Presidential nominee Tim Kaine?

No. No one liked him on either side.

Doubtful.

No, he had all the personality of paint drying. I think Hillary would have dumped him in her second term.

R3 I’m still shocked she picked him to begin with.

He was from a swing state that she needed to win. People have the fantasy that a Clinton/Warren would have been a blockbuster, but this country's not going to vote for an all female ticket.

It turned out that Tim Kaine offered nothing to Clinton. Nothing. People couldn't even tell you who her running mate was.

[quote]I’m still shocked she picked him to begin with.

Nobody wanted to be Hillary’s VP. She really didn’t have many options. She was unlikeable and anyone who was her VP was going to be a whipping boy. You know if she wasn’t listening to Bill, she certainly wasn’t going to listen to any VP. The only person who could tolerate her was Human Abedin.

Who should Hillary have picked? I mean, what politician out there would have helped her win and been an asset to the ticket?

I love him. He seems like an intrinsically good guy.

Stavridis was on the short list.

It’s paywalled but here’s the jist.

July 12, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is vetting James G. Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander at NATO, as a possible running mate, according to a person with knowledge of the vetting process.

Some close to Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state, say she was always likely to have someone with military experience on her vice-presidential shortlist, and Mr. Stavridis, currently the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, fits the description.

During his four years as NATO’s supreme allied commander, he oversaw operations in the Middle East — Afghanistan, Libya and Syria — as well as in the Balkans and piracy off the coast of Africa.

[QUOTE] Who should Hillary have picked? I mean, what politician out there would have helped her win and been an asset to the ticket?

Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis.

Upon hearing the news of Hillary Clinton selecting Tim Kaine as her running mate, my initial reaction was, "Who's that?" Then, it occurred to me. Under no circumstances would she pick a running mate who could come even remotely close to upstaging her -- ever -- whether during the campaign or while in office.

I would have picked Al Franken.

Tim Kaine is a good man, but he was not a good choice for Hillary. He really added nothing to the ticket.

And he read as gay to many people.

No.

What makes you think Hillary would’ve been a two term president?

R8 Bernie Sanders, obviously.

Hillary would have certainly been a one term President, as a three term president from the same party has only happened once since WW2 (Reagan/Bush). It was highly unlikely especially given how unpopular she was going into the election.

How is Reagan/Bush a "three term president"?

Things that are unlikely still end up happening, r18. If Trump was rare one-term president then who's to say Clinton wouldn't get a second term?

Since she didn't get a first term, the point is moot.

They were the most unlikable ticket in history.

It’s the conceit of the thread, OP. Just play along or not play at all.

Unless you’re a Dick Cheney or Joe Biden, picked as an elder statesman for an inexperienced presidential nominee, there’s not a lot of precedent for a two-term Vice President not being the subsequent nominee of his party.

R18, Hillary was built to have handled a crisis like Covid. Her masterful leadership on that alone would’ve assured her reelection.

[quote]People couldn't even tell you who her running mate was.

His own wife probably couldn't tell you who Clinton's running mate was.

He was no William E. Miller.

Tim Kaine is a good guy. He was a good governor, he’s a good Senator. In many ways he’s like Biden. Catholic, but sane and good on social issues. Why are you trashing him?

I don’t know why Hilary chose him but he is no Lieberman.

She picked someone nondescript and forgettable so that everyone’s attention would always stay focused on her. Which was a terrible choice, because her unlikability went up the more people heard and saw from her.

Hillary has never shown masterful leadership on ANYTHING. Nearly everything she has touched, in politics or the "foundation", has turned to shit. Except for maybe naming a post office or two.

So who DO you in your infinite wisdom think she should have chosen?

Hillary was put in charge of health care reform by Bill Clinton as her first major duty as First Lady, and failed miserably at it.

[quote]Hillary was put in charge of health care reform by Bill Clinton as her first major duty as First Lady, and failed miserably at it.

Sure, Jan.

You knew she was going to pick a white man. The country would never vote for an all female ticket or a female with a minority VP pick. She should've picked somebody younger or more moderate/mainstream or from a different part of the country. There wasn't a whole lot of balance on the Clinton/Kaine ticket. In my heart of hearts, I think she would've been a one term president: her approval ratings would probably be in the toilet going into the 2020 election, Covid would've screwed things up for her, Republicans would launch Congressional investigations into her, etc.

First First Lady to be fingerprinted for a criminal investigation.

[quote] I think she would've been a one term president: her approval ratings would probably be in the toilet going into the 2020 election,

As did Trump, she would have reaped the benefits of the continued strong economy bequeathed by Obama.

[quote] Covid would've screwed things up for her

One thing of which we can be sure is that she would not have exhorted Americans to inject bleach.

He missed his calling...

^oops

Sherrod Brown would have been the winning candidate. Al Franken and Mark Warner also would have been good, but with some campaign liabilities each.

Hillary is NOT a natural politician. She is not her husband. But she has lived with her husband most of her life. Bill is a diva. She obviously wasn’t going to have a star as her running mate.

Mark Warner is not a good public speaker. I saw him speak at an Obama rally years ago. All he did was brag about what a successful businessman he was. Plus he's always one of dems who take part in that "gangs" shit when a few Dems conspire with Republicans to gut Social Security and Medicare.

Hillary, like most Americans, including Trump, thought the election was hers, so she picked the most vanilla running mate she could find.

She needed someone likable. Not Tim.

He's a smart, nice guy but as a typical Washington swamp creature he added nothing new or exciting to the ticket.

[quote] He's a smart, nice guy but as a typical Washington swamp creature he added nothing new or exciting to the ticket.

She didn't think that was needed.

Let's face it. It doesn't matter WHO Hillary chose as her running mate. SHE was the problem. She did not have popular appeal. And it was her own fault.

Remember when she was asked in a town hall why she took hundreds of thousands of dollars from banks for her speeches and she said something like "because that's what they offered." That landed like a lead balloon.

And then James Comey delivered the knock out punch.

She brought it all on herself. And I do think she would have been a good president. But she was a lousy politician. And no running mate could have saved her.

[quote] She did not have popular appeal.

Not that it matters under our system, but she did win the popular vote.

Personally, I think she's in the wrong line of work. She's whip smart on policy but she doesn't really enjoy interacting with people. She's ran in races where personality really does matter.

DLers for Hillary. Not the best, but far from an orange.

Yes to answer your question Tim would be the Dem nominee for 2024 if Clinton had won like everyone in the world thought she would

. Hillary was such a drag on that ticket poor Tim never had a chance.

She would have been a single term president and we’d be stuck with Paul Ryan in 2020.

She’d do well with a Supreme court pick, covid, national healthcare, and corporate welfare. Between her aspie mouth and Bill’s Epstein adventures, the country would turn it over to conservatives.

She’s great at policy. She should be working behind the scenes, because she has the personality of a broken doorknob.

Kaine would have beaten Trump so it's sad that Hillary didn't drop dead right before the convention. The one good thing that's come of it is that she's still so bitter and it eats her up inside. All these people crowing about her policies that she's so great at never can show an example. Other than titles she's done nothing.

[quote] Kaine would have beaten Trump

^Delusional

Well he couldn't have done any worse than Hillary. He probably understood the Electoral College. Plus he wouldn't have been hacking out his lungs and being tossed around like a slab of beef after stroking out.

Si, se puede!

R48, Not until California was counted.

^Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

I don't think Tim would have visited a coal mining state and tell the miners he was going to put them out of work. Right Tim?

R55 is apparently under the delusion that Trump’s some electoral dynamo. In fact, of all the major party nominees in the 21st century, only that “loser” John McCain has performed more poorly among the electorate. Everyone else has at least cracked 48%, a feat Trump in two elections has yet to accomplish. Whereas Hillary was very much the issue in ‘16, a Trump/Tim Kaine election would’ve meant that all the attention would’ve been on Trump. Meaning he would’ve lost.

Tim Kaine always looks like he’s recovering from a three day bender.

R61 No, I'm not under that delusion. I just don't buy your theory.

He’s low energy

R63, Trump's also been ballot box poison since 2016, including his re-election loss, the first incumbent president to lose re-election without having faced a serious challenge for renomination and/or serious third-party competition since Herbert Hoover. Herbert Hoover!

The Dems should have had an actual primary in 2016, not anointed Hillary and discouraged anyone from running against her. And not had superdelegates. Maybe a stronger candidate would have emerged from the field, maybe Bernie, maybe somebody else, or maybe Hillary would have emerged as the candidate (which I doubt, since when she wasn't fainting she was coughing up a lung). But it wouldn't have been this coronation where she didn't even have to work for it. Voters don't go for that. Trump is a POS but also a surprisingly good politician, as he proved in his own party's primary.

I know Bernie Bros have this myth that the party just wouldn't let Bernie win, even though everyone really wanted him, but it's complete bullshit. There were real primaries and real contests throughout the country in 2016, and overwhelmingly Democrats preferred Hillary to Bernie. You are going to have to let that dream die. It wasn't all a big setup, man, from the illuminati behind the scenes. It really was a case of Democrats going with the more conventional choice over the guy many thought was just too much of a wild-eyed leftist. They may have been wrong, in your mind, but it wasn't that everything was just a big setup and Hillary was forced on the Democrats by mysterious outside forces. Democrats preferred her as the nominee.

R67 Have you experienced many presidential primaries? Did you live through the 2020 Democratic primaries? Did you see 20 candidates onstage at the 2020 debates? Where were all those people when Hillary was running? If Bernie Sanders didn't run Hillary would have been unopposed in the primaries. Why was that? Do you think it was just a strange coincidence? She was appointed the party's choice and no one was supposed to run against her. It was framed like an incumbent VP was running - only she wasn't.

My point (which I guess went over your head) is that the primary was undemocratic. Democrats did not have a chance to choose among a field of candidates. Voters didn't really choose a Dem prez candidate from a wide field. Hillary was appointed by Obama and the party and that was your choice.

Yes, I got your point r68. It was inaccurate. The reason there were few people that jumped in was because by and large the party, meaning the voters really, looked at Hillary as a pretty obvious and clear frontrunner. Nobody wasn't allowed to run, or any of that bullshit. No, Hillary was not appointed. She had the kind of background and support that kept a lot of people from jumping in. Bernie did jump in, and the party largely rejected him.

Actually, something of the same sort happened in 2008, except there, the same "anointed" frontrunner actually lost to the upstart Obama. It can happen, very easily, if the voters want it to happen. In Bernie's case, they simply didn't want it to happen. You should just accept that and stop living in some dreamworld about it.

R69 You twist my words to make them mean what you want them to mean. I'm not even talking about Bernie. He's not relevant to this point at all.

The party does not equate with "the voters". The party is a political organization. As for who decides to throw their hat in the ring in a presidential primary -- no way did they all sit back and decide Hillary was just so qualified and popular that they would be wasting their time running against her. Politicians are ambitious and many want to run for president. HRC was a former Sec. of State and private citizen when she ran. She was by no means a shoo-in.

We’ll never know.

Thanks, Bernie crybabies.

^Don't forget to blame Susan Sarandon.

^And Jill Stein

There were definitely some shenanigans that went on in 2015/16 to prevent anyone from mounting a primary challenge against Hillary. I strongly suspect that anyone who expressed an interest in running was heavily discouraged (ie threatened) from doing so by the DNC leadership... which at the time consisted of Hillary lackeys like Debbie Wassermann-Schultz and Donna Brazile.

My favorite part is how they fucking gave her the debate questions and she still sucked.

I was no Hillary fan, R75, but we saw very different debates.

[quote] Everyone else has at least cracked 48%, a feat Trump in two elections has yet to accomplish.

I meant to note that the percentage was 47%. That's how poorly this supposed electoral juggernaut has performed.

R74

“I strongly suspect” = “I am guessing here and don’t know for sure or I’d post a link”

VP nominees are supposed to be the attack dogs. Kane had no such instincts. He got very little press on the campaign trail.

Hillary made a deal with the DNC, she would step aside for eight years of Obama then they would clear the field for her. She went into the campaign with the attitude that it was her turn and ran a poor campaign (who wants to hear Deb Messing giving speeches).

R79

Did Harris as potential VP get a lot of press during the campaign?

Does anyone see her as a tough attack dog?

The VP should be quiet unless spoken to, adoring of the leader, and know his Christian place on the ticket

R81 has forgotten Biden during the Obama administration.

[quote] VP nominees are supposed to be the attack dogs.

That's a really antiquated view of the role.

R81, Harris received a lot of press.

R82

I was asking about Harris not Biden. And I sure the fuck was not asking about Dick Cheney .

R83

VP Spiro Agnew attacked the media and all hell broke loose.

Same when VP Dan Quayle attacked “Murphy Brown”

- - -

If she'd chosen Cory Booker, she'd have won. Blacks did not turn out for her.

R88, that would have been used as assassination insurance.

[quote] VP Spiro Agnew attacked the media and all hell broke loose. Same when VP Dan Quayle attacked “Murphy Brown”

As I noted, an antiquated view of the running mate role.