2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think winning VA at all is indicative of those others states. It's home to some of the richest people in the country and a lot of DC insiders along with an influx of young, liberal leaning people (the latter point being the same for NC).



It's still a red state in off election years, when those young liberals in NoVa don't vote because they feel a total disconnect to Richmond. The DC metro area feels more like MD than VA, as once you get past Quantico suddenly it turns into the south.

What VA should tell us is if her ground game is working -- are they turning out the voters they need on the day they need them? Turnout always helps the D, and if they are turning them out in VA, then there's reason to believe they will in other states as well.
 
Bill's damaged goods, anyway, what with being on the flight logs for Teen Girl Island and clearly not knowing what's good for the black community as seen in that video of him arguing with BLM protesters. So, Hillary would like the corporate aspect of Bill as a VP, but the racist and sex fiend part of it won't really help her in the campaign.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. He has stated that he is personally against abortion, but has stated that as a public official he will not fight against abortion laws, and his record backs that up.

And that I can respect. No problem with people personally being pro-life-I totally understand the reasons why some are. Just so long as they don't try and deny others the right to make the choice if need be.

I would've liked Warren or Booker on the ticket, sure (Vilsack could've been interesting, too). But if Kaine's track record is a good one, and if he can help Hilary win over voters in areas where she might need that extra boost, then wonderful. If she and Kaine can run on specifics against Trump and Pence's "rah rah make America great again!" bluster, that should (hopefully) benefit them in the long run.
 
The NY Times article mentions several times that a strength of Kaine is his fluent Spanish. In which case, I would imagine, she could have just selected someone from a Latino background instead?
 
The NY Times article mentions several times that a strength of Kaine is his fluent Spanish. In which case, I would imagine, she could have just selected someone from a Latino background instead?


But she went with someone who has extensive experience -- former governor and present Senator.

This may be a boring choice, but it is a highly responsible one.
 
But she went with someone who has extensive experience -- former governor and present Senator.

This may be a boring choice, but it is a highly responsible one.


I don't know if responsibility was the goal here, so much as just moving to the center to pick off moderates.

Dangerous move for a currently complacent left.
 
Why not Warren? Who's this Kaine bloke?

I still feel this election will be over after the first debate. Hillary knows law/policy, there's no questioning that. It's up to independents to decide if that matters in a debate, or siding with a man who just screams and insults.

As we have seen in the UK, and Australia, and in the US, the facts don't matter. I'd not be so confident.
 
I don't know if responsibility was the goal here, so much as just moving to the center to pick off moderates.

Dangerous move for a currently complacent left.




Do we want to live in a world where someone with solidly progressive credentials is deemed boring because they don't spew venom?

I don't like the fact that I find him boring. Maybe the problem is me?
 
Why not Warren? Who's this Kaine bloke?







As we have seen in the UK, and Australia, and in the US, the facts don't matter. I'd not be so confident.


Warren was probably in third behind Booker and Kaine. Clinton isn't particularly friends with her I don't think. Plus, Warren is a potential wildcard strength but also potentially w liability. The attempt here was probably also to play it safe to try and pick off dissenting republicans by moving to the middle.
 
Do we want to live in a world where someone with solidly progressive credentials is deemed boring because they don't spew venom?

I don't like the fact that I find him boring. Maybe the problem is me?

Do you not think it's a bit of a problem that, in a political environment facing so much conversation and virtriol around diversity issues, all four major ticket candidates are 50+ year-old white people?
 
Do you not think it's a bit of a problem that, in a political environment facing so much conversation and virtriol around diversity issues, all four major ticket candidates are 50+ year-old white people?


Are the candidates responsible for picking diversity, or are we/the parties responsible for electing them into lower office and having more political diversity over full careers?

I can't even fault Donald Trump for picking an old white man. Look at the options on both sides. Picking someone strictly because you want diversity is doing a disservice. It's tokenism, and it's equally racist.
 
For those of you outside the U.S., another thing you have to understand about Warren(and some other other senators that were being considered, Sherrod Brown and Corey Booker among them) is that they're all senators from states with Republican governors. If a senator becomes a vp pick, they vacate their senate seat, and a replacement for the seat is appointed by their state's governor.

So picking Warren or Brown or Booker would've essentially been giving a senate seat away just as we're trying to regain a majority in the senate this election cycle. We're not going to have the house of representatives for a while, so it is absolutely crucial that we at least do everything can to get the senate back, and that means not willfully throwing senate seats away.
 
Do you not think it's a bit of a problem that, in a political environment facing so much conversation and virtriol around diversity issues, all four major ticket candidates are 50+ year-old white people?



Other than Obama, when has this not been the case?

I don't think it's so much "diversity" that's the issue and more that one candidate has made racism the central theme of his campaign.
 
Are the candidates responsible for picking diversity, or are we/the parties responsible for electing them into lower office and having more political diversity over full careers?

I can't even fault Donald Trump for picking an old white man. Look at the options on both sides. Picking someone strictly because you want diversity is doing a disservice. It's tokenism, and it's equally racist.

Are you suggesting there are no qualified minority politicians on either side?
 
For those of you outside the U.S., another thing you have to understand about Warren(and some other other senators that were being considered, Sherrod Brown and Corey Booker among them) is that they're all senators from states with Republican governors. If a senator becomes a vp pick, they vacate their senate seat, and a replacement for the seat is appointed by their state's governor.

So picking Warren or Brown or Booker would've essentially been giving a senate seat away just as we're trying to regain a majority in the senate this election cycle. We're not going to have the house of representatives for a while, so it is absolutely crucial that we at least do everything can to get the senate back, and that means not willfully throwing senate seats away.




This is an important dose of reality.

Almost as important as HRC winning is the D's winning back the Senate in the fall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom