Politico has a must read it all story about the Clinton VP process. It has interesting nuggets about how Castro dropped out of favor because he was openly and privately campaigning for the job, about how Ed Rendell pushed Vilsack (God, how that guy’s political instincts have fallen apart) and how James Carville was pushing Elizabeth Warren (which garners him more respect from me), and about how Hillary sat each candidate down (Warren, Perez, Vilsack, Kaine and Castro), sang their praises and then asked “why do you want the job?” Like a normal job interview. Also, how Kaine called Bernie Sanders last night after the call from Hillary. Read the whole thing.
Dylan Matthews on Tim Kaine the Ally.
To many on the left, Tim Kaine’s selection as the Democratic VP nominee was disappointing more for who Kaine wasn’t than for who he was. Kaine beat out Julián Castro and Tom Perez, either one of whom would’ve been the first Hispanic person on a national ticket ever. He beat out his Senate colleague Cory Booker, who’d be the first black VP pick, and only the second black politician on a major-party national ticket. By picking Kaine, the grievance goes, Clinton chose to try to reassure white voters at the expense of better representing the multiracial coalition behind the Democratic party.
Judging by Kaine’s debut as running-mate in Miami, FL on Saturday, the Clinton campaign is keenly aware of this critique, and eager to answer it. Kaine’s speech seemed tailor-made to try to persuade the Democratic base that this white dude from a purple state with a fairly centrist track record is nonetheless an ally, nonetheless gets it.
Booman has thoughts:
Everyone has people they’d like to see as vice-president or possibly president some day, and it’s understandable to be disappointed if none of those people were just elevated. And, from an ideological point of view, it’s perfectly sane to feel let down if the candidate doesn’t line up with your views on some important issues. What I’m less tolerant about is the idea that this choice doesn’t make strategic sense because it doesn’t please you or fit your theory of how to win presidential elections. It may not take the party in a direction you wanted to see it go. That does not necessarily mean that it wasn’t a very solid strategic decision.
I’m humble enough to realize that the strategy here is excruciatingly complicated, and this decision had to be made in the most uncertain environment we’ve seen since at least 1968. I can make a case that this is a base election where the most important thing is to rally the enthusiasm of your core voters, and I can make a case that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to grab huge chunks of the middle and create a Goldwater/McGovern landslide, and the best way to do that is to make it as comfortable as possible for people to crossover from the center-right.
What I can’t say with much confidence is which theory is true, although, contrary to what most progressives think, the latter move is the bolder one with more risk and a higher payoff. Secondly, progressive outcomes come more surely from large majorities (e.g., the Blue Dog dominated 2009-2010 years) than they do from a smaller more ideologically pure party (e.g., every year since 2010).
Clinton will get more progressive stuff done if she owns the House, and guess what kind of districts she needs to win to pull that off.
The New York Times has a great interactive diagram (at the bottom of the page) that illustrates Donald Trump’s challenging path to the presidency. By letting you choose the outcome in the 10 most competitive states, it becomes very clear that Florida is the key to victory for Trump. Without it, it’s nearly impossible for him to win.
When Hillary Clinton wins, and Tim Kaine becomes vice president, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) will get to appoint someone to the U.S. Senate.
Politico: “The buzz in McAuliffe land is that he can appoint a placeholder, like the 77-year-old Chuck Robb, or someone who is a longer-term option like Rep. Don Beyer, Creigh Deeds, Attorney General Mark Herring or Anne Holton, the education secretary who is also Kaine’s wife. Tom Periello, a one-term congressman who is now at the State Department, could also be an option. McAuliffe WILL NOT appoint himself, sources close to him say.”
.@mtomasky is right: This was a stellar debut: https://t.co/lfZSVuw86z
— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) July 23, 2016
Kaine brings down the house in Miami https://t.co/ReQWuO3nik
— Karen Finney (@finneyk) July 23, 2016
Jonathan Chait on the progressive critics of Tim Kaine:
The left does have reality-based reasons for its dismay. There are aspects of Kaine’s record and beliefs it has reason not to like. At the same time, the complaints with Kaine suffer from a certain myopia that seems to be symptomatic of the hothouse atmosphere that has developed on the left during the Obama era. And emphasis on doctrinal purity blotted out broader assessments of personal fitness — the absence of ideological dissent overwhelmed the presence of positive qualities. The prevailing definition of a perfect leader has become a perfect follower.
The left has focused on three main complaints against Kaine. First, he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership. (Kaine claims to oppose the current version, which is also Clinton’s position, and which I likewise dismiss as completely disingenuous pandering.) Second, despite his sterling voting record from Planned Parenthood, Kaine is a Catholic who personally opposes abortion, a view that has influenced some of his decisions around the margins of the issue, such as approving the sale of a license plate saying “Choose Life.” Third, he has lobbied to free smaller banks from the requirement in the Dodd-Frank financial regulations that they report their liquidity daily. […]
Obviously, if you consider the Trans-Pacific partnership an economic calamity, or deem anybody who doesn’t like abortion a moral monster, these issues will be serious, and even disqualifying, blots on Kaine’s record. I doubt many of the disappointed liberals actually believe these things. So why should his record on these issues loom so large? I don’t want elected officials to let interest groups pressure them into taking positions that are contrary to the public interest, and some of Kaine’s stances might (again, depending on your point of view) be taken to indicate that he is too transactional, and not enough of a conviction politician.
But there is nobody in public life who can escape such flaws. Contrast Kaine with Elizabeth Warren, who is the liberal beau ideal of an uncorrupted idealist. Warren has lobbied, at the behest of medical device manufacturers, to eliminate the tax on medical devices in Obamacare — a position that I’ve seen no serious economist or policy wonk defend. She also opposes the “Cadillac tax,” the cap on the tax deduction for the most expensive employer-provided health insurance. This stance also flies utterly in the face of expert opinion (as Sarah Kliff explains). But it endears her to many unions, some of which have negotiated expensive health insurance plans. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders also both have called for a repeal of the Cadillac tax. The endlessly-recirculating list of ideological failings by both candidates almost never includes this important capitulation, which would undermine one of Obamacare’s important achievements in cost containment.
The point? No one is pure. Let’s look at the whole board, please.
I cannot think of *any* national-level debut that has gone better for figure getting first worldwide exposure than this is going for Kaine
— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) July 23, 2016