Trump VP

[BoilerBiker]

do you think pence and gingrich are really his final two choices?
will either guy help him significantly, or will their own different type of past baggage end up hurting him even a bit more?

 

[qazplm]

do you think pence and gingrich are really his final two choices?
will either guy help him significantly, or will their own different type of past baggage end up hurting him even a bit more?

VP picks almost never matter either way, people at the end of the day vote for or against the people at the top of the ticket (or straight party line). So there will be a lot of talk about both VP picks but in the end, I don't think it will matter much for either come Nov.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

do you think pence and gingrich are really his final two choices?
will either guy help him significantly, or will their own different type of past baggage end up hurting him even a bit more?

If he picks Newt he will lose voters. My wife has already said she's on the fence about him and will absolutely not vote for him if he picks Newt. I can't blame her, I kind of feel the same way. I would really prefer he pick a strong conservative woman. Pence won't help him win any battleground states, so I don't really get that pick. I hope these are not the options.

 

[lbodel]

If he picks Newt he will lose voters. My wife has already said she's on the fence about him and will absolutely not vote for him if he picks Newt. I can't blame her, I kind of feel the same way. I would really prefer he pick a strong conservative woman. Pence won't help him win any battleground states, so I don't really get that pick. I hope these are not the options.

As has been said time and time again, this is a rather weird situation. For example, Pence is an Evangelical who could shore up that base - however, Trump oddly enough did well with them in the GOP primary against other Evangelicals - so does he need to draw off of that? Obviously Pence/Gingrich are not really opening doors for areas that Trump is truly hurting with (i.e. minorities, women). The question is whether he will try to shore up what he knows he can do well with or will he try to broaden that base. Mike Flynn, for example, is a good pick with regards to boosting his foreign policy/national security, but he basically said he was pro-choice and didn't want to get involved in talking about any social issues, which obviously could be an issue for the base who are already somewhat skeptical.

That being said, I think this pick is the reverse of the McCain/Palin ticket. Trump is like a Palin where you get some cringe moments, off the cuff, not really sticking to a script. We've seen it happen with Trump where people get uncomfortable with him and it shows (i.e. Bob Corker looked uncomfortable with him and the next day, withdrew his name from VP contention; or Chris Christie's wife giving an eye roll). A Presidential and VP candidate getting along is a must and the cracks showed with McCain/Palin. In addition, the roles are also slightly reversed in that usually the VP is more of the "attack dog" - whereas obviously Trump wants to be that. But does a VP candidate who is overshadowed in that role - is that really a help (making the VP candidate even less relevant).

Of course, Trump playing the game of who will it be/surprise candidates is a bit eye rolling. This is where I think he can get into trouble - shooting at the hip can get old to people as this is not a reality show. One of his surrogates bragged about how "you'll never know what Donald Trump will do" last night - not sure if that's something you want to brag about when it comes to a presidential candidate. It'll be interesting, that's for sure.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

As has been said time and time again, this is a rather weird situation. For example, Pence is an Evangelical who could shore up that base - however, Trump oddly enough did well with them in the GOP primary against other Evangelicals - so does he need to draw off of that? Obviously Pence/Gingrich are not really opening doors for areas that Trump is truly hurting with (i.e. minorities, women). The question is whether he will try to shore up what he knows he can do well with or will he try to broaden that base. Mike Flynn, for example, is a good pick with regards to boosting his foreign policy/national security, but he basically said he was pro-choice and didn't want to get involved in talking about any social issues, which obviously could be an issue for the base who are already somewhat skeptical.

That being said, I think this pick is the reverse of the McCain/Palin ticket. Trump is like a Palin where you get some cringe moments, off the cuff, not really sticking to a script. We've seen it happen with Trump where people get uncomfortable with him and it shows (i.e. Bob Corker looked uncomfortable with him and the next day, withdrew his name from VP contention; or Chris Christie's wife giving an eye roll). A Presidential and VP candidate getting along is a must and the cracks showed with McCain/Palin. In addition, the roles are also slightly reversed in that usually the VP is more of the "attack dog" - whereas obviously Trump wants to be that. But does a VP candidate who is overshadowed in that role - is that really a help (making the VP candidate even less relevant).

Of course, Trump playing the game of who will it be/surprise candidates is a bit eye rolling. This is where I think he can get into trouble - shooting at the hip can get old to people as this is not a reality show. One of his surrogates bragged about how "you'll never know what Donald Trump will do" last night - not sure if that's something you want to brag about when it comes to a presidential candidate. It'll be interesting, that's for sure.

I agree with all your sentiments. For a guy running as the non establishment guy, these choices seem...very establishment. old and crusty establishment at that.

 

[qazplm]

As has been said time and time again, this is a rather weird situation. For example, Pence is an Evangelical who could shore up that base - however, Trump oddly enough did well with them in the GOP primary against other Evangelicals - so does he need to draw off of that? Obviously Pence/Gingrich are not really opening doors for areas that Trump is truly hurting with (i.e. minorities, women). The question is whether he will try to shore up what he knows he can do well with or will he try to broaden that base. Mike Flynn, for example, is a good pick with regards to boosting his foreign policy/national security, but he basically said he was pro-choice and didn't want to get involved in talking about any social issues, which obviously could be an issue for the base who are already somewhat skeptical.

That being said, I think this pick is the reverse of the McCain/Palin ticket. Trump is like a Palin where you get some cringe moments, off the cuff, not really sticking to a script. We've seen it happen with Trump where people get uncomfortable with him and it shows (i.e. Bob Corker looked uncomfortable with him and the next day, withdrew his name from VP contention; or Chris Christie's wife giving an eye roll). A Presidential and VP candidate getting along is a must and the cracks showed with McCain/Palin. In addition, the roles are also slightly reversed in that usually the VP is more of the "attack dog" - whereas obviously Trump wants to be that. But does a VP candidate who is overshadowed in that role - is that really a help (making the VP candidate even less relevant).

Of course, Trump playing the game of who will it be/surprise candidates is a bit eye rolling. This is where I think he can get into trouble - shooting at the hip can get old to people as this is not a reality show. One of his surrogates bragged about how "you'll never know what Donald Trump will do" last night - not sure if that's something you want to brag about when it comes to a presidential candidate. It'll be interesting, that's for sure.

It won't matter, win or lose, who he picks. How often in history can you turn to a VP pick and say, that guy won/lost the presidency with that pick?

MAYBE Cheney for Bush but I don't think that changes Florida. Quayle didn't hurt Bush, Reagan could have picked anyone, I think Palin was a bad choice but McCain wasn't winning that election regardless of who he picked...and Obama wasn't losing it regardless of who he picked.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

It won't matter, win or lose, who he picks. How often in history can you turn to a VP pick and say, that guy won/lost the presidency with that pick?

MAYBE Cheney for Bush but I don't think that changes Florida. Quayle didn't hurt Bush, Reagan could have picked anyone, I think Palin was a bad choice but McCain wasn't winning that election regardless of who he picked...and Obama wasn't losing it regardless of who he picked.

Maybe the first Boston to Austin connection. Kennedy and LBJ.

 

[qazplm]

Maybe the first Boston to Austin connection. Kennedy and LBJ.

Maybe...Given how young he was, being Catholic in a time when that mattered to a lot of people, a fairly close election...

 

[BoilerBiker]

It won't matter, win or lose, who he picks. How often in history can you turn to a VP pick and say, that guy won/lost the presidency with that pick?

MAYBE Cheney for Bush but I don't think that changes Florida. Quayle didn't hurt Bush, Reagan could have picked anyone, I think Palin was a bad choice but McCain wasn't winning that election regardless of who he picked...and Obama wasn't losing it regardless of who he picked.

Palin definitely made me rethink my liking of McCain

 

[qazplm]

Palin definitely made me rethink my liking of McCain

did it ultimately change your vote?

 

[SDBoiler1]

I agree with all your sentiments. For a guy running as the non establishment guy, these choices seem...very establishment. old and crusty establishment at that.

So your idea is to pick a really "out there" candidate? Pence is largely unknown outside of IN. He doesn't have much baggage, outside of the gay rights dust up recently, and most Americans wouldn't even know that that situation occurred.

Does Pence help with Independents? Not so much. Does Tim Kaine help with Independents? Not so much. Both of these choices are about getting rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats more fully on-board. Both Trump and Clinton have their issues with members of their parties.

 

[qazplm]

So your idea is to pick a really "out there" candidate? Pence is largely unknown outside of IN. He doesn't have much baggage, outside of the gay rights dust up recently, and most Americans wouldn't even know that that situation occurred.

Does Pence help with Independents? Not so much. Does Tim Kaine help with Independents? Not so much. Both of these choices are about getting rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats more fully on-board. Both Trump and Clinton have their issues with members of their parties.

Actually Caine is about three things:

1. The Clintons are very comfortable with him
2. He "does no harm." He isn't going to wow anyone, but he also isn't going to piss anyone off.
3. He might help in Virginia.

Now, I personally think only 1 is necessary condition because I don't think VP selections really matter, but rank and file Ds and Rs if the polling is to be believed are more or less already behind each candidate.

For Trump, just like Clinton, just like most candidates, it's going to be about comfort level more than anything else.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

So your idea is to pick a really "out there" candidate? Pence is largely unknown outside of IN. He doesn't have much baggage, outside of the gay rights dust up recently, and most Americans wouldn't even know that that situation occurred.

Does Pence help with Independents? Not so much. Does Tim Kaine help with Independents? Not so much. Both of these choices are about getting rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats more fully on-board. Both Trump and Clinton have their issues with members of their parties.

well, strategically, I would pick someone who can help him win a battleground state and ideally that person would also be a woman. imo pence is worthless and newt might even be negative. If that person is a little "out there" it might drive some interest into his campaign.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

I don't see how picking another old, white guy for his running mate does anything to expand his appeal to other demographics. That doesn't mean pick anyone simply because of race, gender, etc. But, there's got to be someone who doesn't look like him that can comfortably fill the VP role.

I doubt it'll make me more inclined to vote for him, but who knows. (And no, I'm not voting for Hillary, either.)

 

[qazplm]

I don't see how picking another old, white guy for his running mate does anything to expand his appeal to other demographics. That doesn't mean pick anyone simply because of race, gender, etc. But, there's got to be someone who doesn't look like him that can comfortably fill the VP role.

I doubt it'll make me more inclined to vote for him, but who knows. (And no, I'm not voting for Hillary, either.)

who could he pick that would help his appeal with other demographics?

One recent poll has him at 1 percent with AA. The margin of error means there may be AA dead zombies who would vote against him.

He's in the 20s in some polls with Hispanics, certainly nowhere near what he needs to be competitive, he's losing college educated women badly and women overall...he isn't winning the gay vote or the Muslim vote, and picking a minority/woman isn't going to make those horrible numbers change all that much.

Trump being Trump has removed any ability of a VP pick to fill in any demographic holes.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

dead zombies

Can you really be a zombie and not be dead?

But seriously, he's better served at least trying. If he's destined to lose, as some folks seem to believe, then it can't hurt to get someone who doesn't look like him as a running mate. At least pretend to care about voters who aren't disaffected whites.

 

[qazplm]

Can you really be a zombie and not be dead?

But seriously, he's better served at least trying. If he's destined to lose, as some folks seem to believe, then it can't hurt to get someone who doesn't look like him as a running mate. At least pretend to care about voters who aren't disaffected whites.

depends...some zombies are virus zombies like The Walking Dead...others are rise from the grave zombies like Night of the Zombies.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

depends...some zombies are virus zombies like The Walking Dead...others are rise from the grave zombies like Night of the Zombies.

But the zombies in the Walking Dead are dead. Hence, the name. But, you do raise a good point as I don't believe the rage zombies in 28 Days Later were dead...at least that's my recollection.

 

[qazplm]

But the zombies in the Walking Dead are dead. Hence, the name. But, you do raise a good point as I don't believe the rage zombies in 28 Days Later were dead...at least that's my recollection.

At the end of the first? season, at the CDC, they say that they aren't fully dead, but that the virus keeps the more animalistic parts of their brains alive. So all higher reasoning function is gone, but the base animal instincts remain...or something like that...no one watches TWD for plausible science.

Now the rage zombies were, I believe, a mutated rabies virus. The modern Dawn of the Dead I think also has "undead" "fast" zombies.

 

[lbodel]

did it ultimately change your vote?

I think Palin was certainly polarizing. While the ultimate downfall of McCain was the economic collapse, regardless of public perception of the VP pick, it created a LOT of turmoil within the campaign. The campaign was nearly in shambles late in the game, which is not where you want to be. John McCain became very uncomfortable with the way his campaign was going.

That being said, at the end of the day, no it's not a top factor in someone's vote. But it can certainly alter the course of the campaign, as Palin certainly did with John McCain.

 

[lbodel]

I agree with all your sentiments. For a guy running as the non establishment guy, these choices seem...very establishment. old and crusty establishment at that.

Looks like it's going to be Pence. Probably the most vanilla of the options, and least name recognition, but he can stay on message.

Last night, reports were that Trump was more comfortable with Christie but some of the kids were pushing Pence.

Clinton's options do not look like the traditional attack dog style VP pick either, so the VPs will probably be even less relevant this time around.

 

[qazplm]

I think Palin was certainly polarizing. While the ultimate downfall of McCain was the economic collapse, regardless of public perception of the VP pick, it created a LOT of turmoil within the campaign. The campaign was nearly in shambles late in the game, which is not where you want to be. John McCain became very uncomfortable with the way his campaign was going.

That being said, at the end of the day, no it's not a top factor in someone's vote. But it can certainly alter the course of the campaign, as Palin certainly did with John McCain.

Palin initially shot the McCain campaign ahead for a brief burst, then folks realized she was an idiot, and it brought it back down to where it more or less was before.

I think the problem is folks look at daily numbers. They particularly look at big wildly swinging polls instead of looking at averages and more importantly IMO looking at demographics.

Because demographics are relatively consistent and slow-changing.

Dems are going to win the female vote, the AA vote and the Latino vote...the question is, by what percentage. The White vote will be a majority of the vote but that percentage drops year by year by year. Is it a presidential year or not?

You factor all those things in and then you apply it understanding that each side will have bumps and drops.

And when you do that, you can figure out who is going to win most of the time, and most of the time who the VP is has little to no relevancy to it.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Palin initially shot the McCain campaign ahead for a brief burst, then folks realized she was an idiot, and it brought it back down to where it more or less was before.

I think the problem is folks look at daily numbers. They particularly look at big wildly swinging polls instead of looking at averages and more importantly IMO looking at demographics.

Because demographics are relatively consistent and slow-changing.

Dems are going to win the female vote, the AA vote and the Latino vote...the question is, by what percentage. The White vote will be a majority of the vote but that percentage drops year by year by year. Is it a presidential year or not?

You factor all those things in and then you apply it understanding that each side will have bumps and drops.

And when you do that, you can figure out who is going to win most of the time, and most of the time who the VP is has little to no relevancy to it.

If anything should be obvious now, it is that this is not a normal election cycle. You have two candidates who are both extremely unpopular, not just across America but also within their own parties to some degree. Trump is not a normal Republican candidate so applying the standards of what has happened in the previous 4 elections is fraught with increased uncertainty. To some degree, the old saws that the Clintons would apply to normal Establishment Republicans don't readily apply to him. He is more unpredictable, and HRC does not seem to deal so well with unpredictable competition.

 

[qazplm]

If anything should be obvious now, it is that this is not a normal election cycle. You have two candidates who are both extremely unpopular, not just across America but also within their own parties to some degree. Trump is not a normal Republican candidate so applying the standards of what has happened in the previous 4 elections is fraught with increased uncertainty. To some degree, the old saws that the Clintons would apply to normal Establishment Republicans don't readily apply to him. He is more unpredictable, and HRC does not seem to deal so well with unpredictable competition.

it's actually very normal:

1. Most of the states that are ordinarily battle ground states, are still battle ground states. NC, VA, PA, OH, FL, NH, IA, CO.
2. Only a couple of states are potential, new BG states this time around (GA, NV, maybe UT (although I doubt it)), but we say that pretty regularly. NC and VA became BG states in 08 and 12. Before they weren't.
3. The new BG states are there primarily because of demographic changes (large increases in the Hispanic population in both GA and NV). The only real outlier as far as I can see is UT but that's explained by the Mormon population and their apparently visceral reaction to Trump. And again I don't think it actually will end up a BG state.

The Demographic polling follows the last couple of decades:

AAs heavy D
Latinos heavy D
Single women heavy D
White men heavy R

The only differences are that the first three categories are more D fav and the last is more R fav than usual.

The real meaningful difference is that once again the White portion of the vote will drop another 1-2 percentage points. Which means that many more White voters Trump has to find to offset his dismal performance in just about every other demo group.

Hillary is averaging about the same lead that Obama had over Romney give or take...once you take out the extremes on both ends. Not really surprising since she's clearly targeted the Obama coalition and that coalition is a winning one and hates Trump.

You are only right about one thing...Trump isn't normal politician. That's not a positive. A normal politician would have made much more ground up with the bad two weeks Hillary had. A normal politician would be up heading into his own convention, but she's up by around 3 pts. A normal politician would be furiously working at putting together the infrastructure for a ground game in key BG states, would have advertising all over the place in key BG states. A normal politician doesn't say something batcrap crazy/racist/sexist on the reg.

Here's what you will see. Trump may eke out a small overall lead (less than two points) at the end of his convention next week...unless it's a trainwreck.

Hillary will then have her convention, which will be choreographed and well done, and she will get a bump from that. She will probably name her VP during the Republican convention to take some press away from it. That's the incumbent advantage of being able to have your convention second and literally right after the challenging party. any bump is stomped on.

Hillary will be roughly around where she is now, maybe a tick better going into the debates. She will win the debates overall, although like Obama with Romney I could see her struggle dealing with him in the first one.

Then...nothing, we will have a month with no real news, with her up 3-4 points (or more), with the demos remaining what they are.

 

[qazplm]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry..._us_5787c63de4b08608d33379be?section=politics

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

did it ultimately change your vote?

It did mine. At the time of that election, I was more in line with McCain's approach and had a great deal of respect for the way he handled himself (still do). He had far more experience. That said, he was also older and, therefore, there was a greater risk that his VP candidate could actually come into play. Once he picked Palin and she started spouting off craziness, I jumped ship.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

it's actually very normal:

1. Most of the states that are ordinarily battle ground states, are still battle ground states. NC, VA, PA, OH, FL, NH, IA, CO.
2. Only a couple of states are potential, new BG states this time around (GA, NV, maybe UT (although I doubt it)), but we say that pretty regularly. NC and VA became BG states in 08 and 12. Before they weren't.
3. The new BG states are there primarily because of demographic changes (large increases in the Hispanic population in both GA and NV). The only real outlier as far as I can see is UT but that's explained by the Mormon population and their apparently visceral reaction to Trump. And again I don't think it actually will end up a BG state.

The Demographic polling follows the last couple of decades:

AAs heavy D
Latinos heavy D
Single women heavy D
White men heavy R

The only differences are that the first three categories are more D fav and the last is more R fav than usual.

The real meaningful difference is that once again the White portion of the vote will drop another 1-2 percentage points. Which means that many more White voters Trump has to find to offset his dismal performance in just about every other demo group.

Hillary is averaging about the same lead that Obama had over Romney give or take...once you take out the extremes on both ends. Not really surprising since she's clearly targeted the Obama coalition and that coalition is a winning one and hates Trump.

You are only right about one thing...Trump isn't normal politician. That's not a positive. A normal politician would have made much more ground up with the bad two weeks Hillary had. A normal politician would be up heading into his own convention, but she's up by around 3 pts. A normal politician would be furiously working at putting together the infrastructure for a ground game in key BG states, would have advertising all over the place in key BG states. A normal politician doesn't say something batcrap crazy/racist/sexist on the reg.

Here's what you will see. Trump may eke out a small overall lead (less than two points) at the end of his convention next week...unless it's a trainwreck.

Hillary will then have her convention, which will be choreographed and well done, and she will get a bump from that. She will probably name her VP during the Republican convention to take some press away from it. That's the incumbent advantage of being able to have your convention second and literally right after the challenging party. any bump is stomped on.

Hillary will be roughly around where she is now, maybe a tick better going into the debates. She will win the debates overall, although like Obama with Romney I could see her struggle dealing with him in the first one.

Then...nothing, we will have a month with no real news, with her up 3-4 points (or more), with the demos remaining what they are.

You keep sayin my name...

 

[qazplm]

You keep sayin my name...

 

[CWS]

You keep sayin my name...

That's waaaay funnier than my joke

 

[lbodel]

do you think pence and gingrich are really his final two choices?
will either guy help him significantly, or will their own different type of past baggage end up hurting him even a bit more?

So what's coming out now is - Trump wanted to go with Christie, but people around him (including at least some of his kids) wanted Pence. So they basically tried to manipulate him to picking him - offering to fly to Indianapolis to meet with him with the cameras rolling, etc. Then they had already had him flown to NYC yesterday - and Pence was sitting in his hotel while Trump was on TV saying he hadn't decided. Trump last night was already having second thoughts and tried to backpedal very late last night. Uh, wow.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

That's waaaay funnier than my joke

I feel like an embesill...an ultra maroon...I just figured this out.

 

[SDBoiler1]

So what's coming out now is - Trump wanted to go with Christie, but people around him (including at least some of his kids) wanted Pence. So they basically tried to manipulate him to picking him - offering to fly to Indianapolis to meet with him with the cameras rolling, etc. Then they had already had him flown to NYC yesterday - and Pence was sitting in his hotel while Trump was on TV saying he hadn't decided. Trump last night was already having second thoughts and tried to backpedal very late last night. Uh, wow.

So you believe WaPo and MSNBC reporting on this? Uh, wow. This choice was a smart move in that it helped calm down the Republican base. It will help at the convention. Also, Trump managed to head off any "Dump Trump" shenanigans in the Rules Committee.

Will this help sway Independents and moderate Democrats? Probably not.

Christie was not going to be the guy. He will be in the cabinet.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

He will be in the cabinet.

The kitchen cabinet, that is.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

So what's coming out now is - Trump wanted to go with Christie, but people around him (including at least some of his kids) wanted Pence. So they basically tried to manipulate him to picking him - offering to fly to Indianapolis to meet with him with the cameras rolling, etc. Then they had already had him flown to NYC yesterday - and Pence was sitting in his hotel while Trump was on TV saying he hadn't decided. Trump last night was already having second thoughts and tried to backpedal very late last night. Uh, wow.

Wrong. Staff wanted pence, family wanted Gingrich. Christie and Flynn didn't make final cut.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

At the end of the first? season, at the CDC, they say that they aren't fully dead, but that the virus keeps the more animalistic parts of their brains alive. So all higher reasoning function is gone, but the base animal instincts remain...or something like that...no one watches TWD for plausible science.

Now the rage zombies were, I believe, a mutated rabies virus. The modern Dawn of the Dead I think also has "undead" "fast" zombies.

From wiki entry for TS-19 episode of WD...

The next morning, Jenner shows the group the clinical results of Test Subject 19, a person (later announced to be his wife) who was bitten by a walker and volunteered to be observed as the infection progressed. The time-lapse MRI video demonstrates the disease attacking the brain, similar to meningitis, ultimately killing the victim. Brain activity is restarted a few hours later, simultaneously reanimating the body to mere basic functions. Jenner explains that the brain stem reanimates anywhere from a few minutes to 8 hours after death, and adds that the conscious human traits do not return.

 

[qazplm]

From wiki entry for TS-19 episode of WD...

The next morning, Jenner shows the group the clinical results of Test Subject 19, a person (later announced to be his wife) who was bitten by a walker and volunteered to be observed as the infection progressed. The time-lapse MRI video demonstrates the disease attacking the brain, similar to meningitis, ultimately killing the victim. Brain activity is restarted a few hours later, simultaneously reanimating the body to mere basic functions. Jenner explains that the brain stem reanimates anywhere from a few minutes to 8 hours after death, and adds that the conscious human traits do not return.

if you reanimate minutes after death, are you really dead? All the people who were technically dead for a few minutes and then revived aren't considered dead. 8 hours is probably a different story.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

if you reanimate minutes after death, are you really dead? All the people who were technically dead for a few minutes and then revived aren't considered dead. 8 hours is probably a different story.

I'm not arguing, just reporting.

 

[lbodel]

So you believe WaPo and MSNBC reporting on this? Uh, wow. This choice was a smart move in that it helped calm down the Republican base. It will help at the convention. Also, Trump managed to head off any "Dump Trump" shenanigans in the Rules Committee.

Will this help sway Independents and moderate Democrats? Probably not.

Christie was not going to be the guy. He will be in the cabinet.

Yes because it TOTALLY sounds made up - I can't imagine there being drama behind Trump's presidential pick. What was reported actually makes total sense - Trump picked someone who's basically the opposite of him based on other people around him pushing for it - and didn't like it. Because Trump is always so worried about pleasing other people and the Republican base....

It was reported by MULTIPLE news outlets with different sources - I didn't even know NBC did, so that makes at least 3 different ones.

When you can't make a sound argument, just blame the media. You're a good lap dog.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Yes because it TOTALLY sounds made up - I can't imagine there being drama behind Trump's presidential pick. What was reported actually makes total sense - Trump picked someone who's basically the opposite of him based on other people around him pushing for it - and didn't like it. Because Trump is always so worried about pleasing other people and the Republican base....

It was reported by MULTIPLE news outlets with different sources - I didn't even know NBC did, so that makes at least 3 different ones.

When you can't make a sound argument, just blame the media. You're a good lap dog.

Please. If anyone is a lap dog, it's you for HRC.

So Trump is a shrinking violet who caves to peer pressure? Makes absolute sense. Exactly who are these "deep throat" sources inside the Trump campaign?

Trump picked Pence because he makes the most sense for his campaign. Pence is a straight shooter who happens to believe In what Trump is trying to do - beat HRC. He likes Christie as a person, not as his running mate. He brings too much baggage. He likes Newt as a person, not as his running mate. He also brings too much baggage. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[qazplm]

Please. If anyone is a lap dog, it's you for HRC.

So Trump is a shrinking violet who caves to peer pressure? Makes absolute sense. Exactly who are these "deep throat" sources inside the Trump campaign?

Trump picked Pence because he makes the most sense for his campaign. Pence is a straight shooter who happens to believe In what Trump is trying to do - beat HRC. He likes Christie as a person, not as his running mate. He brings too much baggage. He likes Newt as a person, not as his running mate. He also brings too much baggage. Why is this so hard to understand?

Pence believes in what Trump is trying to do? Almost every central police Trump has Pence has come out against. Trump was undecided. It isn't just the reporting that makes sense it is that:

1. He plainly stated he hadn't made up his mind fully as late as Friday morning
2. He had a noon deadline to make a decision
3. His own campaign was floating brand new options as late as this week
4. No website had even been set up at the time of the announcement
5. Obvious domain names like trumppence.com weren't even secured as this moment. Anyone can buy the domain right now.

It's pretty clear this was a last-minute decision forced by the noon deadline. It's not all that hard to believe that the reason why was indecision.

Or you can believe multiple, unrelated media outlets all conspired together to report the same thing because they are all "libruls."