a distinction. but i think that kind of pragmatism seems dishonorable to some of you.
and a two-woman ticket might be impractical because even some on the left would be uncomfortable with that, including some bernie-bros (not ben!). unconscious sexism, i’d say. but if a two-woman ticket makes a trump win more likely, then let’s don’t do it.
El Som: Here’s where I disagree, Steve. Trump’s only hope to win is to stoke the anger of the left-behind workers in the rust belt. He’s got to flip those states.
He didn’t need Kaine for that, and it’s not enough. He has to use “Fear and Trade” in that order, and it’s going to be difficult to stoke the fires with Kaine whom none of them will have even really heard of.
Trump’s key is NOT the traditional politics, even the traditional race-based politics of fear/law and order. His key is the same key that authoritarians always use (and, despite our preferences for disbelief, to which a large segment of our population responds): we may have to set aside the Constitution for awhile to get the job done.
Don’t think it can happen? In 1983 I was collecting urine samples for a military drug piss test, and I read the WSJ poll that said Reagan had convinced 71% of Americans that drugs were a big enough and dangerous enough that we should agree to have some of our Constitutional rights “suspended” while we were taking care of it. Fast forward 30 years and we have the mass incarceration of Black men.
It’s a long-odds strategy that has horrible side-effects whether Trump wins or loses, but it is literally the only strategy that gives him any potential at winning the White House.
I love that headline!
Whenever I get down I turn to math. There’s simply not enough angry, white men. For Trump to win states like PA, Michigan, etc. he’d have to add black/brown people, women (besides conservative women) votes. He’s now losing the college educated white man’s vote. He’s going to have to build a larger coalition. Listening to him last night tells me he’s not interested in doing that.
“and a two-woman ticket might be impractical because even some on the left would be uncomfortable with that, including some bernie-bros (not ben!). unconscious sexism, i’d say. but if a two-woman ticket makes a trump win more likely, then let’s don’t do it.”
That’s some wild speculation. Remember a black man won the Presidency twice.
Okay, I agree with Pandora: “Whenever I get down I turn to math. There’s simply not enough angry, white men. For Trump to win states like PA, Michigan, etc. he’d have to add black/brown people, women (besides conservative women) votes. He’s now losing the college educated white man’s vote. He’s going to have to build a larger coalition. Listening to him last night tells me he’s not interested in doing that.”
Which is why I do not understand the Kaine pick.
Pandora, that makes it seem like you have a pretty low opinion of a lot of Sanders supporters. Can you back up that claim with anything other than comment sections?
Maybe I read it wrong, as i am wont to do, but seriously? Enough “bernie bros” would pass their tipping point at 2 WOMEN to cost Dems the election?
I can sorta understand the Kaine pick. (Have I mentioned he wouldn’t be my choice?) It’s a run for the center – which seems to be wide open and available. It also reeks of taking progressive votes for granted. The calculus there might be that most Sanders supporters shifted to Clinton pretty quickly. That’s just a guess.
I guess I’m being daft. What center votes would Hillary not get without Kaine?
Oh, I don’t think it would be Sander’s supporters, Ben, but I do think two women on the ticket would be a problem for a bigger chunk of voters (across the board) then many realize. But that’s just this woman’s opinion!
Which is why I do not understand the Kaine pick.
The Kaine pick (if it happens) is about “White men matter (too).”
Because Secretary Clinton can get elected with women and minorities, but she cannot govern without a significant percentage of white men.
anonymous – that Red State piece was a poultice for my inflamed soul. Thanks!
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/07/22/trumps-new-gop-cheers-homosexuality-boos-god.-im-done./
Nemski, I’m saying there are pros and cons to most VP choices. We’re all guessing here. I can understand her choosing any of the names mentioned here. Personally, anonymous’ point about choosing a Hispanic VP makes the most sense to me. Excitement and voter turn-out.
I’m ready for the barking as well and I would be disappointed if it didn’t happen. Clinton will employ satisficing heuristics to seek satisfactory solutions in a realistic world. The acceptability thresholds will be fairly low. I’m ok with that because it moves the needle. Progressives won’t be ok with it because it doesn’t move the needle far enough or fast enough.
Professionally, I have always examined programs for executability, looking for fatal flaws. Big ideas and plans have many, many, fatal flaws. I think Clinton understands this. So did Obama. We had 8 years of a lot of grumbling from progressives. I’m guessing we are in for at 4 more years of the same.
Well, actually…. (see, i get that what im about to do is technically mansplaining, so might as well mock myself)
I think people who would have a problem with women on a ticket could tolerate any. MAYBE there are people who are ok with a VP but “a man should lead” .
I dont think there is anyone who is ok with a Woman president who is not ok with also having a VP of the same gender. It doesnt make sense to me. but neither does Trump.
The Kaine pick (if it happens) is about “White men matter (too).”
It’s not as though there are not other white men in the VP pool.
but she cannot govern without a significant percentage of white men.
She will govern about as well as Obama has been able to facing the block of white men in the Congress.
She will govern about as well as Obama has been able to facing the block of white men in the Congress.
And that–this not being a criticism of Obama–isn’t going to be good enough. I think she thinks Kaine gives her a chance to tilt that balance in Congress a bit. I visualize him being able to campaign for down-ticket Democrats in places where some candidates need just a little bit of distance from her.
There are enough women in politics now that she certainly COULD govern without white men. Somebody put together an all-woman cabinet and while you might not have heard of many of them, they would not be weak picks.
“Remember a black man won the Presidency twice.”
Yes, but he was a man. Black men got the right to vote in the 1860s (later revoked), women not until 1920.
“Yes, but he was a man. Black men got the right to vote in the 1860s (later revoked), women not until 1920.”
Laughing right the fuck out loud. #WhiteWomenLivesMatter
Steve, you make a good point. In the campaign the VP is the surrogate-in-chief, and Kaine can go into, say, North Carolina and get a hearing from moderates that would not be given to Cory Booker or Elizabeth Warren.
Ben, I agree with your point (and I don’t see any mansplaining! 😉 ) I’d love her to pick Warren – and Warren to pick her. That would be amazing. BUT… whenever I’m really happy about something I always remind myself that I’m not the majority. I know! I can’t believe it either! I guess I’m saying that if I love it I’m probably overlooking potential problems.
Steve makes another good point. You’re on fire today.
@nemski: Just making the observation that white men seem to identify more with men, even black ones, than they do with women, even white ones.
I think there are a lot of memes/stereotypes that will naturally emerge with an all woman ticket. We’re quite comfortable with them. That doesn’t mean I don’t want Warren (I do! I do! I do!), it means we’d really have to step up our game to combat what’s coming at us.
I second anonymous’ observation.
I don’t want any sitting senator from a state with a Republican governor. Obama did too much of that with his first cabinet, stripping states like Kansas and Arizona of Democratic senators who were replaced by Republicans. The first term would have gone differently with even one more Democrat in the Senate.
Kaine was the head of the DNC in 2010. That went really well.
The only thing he brings is Virginia on election day.
The “career elitest politicians” argument from Trump went out the window with Pence. He’s been a career politician since 2000. And he tried to run in the 80’s. When he got caught using campaign funds to pay his mortgage.
On the women issue: My belief is that the most world-changing scientific advance of the 20th century was not atomic power but reliable birth control. It’s only been available for a little more than 50 years and look at the upheaval it has caused for men the world over.
All of the “religions of the book” were founded in part on the male control of women so that the men could be certain of patrimony. The separation of sex and reproduction ends the need for that, which is what makes men so reactionary these days. They controlled women for practical reasons, but came to like all that went with it as well.
That’s all over now. The Muslim countries are tottering — those that aren’t will begin to soon — because their epistemology has no way to deal with a world in which women have agency. Neither does evangelical Christianity, despite the crucial roles played by women in the early church.
The post-’60s counter-revolution has been all about trying to put the genie back in the bottle, which is why many anti-abortion people are against birth control as well. The only kind of government that can put a genie back in a bottle even temporarily is totalitarianism, so when they run out of other options they’ll turn to that.
Oops, I think they already have.
I have become convinced that “BernieBros” don’t exist except as a debating point for pundits both amateur and professional. I have never met a liberal who was so misogynistic he would vote for Trump over Hillary. Berniebros are cryptozoological confabulations assembled from various online Republican trolls and sockpuppets.
@puck: No, they’re out there. I think a lot of them were great at math but didn’t care for books with words.
I’m going to agree with anonymous – again! They are out there (on my FB and Twitter pages), but they aren’t a huge number and don’t represent the vast majority of Sanders’ supporters. They do exist, tho… and they are extremely loud and misogynistic.
White men, will in general, be voting for Trump. That said, Hillary only needs to grasp about 40% of the white male vote to win. I could give two shits about what some misogynistic fucker thinks about Bernie, Hillary or Trump.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699
By bringing up BernieBros everytime someone disagrees with Hillary, you ARE painting us with that brush. Every time.
Ben, stop bringing up Berniebros!
I think she thinks Kaine gives her a chance to tilt that balance in Congress a bit. I visualize him being able to campaign for down-ticket Democrats in places where some candidates need just a little bit of distance from her.
Yes, Joe Biden’s old job. Except Joe Biden came with an exceptional road map to Congress and its environs that Kaine does not have.
I agree that Kaine is rather vanilla – a safe choice. Unfortunately, there aren’t a lot of standouts on the left, after Warren. It would be nice for Clinton to select someone with a wow factor, but honestly, there isn’t anyone that makes me sit up and take notice. Seems to me you would want a consummate schmoozer (a Biden) or kick ass and take names like a Warren.
Heck I would even settle for Jason but, I wouldn’t trust him at state dinners.
Pandora, my fault. Ex-anon used “bernie bro” first (at 10:35).. i thought it was your comment…. but.. i didnt bring it up 🙂 my point still stands. anyone who would vote for a woman at the top of the ticket shouldn’t have a problem with VP. or if it is, it’s a smaller number than people who will be excited by Warren specifically. Trump’s campaign is only built on excitement. Kaine is a complete lack of excitement.
Ex-anon, stop bringing up berniebros! 🙂
When a POTUS candidate picks a VP, they are picking someone that they would like to succeed them.
‘Nuff said.
Ye a lot oft these so called women hating Bernie Bros support Jill Stein as an alternative. I really thing people are mistaken when they think their hatred of Hillary is about gender. Call many of them purists or zealots but its not about gender.a Kaine pick would suck but call me practical
So disappointing. I think I’ll support Gary Johnson. Bill and Hillary Clinton only care about themselves, period! They gave us DADT & DOMA! F*ck Hillary Clinton! She should have chosen a progressive!
She just announced… Kaine