This election is going to be decided by front runners with the VP's being afterthoughts. This isn't like 2008 where McCain's VP candidate played a role in the election, negatively. The out sized personalities and histories of both candidates overwhelm anything the VP's will bring.
Probably so, but Hillary may be underestimating the desire for change of the status quo in which vast majority is hurting financially much more than the average member of the top 5 or 10 percent realize. I remember a talk I had with an unemployed construction worker who admitted Trump is a fraud, but said he just wants to blow up the system. The economic pain and sense of urgency by those hurting is something that cautious Clintonian-Obama DLC economics did not address. Yes, I know the Repubs were worse on this issue.
Another thing not to be discounted about Kaine is that he is Hillary's way of showing Wall Street and the.01% beltway crowd that she can beat back actual progressives so they can relax if she wins. We might not have seen Bloomberg endorsing Hillary yesterday if she has Elizabeth Warren or a progressive on the ticket.
Interesting read. I've been saying HRC winning in November is not a foregone conclusion. One of the wild cards may indeed be Bernie's supporters.
Good read and not very biased. Point 5 is a very good point. With more and more of the **** show coming down on Hillary, a lot of people will have the f-it attitude and vote Trump.
If this country elect Trump, it deserves what ever comes in the next 4 or 8 years. So the people who are hurting are going to elect someone that hurt them more than now, never under estimate the stupidity of people.
And how about a 6 point bounce post convention for Trump. Let's see how Clinton does after the D conv. This election is quite amazing.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Important question: Did Tim Kaine used to be hot? <a href="https://t.co/itvUoBn72g">https://t.co/itvUoBn72g</a> <a href="https://t.co/3fAhSJ8YyF">pic.twitter.com/3fAhSJ8YyF</a></p>— Slate (@Slate) <a href="https://twitter.com/Slate/status/758172502740836352">July 27, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Objectively, young Tim Kaine was a handsome man.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">TIM KAINE JUST TRIED TO RUN DOWN INTO THE CROWD TO SHAKE HANDS AND GOT STOPPED BY SECRET SERVICE<br><br>AMERICA: JOE BIDEN 2 IS HERE</p>— Emmy Bengtson (@EmmyA2) <a href="https://twitter.com/EmmyA2/status/758491517283602432">July 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Considering how much progressives like yourself have been criticizing Clinton for Wall Street ties I doubt she needed to shore up support with that sector. Also for not picking Warren consider that MA has a Republican governor and given how tight the race for the Senate is she might've felt it better to not lose a Dem senate seat. I think that also went into why she didn't pick Sherrod Brown. I think this is very much a case of that she is most comfortable around Tim Kaine and following the VP picks of Obama, Bill Clinton and even GW Bush, she is thinking that it is more important for her to have a VP she can work with rather than a pick that appeals to a certain interest group.
