Tim Kaine as a VP pick

[chibul]

Was Tim Kaine a good VP pick?

[brucejoel99]

Kaine was a highly qualified pick, but he was NOT a good pick. Sure, he by no means single-handedly doomed Hillary's campaign, but his choice was emblematic of why Hillary lost. Her number one challenge was convincing the Obama coalition & voters in general that she represented real change in a year when the electorate wanted an outsider. The VP pick was the one big chance for her to signal that, even though Hillary herself was the consummate establishment politician, she had heard the message loud & clear and was ready to shake things up.

And Hillary had a number of strong choices to pick from, including Warren (who clearly wanted the job), Sanders (politically unthinkable but he would've unified the party & supercharged millennial turnout), Brown (Sanders-lite), or even somebody like Castro or Booker who at least would've added charisma to the ticket & helped to keep the Obama coalition engaged.

So what happened? Hillary chose not just another insider, but one utterly lacking in charisma, apparently for no other reason than that she just felt more comfortable with Kaine than with somebody like Warren, who would've been a disruptive presence in Clintonworld. To be fair, I know Tim Kaine is a nice guy who's highly qualified & would've helped with Senate outreach, but the VP doesn't necessarily need to fulfill that role or any particular role from a governing standpoint.

It was surreal seeing Democratic Party insiders & the Washington press all sing Kaine's praises, while meanwhile it was obvious to many young &/or left-leaning voters that he was a terrible choice for the reasons I mentioned above.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

brucejoel99 nailed it.

I just wanted to add that Kaine was among the earliest Obama's supporter from outside Illinois in 2008, so in Hillary's mind that could've counted as "reaching out to the Obama coalition", but for the voters at large Kaine was indeed just another establishment politician of essentially Clintonian stock.

[Orser67]

He wasn't a good pick, as she should have picked someone to energize non-white and/or younger voters, and also ideally someone from a more electorally important state. From her reported short list, I think Booker or Castro would have been a better pick.

But I would disagree with the notion that he was a terrible pick. The first rule of picking a VP is to do no harm, and Kaine did no harm. He was clearly qualified for the position, and he never dominated the news with gaffes, scandals, or a terrible debate performance. With his experience/ties in the Senate, I also think he also could have been a real asset for the Clinton administration had Clinton won.

[President Johnson]

I actually agree with bruce's points, all of the said is correct. However, I'm not sure whether it would have been a good idea to jump on this outsider train just because Donald Trump and parts of the public/media have defined "outsider" as something positive. First off, Donald Trump is not an outsider and never has been. He's born rich, never had a real job or struggled to bring food on the table. He's as elite as it can get. Instead, he was and still is unprepared to be president. Second, his business career hardly qualifies him for any office, since he was never that much of a successful businessman. Even if you like a president who runs the country like a business, Trump isn't your man. Hillary and other politicans have done a lousy job in countering this notion an outsider in politics is always a good thing. Yes, you need some people in charge who come from other backgrounds such as business, military, law enforcement, education and so on. That isn't the point. The points is, outsiders are often unprepared and inexperienced, especially when they are either unable to assemble a competent team or just let others run the show in a bad manner (see Cheney and Bush). Maybe voters need to be asked why they want an inexperienced showman in government, but not anywhere else? Nobody wants an inexperienced doctor taking care of their own health. Just like you don't hire someone as pilot who has never landed a plane.

A politician's job is not always to sign on stuff that's popular at the moment, but to make the right thing popular through rational arguments and persuasion. I know that's harder in theory than in pratice, since we chose our political leaders all too often by their showman ability and not actual competence.

[Blair]

Was probably the correct choice for governing and for the electoral and political realities of the time.... but in reality with hindsight you’d say pick Warren or even Sanders to pull you over the line.

[brucejoel99]

I actually agree with bruce's points, all of the said is correct. However, I'm not sure whether it would have been a good idea to jump on this outsider train just because Donald Trump and parts of the public/media have defined "outsider" as something positive. First off, Donald Trump is not an outsider and never has been. He's born rich, never had a real job or struggled to bring food on the table. He's as elite as it can get. Instead, he was and still is unprepared to be president. Second, his business career hardly qualifies him for any office, since he was never that much of a successful businessman. Even if you like a president who runs the country like a business, Trump isn't your man. Hillary and other politicans have done a lousy job in countering this notion an outsider in politics is always a good thing. Yes, you need some people in charge who come from other backgrounds such as business, military, law enforcement, education and so on. That isn't the point. The points is, outsiders are often unprepared and inexperienced, especially when they are either unable to assemble a competent team or just let others run the show in a bad manner (see Cheney and Bush). Maybe voters need to be asked why they want an inexperienced showman in government, but not anywhere else? Nobody wants an inexperienced doctor taking care of their own health. Just like you don't hire someone as pilot who has never landed a plane.

A politician's job is not always to sign on stuff that's popular at the moment, but to make the right thing popular through rational arguments and persuasion. I know that's harder in theory than in pratice, since we chose our political leaders all too often by their showman ability and not actual competence.

It certainly wouldn't feel good &/or right, but considering it won Trump an election, in hindsight, that's how you beat him.

[MARGINS6729]

Bruce nailed it. Brown would have been the best choice perhaps but Booker or Castro would have been good too but Hillary prioritized the governing role over the helping the ticket role. Can't necessarily blame her but she could have done a lot better.

[Skill and Chance]

No.  It's clear that VA would have voted Dem anyway.  You could even argue he blew it for her with that VP debate given how close it was. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Kaine would be an improvement over Biden this year.

[Lechasseur]

Bruce nailed it. Brown would have been the best choice perhaps but Booker or Castro would have been good too but Hillary prioritized the governing role over the helping the ticket role. Can't necessarily blame her but she could have done a lot better.

Agreed

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Kaine would be an improvement over Biden this year.

I dislike Kaine, so no.

At the time, i strongly disliked the choice.

[zoz]

No one took him seriously, especially after the debate. Just a very bad choice all around

[Senator-elect Spark]

Abhorrent

[pikachu]

He was meh, but I'm also of the opinion that the importance of the VP pick is one of the most overrated things in American politics. Unless they're uniquely bad or it seems like there's a significant possibility the nominee isn't going to make it through the next four years, imo the effect the VP has on voters decisions are marginal at best, if it exists at all.

[Pulaski]

With hindsight, Booker probably would've helped drive Black turnout, which is a key reason Clinton lost. The cynic in me wonders if a Clinton-Warren ticket would've done even poorer with men.

[Dumbo]

Kaine lost the debate against Pence, Harris will do much better.

[President Biden Democrat]

Kaine was a terrible pick, hands down. Hillary would have definitely won Virginia without Kaine and he did not add anything to the Clinton campaign. Kaine was one of the worst VP picks, Clinton could have chose. Anyone else would have been better.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

He wasn't a good pick, as she should have picked someone to energize non-white and/or younger voters, and also ideally someone from a more electorally important state. From her reported short list, I think Booker or Castro would have been a better pick.

But I would disagree with the notion that he was a terrible pick. The first rule of picking a VP is to do no harm, and Kaine did no harm. He was clearly qualified for the position, and he never dominated the news with gaffes, scandals, or a terrible debate performance. With his experience/ties in the Senate, I also think he also could have been a real asset for the Clinton administration had Clinton won.

This. He also added a home state boost in VA and there was reason to think that could have been a tipping point state at the time of his selection. It's much easier to declare VA solidly D in hindsight, with Donald Trump campaigning as he did in the GE and with trends in the party's sails. Of "bland consensus politician picks, he wasn't bad. It was just the wrong year to pick a bland consensus politician who didn't have a protectionist reputation.

[KYRockefeller]

With hindsight, Booker probably would've helped drive Black turnout, which is a key reason Clinton lost. The cynic in me wonders if a Clinton-Warren ticket would've done even poorer with men.

Seeing as how Warren's presidential campaign really leaned into women's issues, especially by February, I have to think men would've gone harder for Trump because they wouldn't have had a lot to vote for with that ticket.

[MATTROSE94]

Kaine would be an improvement over Biden this year.

I dislike Kaine, so no.

At the time, i strongly disliked the choice.

Tim Kaine definitely was not Hillary Clinton's best choice for running-mate. He came across as a very weak candidate and his reputation as a very liberal Catholic (Donald Trump and Mike Pence, who are traditionalist Catholics, made Tim Kaine's liberal views on Catholicism as a major attack point on the campaign trail) may have hurt Hillary Clinton among more moderate and traditionalist Catholic voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. In retrospect, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, or Julian Castro would have been much stronger Vice Presidential choices for Hillary Clinton and may have swung enough voters to allow Hillary Clinton to win the election.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Kaine was a highly qualified pick, but he was NOT a good pick. Sure, he by no means single-handedly doomed Hillary's campaign, but his choice was emblematic of why Hillary lost. Her number one challenge was convincing the Obama coalition & voters in general that she represented real change in a year when the electorate wanted an outsider. The VP pick was the one big chance for her to signal that, even though Hillary herself was the consummate establishment politician, she had heard the message loud & clear and was ready to shake things up.

And Hillary had a number of strong choices to pick from, including Warren (who clearly wanted the job), Sanders (politically unthinkable but he would've unified the party & supercharged millennial turnout), Brown (Sanders-lite), or even somebody like Castro or Booker who at least would've added charisma to the ticket & helped to keep the Obama coalition engaged.

So what happened? Hillary chose not just another insider, but one utterly lacking in charisma, apparently for no other reason than that she just felt more comfortable with Kaine than with somebody like Warren, who would've been a disruptive presence in Clintonworld. To be fair, I know Tim Kaine is a nice guy who's highly qualified & would've helped with Senate outreach, but the VP doesn't necessarily need to fulfill that role or any particular role from a governing standpoint.

It was surreal seeing Democratic Party insiders & the Washington press all sing Kaine's praises, while meanwhile it was obvious to many young &/or left-leaning voters that he was a terrible choice for the reasons I mentioned above.

Clinton should have picked Sanders. She was always too obsessed with her personal brand and chemistry and in the end was too confident in the polls. It would have increased turnout by 1-2 million and ensured a Democratic victory.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Kaine would be an improvement over Biden this year.

I dislike Kaine, so no.

At the time, i strongly disliked the choice.

Tim Kain definitely was not Hillary Clinton's best choice for running-mate. He came across as a very weak candidate and his reputation as a very liberal Catholic (Donald Trump and Mike Pence, who are traditionalist Catholics, made Tim Kaines liberal views on Catholicism as a major attack point on the campaign trail) may have hurt Hillary Clinton among more moderate and traditionalist Catholic voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. In retrospect, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, or Julian Castro would have been much stronger vice Presidential choices for Hillary Clinton and may have swung enough voters to allow Hillary Clinton to win the election.

... neither Trump or Pence are Catholic. I think Pence used to be but is Evangelical now. I don't think the Kaine pick hurt them among Catholics, Catholics are just getting more conservative because the percent of practicing Catholics is getting smaller.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Tim Kaine was not a bad VP pick but he was just stale. With hindsight, Hillary should have picked Julian Castro or Cory Booker. She might still have lost the EC but maybe not with increased Black/Hispanic turnout in those 3 key states (MI, WI & PA).

[KYRockefeller]

My big mark against Castro as a VP is that his support for more low income housing in suburbs while he was in HUD was not popular and could hurt with suburban voters.  Also, his advocacy of an open border is just a bad general election position.

Hillary's two best picks were either Sherrod Brown if she wanted to better target working class voters and tap into the anti-corporate side a bit or go with Booker to try to boost minority turnout.  I think either of those would have been better/more effective than Kaine.