DSeid’s link discussing former attorney generals includes Governors Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Andy Beshear of Kentucky. There’s something to be said for someone with solid political instincts and a track record from a southern swing state or an Appalachian red state. The median voter is a white person from the suburbs of an unfashionable city with less than a college degree. The case for these two assumes that Harris has a good history with them.
I guess my 3 bonus criteria are a) solid rapport, b) branding synergy, and c) manageable skeletons. Only the middle one can be readily evaluated by casual news readers, except to the extent that the overarching consideration, “Qualified for the Presidency” overlaps with a) and c).
I’d say this is back to front. B and C here are among the most important if not the most important. VP choice is absolutely all about “vibes”, branding, and not having any skeletons. Its nothing to do with practical governing, VPs don’t do any governing. All that other stuff might be relevant for cabinet members but not VP. I don’t even care if Kamala hates him personally as long as they can do good job of looking like best buddies for the next 100 days.
I would not want Shapiro governing, he is much too far on the right of the Democratic party for my taste. I have absolutely no problem with him being chosen as VP if it’s gonna help win Pennsylvania.
I know the school vouchers issue is considered that. His stated support for Israel’s right for self defense is a wedge issue to be sure, but not far right of the party. What other issues are you thinking of that are far from center left?
“Hate” is a strong word but Buttigieg is perceived as way too moderate by most progressives, and anyone who would be happy to see a gay candidate is already voting Democratic.
On the subject of “cementing the base”; much of the progressive base (including myself) aren’t thrilled with Harris’ background as a prosecutor. I don’t think a significant number of people are going to not vote for her based on that, but it might not be a good idea to double down by adding a second prosecutor to the ticket (Shapiro or Beshear). I think this is another good argument for Kelly or maybe Walz, whose record of teaching underprivileged kids is a much more appealing narrative for leftists.
I think what low-information undecided voters want is to be reassured that Fox News is wrong and Democrats don’t really want to open the border completely, but have a plan to address the issue in a less-than-completely-inhumane way. And it doesn’t matter what Kelly says about the issue, it’s the fact that it’s a badass-looking white dude with a shaved head and a bunch of military decorations who’s saying it that will sway them.
The school vouchers issue is the one that stood out, I think that alone puts him solidly on the right of the party. Being pro Israel kinda spans the political spectrum on the left at least (weirdly being pro Palestinian, less so, I can’t think of any strongly pro Palestinian Democrats who are not on the left of the party)
I’m only having so much luck finding polling on this, specific to the targeted vouchers approach he advocates. What I find does not support your claim though.
I don’t think he needs a catchy slogan to get the sort of voters that can still be gotten (the unaligned who somehow still have not made up their mind, presumably because they consider themselves apolitical and thus far have only really been exposed to the rhetoric, not the facts).
I think Kelly, rightly or wrongly, may have enough perceived credibility on border- and immigration-related issues to be heard out and listened to by people who, up to this moment, have only been exposed to the catchy slogans—of which the Republican Party has many—and who just see the idea of a border wall as an intuitive solution to a problem that they think exists, but in fact does not. Because to the extent undocumented immigration is a problem, the border wall doesn’t solve it. Nor do mass deportations. It’s it just a matter of telling that to someone who considers themself to be apolitical, it’s a matter of having them accept your explanation of the issue with no more evidence in the moment than a MAGA Mouthpiece might provide. And to be clear, I do believe that the evidence establishes that MAGA policies are detrimental to the health of American society. But, as demonstrated by the last presidential debate, facts sound at best no better than lies when they are just being spouted off rapid fire in front of the cameras and without any sort of independent fact checking. It all just comes down to who is perceived as more credible. Not the actual truth value of their statements.
Mark Kelly can, I believe, come across as credible when it comes to (1) border policies, (2) immigration, (3) gun control, and (4) defense, among other issues. To the extent those may be, rightly or wrongly, perceived weaknesses for VP Harris, Kelly helps to balance her out.
I am certainly not the one making the claim that it is either in the mainstream of Democratic thought, or to the right of it. My commentary there is limited to impeaching that source, and saying that there are important Democratic constituencies that might find Shapiro problematic.
Personally, I think that vouchers are absolutely the wrong way to go about repairing the ills of public education. But I also think it is a matter about which sincere, well-intentioned people can disagree, and beyond that is beyond the scope of this thread.
ETA. Agreed that debating the idea is outside this thread’s scope, and that teachers’s unions are against it. Relevant to this thread is @griffin1977 ’s claim that it marks him far to the right of the party. I don’t think there is evidence for that.
Not typically, but they are 1 heartbeat away from doing all the governing, so we shouldn’t select a VP you really wouldn’t want in the office if things came down to it.
Last comment I will make on this, because I think we’re getting pretty far afield, but I think the Illinois program is funded with private dollars, not tax dollars.
Yeah but the odds of that (for a healthy 59 year old with no felony indictments) is low. I think all the contenders handily meet the “there is no way they should ever be in charge of the nuclear football” bar (for anyone who would consider voting for Harris that is). They are all established older, male, white, politicians, what your average American expects their presidents to look like.
Kelly or Beshear are the only ones that make sense. Walz is a distant #3.
Shapiro is a terrible idea for reasons stated above AND he will cause major problems with the Arab/Muslim people in MI who will likely be crucial to a D win in that state.
Kelly or Beshear.
Michelle Obama and Whitmar are what I consider “Unicorn Options” since neither are interested.
Mayor Pete, though I love him and think he is an amazing speaker, will cost Harris the election because there are still too many Democratic voters who are opposed to gay marriage, gay rights, trans rights, etc. Maybe we can handle him better in 8 years.