| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
The Most Hated Candidates in History Choose Running Mates Who Generate… Total Indifference
Often during a Presidential election in which there is no incumbent on the ballot, voters express dissatisfaction or a lack of enthusiasm about both candidates. I well remember in 2000 that SNL had several skits about voters being depressed about the choice between Bush and Gore. But this year is truly different, as the two most unpopular major party candidates in history (according to Gallup polling) are, in order, 1. Donald Trump, and 2. Hillary Clinton.
You would think that candidates who face these kinds of problems would attempt to offset their own unpopularity by selecting someone who generates warm, fuzzy feelings in the greatest number of people possible. Instead, Trump chose Mike Pence. If reports are to be believed, Hillary is leaning heavily towards Virginia Senator Tim Kaine.
Pence is about exactly in the middle of the pack for governors in terms of favorability ratings. He is neither particularly beloved by the voters of his own state, nor hated. If he had instead run for re-election, he likely would have faced a very stiff battle. Nationwide, Pence is almost totally unknown and to the extent that he is known he is marginally unpopular. There is almost no one around the country who heard that Trump selected Pence who was exactly thrilled or bowled over – only the old guard “conservative for profit” organizations who were looking for a reason to praise Trump and who were going to support him anyway.
Kaine, meanwhile, has relatively high favorability rating in his state but almost no national name ID and to the extent that people have heard of Kaine, they are almost totally indifferent. Nor, given Kaine’s stultifying speaking style and bizarre, runaway eyebrow, is that likely to change.
The selection of an intentionally bland running mate (if Hillary really does choose Kaine) is much more interesting in Hillary’s case than Trump’s. In Trump’s case, he simply had no good options at hand. If reports are to be believed, the best options available who were actually interested in the job were Pence, Newt, and Christie. Newt and Christie are almost as unpopular nationally as he is, and are even unpopular in their own party. Pence was clearly the “do no harm” candidate, which in Trump’s case, was the ceiling for his pick.
It’s much less clear why Hillary would make the same choice. Unless vetting turned up something potentially damaging in Julian Castro’s background or unless Elizabeth Warren flat out turned her down, Clinton would seem to have settled on a course of action that is designed to keep her head down at all costs.
In so doing, Clinton may well be replicating the mistake of John Kerry, whose campaign assumed that simply not being George W. Bush (who had unfavorability ratings in the mid-50s) would be enough. Clinton appears to be banking on the same erroneous premise – that Trump is hated enough that she can win without generating any enthusiasm for herself.
She may well turn out to be right – Trump is much more unpopular than Bush was, after all. But on the other hand, she is also more unpopular than Kerry, and her unpopularity is more more deep-seated and persistent.
The post The Most Hated Candidates in History Choose Running Mates Who Generate… Total Indifference appeared first on RedState.
Source: http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/07/17/hated-candidates-history-choose-running-mates-generate...-total-indifference/
