Did Kaine actually help?

[President Johnson]

Did Kaine help Hillary at all? I would answer the question with a clear no. He didn't hurt, but he also didn't expand her voter base or added much to the ticket. Neither among whites nor a among lationos. And I personally think that she would have won Virgina anyway.

[Confused Democrat]

Hillary had the chance to extend a real and tangible olive branch to the progressive wing of the party by choosing a progressive VP. However, she totally misread the Democratic electorate and just assumed that Sanders supporters would vote for her out of fear of a Trump presidency.

The reality ended up being that Sanders supporters saw her VP pick as another slap in the face, and they ended up staying home on Nov. 8th.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Not at all.

She should've picked a charismatic Midwestern progressive as an olive branch to the Bernie wing and as a way of nullifying Trumps Midwestern support. Al Franken would've been much better.

Trump picked Indiana governor Pence as an olive branch to the few Cruz holdouts and as a way of doubling down on his rust belt strategy

[Stranger in a strange land]

Let's be real for a minute here. There was only one correct choice for Hillary's VP: when your primary opponent is getting record enthusiasm, raising huge sums of money through small donations, and drawing even bigger crowds than Trump, it should be clear that his message is resonating and that you need him on the ticket in order to fire up the activist base and get them out in force. It was dumb of her not to pick Bernie, and not shoring up her Left Flank was what cost her the election. Add to that it would have united the party and greatly limited the Wikileaks/DNC hack damage.

[Pericles]

He was good for the strategy she had. The problem was it was the wrong strategy.

[Confused Democrat]

Let's be real for a minute here. There was only one correct choice for Hillary's VP: when your primary opponent is getting record enthusiasm, raising huge sums of money through small donations, and drawing even bigger crowds than Trump, it should be clear that his message is resonating and that you need him on the ticket in order to fire up the activist base and get them out in force. It was dumb of her not to pick Bernie, and not shoring up her Left Flank was what cost her the election. Add to that it would have united the party and greatly limited the Wikileaks/DNC hack damage.

I agree that Sanders would have been the best choice.

[Mr. Smith]

He was good for the strategy she had. The problem was it was the wrong strategy.

He was only good, not optimal even for that.

Julian Castro or Xavier Bercerra would've been better choices for that strategy, and who knows, maybe Arizona and Florida would've actually remained, subverting the Rust Belt strategy right up its.

If anything Kaine was just halfway measure.


But let's face it, he was really picked for the sake of "who would best succeed me if I should die in office?", which to be fair is the right reasoning to go with...but that doesn't necessarily equate to popularity.

[catographer]

I think Kaine was an honest, true-to-herself pick. As her campaign and herself explained, she chose a running mate base on who got along with her most and who could be the best partner instead of making a strategic reaching-out choice. The irony is that she was criticized for not being honest or sincere, yet the VP choice she makes that is sincere and true is criticized for a missed opportunity to pander.

[Suburbia]

Kaine is a safe choice. Warren is not. Warren has too much baggage.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I always liked Kaine and actually hoped for his selection as Obama's running-mate back in 2008 (I did consider Uncle Joe, God forgive me, as too much of a longtimer for the ticket), but as this election plainly showed us, Tim is a low energy candidate for national office. Why, his electoral record in Virginia wasn't so strong either. Confused Democrat is spot on about ignoring the progressive wing.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Let's be real for a minute here. There was only one correct choice for Hillary's VP: when your primary opponent is getting record enthusiasm, raising huge sums of money through small donations, and drawing even bigger crowds than Trump, it should be clear that his message is resonating and that you need him on the ticket in order to fire up the activist base and get them out in force. It was dumb of her not to pick Bernie, and not shoring up her Left Flank was what cost her the election. Add to that it would have united the party and greatly limited the Wikileaks/DNC hack damage.

Most of the Sanders people I saw in those crowds were young people - not the typical voter. Of course a lot of young people went for Johnson or Stein so she should have done more to keep them there.

But Sanders' popularity is WAAAAYYY overstated. People always bring up how he won the Michigan primary but forget that he was blown out in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and barely squeaked by in Indiana. Also Trump won Michigan by 15+ points even going up against a popular Midwestern governor (Kasich) AND the Michigan GOP primary got more votes than the Democratic primary.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Let's be real for a minute here. There was only one correct choice for Hillary's VP: when your primary opponent is getting record enthusiasm, raising huge sums of money through small donations, and drawing even bigger crowds than Trump, it should be clear that his message is resonating and that you need him on the ticket in order to fire up the activist base and get them out in force. It was dumb of her not to pick Bernie, and not shoring up her Left Flank was what cost her the election. Add to that it would have united the party and greatly limited the Wikileaks/DNC hack damage.

Most of the Sanders people I saw in those crowds were young people - not the typical voter. Of course a lot of young people went for Johnson or Stein so she should have done more to keep them there.

But Sanders' popularity is WAAAAYYY overstated. People always bring up how he won the Michigan primary but forget that he was blown out in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and barely squeaked by in Indiana. Also Trump won Michigan by 15+ points even going up against a popular Midwestern governor (Kasich) AND the Michigan GOP primary got more votes than the Democratic primary.

-Ohio was a special case due to Sanders supporters going for Kasich. PA was, indeed, a natural place for HRC to beat Sanders due to Hillary men in Western PA and the Philly suburbs. The fact Sanders even won Indiana was a surprise to most (even though it is a northern state).

I doubt Bernie would have won Ohio, but he would have won MI and likely PA.

[Skill and Chance]

Let's be real for a minute here. There was only one correct choice for Hillary's VP: when your primary opponent is getting record enthusiasm, raising huge sums of money through small donations, and drawing even bigger crowds than Trump, it should be clear that his message is resonating and that you need him on the ticket in order to fire up the activist base and get them out in force. It was dumb of her not to pick Bernie, and not shoring up her Left Flank was what cost her the election. Add to that it would have united the party and greatly limited the Wikileaks/DNC hack damage.

Most of the Sanders people I saw in those crowds were young people - not the typical voter. Of course a lot of young people went for Johnson or Stein so she should have done more to keep them there.

But Sanders' popularity is WAAAAYYY overstated. People always bring up how he won the Michigan primary but forget that he was blown out in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and barely squeaked by in Indiana. Also Trump won Michigan by 15+ points even going up against a popular Midwestern governor (Kasich) AND the Michigan GOP primary got more votes than the Democratic primary.

By the time the I-95 corridor states voted, a lot of people wanted Sanders out of the race as soon as possible.  Look how he did in the very white Western states that voted in May and June vs. those that voted earlier in the season.

As for the topic at hand, VA probably doesn't swing to Clinton without Kaine, but I still have no doubt she would have won it by at least McAuliffe's 2.5% margin.

[NOVA Green]

I don't believe Kaine really helped the ticket in any meaningful fashion.... she would have carried Virginia regardless of this selection.

Sure was he a safe pick without any baggage? Absolutely.

I'm in absolute agreement with many of the posters that picking a progressive energetic and dynamic VP pick of whatever region or background might have helped bring in enough of the "Bernie base defector wing to cross the finish line in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

In Political Science theory in general the VP ticket doesn't necessarily matter that much these days in terms of winning the VPs particular state, maybe 1-2% at the most on the margins (Even that is debatable).

What selection of a VP candidate does in a broader sense is communicate a message to the base of the  Party, in order to create enthusiasm and turnout among those within the Party that their perspective and interests are being represented by the standard bearer of the Party.

In Clinton's defense, when she selected Kaine she was riding high in the polls, there was no real sense that the 2016 would be a close election in terms of EC or PV numbers, so naturally she went with a safe choice and someone that she could work with closely.

However, this choice in itself was partially fed by the hubris and sense of inevitability that dominated much of the Senior ranks of the Clinton campaign....

She could easily have selected one of many "safe" Progressive Democrats that would have been a more effective "Pitbull" to go after Trump on economic related issues, not only energizing the Sanders defectors but just as importantly been able to communicate more effectively with Obama '08/'12 voters that defected to Trump in '16.  And if we trawl through the county and precinct level returns, it's pretty clear that there were quite of few of these people out there in rural, small-town, and Smaller City (<250k Pop) America.

[History505]

I actually personally think if it weren't for Kaine, she might have actually lost Virginia, in the early returns it was leaning for Trump, but she came back to win it later on.

[Cashew]

I actually personally think if it weren't for Kaine, she might have actually lost Virginia, in the early returns it was leaning for Trump, but she came back to win it later on.

That happens every election cycle with Northern Virginia coming in last.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

He was the best choice for her with the information that was available (polls showing her with a comfortable lead). Playing it safe was the best strategy in that situation.

When you pick a more risky VP, sometimes you get burned. Sometimes your whole party gets burned (see McCain's choice of Sarah Palin in 2008).

[Stranger in a strange land]

I actually personally think if it weren't for Kaine, she might have actually lost Virginia, in the early returns it was leaning for Trump, but she came back to win it later on.

That happens every election cycle with Northern Virginia coming in last.

Yes compounded by the fact that rural VA swung hard against Clinton, just like rural areas all over the country did. Trump got blown out in NOVA as expected, and even though VA wasn't called until late in the evening, Clinton actually ended up winning it by about six points. Really it's just a more extreme version of what's happened in every election in Virginia since 2006.

[BaldEagle1991]

In retrospect, the only thing Tim Kaine ever did was help Hillary carry Virginia.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Kaine came off as a pandering version of Howdy Doody.  This would have been OK if Hillary didn't need more help than she turned out needing.

Hillary, IMO, was beyond the help of a VP.  Kaine didn't hurt her.  Hillary hurt herself.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Yes and also, I don't think a lot of people were voting for Sanders specifically, they were voting for a more progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton.  I personally think the whole free college tuition thing came off too much as pandering to the base to be helpful in a general election context.  She should have picked a progressive like him with a clean slate.  But I do feel for him because of all the dirty tricks that the DNC establishment mounted against him.

What dirty tricks? The DNC didn't do anything out of the ordinary except Donna Brazille handing Clinton a debate question.

Trump had to go through 100000 times what Bernie had to go through and had no problem winning the nomination.

Bernie was a crap candidate and is now getting overhyped because Hillary lost the election. Feingold lost to Johnson (there's Bernie vs. Trump right there in a swing state).

[heatcharger]

Let's be real for a minute here. There was only one correct choice for Hillary's VP: when your primary opponent is getting record enthusiasm, raising huge sums of money through small donations, and drawing even bigger crowds than Trump, it should be clear that his message is resonating and that you need him on the ticket in order to fire up the activist base and get them out in force. It was dumb of her not to pick Bernie, and not shoring up her Left Flank was what cost her the election. Add to that it would have united the party and greatly limited the Wikileaks/DNC hack damage.

I largely agree with this.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course not. He was chosen because he was a 3rd way establishment hack in a year that the voters weren't really in the mood for that.

Kaine is a safe choice. Warren is not. Warren has too much baggage.

Tom Dewey played it "safe", too. 

[NOVA Green]

Yes and also, I don't think a lot of people were voting for Sanders specifically, they were voting for a more progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton.  I personally think the whole free college tuition thing came off too much as pandering to the base to be helpful in a general election context.  She should have picked a progressive like him with a clean slate.  But I do feel for him because of all the dirty tricks that the DNC establishment mounted against him.

What dirty tricks? The DNC didn't do anything out of the ordinary except Donna Brazille handing Clinton a debate question.

Trump had to go through 100000 times what Bernie had to go through and had no problem winning the nomination.

Bernie was a crap candidate and is now getting overhyped because Hillary lost the election. Feingold lost to Johnson (there's Bernie vs. Trump right there in a swing state).

Ok---not sure exactly where you are coming from ahugecat.

It's pretty clear that much of the Democratic Party establishment was 100% behind Clinton. Simply take a look at the "super-delegate Gap".

Non Swing Voter and myself quite frequently don't see eye-to-eye on where the future of the Democratic Part Coalition lies.

On this instance, he is 100% correct, regardless of how you choose to point out the DNC quote in his statement.

Yes--- Clinton won the Democratic Candidacy fair and square, as a result of the wishes of Democratic Party Primary and Caucus voters.

Was she the best choice for the nominee of the Party in 2016 in an anti-establishment year?

Although, I certainly do not want to words nor post on behalf of a fellow Forum Member, NonSwingVoter is speaking a fundamental truth regarding the Democratic Party Establishment, and obviously the leaked stuff and hacks regarding the DNC certainly appears to support the position that there was a bunch of "dirty tricks" out there designed to subvert and shut down the potential of Sanders as the Democratic Party Presidential nominee...

Ok--- so to be fair let's flip the tables. What I understand from your argument regarding Mr Trump, is that he faced similar obstacles from within his own Party, and despite all of that adversity, was able to become the Republican Candidate for President of the United States (Not to mention winning the General Election).

There were many attempts to sabotage and undermine Trump, from within the Republican Party establishment. I do believe that this is an objectively fair and accurate statement. If we are going to roll through the exercise of comparing the Bernie/Clinton and Trump/Cruz/Kasich/Rubio primaries is that you appear to be ignoring the fundamentally different primary/caucus rules between the two major political parties.

Trump was able to decisively win the Republican nomination because there were no Super-Delegates....

Clinton was able to become inevitable precisely because there were super-delegates.

So anyways---- apologies for helping to derail the thread further from the original question.

Back to the OT:

Clinton absolutely should have picked an "insurgent" populist/progressive candidate from a wide variety of choices that than go with the safe establishment pick assuming she would win the s**t in a landslide.

[Shadows]

It is not fair to compare.The primary GOP base is full of religious freaks, bigoted islamphobes & low information idiots. The Republican debates were garbage with 0 Policy discussion, Trump bragging about his penis, dirty personal attacks, fights with moderator & name calling like Lying Ted, Little Marco etc. You had a lunatic radical extremist Trump trying to win the crazy Primary base of the GOP.

Republicans had 12 scheduled debates while Dems had 6 & then Clinton forced in a NH Debate when she was losing & a couple got added. The timing of the debate were bad along with the limited schedule. Then you have Super-Delegates with Clinton starting at a 500 odd lead.

The media gave Trump 2B $ worth of free ads & played him on TV every single time with a complete blackout of Bernie initially. The narrative was set of a successful businessman & outsider Trump vs the Socialist, unelectable, old, far left, fringe Independent Bernie Sanders. Look @ Chris Mathews interview vs Bernie (He was fighting with rude hostile comments) vs the one he did with Hillary (easy puff piece interview with praises)

In any other time Bernie Sanders would never have been this successful. But thanks to Internet, you can cut through the media, reach out via Social Media including FB, Twitter, Reddit, help phonebank, take online donations etc. Bernie literally had to go to late night shows to get his point across.

You had WP running 16 negative stories a day, the DNC branding him as an atheist & feeding talking points to the media, etc. You had Claire McCaskill implying Bernie as a communist ! He was up against Cuomo, Schumer, Gillibrand, De Blasio in NY, Brown in Ohio, Booker in NJ, Boxer-Feinstein in CA, Manchin in WV & so on - Mayors, Senators, Gov, State Rep, DNC people all fighting for Clinton. And ofcourse Obama, the sitting POTUS was backing Clinton "Tacitly".

(Obama - Clinton is the best candidate, phenomenal, better than me, should have won in 2008, Bernie is the new shiny toy every is not vetting, won't vote for any1 weak on gun control even if they are a Dem & calling Sanders for a meeting separately on gun control - No comment on Wall Street or overthrowing Assad for Hillary).