Kelly held a position with Space X at one time. And gave a speech to the “Sexual Medicine Society of North America.” The late-night jokes, they write themselves. It all seems pretty unremarkable though.
I would bet on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro> He would not make the best president, I disagree with him on much. He would bring a lot to the ticket. Right now, let people speculate. Keep the Republicans off the front page. Make them lose time.
Hahaha, Voldemort? In the context of Harris’ VP choice, Bullock is more Arthur Weasley.
But don’t let me stop you from standing on the street corner and waving your Bullock sign!
Personally, I’m leaning toward Kelly due to Harris’ (perceived if not real) weakness on border security/immigration. I firmly believe this is the issue that got Trump elected in the first place, right from his “Mexicans are sending us rapists” ride down the escalator.
This. She’s definitely a possibility. Maybe one who would need more persuading than others. But I’m think she’s pretty high in the list of possibilities.
How many times did you say this about Biden? Would think by now would realize politicians can change their mind or maybe ot be totally truthful in public.
I lean Whitmer of the options. I’m not worried about the two female thing, and think if anything it would backfire on the GOP. Can see how they talk about Harris. They can’t contain the crazy in their party and the overt racism and sexism will drive people away.
i saw walz on msnbc last night. very likable, great sense of humour and smile, has an easy way of framing things.
now i’m leaning kelly and walz.
I don’t think anyone would imagine Harris’s VP in that role. The way to avoid that os to make it clear that shed put a lot of “stable” types in the cabinent and as her Chief of Staff, and to have her proxies, especially men who have worked with her, talk about how one of the best things about Harris is that she always listens to others when they have more experience than her.
A dude holding her purse is not the visual that helps.
The Obamas endorse Harris
We’ve mostly, and reasonably, been looking at the choices through the lens of winning the election. Yes that has to come first.
Which of these options though do you think actually makes the best spare, would be most able to fully take on the role in a crisis with the president down?
Who do you think would make the best close adviser?
So it seems the Republicans are throwing all types of ketchup against the wall to see what will stick against Harris- her laugh, “more liberal than Biden,” “radical left lunatic,” DEI hire, mispronunciation of her name, etc. I think the one that could actually resonate with people is the border. I hope the Harris campaign realizes this is probably her biggest weakness and picks Kelly as someone who can speak on this topic first-hand and counter Trump and Vance’s bullshit on it.
It could even be part of the campaign messaging: “The border is an issue, but instead of continuing to politicize it like Trump and Republicans want, the Harris-Kelly administration will actually address it.”
Turn the Harris campaign’s biggest weakness into an actual strength by having Kelly hit the trail and talk about the border and what Republicans did by sinking the bipartisan border bill. Have Kelly neutralize Trump’s and Vance’s attacks by boldly talking about the border from the perspective of a border state resident.
Let the running mate show that Democrats aren’t running from this issue, aren’t trying to make decisions about it from afar, and will actually address it in a humane way. Then let Harris be free to talk about other stuff like the economy, choice, Trump’s criminality, etc.
I don’t think that will sell. The bipartisan approach rejection doesn’t address the first two years that are perceived as a problem.
Personally I still get confused as to what the problem is, exactly. NOT for discussion in this thread and I have asked and am trying to learn in another. For this thread the point is that I think few of the public actually understand what the problem is. They are just sold on the idea that there is a big one and that Biden’s team, with Harris having a big role in it, has not done well on it.
This is an issue that you need to have responses for, but that you do not want to invite as the focus of the conversation. You can’t win it. I’m of the mind that “securing the border” does not justify cruelty, and that the problem is the lack of resources to process requests and support the process more than anything else. But that flag won’t fly well.
The VP needs to either focus to the conversations you want to have (strength on reproductive rights or healthcare access), or provide a balance so the candidate can move slightly the other way (eg Shapiro and Gaza allowing Harris to be more hard ass on Bibi).
IMHO.
A recent Marist poll of Democratic and Democratic leaning independents have Whitmer and Buttigieg tied for favorite, albeit at only 21%.
That was 4 days ago. Name recognition is probably mostly what that one was about. Wait until at least next week.
Crazy how four days in an eternity now
She needs exposure. Debating Trump will give her that.
Trump is the most widely recognized political figure in America (probably most recognized person even, political or otherwise). I can’t imagine anyone over the age of 18 not knowing who Trump is. That’s not remotely true for Harris. She wouldn’t even be in the top 100 I’d guess.
Debate him on Fox with rules rigged against Harris. Debate him as many times as you can anywhere. Lots of people, across social media and elsewhere, will talk about it before and after. She’ll do well enough and Trump cannot help be himself and lots of people will be introduced to Harris.
She has a limited time-frame to get her name out. Don’t waste any opportunity to do it.
Late: I live in Houston. Harris was just in Houston yesterday. It was a blip on the local news and only about 3,000 people were at the event. She still needs to do these things, but massive events (millions of people) and the attached discussions related to the massive events are also needed.
Very Late: Just appreciated this is the VP thread and this might be off-topic. The same would apply to the VP. The whole ticket needs a ton of exposure because of the late switch to Harris gamble. The Trump ticket, because of Trump, has that exposure built-in already. This is not meant seriously, but Biden would be a good VP to illustrate adding exposure - he’s well-known.
I don’t think people will remember the first two years (hell, I don’t, and I actually pay attention), as long as the message is about what Trump and Vance did this year to screw up a border solution that both sides of the aisle actually agreed to.
…
I think the VP needs to lean into whatever strengths they bring to the ticket. With Kelly, it’d be the border/immigration issue. This could be the chance for Democrats to actually claim this issue away from Republicans with someone who can legitimately speak about it from first-hand experience. Turn the Republicans’ perceived “strength” into a weakness.
Also, there’s no way a running mate (especially a man) could be stronger on reproductive rights than Harris. She’s the one who needs to carry that banner, imo.
With the clear lack of consensus I wonder if Harris should let the delegates decide, possibly by ranked voting, if that’s allowed.
I feel like that is how McCain got stuck with Palin. Harris should make the decision herself with her advisors’ help.
No. I mean ultimately they do and technically they can ignore Harris. But throwing it open hasn’t been done since 1956 and not only could it be taken a sign of weakness by Harris, but it could also invite just the kind of circus that was avoided by everybody rallying around Harris as the nominee. Given the tightness of the race better to avoid the mess.
The optics of the first very public chance to show her decision making process and she can’t decide?
Worst. Possible. Choice. Pritzker would even be a better decision!