U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-02-2017, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Starting a walkabout
1,921 posts, read 928,327 times
Reputation: 2049

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Tim Kaine was chosen because he "checks all the boxes" as a VP and or possible president.

As for the debate ,Tim Kaine actually gave issues and fact based answers. The people who argue Pence won or "did better" do so on the argument of presence, which is laughable with Donald Trump on the other half of the Pence ticket.

As I said earlier THe same arguments made against Clinton cant be made against Kaine.
Even Democrats agree that Kaine was a boring person. Competent, yea but as exciting as watching paint dry.

Now on one side you saw Trump stirring the crowds. Huge rallies. He made wild statements and wild promises. Crazy - sure. But exciting. He did not need another exciting person as VP pick.

On the other hand Hillary was a stodgy boring campaigner. Was a master of policy but did not excite crowds. Even the loyalists dreaded coming to her rallies. She needed someone with fire in the belly to excite the voters. She did not want Warren or Sanders. Kaine was as unexciting as a day old wet fish but she still chose him. The rest is history.

The book "Shattered" gives a detailed chapter about her method of selection of the VP pick.

 
Old 05-02-2017, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Jersey City
2,667 posts, read 972,061 times
Reputation: 1884
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Im sorry but your argument is unsupported by the very election you keep siting. The uninspired team of Clinton and Kaine had 3 million votes more than Trump and came within 80,000 votes of the Presidency.

You cant say past elections have no baring on the future and then make the Democrats have learned nothing comment. - *I don't even know wtf you're trying to say here.

If the argument from even Bernie supporters is that they simply couldnt pull the lever for Clinton because she was corrupt, they cant make that argument against Kaine.

lets assume all things are even,

Clinton/Kaine lost Wisconsin by 23,000. There were 186,000 3rd Party/Write in votes.

Clinton/Kaine lost Michigan by 11,000. There were 51,000 Jill Stein votes alone.

Clinton/Kaine lost Pennsylvania by 44,000. There were 49,000 Jill Stein voters alone.

As for Tim Kaine himself. If Tim Kaine and Hillary Clinton had faced each other in the primary, I would have voted for Tim Kaine. I do not vote for charisma(although I disagree with you on whether he has it), I vote based on who i agree with ideologically and who I think can do the job, and Tim Kaine is the perfect cross section.

In short, you think Democrats would support a Tim Kaine type because we think that is who can win and is inoffensive when in reality, we actually like the person.
If Democrats pick Tim Kaine they will lose, plain and simple. I don't care what you personally would do, we're talking about people in the aggregate. We're talking about someone who represents our values, and who actually moves people. You're delusional if you think personality doesn't matter.

They have to nominate someone more dynamic, we'll see who surfaces.
 
Old 05-02-2017, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,219 posts, read 11,476,545 times
Reputation: 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK508 View Post
If Democrats pick Tim Kaine they will lose, plain and simple. I don't care what you personally would do, we're talking about people in the aggregate. We're talking about someone who represents our values, and who actually moves people. You're delusional if you think personality doesn't matter.

They have to nominate someone more dynamic, we'll see who surfaces.
We keep making all these predictions based on what people used to say about politics pre 2016, Donald Trump is president now.

In 4 years, he could do so many crazy thing, that America may actually be clamoring for a Tim Kaine type.

Heck, half the Trump voters here claim they would have voted for Jim Webb over Trump, who is far more subdued than Kaine.
 
Old 05-02-2017, 07:20 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,219 posts, read 11,476,545 times
Reputation: 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamban View Post
Even Democrats agree that Kaine was a boring person. Competent, yea but as exciting as watching paint dry.

Now on one side you saw Trump stirring the crowds. Huge rallies. He made wild statements and wild promises. Crazy - sure. But exciting. He did not need another exciting person as VP pick.

On the other hand Hillary was a stodgy boring campaigner. Was a master of policy but did not excite crowds. Even the loyalists dreaded coming to her rallies. She needed someone with fire in the belly to excite the voters. She did not want Warren or Sanders. Kaine was as unexciting as a day old wet fish but she still chose him. The rest is history.

The book "Shattered" gives a detailed chapter about her method of selection of the VP pick.
Yes, say what you want about Hillary Clinton, if you believe Shattered, then she picked Tim Kaine because she believed he was the best choice for the job, but because of the state he was from, of if he fired people up , but because she believed he had the ability to lead if she died in office(they put it more elegantly).

My favorite part of the book , at least what i have seen so far, is that President Obama basically said no to Warren.

Many on the left have stated for a while that Warren may be the Left's Ted Cruz, she is a fire brand for the base, but no one actually likes her who has to work with her. Its not even her beliefs, its how she goes about it.

Im just curious though, who do you think should have been her VP, she had 39 names

Xavier Becerra, Julian Castro,Eric Garcetti,Tom Perez, Ken Salazar, Tammy Baldwin, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McKaskill, Jeanne Shaheen, Debbie Stabenow, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bennet, Sherrod Brown, Martin Heinreich ,Tim Kaine, Terry McAuliffe, Chris Murphy, Tom Vilsack, Steve Benjamin, Corey Booker, Andrew Gillum, Eric Holder, Deval Patrick, Kasim Reed, Anthony Foxx, John Allen, Bill McCraven, Mike Mullen, Mary Barra ,Michael Bloomberg, Ursula Burns, Tim Cook, Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, Muhtar Kent, Judith Rodin, Howard Schultz, Bernie Sanders.
 
Old 05-02-2017, 08:24 PM
 
Location: Starting a walkabout
1,921 posts, read 928,327 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post

Im just curious though, who do you think should have been her VP, she had 39 names

Xavier Becerra, Julian Castro,Eric Garcetti,Tom Perez, Ken Salazar, Tammy Baldwin, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McKaskill, Jeanne Shaheen, Debbie Stabenow, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bennet, Sherrod Brown, Martin Heinreich ,Tim Kaine, Terry McAuliffe, Chris Murphy, Tom Vilsack, Steve Benjamin, Corey Booker, Andrew Gillum, Eric Holder, Deval Patrick, Kasim Reed, Anthony Foxx, John Allen, Bill McCraven, Mike Mullen, Mary Barra ,Michael Bloomberg, Ursula Burns, Tim Cook, Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, Muhtar Kent, Judith Rodin, Howard Schultz, Bernie Sanders.
The problem was that she surrounded herself by people who were not ready to state the obvious truth. Mook went too deep into analytics instead of gauging the mood of the country. Many people found her boring, not believable and not likeable. Trump was even more dislikeable and crude and if there were options he would not have been voted in.

Mu first pick for VP would have been Bernie Sanders. I did not like his socialist ideas but liked his honesty and enthusiasm. He would have easily garnered the white votes in the rust belt states. Maybe some people would have voted against his policies but on the whole his supporters would have come in large numbers and voted them in.

I dislike Warren but am sure the liberal part of the democratic party would have added the extra voters for their joint ticket. The people against her were also probably against Hillary and so she might not have cost as many votes as one thinks.. Not as strong a VP pick as Bernie but certainly better than Kaine.

Basically a person who can pick up white votes. Better if male to balance out Hillary. No need to attract black or Hispanic votes which Hillary already did and instead of getting an extra point or two from Cory it was better to get the neglected poor and lower middle class white voter.
 
Old 05-02-2017, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,219 posts, read 11,476,545 times
Reputation: 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamban View Post
The problem was that she surrounded herself by people who were not ready to state the obvious truth. Mook went too deep into analytics instead of gauging the mood of the country. Many people found her boring, not believable and not likeable. Trump was even more dislikeable and crude and if there were options he would not have been voted in.

Mu first pick for VP would have been Bernie Sanders. I did not like his socialist ideas but liked his honesty and enthusiasm. He would have easily garnered the white votes in the rust belt states. Maybe some people would have voted against his policies but on the whole his supporters would have come in large numbers and voted them in.

I dislike Warren but am sure the liberal part of the democratic party would have added the extra voters for their joint ticket. The people against her were also probably against Hillary and so she might not have cost as many votes as one thinks.. Not as strong a VP pick as Bernie but certainly better than Kaine.

Basically a person who can pick up white votes. Better if male to balance out Hillary. No need to attract black or Hispanic votes which Hillary already did and instead of getting an extra point or two from Cory it was better to get the neglected poor and lower middle class white voter.
You think those on the left out weigh those in the middle and I disagree.

I consider myself to be a liberal(not progressive)and after what Bernie has said for the last couple of months, I dont think I could stomach voting for him.

Progressives think they are the base of the party, but Clinton won Self identified/Registered Democrats with 70%.

I think you lose more people with Bernie on the ticket than you gain. living in a reliable red state, I honestly think I would write someone in rather than vote for Bernie at this point.
 
Old 05-03-2017, 06:03 AM
 
Location: Starting a walkabout
1,921 posts, read 928,327 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
You think those on the left out weigh those in the middle and I disagree.

I consider myself to be a liberal(not progressive)and after what Bernie has said for the last couple of months, I dont think I could stomach voting for him.

Progressives think they are the base of the party, but Clinton won Self identified/Registered Democrats with 70%.

I think you lose more people with Bernie on the ticket than you gain. living in a reliable red state, I honestly think I would write someone in rather than vote for Bernie at this point.
The only thing I heard that Berne said recently was that Ann Coulter should be given a chance to speak at Berkley. I personally do not know much about Ann Coulter and probably disagree more with her than agree but I think her voice should be heard in a liberal campus.

Maybe today you might disagree with Bernie but last year he was stirring more enthusiasm than turning people off. The people in the red states were unlikely to vote for Hillary, whether Kaine or Bernie was on the ticket but in the semi blue and rust belt states he would have garnered the votes needed to get the electoral votes.

As I had said earlier it does not matter if Hillary wins by 5 million more votes in California or NY and Trump by the same margin in Texas. It is the winning by < 100K or even <10K votes in states like the rust belt, Florida, Ohio, Missouri that matter to get to the 270 Electoral college votes and definitely Bernie would have helped in some or all of them.

That is my opinion as an independent with no short or long term party affiliation.
 
Old 05-03-2017, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,219 posts, read 11,476,545 times
Reputation: 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamban View Post
The only thing I heard that Berne said recently was that Ann Coulter should be given a chance to speak at Berkley. I personally do not know much about Ann Coulter and probably disagree more with her than agree but I think her voice should be heard in a liberal campus.
Thats not what I was talking about , and to be clear, I actually agree with him there.


Quote:
Maybe today you might disagree with Bernie but last year he was stirring more enthusiasm than turning people off. The people in the red states were unlikely to vote for Hillary, whether Kaine or Bernie was on the ticket but in the semi blue and rust belt states he would have garnered the votes needed to get the electoral votes.
You cant measure who you turn off based on who voted for you, only by who didnt.


Quote:
]As I had said earlier it does not matter if Hillary wins by 5 million more votes in California or NY and Trump by the same margin in Texas. It is the winning by < 100K or even <10K votes in states like the rust belt, Florida, Ohio, Missouri that matter to get to the 270 Electoral college votes and definitely Bernie would have helped in some or all of them.

That is my opinion as an independent with no short or long term party affiliation.
The bold is my problem with Bernie. Watch his interviews with Tom Perez. He wants the Democratic Party to be built in his image. And he will not identify as one until it does.

Im 100% ok with him not being a Democrat, But he can not have his cake and eat it too.

further more, last spring, Bernie attacked Southern Democrats saying we shouldnt even have a say in the party primary, arguing we were too conservative. While at the same time courting Democrats in Kansas,Nebraska, and Wyoming.

For some reason their votes mattered, but the South didnt, hmmmm.
 
Old 05-04-2017, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Starting a walkabout
1,921 posts, read 928,327 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
The bold is my problem with Bernie. Watch his interviews with Tom Perez. He wants the Democratic Party to be built in his image. And he will not identify as one until it does.

Im 100% ok with him not being a Democrat, But he can not have his cake and eat it too.

further more, last spring, Bernie attacked Southern Democrats saying we shouldnt even have a say in the party primary, arguing we were too conservative. While at the same time courting Democrats in Kansas,Nebraska, and Wyoming.

For some reason their votes mattered, but the South didnt, hmmmm.
If he was not a democrat he should not have been allowed to run in the democratic primary. But once you allow him and let him run as a democrat, the camel has put his head in the tent and you can't do much to curb his talk or the rest of the body getting in the tent.

The republicans also had the same problem with Trump, who was not and is probably not a republican. He was more a democrat till a few years ago and found that it was easier to pretend to be a republican and decimate the republican field one by one rather than try and enter as a democrat and get crushed by Hillary in the Primary.

Somehow the party affiliations mean nothing to a large swath of the people. If you leave out the extreme right and the extreme left, a person in the center, right of the center and left of the center can win an election and could be from either the democratic or republican party. It just depends on the era and the mood the country is in.

Maybe Bernie felt that Southern democrats were more likely to go to Hillary anyway and it was a lost cause so why not try and court someone who can be swayed. Who knows.

If the democrats out up a decent candidate who wants us to have good military but not get into unnecessary wars, provide good education without wasting a lot of resources on useless free college education that goes nowhere and generally improves the working condition for the people who truly want work and not get handouts I will gladly vote for him or her. Same if republicans put up such a person.
 
Old 05-04-2017, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,219 posts, read 11,476,545 times
Reputation: 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamban View Post
If he was not a democrat he should not have been allowed to run in the democratic primary. But once you allow him and let him run as a democrat, the camel has put his head in the tent and you can't do much to curb his talk or the rest of the body getting in the tent.
The Democratic Party doesnt have that many rules restricting who can run, and my problem isnt him running as a D, its him attacking the party for not being like him.



Quote:
Maybe Bernie felt that Southern democrats were more likely to go to Hillary anyway and it was a lost cause so why not try and court someone who can be swayed. Who knows..
If he had simply done that(realized he was going to lose and moved on), I wouldnt dislike him. But he didnt ,he attacked Southern Dems.

Why Is Bernie Sanders Slamming Southern Democrats?

Southern Democrats to Bernie Sanders: Quit dissing us | Political Insider blog

Sanders says Southern primaries 'distort reality' | MSNBC

Bernie Sanders&rsquo; &ldquo;Deep South&rdquo; excuse doesn&rsquo;t hold up.

Many on the left give their own reasons for him doing this, but the most disturbing one is the black vote, and a reason why black people in general dont buy into populism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:34 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top