Nope. The Gov is a Dem.
It will be an open seat at the future midterm elections.
It would be anyway, he was elected in 2020.
He was elected in a special election in 2020 and elected to his full term in 2022. He’s not up for reelect until 2028.
But I agree you can’t take him off the table just because at some point his seat will be up for election. Governor Hobbs would be able to appoint a Democrat who would have two years of incumbency before facing the voters in a special election.
Okay. thanks. Still, the Gov will select a another Dem, and they will be the incumbent. That will last until 2006? iirc.
Funny, while I was writing this, you edited and posted your last paragraph, which says what I just said. lol.
Lol, yep sorry I saw your response after I edited.
An interesting tidbit I read regarding Walz, Shapiro, Bashear or any other sitting Governor being on the ticket:
The Securities and Exchange Commission has a rule for some employees at financial services firms that forbids them making campaign donations to state officials. The goal is to prevent a quid pro quo whereby financial industry donors curry favor with the state politicians who control the billions of dollars in state pension funds. And this rule applies EVEN IF the official is seeking federal office.
So putting Walz or Shapiro on the ticket could potentially cut off some big Wall Street donors from contributing to the campaign. Probably not a major concern, but a factor that has to be considered.
Since Kelly seems to not be the pick, I’m hoping it’s Walz, as he clearly has the chops to be an effective spokesman for the administration. He’s definitely personable, and seems to have the ability to talk to people at a basic, folksy level.
Yes he did. Being funny and smart (something Pete has in spades) makes for effective campaigning.
(I’d love for Pete to be President one day, but I think he needs a few decades in public service first. Let his kids grow up and turn out fine, and let his hair turn grey, and then he’ll be ready)
My guess is it will be Shapiro, for no reason other than the Democrats always seem to find a way to screw it up.
First off I want to agree with the earlier expressed sentiment that if she picks Buttigieg she has my vote. Of course she could be virtually anyone and have my vote …
While I strongly disagree with the portrayal I am curious about your take, as someone who believes that, to the following:
Harris states some positions strongly critical of Netanyahu and current Israeli government actions.
Harris chooses Shapiro. He supports Harris’s positions as a good running mate will do.
Is one more significant to your enthusiasm over the other?
Alternatively Harris stays no more than her current level of criticism with a different member of the short list, afraid that going farther loses centrist support.
Is that better?
I am so torn here.
I LOVE Pete.
I don’t know the last time I saw a politician who was so erudite, thoughtful and calm when he speaks.
He has regularly gone on FOX NEWS and every time has shut them down and left them unable to respond because he speaks with such assurance and intelligence.
I have a deep fear if he is the choice for Veep there will be a significant chunk of Dem voters who will refuse to vote at all because their pastors preach hate for gay people.
Maybe I’m wrong and we are ready for such a ticket. As a gay man I am fearful it would put DJT back in power.
Even setting aside whether America is “ready for such a ticket,” what would Pete bring to the campaign that he couldn’t equally bring just by being an active advocate for the ticket on TV and at campaign rallies? I just honestly cannot see what constituency he brings to the voting booth that Harris wasn’t going to get anyway.
Sez who?
This is 11 hours ago-
No, not that, but there are old school Southern and Rust belt Dems who just do not understand the “whole gay thing”. It would be a significant minus. Not to mention, he has by far the least experience of the five. But it is nice he is in the five.
This seems an odd choice of qualifications. What does having gray hair and grown kids matter?
I am personally of the opinion that Buttigieg has the innate intelligence and demonstrated skill to be a very effective president, right now.
But he has to overcome some very deep assumptions about being gay before he can succeed.
So, I also think that he will be better served once he has raised his kids into productive adults , since that undermines those fears that gay people are a negative influence on kids.
And I think he also needs to have decades of competent experience under his belt, since repeatedly seeing him, over many years, doing right by the American people will overcome the “otherness” of being gay.
In other words, I’m speculating that seeing Buttigieg as a dedicated family man and civil servant will, over time, wear away the negative reaction some of the electorate has about a gay man, until eventually he can run just on merit.
That makes sense. I was thinking of “kids” and “gray hair” as general qualifications for higher office, not specifically to assuage homophobia for Pete. I agree he’ll need more of a career before running for President or VP.
Secretary of Transportation just isn’t visible enough to show he has experience. In the time he has been in the cabinet all that comes to mind are his bike rides to cabinet meetings while being follwed by security in SUVs and how the big train derailment was handled. There are certainly reasons why those two things weren’t as bad for him as some portray but they aren’t positives. I can’t think of one positive during his time on the cabinet. I’m assuming he did his job and did it well enough to satisfy his boss. That’s not good enough to show you are ready for the White House.
Speaking from a country which recently had a gay Prime Minister, this is one area where our party-first parliamentary system beats the pants off the American practice of electing individuals. If his party sees fit to name him as their leader, and the country’s voters support that party, then the country raises him to lead the government without having to directly consider the question of electing a gay man to the role. It effectively became a non-issue, because it was about trusting the party instead of trusting the individual. In a parliamentary system like ours, a clearly competent individual like Buttigieg would already have risen to a very high elected position.
This is probably threatening to turn into a side discussion of how ready the US is to embrace a gay political leader at the national level, so I’ll leave it there unless someone wants to start a different thread.
Ummm — Barack Obama? 
But I agree with you w.r.t. Pete – he was my first choice in 2020, though I knew he wouldn’t get the nomination. I’d love him to be Sec’y of State in the Harris admin, and Pres in a decade or so.
Just to continue for a bit on the Mayor Pete sidebar, I haven’t seen any of his Fox News interviews where you all say he does a great job of “pushing back”, only because I removed that fking channel from my YoutubeTV lineup altogether. I’ll look forward to adding it back on Wednesday morning, November 4th though, if things go well.
Anyway, for those that might have missed it, here is a pretty good interview he sat down for with Jon Stewart on this past Monday’s Daily Show. I chuckled at Jon trying to get some “insider info” from him on the VP process, and Pete responding with “well, I can’t tell you that on television”.
Pete Buttigieg on Kamala Harris’s Campaign, VP Vetting, & JD Vance | The Daily Show (youtube.com)