US Senator Tim Kaine,D-Virginia, listens to witnesses June 5, 2014 during hearings held by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee On Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee is hearing testimony on “Development in Ukraine.” AFP PHOTO / Karen BEIER (Photo credit should read KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

Hillary Clinton’s VP pick of Tim Kaine is a disappointment to Sanders supporters and perhaps, even, a not-so-subtle message to them to sit down, shut up, and get back in line.

If, as Elizabeth Warren says, “personnel is policy,” the Kaine pick sends a message that Clinton plans to campaign and govern from the corporate center, at least when it comes to Wall Street and economic issues.

Since the Vice Presidency is a relatively powerless office, the Kaine pick isn’t reason enough for Sanders supporters to take their eye off the ball–Donald Trump remains a proto-fascist existential threat to the nation and the planet and must be defeated. That means electing Hillary Clinton, whatever her character and policy flaws, while organizing to make the political revolution permanent.

Kaine is a classic centrist Democrat: a neoliberal corporatist when it comes to economic issues like trade, financial regulation, and challenging the economic and political power of the billionaire class; and moderately progressive on social issues like civil rights, gun violence, immigration reform, and women’s reproductive rights.

Indeed, Kaine is the prototypical “Third Way” Democrat, a breed of politician that could as easily have been Bill Clinton’s VP pick in 1992 as Hillary’s in 2016. (In fact, he seems almost a clone of 1992-vintage Al Gore, except that Kaine may be to the right of Gore on environmental issues like fracking and off-shore oil drilling.)

Which means Kaine is exactly the wrong type of VP candidate for this year, in which large segments of the American electorate are rebelling against the status quo and the economic and political elites. The Clinton-Kaine ticket is the very definition of an insider, status quo ticket.

From Kaine’s smooth introductory address in Florida, it seems that the Democratic ticket wants to shift the political discussion away from jobs and trade, where they represent the status quo, and towards modest common sense gun regulation and comprehensive immigration reform, which could give the impression of breaking with the status quo.

On the most important economic issues, Kaine has been a supporter of corporate-negotiated “free” trade agreements, which have been devastating to American industrial jobs, including the TPP (until he changed positions the day after being nominated by Clinton) and pro-bank on financial regulation, which he called for weakening only last week. He’s shown a passion for civil rights but little interest in economic inequality. He doesn’t deny climate change but is a supporter of fracking and offshore oil-drilling.

From a governing perspective, the Kaine pick sends a message that Hillary has learned little from the 2016 campaign. Despite compromising with Sanders delegates on the platform, it’s looking like Hillary intends to ignore the more progressive platform planks and govern from the corporate center. We’re not likely to hear much from the Clinton/Kaine campaign about taking on a rigged political and economic system.

From a political perspective, the Kaine pick shows an arrogant optimism from the Clinton camp that assumes Trump is so weak, Hillary needs to do little to generate enthusiasm from Bernie’s backers or to speak to the frustrations of blue collar workers whose incomes have been stagnating for decades. It’s a bad miscalculation. To defeat Trump, Hillary needs audacity, not timidity.

The latest polling shows Clinton and Trump essentially tied nationally, with close races in rust belt states like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (all of which have elected Republican governors since 2010, except that Democrats recently took back the Pennsylvania governorship). As Michael Moore points out, Obama defeated Romney by 64 electoral votes: Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania total 64 electoral votes, so if everything else stays the same as 2012, if Trump can win those four states, he wins the Presidency! Moreover, if he wins those four states, he’s likely to win other swing states like New Hampshire and Iowa that could cushion his victory.

Trump will hammer Clinton/Kaine in those states on TPP and free trade and Clinton/Kaine’s recent conversion to opposing TPP may not be credible with voters.

Moreover, this election will be significantly determined by turnout. Enthusiasm matters. And it’s hard to see a lot of strong enthusiasm for a Clinton/Kaine ticket.

Clinton seems to be counting on fear of Trump alone being enough to carry the day. But the danger is that many Sanders backers, particularly younger voters, who traditionally vote in lower proportions, will just not bother voting; and that large numbers of blue collar workers will rally to Trump’s populist message.

Those of us Sanders supporters who see the imperative of defeating Trump to stop a turn towards fascism, will have our work cut out for us in getting the vast majority of Bernie’s supporters to the polls to hold their noses and pull the lever for Hillary. Our job has been made harder by the Kaine pick.