Morning news shows indicating Tim Kaine will be named as campaign's number 2 today.

Morning news shows indicating Tim Kaine will be named as campaign's number 2 today.

 

^^^^^ huge mistake, Warren is way more qualified for the VP.

I think Kaine is probably her best choice.

 

Warren is way too much of a loose cannon IMO, and Vilsack is too much of an unknown.

I think Kaine is probably her best choice.

 

Warren is way too much of a loose cannon IMO, and Vilsack is too much of an unknown.

 

I tend to agree. For the HRC campaign there had to be a bit of a gamble that the left will jump aboard to prevent a Trump presidency. Kaine brings a more moderate presence not to mention he is probably more experienced than most of the other prospects, so he may pull a few that are in the middle.

 

I do like Vilsack though. If Hillary had a higher favorability I think he would have been the choice.

I know nothing about Kaine and may have heard his name mentioned 2-3 times before, probably in passing on NPR.

VP picks are usually broken down into three types. I can't think of which political scientist broke them down like this: Convention splashers, one that can help deliver the election, or one that will be political/agenda leaders when in office. The trend seems to be for the last.

I like Tim Kaine, and I think he is a moderate enough dem that he could sway some dissatisfied GOP folks that can't get on board with either Trump or Pence or both. What will be interesting to me is how the far left embrace Kaine as he is a lot more Joe Lieberman than a traditional left-leaning democrat.

 

Picking a VP to help carry states in the election is as old a strategy as there is. Nothing to see here.

 

Frankly, I think she may be picking him more so because he is moderate (to conservative) enough to appeal to many of the middle and the undecideds.

I like Tim Kaine, and I think he is a moderate enough dem that he could sway some dissatisfied GOP folks that can't get on board with either Trump or Pence or both. What will be interesting to me is how the far left embrace Kaine as he is a lot more Joe Lieberman than a traditional left-leaning democrat.

 

Picking a VP to help carry states in the election is as old a strategy as there is. Nothing to see here.

 

Frankly, I think she may be picking him more so because he is moderate (to conservative) enough to appeal to many of the middle and the undecideds.

 

Good input here. Thank you Sir.

 

She is a career politician so a lot of what you are saying makes it look like a sensible decision for her.

So its not about picking who you think will be the best VP, it is about picking someone who will potentially pick up more votes?

 

I'm 52 and every election I recall had VPs who were thought to add value to the winning of the election.

 

I look at the selection of the VP candidate to be analogous to a head basketball hiring an ace recruiter to his staff. He's not getting hired for Xs and Os.

I'm 52 and every election I recall had VPs who were thought to add value to the winning of the election.

 

I look at the selection of the VP candidate to be analogous to a head basketball hiring an ace recruiter to his staff. He's not getting hired for Xs and Os.

 

Wouldn't a more accurate comparison be the Assistant Head Coach? The VP is the second in the chain of command, right?

I'm 52 and every election I recall had VPs who were thought to add value to the winning of the election.

 

I look at the selection of the VP candidate to be analogous to a head basketball hiring an ace recruiter to his staff. He's not getting hired for Xs and Os.

 

And I agree, the VP should bring value to winning the election, but not at the expense of quality/ qualifications. I am not saying that the VP shouldn't bring value to winning the election, or that it never happens. I am saying that qualifications shouldnt be expended or ignored or marginalized in order to possibly pick up votes. If you can find a VP candidate that brings quality leadership, as well as election value to the table, then perfect.

And I agree, the VP should bring value to winning the election, but not at the expense of quality/ qualifications. I am not saying that the VP shouldn't bring value to winning the election, or that it never happens. I am saying that qualifications shouldnt be expended or ignored or marginalized in order to possibly pick up votes. If you can find a VP candidate that brings quality leadership, as well as election value to the table, then perfect.

 

It's a compromise. I can't think of too many candidates that on the surface couldn't be justified in regards to some level of competence (even the god-awful Sarah Palin).

I like Tim Kaine, and I think he is a moderate enough dem that he could sway some dissatisfied GOP folks that can't get on board with either Trump or Pence or both. What will be interesting to me is how the far left embrace Kaine as he is a lot more Joe Lieberman than a traditional left-leaning democrat.

 

Picking a VP to help carry states in the election is as old a strategy as there is. Nothing to see here.

 

Frankly, I think she may be picking him more so because he is moderate (to conservative) enough to appeal to many of the middle and the undecideds.

 

I like Kaine also but it sounds like the liberal wing is not happy about the possibility.

Earlier I suggested Bernie Madoff.

 

HILLARY/MADOFF

(with all of the Wall St. bribes)

 

 

Button, bumper sticker & slogan. It's not too late.

I'm 52 and every election I recall had VPs who were thought to add value to the winning of the election.

 

I look at the selection of the VP candidate to be analogous to a head basketball hiring an ace recruiter to his staff. He's not getting hired for Xs and Os.

I don't recall that being the sentiments with the Cheney pick.