Hillary Clinton Announces Running Mate


Good choice. Spanish speaker from a battleground state. Moderate. Brings stability to the ticket. FiveThirtyEight claims he brings nothing to the ticket which is ridiculous.
And she makes the announcement during the traditional period for the Friday news dump.
Competent and under 60, yep meets my requirements for her VP pick, I'm good with it.

i was hoping she'd stick with Biden. he's doing a good job!
CBI Agent Kimball Cho? He'll kick ass!
That settles it. Hillary doesn't want the votes of any socialists or Greens or Bernie fans, or unaffiliated leftists and progressives. The whole plan is to ignore them and instead court centrists and Republicans.

So no more lectures, Dan Savage. And your ilk. Don't get all condescending and demand we do our duty. Don't blame us if Trump wins. Don't throw a hissy fit because I didn't vote for your candidate. Your candidate does not want my vote. We tried to tell you, as Nixon said, voters will pick the real Republican over the fake Republican every time. But you think we're a bunch of dumb kids. Great. Good luck with that.

The game plan does not include us. We have been told to fuck off and fuck off we shall. Hope you guys know what you're doing. This one is on you.

When Hillary blows this election, don't you come yell at us. You go yell at all the pro lifers and centrist Republicans you thought would win this for you.
Makes perfect sense if this move to shore up the conservative-ish, non-insane, white male vote. Many Millennials/Sanders supporters aren't going to vote for her anyway.

Seems strange though that people are calling it a "safe" choice to run the ultimate establishment-insider ticket at a time when around 70% of the country is so enraged with the direction of the nation that a psychopathic fascist has an actual chance of winning the presidency. Promising more of the same is an interesting recipe for success at a time when voters are in open rebellion against the establishment.
@9- The Democratic Party doesn't act much like they want to win elections or govern as if they won when they did win.
Seems a no brainier that Trump wins in November.
hey, give the white guy a chance to give a speech in spanish first.

the race is won by GOTV (latinos) and convincing flibberdigibbet "independents" - people so dumb they could go either way.
By golly, all those people above are right. After all, the VP is so damn critical to this election, and does so much to advance policy and make policy decisions. It's right there in the Constitution, somewhere, I'm sure, that the VP does that. It must be, otherwise all the quacking above would just the usual bullshit about wah wah wah she's not pandering to ME and I WANT MY PANDER.

Fuck you people. Grow the fuck up. Put down your fucking phone and live in the real world for a few minutes. Jesus, I'm so sick of the entitled whiners.
Voters now have the choice between crazy Republicans and sane Republicans. I bet all those concessions Bernie got into the platform will be ignored if she wins. Unfortunately, this doesn't give any progressive Democrat any reason to not vote Green.
@ 13, They should put you in the ads.
Ph-etc. @8 and OA @9 I remain a strong Bernie supporter (though chronologically outside the assumed demographic) and I do plan to hold my nose and vote Democrat, as Bernie recommends, if only for the impending SCOTUS appointments and the need to foil what appears to be a rapidly developing, unholy alliance between Trump and Putin. But I agree with both of you about Clinton's questionable VP choice, and I seriously fear for our country in this election. Bernie vs. Trump would have been a no-brainer, Bernie would have won that contest in a landslide. But I know so many people who say Anyone But Hillary. Including a lot of Independents and moderate-to-conservative Republicans who truly HATE Trump and everything he represents (or doesn't), but they hate Hillary so much more. Also, Republicans have traditionally been more disciplined about getting registered Rs to vote party-line in Presidential years...so I am genuinely concerned that the Democratic party establishment has pulled strings to create such a POOR ticket, when it is so crucial to our country's future that a Democrat continue to occupy the Oval Office in this upcoming election cycle.

I'd vastly prefer a progressive Democrat like Bernie to HRC, but IMO voting for a dislikable D is still preferable to electing Donald Trump. And voting for a more likable third-party candidate is equivalent to voting for Donald Trump, in what could be a squeaker of an election.

You don't think that having Cheney and Palin on the tickets in 2000 and 2008 made a difference one way or the other? You don't think that a Kerry-Dean ticket might have gotten better results and Kerry-Edwards?
I'd point out that both headliners are in their 70s. It's within the realm of possibility that whoever is elected will die in office. So VP does matter.

Typical Clinton decision here. Safe, conservative, middle of the road, boring. Wall Street will love him. Basically, if you like the status quo (including the deadlock in Congress), vote Clinton. More of the same.

Trump is the gamble, bit only if your really desperate. Could be great, could be a disaster, but most likely the rumors of him not wanting the office itself, just the glory, are true. So most likely it would be president Pence.
Looks like a pretty solid choice to me. Just worried that his support for the TPP will piss off Sanderinos.
I like how she announced right after the RNC to minimize the coverage Trump's speech got. Keep the focus on what we have to offer.
So you'd be all yahoo if she'd picked, I dunno, Sherrod Brown? Actually, I think that's a dynamite pick, but then, see, you're taking someone out of the Senate who's actually doing stuff. The people who wanted Elizabeth Warren: are you INSANE? Take her from a position where she accomplishes things and hand her pom-poms and tell her to go be a cheerleader? Because that's what the VP is: it's symbolic. It actually means nothing.

I get how frustrating this seems. But as Dan pointed out in a different forum, while a Trump presidency might only inconvenience you, it is, quite literally, a matter of life and death for your undocumented friends. For your African-American friends. For your female friends (but hey, coat-hanger manufacturers will make a KILLING). You sulk, they die. It's your karma, buddy. And given the urgency of action on carbon emissions, a Trump presidency could be the thing that kills us all. Hillary's no savior, that's understood -- all the redemption she can offer is turning the boat a little. That's how politics works. If you don't like that, just don't vote. Hold your breath. You know. Mature stuff like that.
It felt to me like the Republican convention literally put a dark cloud into my soul with its four days of hate, divisiveness and anger. Hillary's Orlando speech today washed that away.
I'ld accordingly like to suggest to those who have a caricature of Hillary as bordering on the anti-Christ that you actually listen to her upcoming convention speech. She isn't remotely the person you want to portray her to be, which is why strong progressives like myself, who have devoted ourselves to progressive work though all aspects of our lives, will be voting for her with complete confidence that she will build on and advance progressive issues throughout her presidency. Not all of them as defined by every progressive of course, as that would be an impossibility because of disagreements among progressives in whole or in part on a wide spectrum of issues.
Trump made it abundantly clear this week to anyone who took the time to watch and listen that his intent is to take our country to a very, very dark place. It's of course up to you whether you want to help him in that endeavor or not.

Funny, but I could not even remember who Gore ran with and refused to google it.
This guy is a pro-abortion Catholic. I'm not sure how you could get any less "boring".

And @22's right. It's amazing to me how many young progressives/leftists have completely bought the nasty stuff the right has been pushing about Hillary. Think for yourself, for pete's sake.
I don't really know anything about him, but I remember a few weeks ago there was a podcast that said that Kaine was her first choice but that she was waiting until after the RNC to finalize. If she felt that she needed a more strategic option, she was going to go with someone who might motivate swing voters and enthuse the base (there were two other people mentioned) but if her campaign felt confident enough that she could pick the person she really wanted rather than the person she thought would be the most strategic, then she was going to go with Kaine.

Personally, like I said, I hadn't even heard of him until this so I don't have an opinion either way. Looks like his good on civil liberties. But I guess it's a good sign that she feels like she's got enough of a lead that she can pick the guy that she thinks would actually be good to work with rather than the guy/gal that would be most likely to help her motivate voters? I guess? Right? Or do I have this ass backwards?
Bernie or Busters and Green voters are really loud online, and that gives them a false sense that they are anywhere near important voter bases to the larger Democratic party. If you go out in the real world and interact with real people, you'll see this isn't true. A candidate has to think strategically, and that particular voting group isn't even in the top ten demographics to which they must appeal. They are just louder online. I mean, think about it, the main reason Bernie lost is that he did not have wide diverse appeal. I think it's a hard lesson to learn. If you want to be relevant, you have to be organized (which Bernie supporters did a pretty good job of being) and ally yourself with other existing organizations (which Bernie supporters could still do) and then elect the people most likely to listen to you if you raise a big enough fuss for a long enough period of time. Oh well I'm tired of saying all of this.

At first glance, Kaine seems like a conservative, personally. I've always said that I don't care about the politician's PERSONAL beliefs but rather about how he/she is going to vote and fight. So, for example, plenty of people pointed out that George W Bush was not personally opposed to marriage equality and that he personally had a practical stance on immigration reform. And that Trump personally has been prochoice and is pro LGBT rights. But the fact that they personally feel this way means nothing since they will vote with their party against those rights. I'm not electing a friend, but rather an advocate. So... Kaine. He has a perfect score with Planned Parenthood which means he has repeatedly voted prochoice. But the fact that he personally is antichoice and supports abstinence education and restrictions on late term abortion (making exceptions for the health of the mother but not for health issues with the fetus- politicians should have no say in these medical decisions) DOES bother me. Very disappointing. Not that I had any high expectations from Hilary.
Oh for God's sake. It's vice-presidential selection. The title that means nothing, as long as the president stays alive. Calm down, everyone.

Personally, I like that they picked yet another pro-choice Catholic. I can't wait until of the more overwrought closet case Bishops decides he shouldn't receive communion.
@26: Kaine was very close to being Obama's pick in 2008, but in the end he went with Biden for foreign policy expertise, or something. Kaine's like a professional bridesmaid.

I'm OK with it.
EmomaLiz @26, you've put your finger on the problem I've always had with HRC. She never expresses her true personal feelings. She always checks with the professional pollsters (paid by the establishment Dems and her Wall Street backers) before making a decision or a statement. As Gertrude Stein famously said, "There's no There there." I am appalled by what comes out of Donald Trump's mouth (and I don't even want to know what lurks unsaid inside his mind), but I think part of his public appeal is that he does not need to put his finger in the air to see which way the wind blows, before he says what he thinks. We all know what DT stands for, and then we can agree with his views or not. Not so with HRC - she reinvents herself with each new poll. Her instinctive need for secrecy and trusted advisors reminds me of Nixon...but I will still vote for her, because IMO she's still better than the alternative. Sad to say, but in this election cycle our choice for the highest elective office in the nation is between a semi-shitty D and a truly shitty R.
Eh, he seems fine. I'd have preferred Cory Booker, but I can live with Kaine. I'm a Bernie guy, I accepted a while ago that I probably wasn't going to get exactly what I want this election.
@30 I agree about Hillary- she's a professional politician, after all. But I adamantly disagree about Trump. I mean, people always say this, so I agree that it's "part of his appeal" but I completely disagree that he is actually speaking with any sincerity whatsoever. He says whatever he thinks works in the moment, and it's alarmingly obvious that he's pulling it out of his ass on the spot and that he has no consistent opinions or policies. He's playing a game too, it's just a different game, and I don't get AT ALL why that would be any more appealing to anyone seeking sincerity in a politician.

What I believe people really mean when they say that Trump "speaks his mind" is that he doesn't care if he is vulgar or offensive or ignorant. He just says shit- regardless of the consequences of saying it and regardless of whether or not he actually knows what he's talking about and regardless of whether or not it is true or he actually believes it. The point is that he just talks shit, perhaps in the same way angry drunken people talk shit (how would I know that? ha ha). And I have no idea why this appeals to people any more than Hilary's very strategic and preplanned insincerity.
Disappointed a Kardashian wasn't available, but I suppose if we need to go with professional Kaine gets her done.
@8, only you and your God will know how you vote. Though one can only imagine what your God will say.
Draft Nina Turner from the floor for VP.
And I just read two Middle Eastern countries reached 129 degrees. Trump
wants to burn us, Mother Nature the same.
I don't think Hillary had Vince Foster killed. I still can't even fathom what the hell she's even accused of doing with Benghazi, and I swear I really tried, patiently, to figure out what they were accusing her of. But I don't think she did it, whatever it was.

I also don't think she's particularly dishonest. I think she means what she says, by and large.

When she says she admires Henry Kissinger, and values his advice, I believe her. And right there is where we begin to part ways. When she says "no, we can't" have single payer, I believe she means it. I believe the rhetoric that she is tough and strong and a real fighter and so on. I don't believe the United States needs an even more pugilistic President than we've endured thus far. We need less of that shit. I think President Clinton will be terrified of looking weak and many people will have to die to prove she is not weak.

I like her personally. She's a brassy old broad and she got a mouth on her, and I know she has a wicked sense of humor. I'd like to hang out. But my reasons for not wanting her for President are not about right wing conspiracy theories, or because I think she's a fake, they're because I think she is authentic.
Hillary had a chance to reunite the party by picking a progressive who would hold her to her word. Instead she picked a centrist Establishment who has recently praised the TPP and thinks we should ship even more jobs overseas. Hillary picking someone who supports TPP means I can not vote for her if it means a TPP supporter is a heart-beat away from the presidency. If Pramila Jayapal doesn't make the general election ballot, I'm not even opening my ballot when it arrives.
So what will you do, Ph-etc. @37 and G-Bob @39? Do you have any concern that by boycotting Hillary, you are increasing the opportunity for Trump and the Republican Party machine to score a win in November? Really - would a Trump presidency be a more appealing outcome for you than a Clinton presidency? I say this as someone who vowed I would NEVER vote for anyone named Clinton or Bush ever again, but that's before Trump reared his ugly orange head.
The vice-presidential selection is much more interesting on the Republican side this time 'round. The Koch brothers love Pence, they really like Hillary, and they really dislike Trump. Pence as VP was a win-win strategy for them. Being rabidly homophobic is by now a clear loser at the polls, so Pence weakens Trump's chances of winning the general, and if Hillary is elected, it's a win for the Kochs. And if Trump should win anyway, well, the whole purpose of having a vice president is to have someone ready to step in should some unfortunate accident befall the president. Pence becomes president, and it's a win for the Kochs. If I were Trump and I were intent on doing anything remotely anti-billionaire or anti-Koch, I'd supplement the Secret Service with my own personal bodyguard and my own food tasters.

Apart from that, the only power the Vice President has is to decide tie votes in the Senate, which hardly ever happens, and in the words of FDR veep John Nance Garner, the job isn't worth a bucket of warm piss.
Well, buh bye Democrats.
@39 I say this unequivocally, Trump is the best the Republicans had to offer this year. Everybody else was rotten to the core. Trump is all their worst tendencies with a hint of pandering in economic issues.

All in all, it could have been worse.

(Serioudly, if you would rather have had Cruz or Rubio or Christie as president over Trump, you have no clue just how backwards they all were)
Little old lady needs a Kaine!

Rationalize idiocy all you like, that's all it is.


Good riddance.
Take @43 with you.
Ah, the boys are back in town.
@44 I'm not rationalizing idiocy. I'd rather see the Ds lose to Trump than to any of the other jackasses in the party.
@25 and @28, you can't be a pro-choice Catholic. There's a fundamental break between the two that cannot be bridged. It's like saying, "I'm a pro-free market Soviet Communist". There's no such animal.

Biden and Kaine might be culturally Catholic; they might have been raised that way. They might even attend Mass now. But they believe something that is fundamentally at odds with Church teaching. Technically, they are heretics.

Remember, Catholicism isn't like Protestantism. Your private conscience is not the ultimate arbiter for Catholics. Active membership demands submission to certain teachings. You can (and should) question them, struggle with them, strive to understand the spirit behind them, but ultimately, you are called to submit to them. Even then, mistakes happen; that's what confession and penance are for. But to deny that a sin is a sin, to refuse to repent, that separates you from God.

That's the teaching anyways. And it's why many practicing Catholics really have trouble with the Democrats (where they might line up with them on many other issues; immigration springs to mind), who more or less demand pro-choice beliefs as their own article of faith.
I like you guys but ya'll are suffering from optimistic brainwashing. Trump is gonna win; it probably wont be that bad. Contrary to the hysterical chorus of the mob, black americans will be just fine. Mexicans and muslims inside the walls may not fare so well. Most likely nothing will happen outside of natural disasters, economic crashes and terror attacks.
its a pendulum swing thing. your used to it now but 8 yrs of a black dude with the middle name hussein would've been unthinkable just 20 yrs ago. you know; unthinkable for certain demographics. Well; its swinging back hard in the other direction.
Splitting the left at this election is suicide. #anyone but trump.
I don't understand all the shock horror with corruption in the U.S. system. It's been part and parcel of it for as long as I've learnt history. The CIA propping up dictatorships, etc etc.
There are a few shining lights in politics, Elizabeth Warren, Sanders, the proposed VP. Hillary is the smear, she's part of the parcel and has been shown,
a million miles better than the other mob.
Imagine for a moment what it'll be like with trump's VP sorting out your sex life.
Tim Kaine won statewide opposed by the NRA. He is pro BLM. He is pro refugee. He won a swing state. He is anti coal.

The idea that Clinton is courting Republicans, or is in fact herself a Republican, is absurd. As is the idea that there is a huge left in America that will be voting for the Greens. Dan Savage is right on that score. Why liberals think that they can be successful working outside the Democratic Party once every four years to vote for a Green presidential candidate is laughable. All the more so, when that candidate is an anti-vaxxer.

Look at Tim Kaine. While attending Harvard Law School, he took a break to work with the Jesuit Volunteer Corps in Honduras. After graduating law school, he practiced law in Richmond for 17 years, specializing in fair housing law and representing clients discriminated against on the basis of race or disability. To me he's done more for disadvantaged people than the vast majority of his liberal critics.

And unlike liberals who expect to start at the top. Kaine was first elected to the city council of Richmond, Virginia, a city of under 200,000 people at the time. After several terms on the city council, the majority African-American council made him mayor. He was the elected lieutenant governor and then governor. He then was elected the U.S. Senate, where he has serve in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In short, unlike the Greens, Tim Kaine shows how you go from city council of a mid-sized city to the White House. Liberals should take note, and copy that path.

And importantly, unlike any other potential vice presidential candidate, people on both sides of the aisle and in the media all believe Tim Kaine is ready for the responsibility of the presidency should that role fall on him.
Oh, Jesus Christ. What a bunch of whiners! Tim Kaine on a bad day is 5,000 parsecs to the left of Antonin Scalia. That's who the Dems are running against, folks, Antonin Scalia times 3 or 4 as the sitting Justices die or retire over the next few years, because that's what a Republifascist Administration is going to buy you.

Vote Dem or kiss progressivism goodbye for one or two generations, and possibly America goodbye forever, period.
@21, I agree, as much as I would love to see Warren on the ticket, she's needed in the Senate as are some of the other possible picks. Tim Kaine's replacement will be picked by a Democratic governor, so that should be safe.

@54, well written; Kaine wasn't *MY* first choice, but he seems to be overall a solid pick, and should help with states like Ohio and Michigan. He has an interesting background and has done solid work for minorities and reaching across the aisle. Exciting? ok, no. But do we need excitement? We have enough drama on the republican side.

For everyone worried Clinton/Kaine won't follow the platform - we need to elect progressives in the house and senate who will support the platform and the things Sanders talked about. Sanders can't do it alone, even if he had won the presidency. We need to show up for all elections, not just one every 8 years. And as @54 mentioned -Kaine's career is a good example of how progressives can win small offices, then bigger ones, and then - maybe - the biggest.

I've heard Trump supporters say "oh, he won't do anything he says he's going to do so we don't need to worry." I disagree with that, but I think everyone CAN agree that if he wins he will pick conservative justices for the Supreme Court, and a republican Senate will wave them through.

If you care about your civil rights, vote for Clinton/Kaine. The Supreme Court is too important for Trump to stack it.
Obviously, Clinton is going to be posturing to the center for the rest of the election. And its the correct strategy - she should take people like the Misanthrope at their word - she's not gonna get his vote and fine, she can get other votes instead. Which of course will mean prioritizing the policy prefs of the ones who actually vote for her. Nice work, Greens.
@57 That was her plan all along and everybody knew it. Pretend to be a progressive long enough to snag the nomination, and then run right back to the right to snag the general.

But, don't you dare call her a moderate. The Clintonistas will totally cut your throat if you even dare suggest that she supports bad trade deals or takes money from Wall Street or The Saudis or is pro-Fracking (hi Tim Kaine!). She's just as progressive as Jill Stein, right guys?

Has nobody realized that this is the Democrats' first post-recession primary? And they've nominated a candidate with strong ties to Wall Street?

Does nobody realize that this election is largely about trade and the economy (Bernie) with a strong undercurrent of racial relations (Clinton)? Does nobody realize that it's the economic recession that made Clinton so unpalatable to so many people?
@47: "I'm not rationalizing idiocy. I'd rather see the Ds lose to Trump than to any of the other jackasses in the party."
It's hella eerie seeing those two sentences right next to each other.

(Personally, I'd rather have Rubio or Kasich in the White House than Trump, given that they have some idea how government works, can be relied on to work with Democrats where there is common ground (such as immigration reform), and have a track record of generally acting like sane and responsible adults.)
It's a good thing center-right Democrats have such an effective Boogeyman in Trump this year. I'd be really curious to see what their approach to intimidating Progressives into voting for the ticket would be without him. I know there are good luckreasons to vote Clinton, but when you compare all the arguments being made 'for' her on the basis of traction they get, Fear of Trump wins by a country mile. I guess the Republicans don't quite have a monopoly on fear-based politicking.
"Pretend to be a progressive long enough to snag the nomination, and then run right back to the right to snag the general."

Hmmm, why would she do something like that? Could it be that the "progressive" vote is too flakey to depend on, and has too many purity tests?
@61 'Luckreasons' should be 'reasons.' It's an invention of my phone's autocorrect, not some German-ish compound I'm trying to push.
@59 Just shut the fuck up already.

It was never going to be Warren where is the upside for her? She'll be more powerful in the Senate. Besides she's told old to build a succession plan around.

It was never going to be Bernie, again no upside for him and too old to build a succession plan around.

Villsack? Seriously? He's got some good points but not a better choice in anyway shape or form and again the age thing.

Cory Booker? A lot of potential there but two glaring problems 1. he's single (yeah I know that shouldn't be a problem but it is) 2. He's from the putrid political swamps of New Jersey one can't come out of there without some shit on them. He'll need more time to wash that off.

Castro, too inexperienced, keep an eye on him for the 2020 and 2024 cycle.

Who else ya got?

Tom Kaine has solid credentials a damn good progressive record for a liberal politician coming out of a Red State, is young enough to build a succession plan around.

With SCOTUS in play this election is all about mapping out the next 30 years of American politics. If you you are Progressive and you want to see American politics continue to move in that direction over next 30 years there is only one choice. Hillary/Kaine

Oh they don't make you all tingly inside, line up perfectly with your view of things... Fuck Off. Progress is baby steps it is always baby steps. I don't care how much you wish for things to change over night THEY WON'T not now not EVER.

This election is about locking in what few progressive gains we've made under Obama, what a damn hard fucking slog was that, and SCOTUS.

That is it. Suck it up, shut your whiny little mouth and vote Hillary/Kaine.
@59 Like Sanders, you're not a Democrat. You're a Democratic Socialist who was hoping that the Democratic Party would come find you. They didn't. Per Ballotpedia, Kaine is well within the Warren range of liberalism, though not as far left as Sanders, and choosing Kaine a very smart move for the pragmatists. Doesn't make the idealists happy, but it's not the idealist's role or goal to win elections. Idealists, like you, are there to pull the party toward the ideal. As an idealist, you'll never be happy until the party's politics are a perfect match for yours, which will never happen. We pragmatists, who share your views but not your zealotry, are just fine with Kaine. I'm sorry we won't get your vote, but we'll win without it and we, who do not demand ideological purity, will make your world a better, though imperfect, place despite your fanaticism.
Corydon @48: "you can't be a pro-choice catholic." You provided an excellent theological argument in favor of your assertion, but as a matter of empirical fact, your assertion is incorrect. I'm thinking you don't know very many Catholics? This country is awash in pro-choice Catholics, and as for birth control, it's not that easy to find a "private citizen" catholic (I'm not talking about clergy or nuns or professional TV talking-head Catholics) who is anti-birth control. In the last two presidential elections, US Catholics voted democratic. Maybe by your standards those weren't "real" Catholics. But they were real voters!
Mother and Father Vel-DuRay, who were VERY Catholic (Holy Days of Obligation, daily Rosaries, that sort of thing) were pro-birth control (they gave me a box of condoms in high school!) and they were grudgingly pro-choice (inasmuch as they believed that abortion might as well be legal and regulated because if it weren't, there'd be more problems with it).

They were not the type to write a check to Planned Parenthood, but they weren't the type to picket it, either. I think that's where a lot of Catholics still come down on it. Yes, abortion is a "sin", but so is allowing the government to execute people in your name and engage in unjust military actions.
Kaine just gave a speech talking up tuition relief taxing the %1 and going after the NRA.
Damn republican.
Good choice. I would much rather have Melania as First Lady with Hillary instead Bill as First Gentleman though.
@48, What 66 said. A majority of American Catholics are pro-choice - 76% in this poll:


American Catholics are far more liberal than their church's teachings. Most of the Catholic I know are pro-choice, and all of them are pro-same-sex marriage. Catholics tend to be devout in their faith in their personal life but hands-off when it comes to imposing their beliefs on others.

No. It won't be fine. He'll continue the backward slide on women's reproductive rights. The Republicans have introduced HUNDREDS of pieces of legislation restricting access to contraception and abortion in the past eight years. The only thing standing between them and women is a Dem POTUS that nominates liberal SCOTUS. Even still, every time the battle is on-going and clinics are shut, real women are affected in real time. It would be a fucking nightmare for women to have a current Rep in office.

And it won't be fine for Muslims or immigrants, as you mention.

It would not surprise me if it wouldn't be fine for LGBT rights either, though the conservatives seem to be more accepting of that than they are of women's reproductive freedom lately.

And consider also that if the Reps had been in control, we'd be at war with Iran right now. They passed a separate response to Obama's agreement saying they would not uphold it once they are in power. Imagine the clusterfuck that would be invading and destroying yet another sovereign country, this one an ally of Russia- as well as the only non-Sunni (read: opposed to radical Islamic terrorism) force left in the middle east.

I think probably he wouldn't mess with the economy much. Don't think he'll be a fascist dictator. And no, he's not going to dismantle the federal government the way Cruz would, but no things would not be fine for many of us. MAYBE FOR YOU.
White Catholic vote. This caps how much of the white vote Trump can win.

Which means Trump cannot win.
Funny how certain people loudy proclaim how they are not going to vote for Hillary ever, and how they are done with the Democratic Party. Done! But like an attention starved teenager, there they are again repeatedly threatening not to vote for the Democrats. They leave so many times, it's like a one person mass exodus.
@69: <>
Hmm. Social gospel? Check.
Civil rights lawyer? Check.
Swing state mayor, governor, senator? Check.
NRA "F" rating? Check.
Spanish fluent? Check.
Black church choir member? Check.
8-0 winning election record? Check.
Midwest roots? Check.
Age 58? Check.
"Relatable" campaigner? Check

Yeah, what a horrible pick.
@66/67 Back in the late 80s, early 90s, i forget the exact year, I was at a party with a bunch of people who worked with inner city youth. There was a Nun at the party who did safe sex, AIDS prevention presentations. She shared with us that to address the "they don't make condoms big enough for me" dodge she'd worked out a demonstration.

She then proceeded to blow up a condom put it over her head and then insert two empty beer cans into it all without breaking the condom.

So yeah I agree good practicing Catholics can be all over the map with regards birth control and abortion, regardless of what Rome says.

Oh and one never forgets the sight of a Nun with two beer cans inside a condom worn over her head. LOL.
America vote for a socialist, does anyone really think Bernie had a shot.. You're very deluded if you do. Half the country think Big Daddy is going to plug all the holes, just by snapping his fingers.
@74 I've given up on that cock splat.
And all this throwing arms up is a bit of a show. Hillary made it pretty clear eight years ago what she wanted. Tons of time to work towards finding a credible alternative.
Hillary needs to shut up about trump and bring America some peace. This new guy will help here. Open the doors to talk with all the factions, clear the air and put out a positive vision.
@69: <<plagiarism joke>>
My contribution to this election, which would have been dissuading about half a dozen possible Trump supporters, has just become more difficult. I've made decent headway in the past few weeks, but, unfortunately, the TPP is probably going to prove their deal-breaker. Anyone else.
I'm writing in Alfred E. Neuman, fuck this noise
@82 That one is simple. TPP is going to be passed during the lame duck session after the election regardless of the outcome so it just doesn't matter where the candidates stand on it.
@83: So if you take away the folks, like yourself, whom will feel that voting for cartoon characters or other write-ins or Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson, or not at all, won't compromise their convictions so they feel vindicated in feeling smug, what you have left are those voters passionate about Donald's or Hillary's victory. I'm sorry to inform you that Donald wins in that scenario.

Think about it.
On the survey data I've seen, trade issues are down around the sixth most important thing to voters. It's true that TPP is important, but most people are worried about a) the economy, b) terrorism (why? Because they're irrational.), and c) climate change, which should be number one on the list. Remember when ol' Bill ran, and the mantra was "it's the economy, stupid"? It still is. It will ALWAYS be: it's do I have a job, will my kids have a job, will I be able to afford housing food clothing and all that jazz. A coherent plan to DO something about that - invest in infrastructure, which employs hundreds of thousands of people, invest in upgrading our power grid and applying new energy technologies (more thousands), and yes, do something about student debt, and you're talking the talk that people want to hear. HRC is saying all of those things.
ok; heres my new prediction. Trump plans on losing; hes starting his own nationalist, post neo-con version of fox news. a bunch of fox personalities will defect and will be re-mixed with conspiracy theorists and alt-right types [you know, for the kids]. They will normalize white nationalists like richard spencer and gavin mcguiness [as a natural progression from the anne coulter and milo types. its gonna be yuuuuge so invest accordingly.
"Vote Dem or kiss progressivism goodbye for one or two generations, and possibly America goodbye forever, period. "

Yup. Take it from someone who lived thru Reagan and thought it was bad (he ignored AIDS, he thought trees were for looks, not air and basically, was an idiot.) Trump would make him look like a Girl Scout.

But @75 (below) for the win:

Hmm. Social gospel? Check.
Civil rights lawyer? Check.
Swing state mayor, governor, senator? Check.
NRA "F" rating? Check.
Spanish fluent? Check.
Black church choir member? Check.
8-0 winning election record? Check.
Midwest roots? Check.
Age 58? Check.
"Relatable" campaigner? Check

Yeah, what a horrible pick. "

If you sow the wind, don't be surprised when you reap the whirlwind.
Citizen Kaine and comrade Clinton.
At least she finally found a Democrate who's more conservative than her.
I'm an old guy, and I've lived through decades of detestable Supreme Court justices messing up people's lives in this country.

I'm voting for Hillary not because I like Hillary, but because Trump will nominate more detestable Supreme Court justices like Scalia, who did damage for decades, and Hillary will nominate some decent people.

If enough Bernie supporters sit out the election to swing it to Trump, they'll have to face a really nasty Supreme Court for the next couple of decades and know that they helped make that happen.
@62 So, you support politicians selling a false bill of goods!

Good to know!
Je-zus, @92, on behalf of Anthropoid apes, the feeling is mutual.
@93 I'm really sick of entitled Clinton supporters complaining that far lefties are acting entitled by criticizing the moderate as hell candidate. God forbid that Clinton supporters actually acknowledge their candidate's flaws and faults.

So, yeah, the feeling is mutual.
@94 - indeed, it's hard to go through the pains of compromising your principles (either via left or right) with such an infuriating candidate as Mrs. Clinton.
@94: "I'm really sick of entitled Clinton supporters complaining that far lefties are acting entitled by demonizing the moderate as hell candidate."
I mean, you've literally claimed that she secretly holds a bunch of far-right positions that go against her stated goals, that she will surely enact once she steals the election.
@97 Not really all that secretly...

Her right wing fiscal stances are fairly out in the open, and just got underlined by her VP choice. Of course, if you buy into the stances that she briefly and tenuously held during the primary season, she looks like a moderate candidate. If you do buy into that bullshit, I've got a few bridges to sell. One is down in South Park for the low low price of $50k. It's a fire sale.

*psst* here's a hint: TPP is a far right trade policy that she tried her damnedest to oppose during the primary. Some still believe she opposes it to this day.
Right... Her cronies at Goldman Sachs expect nothing in return for the millions upon millions they gave her.
Yes Hillary has some major image issues, we get it. This is the same argument over and over. Not the point here, anymore. You guys just wasted eight years, not finding a suitable contender. Sanders, a socialist, jumping up on stage at the last minute: pitiful planing.
The point now is that a raving lunatic and his ugly right wing buddy ( Palin would be preferable), might be running your country. You can fight against that happening or you can let it happen.

Ms Lava - Who would be a comparable candidate in your country - Margaret Court?

From your vantage point, you overlook The Deal. Mrs C could have blown up the Democratic party when Mr C's sex life was the issue of the day. She didn't, and in exchange got a nice, safe Senate seat. A bit high, but one could live with that. She also got the party establishment in her pocket for when she decided she wanted to be President.

Flash to 2008, when she began the primary season with a massive lead in superdelegates and managed the campaign about as well (following the Jeremy Irons series) as Juan Borgia conducted the siege at Forli. She could have led a PUMA rebellion and kept the White House red, but instead just locked the party establish to her all the tighter. There was no chance in Rome that an electable Democrat would run against her this time. So the best-known third-partier in the country has reminded us once again that Mrs C isn't Cesare.
That reminds me - the last ccle or two around, I saw mention of vote-swapping sites, where people in safe states made contact with third-party supporters in swing states whose IRV second choice was compatible. An exchange was arranged, and presumably both parties were happier as a result. Are those still legal?
@64 - this! "This election is about locking in what few progressive gains we've made under Obama" YES

let's not go backwards

@75 - nice list! as @88 said - you win!

for those complaining he is Catholic - well, so is Joe Biden, and he didn't seem to take our rights away from us
@98: Her voting record has actually been liberal, more liberal than 70% of her fellow Democrats in the Senate. I hate to disabuse you of your little fantasy (nah, who am I kidding, you'll reject out-of-hand any information that goes against it) but she's actually been liberal her whole career.

@99: She's been getting money from the banking industry for her entire political career. When, exactly, is she going to start doing their nefarious bidding?