I see that now, thank you. And FWIW, I do think it’s fair to call Vance a coward—albeit not in relation to his military service. He was a never Trumper… right up until Trump got elected and he (Vance) had political aspirations of his own that needed Trump’s base.
A lot of Republicans are cowards in that regard.
You mean in the next 100 days? That sounds like a terrible idea. Hell she should be doing no talking about policies except universally popular (among Democrats of all types) things like Roe-Wade law and continuing the successful (emphasis on the success) policies of the current administration. Any kind of big pivot is only going to hurt her, and should be avoided at all costs
After the election? I literally couldn’t give crap. I mean I do (the 1# priority needs to be fighting the inequality and disenfranchisement that is the underlying reason we are a hairsbreadth from fascism), but I’m quite happy to not give a crap until January 2025 with Democrats in charge of presidency and Congress by a landslide. Winning is all that matters right now.
The campaign is throwing Vance out there any chance they get. They want to pretend it’s not an issue but Trump is 78 and can’t maintain the pace. The VP candidate has to be out there countering Vance. It will be a competition. Not that they will pull away MAGA votes but that’s who they will be compared to.
Moderating: Everyone, this thread is for the Harris VP choice, not the Trump VP choice. Please drop the Vance only stuff at this point. The directly above post is fine as it is an opinion on what the Harris VP choice needs to do. But if your post is only about Vance, find a different thread.
Thank you.
I keep revisiting this thread, just to see if there have been any new developments/analysis. My following comments should have ZERO impact on those of you most active in these threads - but looking back from 600+ posts, what is the last post that cited anything new?
Not really criticizing. Just observing the tendency for even intelligent and well-intentioned folk to get caught in a feedback loop.
Not when in that aspect they are the same job. As running mate one of his main jobs is to deliver PA in particular. Second to help the ticket with centrist and even rural voters all over, third to help provide cover for Harris pressuring Israel, fourth to be a voice as part of the team sharing perspectives that Harris should hear and consider in the mix.
Job one is job one and that includes GOTV efforts.
The NYT article detailed how Harris, to one degree or another, already knows Cooper, Shapiro, and Beshear. As @Measure_for_Measure noted between several good choices Harris might be most likely to choose the person she already has some rapport with. I suspect she’s had some interactions with Buttigieg given his cabinet position but he is not reputed to be on the short list.
Does she have any other past interactions with Kelly or Walz? (Albeit she could likely get a good feel in a few Zoom calls and a face to face.)
Any travel of the possibles to meet with her, or her to them?
She has worked with Kelly on legislation. Walz…not as much.
I live in pa and Shapiro just became governor. I would not like to see him leave the job.
From what I’ve seen of walz, he matches her in humour which is really important to a good working relationship. He is very plain spoken and a bit folksy.
Kelly has a more serious demeanor. He can speak technically and simply. He brings the border cred. And astronaut!
I’ve been pushing for Kelly since before Biden dropped out, but the more I look at Walz, the more I love what I see. A sportsman who was once was endorsed by the NRA, but denounced them after Parkland and now supports gun control, scored 100% from the AFL and the Teamsters (and NOW and the ACLU) when he was a congressman, but was also ranked the 7th-most bipartisan member of the House during his time there. He’s a vet with 24 years of service. And he’s a career teacher! He taught on one of the most impoverished Indian reservations in the country for a spell, Pine Ridge in South Dakota.
This guy, imo, is a badass. He may not have the look of one like Kelly, but he’s got it. Great presence on a mic too. I haven’t seen enough videos of him to say he has charisma (maybe he does), but he’s got great presence and speaks well. And I love that he’s regularly calling the Trump/Vance ticket “weird.”
I’ve never paid too much attention to him but, I believe, I have run across a few articles that he’s written over the years and - now that you say it - I don’t believe that he ever said anything that didn’t seem pretty reasonable.
I’m tentatively positive on the option.
Why on Earth would picking Buttigieg help her “cement the base?” In his own Presidential run, he deliberately and loudly ran as a candidate of the center-left. Progressives hated him. If Harris makes a policy turn toward the center, how does Mayor Pete’s record and positions help allay the fears of base Democrats? Or are they just expected to be mollified because he’s gay?
I really don’t get this as such a big deal to so many here and really do not think the general public would. Which is not to say he would not be a great choice, but I think the thrill of ASTRONAUT! is decades past and not a vote getter.
To me the “border cred” argument is one I am not sure about. Is it better to try to keep the conversation off that and on reproductive rights, healthcare, etc., or can Kelly actually disarm Harris’ perceived vulnerability on that issue? I don’t yet get how his being on the ticket accomplishes the latter when he has been critical of Biden-Harris in that regard.
Is it just a signal that she will have someone as her “border czar” who gets it? He is able to explain more believably how the GOP lines of attack are bullshit and what the actual issues are (manpower and money and organization)? How does his strength there help her?
I don’t see how there will be much new until she announces. Just speculation, wishes and hunches. The good news is the speculation won’t go on much longer.
The more I think about it, having a good stage presence is likely going to make the biggest difference when trying to scoop up extra voters. The undecided and independent voters need something to sway them. If they were into strong policy positions, they likely wouldn’t be undecided. I feel this block of voters is swayed by emotions and slogans. If Waltz is the best of the candidates on mic, he may be the best person for the job of tipping these mercurial voters to Harris.
Even though Kelly may be better on things like border, I don’t think it will matter all that much to the undecideds. They aren’t going to want to hear about complicated solutions to the border problem. They want simple, slogan-based policies like those that the Republicans often come up with. For instance, they want easy policies like “Build the Wall, Deport Them All!”. Unless Kelly can come up with a catchy slogan that appeals to this group, I’m not sure that he will really sway that many undecideds with his border experience.
I don’t recall any Democrat hating Pete. He might not have been their favorite, but I think he was at least respected by most. (I’m not advocating Buttigieg for VP, but I’d like to see him in a bigger role for the next 4 years. He’s quite impressive.)
This was about Kelly being an astronaut. Makes sense.
But what about his 39 Operation Desert Storm combat missions as a naval aviator?
Even though I have argued here a bit against Kelly, in the back of my mind I wondered if his wartime military experience makes him the most electable.
This is dark, but I just read a substack suggesting that American swing voters unconsciously avoid voting for a woman for President (while being perfectly willing to have a woman in another political office) because the presidential job involves threatening massive nuclear retaliation, and they doubt a woman is up to it:
One way to show she is, in this sense, tough, is to pick a veep who almost surely has killed people. AFAIK Kelly is the only viable option there.
Josh Shapiro is an excellent speaker based on a thorough survey of exactly one recent speech. Yes, I’m well aware it is a very small sample.
There was a bruhahah from the Bernie Bros about him allegedly “stealing” the Iowa caucuses from Bernie by nefarious means. Which lead to one of the funnier tweets of the primary campaign: “the left are all out here saying ‘be gay, do crimes’ but then I steal one caucus and they all get mad” 
Moderating: Please do not use this post to launch a hijack about Bernie or the Bernie Bros. His post was about Mayor Pete.
I will probably hand out a warning if someone hijacks this to Bernie Bros.
If he was at the top of the ticket? Maybe. But as VP? It just invites discussion about the Afghanistan withdrawal and reinforces the mistaken message that the lesson is to keep America off of the role as leader obligated to act if action is needed.
I’d argue the attitude of former Bernie Sanders supporters to Mayor Pete is pretty relevant to his possible selection as VP, and this thread. It was definitely a on-topic response to “I don’t think any Democrats hate Pete”.
But fair enough …