21st Century Politics Poll

[vcczar]

new poll

[vcczar]

I left out the worst pres nominee for the 21st century question on accident. My answer is Donald Trump. 

[Rezi]

To clarify before answering: is this best electorally or best in terms of policy/governing?

[Pringles]

Going off of best as in who I like/agree with on politics. 

[vcczar]

14 minutes ago, Rezi said:

To clarify before answering: is this best electorally or best in terms of policy/governing?

Whow you think was the best, whatever you take that to mean. 

[10centjimmy]

Tim Kaine would've been a solid Obama VP pick, not a good as Joe was. But he was just terrible for Hillary. She could not have picked a more bland running mate when she needed someone desperately to amp up the Democratic Party.

Maybe Al Franken could've been it if she needed a white male. 

[10centjimmy]

ah oops, I meant to select Kaine lol 

[Rezi]

Ended up going best policy/governing rather than ability to win

[mark2]

Did this by best electorally. If I did it off of who I simply prefer more/less it'd look mostly different.

[DakotaHale]

Another day I thank God the DNC never let Bernie get anywhere near the White House.

[ShortKing]

@Murrman104 we doing a little trolling saying Kamala was the best veep pick or?

[vcczar]

14 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

@Murrman104 we doing a little trolling saying Kamala was the best veep pick or?

You can make the argument that she's the best, even if one doesn't like her. Since she's half black and a woman, she probably helped Biden win GA and MI, two states with a large black population. Additionally, she's tied for 2nd all time in tie-breaking votes by a VP. She'll probably be #1 by the end of her VP'cy. 

[Pringles]

54 minutes ago, vcczar said:

You can make the argument that she's the best, even if one doesn't like her. Since she's half black and a woman, she probably helped Biden win GA and MI, two states with a large black population. Additionally, she's tied for 2nd all time in tie-breaking votes by a VP. She'll probably be #1 by the end of her VP'cy. 

Biden had a worse share overall among African Americans (Both women and men.) compared to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

[Cal]

On 5/13/2023 at 6:50 PM, 10centjimmy said:

Tim Kaine would've been a solid Obama VP pick, not a good as Joe was. But he was just terrible for Hillary. She could not have picked a more bland running mate when she needed someone desperately to amp up the Democratic Party.

Personally I'm a huge Tim Kaine fan and find him to be one of those types of politicians who does things rather than says things. His record speaks for itself. I live in the city he used to be the mayor of and I'm lucky to have him representing me in the U.S. Senate. I've met people who have known Senator Kaine from decades ago and about how down-to-earth and just ordinary the guy is and how much he stressed not just economic development here in Richmond, but was a huge proponent of youth civic engagement and outreach. He's an effective politician and an all-around good dude. 

That being said... I totally agree with you that he was the wrong choice for Clinton. She needed someone to offset her general unlikability and while he was totally inoffensive, most people had no opinion on him at all, even within the party. Tim Kaine would have been an excellent VP to Bernie Sanders to balance out the ticket ideologically and demeanor-wise, but he was far too similar in policy to Clinton and unable to "fire up the base" in a way that a crazier pick like Palin has the potential to do. A completely safe and boring pick (and competent!) for someone who believes they've already locked the race up and that defeating a real estate mogul is the easiest thing since sliced bread. 

Turns out it wasn't that sure of a bet though 😛 I still think Secretary Castro would have been a better pick, at least in regards to lighting a fire under Pence's ass during the debates and making a stronger play for Texas/Arizona. IIRC there was a lot of stir about the amount of money that the Clinton campaign invested into those states back in 2016 and a lot of people thought that they were doing it to essentially fake out the RNC into thinking those states were competitive. I dunno if that's true or not, but I feel like we've definitely seen since then that Arizona had potential for a real upset. 

[MrPotatoTed]

On 5/14/2023 at 7:35 PM, vcczar said:

You can make the argument that she's the best, even if one doesn't like her. Since she's half black and a woman, she probably helped Biden win GA and MI, two states with a large black population. Additionally, she's tied for 2nd all time in tie-breaking votes by a VP. She'll probably be #1 by the end of her VP'cy. 

Biden didn't need any help to win black votes (they're the ones who nominated him) or women (he was running against Donald Trump.)  He did it to make history, and I don't begrudge him that.  But as strategic votes go, there's nothing there.  Like...thank god she helped him win California? Haha.

[MrPotatoTed]

12 hours ago, Cal said:

Personally I'm a huge Tim Kaine fan and find him to be one of those types of politicians who does things rather than says things. His record speaks for itself. I live in the city he used to be the mayor of and I'm lucky to have him representing me in the U.S. Senate. I've met people who have known Senator Kaine from decades ago and about how down-to-earth and just ordinary the guy is and how much he stressed not just economic development here in Richmond, but was a huge proponent of youth civic engagement and outreach. He's an effective politician and an all-around good dude. 

That being said... I totally agree with you that he was the wrong choice for Clinton. She needed someone to offset her general unlikability and while he was totally inoffensive, most people had no opinion on him at all, even within the party. Tim Kaine would have been an excellent VP to Bernie Sanders to balance out the ticket ideologically and demeanor-wise, but he was far too similar in policy to Clinton and unable to "fire up the base" in a way that a crazier pick like Palin has the potential to do. A completely safe and boring pick (and competent!) for someone who believes they've already locked the race up and that defeating a real estate mogul is the easiest thing since sliced bread. 

Turns out it wasn't that sure of a bet though 😛 I still think Secretary Castro would have been a better pick, at least in regards to lighting a fire under Pence's ass during the debates and making a stronger play for Texas/Arizona. IIRC there was a lot of stir about the amount of money that the Clinton campaign invested into those states back in 2016 and a lot of people thought that they were doing it to essentially fake out the RNC into thinking those states were competitive. I dunno if that's true or not, but I feel like we've definitely seen since then that Arizona had potential for a real upset. 

Kaine was picked because he was a trusted loyalist, and the Clintons see betrayal behind every corner.  

[MrPotatoTed]

For my picks -- especially for Pence as VP when we have zero ideological overlap -- I went with "most likely to lead to their ticket's victory in the general election."  I hate Pence as a person, but in the spirit of "don't hate the player, hate the game," I think he is an amazing debater and uniquely skilled at denying the fact that Donald Trump ever existed, even while actively campaigning to be re-elected as Trump's VP.

[Cal]

I’m somehow the only one who switched from saying I’d vote for Biden but that Republicans generally put up “stronger nominees”

On that list for Republicans since I’ve been born we’ve got W Bush, McCain, Romney, and Trump. 

W Bush managed to eke out a win versus Al Gore (albeit barely) and fend off the bland Kerry in 2004. 

McCain himself was the strongest candidate the Republicans could have fielded in 2008 despite the lopsided result. I mean, he ran against one of the greatest campaigners of my lifetime in Barrack Obama after two terms of his party in control and amidst a pretty rough economic recession the Republicans presided over. Taking that into consideration he was a hell of a candidate imo.

Romney was… average. Personally I appreciated his later growth on (very select) social issues, but he was blunder-prone during the campaign. However, I don’t see anyone being better able to knock off Obama with an incumbency advantage. Though, now that I think of it, perhaps Gingrich could have tapped into the sort of white anger that Trump did 4 years earlier and been more competitive. That’s a fun alternate history scenario. 

And finally, Trump himself was, despite him being one of my least favorite political figures in our history, an excellent campaigner and an unmatched debater in an unorthodox way. His ability to speak as a common man and quite literally sneer at “the establishment” while throwing out trendy buzzwords far surpassed the usefulness of traditional debate techniques. Further, he was able to control the narrative in 2016 despite efforts to the contrary. The news is what Trump wants it to be. For all of my disdain towards him and his dangerous policies and rhetoric, he leads the pack in strongest candidates. I don’t think that Biden would have defeated him if not for COVID.

On the other hand… Obama was a good campaigner and generally a strong candidate. Biden’s 2020 campaign itself was very pretty lackluster imo, Kerry was boring, and Gore has the charisma of a wet muppet. Obama simply can’t carry them all.