Maybe Hil should have picked a different Kaine.

Moderators: $iljanus, LawBeefaroni
I was going to post this. I'm happier with Kaine the more I read about him.Alefroth wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krystal-b ... 73840.html
Nah, the press would eat him alive. Too many weird sexual proclivities have led to some real skeletons in his closet.
Blackhawk wrote:Nah, the press would eat him alive. Too many weird sexual proclivities have led to some real skeletons in his closet.
I never thought of Tim Kaine as an "unapologetic liberal", and he's been both my governor and my senator.Holman wrote:I was going to post this. I'm happier with Kaine the more I read about him.Alefroth wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krystal-b ... 73840.html
I think the Kaine-Pence comparisons definitely favor Kaine. Pence is boring and dour and most famous for supporting state-level bigotry against gays. Kaine isn't a firebrand, but he's smart and well-liked even by his political opponents, and he shows that it's possible to succeed as an unapologetic liberal even in a Southern state.
Kaine's outspokenly liberal Christianity also weakens Pence's play of the God card, which is the whole reason Trump brought him on board. 10-to-1 we see Trump attacking the Pope again before this is over.
Well he just lost the hipster vote.pr0ner wrote:I never thought of Tim Kaine as an "unapologetic liberal", and he's been both my governor and my senator.Holman wrote:I was going to post this. I'm happier with Kaine the more I read about him.Alefroth wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krystal-b ... 73840.html
I think the Kaine-Pence comparisons definitely favor Kaine. Pence is boring and dour and most famous for supporting state-level bigotry against gays. Kaine isn't a firebrand, but he's smart and well-liked even by his political opponents, and he shows that it's possible to succeed as an unapologetic liberal even in a Southern state.
Kaine's outspokenly liberal Christianity also weakens Pence's play of the God card, which is the whole reason Trump brought him on board. 10-to-1 we see Trump attacking the Pope again before this is over.
Even 538 shows him as a "mainstream Democrat".
To the Republican base, "mainstream Democrat" actually means "unapologetic liberal".pr0ner wrote:I never thought of Tim Kaine as an "unapologetic liberal", and he's been both my governor and my senator.
Even 538 shows him as a "mainstream Democrat".
Well, sure. But I'm using liberal in distinction from leftist.pr0ner wrote: I never thought of Tim Kaine as an "unapologetic liberal", and he's been both my governor and my senator.
Even 538 shows him as a "mainstream Democrat".
Hillary Clinton’s choice of Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine as her running mate tells us something important: the soon-to-be Democratic nominee is very confident she is going to win the presidential race. Throughout the primary season, pundits and politicians have focused on a potential threat to her chances: will progressives come out for her? Can she win over Bernie Sanders supporters and minority voters, and get them out to vote? Selecting Kaine does nothing to help her do either.
...
Clinton might have chosen Kaine because his selection is less about next November and more about next January. In 1993, when Bill Clinton took office he gave Hillary responsibility, among other things, for reforming health care. No first lady before or since has ever played as important a role in White House politics. This was the cause of no little tension with then-Vice President Al Gore.
...
She has already told voters Bill Clinton will play a major role in economic policy. Once again, as in 1993, our president would not so much be a Clinton as the Clintons. That is a fraught and dangerous situation for an incoming vice president. A Kaine, who gets along and can play ball with the first husband, could go a long way in avoiding the pitfalls of Bill Clinton’s first year as president.
The last sentence of my quote includes the main reason: she assumes victory against Trump and wanted a V.P. that would be ok with Bill being the co-V.P., the same way she was co-V.P. with Gore. You can disagree, but the article is pretty clear on this point.El Guapo wrote:Man, that makes no sense at all. And that article includes no information suggesting that the Kaine pick was about Bill Clinton, nor is there any obvious reason to think that.
There's reason to think that the Kaine pick is more about governance than about the election. But Kaine is a broadly respected figure who was also a VP finalist for Obama in 2008, which is also a solid reason to pick him. Where's the evidence that Hillary was thinking about Bill when picking Kaine? Where's the evidence that Kaine would be fine with Bill being co-VP?Moliere wrote:The last sentence of my quote includes the main reason: she assumes victory against Trump and wanted a V.P. that would be ok with Bill being the co-V.P., the same way she was co-V.P. with Gore. You can disagree, but the article is pretty clear on this point.El Guapo wrote:Man, that makes no sense at all. And that article includes no information suggesting that the Kaine pick was about Bill Clinton, nor is there any obvious reason to think that.
WashingtonPost.com wrote:
During his strenuous race for governor of Virginia in 2005, Timothy M. Kaine found himself chatting with James Murray, a wealthy venture capitalist, and acknowledged that the physical strain of the campaign was becoming difficult.
In response, Murray made an offer: Win or lose, after the November election, Kaine and his family should spend time at Murray’s vacation home on the exclusive Caribbean island of Mustique. The home, situated on an island point with stunning views of the Caribbean and Atlantic oceans, would be empty and Kaine could use it for free. “No sleeves off my vest,” Murray recalled in an interview.
Kaine disclosed that gift in his annual Virginia financial disclosure form, estimating that the free use of the home came at an $18,000 value.
Such gifts were legal at the time in Virginia, which had permissive laws that allowed officeholders to accept gifts of any amount provided those valued at more than $50 were disclosed.
But Republicans have signaled in recent days that they will use Kaine’s acceptance of that and other freebies as a line of attack against the newly selected vice presidential candidate, looking to stoke concern among Democrats that Kaine is not the progressive candidate they had hoped for.
“He followed the rules, but it’s a question of whether the Democrat Party can stomach that coziness with donors,” said former attorney general Jerry Kilgore, the Republican who Kaine defeated in 2005. “Their base, at this point, is anti-corporate America, anti-what these gifts stand for: access and influence.”
Absolutely, one is abomination and the other is liberal corruption.YellowKing wrote:From what I've been able to gather, Kaine is squeaky clean for a political candidate. So it doesn't surprise me that the only angle of attack they can find on him is his acceptance of legal gifts.
If it's a choice between a guy accepting a free vacation and legally disclosing it, or a guy who wants to ban gay marriage, I think the choice is pretty easy.
linkMoody's Analytics estimates that if the Democratic presidential nominee's proposals are enacted, the economy would create 10.4 million jobs during her presidency, or 3.2 million more than expected under current law.
Yeah, this. I know some people I respect are planning to vote Trump, and I just can't square it in my head. I don't see how a reasonable human being looks at the words that spew from his mouth and think that what he says has any place in our political system.malchior wrote: That way we'll hopefully get a close loss because apparently our country has completely lost its moral compass.
I'm afraid that many of the die hard Trump supporters see Trump arguing with a person who's an enemy because of his race and are cheering him on.malchior wrote:I'm curious to see his unfavorables after the weekend since this Khan 'scandal' is pretty appalling.(
Supreme Court nominations can't come form the D side. That's my father-in-laws justification. God knows WHAT Trump would nominate, possibly awarded to the highest bidder or maybe a reality show? Either way, it wouldn't be a Hillary nomination.gbasden wrote:Yeah, this. I know some people I respect are planning to vote Trump, and I just can't square it in my head. I don't see how a reasonable human being looks at the words that spew from his mouth and think that what he says has any place in our political system.malchior wrote: That way we'll hopefully get a close loss because apparently our country has completely lost its moral compass.
The R's holding the Supreme Court hostage is what I see as the single strongest reason to vote for Clinton.coopasonic wrote:Supreme Court nominations can't come form the D side. That's my father-in-laws justification. God knows WHAT Trump would nominate, possibly awarded to the highest bidder or maybe a reality show? Either way, it wouldn't be a Hillary nomination.
Fewer than 100 days until the election they're getting more attention-worthy. Conventional wisdom says most people start to pay attention after Labor Day...I don't see how anyone can remain oblivious to what's going on now, but I don't understand how America's #1 beer is Bud Light, either. Normals baffle me.RunningMn9 wrote:CNN's latest poll has her coming out of her convention up 9 points in a two-way race; and 8 points in a four-way race. For whatever polls are worth today.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett says he'll do whatever it takes to defeat Donald Trump - including escorting people to the polls himself. Campaigning with Hillary Clinton in Nebraska Monday, Buffett savaged Trump's business record, questioning his bankruptcies and asking why the Republican presidential candidate won't release his tax returns. The so-called "Omaha Oracle" then announced a new campaign called "Drive 2 Vote," designed to bring out voters in Nebraska's second congressional district, which offers a single Electoral College vote to the district winner. "I will take at least 10 people to the polls who would otherwise have difficulty getting there," said Buffett, adding that he had reserved a 32-seat trolley for the day with a goal of getting the highest-percentage turnout of any congressional district in the country. "Let's give America a civics lesson." Nebraska is one of two states that assign some electoral votes based on the results within congressional districts. While the state is Republican overall, President Barack Obama won a vote here in 2008 in the more liberal district where Clinton appeared Monday, which includes Omaha and the suburbs. The boundaries have since been redrawn to make the district less blue.
Don't forget the reasons to not want Conservative judges. The biggest being they are very anti 4th amendment, hell they are against all the law enforcement amendments, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th. (I'll leave out the 7th, since there aren't many cases based on that one).YellowKing wrote:I've gotten the "Supreme Court" argument from both my mom and stepdad now, and I was seriously sitting back trying to think what the ramifications of a left-leaning court would be on my life. And I couldn't really think of any negatives.
- I'm morally opposed to abortion, but I think legislating it is futile and dangerous.
- I support gay marriage and non-discrimination against LGBTQ
- I don't feel like the gubmint is coming to take my guns away (if 8 years of Obama couldn't do it, it ain't happening)
- I'm totally into the separation of church and state
Every argument I can think of why I'd want to keep conservative justices are based on either religion, sexual biases, or guns, and the R stance on those are what have driven me away from the party in the first place.
Guns and the bible, that's my father-in-law. He only moved to Texas (from NY) after retirement, but he fits in really well here.YellowKing wrote:Every argument I can think of why I'd want to keep conservative justices are based on either religion, sexual biases, or guns, and the R stance on those are what have driven me away from the party in the first place.
if you look at the poll, CNN left Millenials (18 to 34 year olds) out of it and the Bernie supporters are pissed about it. Really CNN? Jackasses.Kraken wrote:Fewer than 100 days until the election they're getting more attention-worthy. Conventional wisdom says most people start to pay attention after Labor Day...I don't see how anyone can remain oblivious to what's going on now, but I don't understand how America's #1 beer is Bud Light, either. Normals baffle me.RunningMn9 wrote:CNN's latest poll has her coming out of her convention up 9 points in a two-way race; and 8 points in a four-way race. For whatever polls are worth today.
I read the details of the actual poll, it's odd that they have N/A in the 18-34 column. But if it makes you feel any better, Fox News did a similar poll - almost same number of respondents, but with all age groups included - and Hillary is up by 10 points in that oneSmutly wrote:if you look at the poll, CNN left Millenials (18 to 34 year olds) out of it and the Bernie supporters are pissed about it. Really CNN? Jackasses.Kraken wrote:Fewer than 100 days until the election they're getting more attention-worthy. Conventional wisdom says most people start to pay attention after Labor Day...I don't see how anyone can remain oblivious to what's going on now, but I don't understand how America's #1 beer is Bud Light, either. Normals baffle me.RunningMn9 wrote:CNN's latest poll has her coming out of her convention up 9 points in a two-way race; and 8 points in a four-way race. For whatever polls are worth today.
I took a quick look at the poll - I assume that they put N/A because their sample size was too small. From my back of the envelope calculations, based on the margin of errors of the other age groups, there were roughly ~70 people polled in that age group. Which is pretty small.gilraen wrote:I read the details of the actual poll, it's odd that they have N/A in the 18-34 column.Smutly wrote:if you look at the poll, CNN left Millenials (18 to 34 year olds) out of it and the Bernie supporters are pissed about it. Really CNN? Jackasses.
Maybe they were only polling "likely voters"Smutly wrote:if you look at the poll, CNN left Millenials (18 to 34 year olds) out of it and the Bernie supporters are pissed about it. Really CNN? Jackasses.Kraken wrote:Fewer than 100 days until the election they're getting more attention-worthy. Conventional wisdom says most people start to pay attention after Labor Day...I don't see how anyone can remain oblivious to what's going on now, but I don't understand how America's #1 beer is Bud Light, either. Normals baffle me.RunningMn9 wrote:CNN's latest poll has her coming out of her convention up 9 points in a two-way race; and 8 points in a four-way race. For whatever polls are worth today.
Reuters has her up by about 8 points as of 1 Aug. If you filter down to likely voters aged 18-34, they have Clinton up by about 26 points (51 to Trump's 25). Guess which candidate will want to get out the youth vote, and which one will be obsessed with things like restrictive voter ID laws.gilraen wrote:I read the details of the actual poll, it's odd that they have N/A in the 18-34 column. But if it makes you feel any better, Fox News did a similar poll - almost same number of respondents, but with all age groups included - and Hillary is up by 10 points in that oneSmutly wrote:if you look at the poll, CNN left Millenials (18 to 34 year olds) out of it and the Bernie supporters are pissed about it. Really CNN? Jackasses.Kraken wrote:Fewer than 100 days until the election they're getting more attention-worthy. Conventional wisdom says most people start to pay attention after Labor Day...I don't see how anyone can remain oblivious to what's going on now, but I don't understand how America's #1 beer is Bud Light, either. Normals baffle me.RunningMn9 wrote:CNN's latest poll has her coming out of her convention up 9 points in a two-way race; and 8 points in a four-way race. For whatever polls are worth today.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interac ... ug-3-2016/