There are a lot of weeks between now and the election. She doesn’t need to be the headline every single day. And, “we will announce before Tuesday, when i will begin to campaign with the vp candidate”, does not sound like analysis paralysis. Especially when it’s been leaked that she’s meeting with each one this weekend.
I like Kelly. He was my second choice, after Pete, who I think is widely admired but an unlikely choice. But one thing Pete, and several (all?) of the other potentials have that Kelly seems to lack is the ability to speak eloquently and get the Democrat’s message out there. I think Kelly would be an excellent VP, but possibly not the best running mate, if that makes sense. His story is inspiring. His background is inspiring. Him? Not so much.
Here’s a decent breakdown. It omits Kelly’s shilling for the MLM and doesn’t include spritzer but does have a lot of the other issues.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/02/harris-vp-pick-list-pros-cons-00172063
Mayor Pete has little experience and is openly gay.
Kelly once did MLM (big fucking deal- not a minus to me, and if the GOP tries to pin that on him, they will lose the MLM vote- which is bigger than you think, and mostly republican.)
Whitmer is a woman (two women on the same ticket- bad?) and says she is not interested.
Walz, who’s that again?
Others have come up with the rest.
That’s an impressive list of pluses and minuses that suggests that Harris has no easy chore here. But I still say that, to my reading, Shapiro has the strongest negatives and would cost the campaign more than he would add.
I also note rather sadly the truth of the fact that the only real negative on Walz is that America’s far right would attack him for being “too progressive”. As Walz jokingly commented, “What a monster! Kids are eating and having full bellies so they can go learn and women are making their own health care decisions”. Can’t have that! 
Yeah, that was the other negative. Not as well known as some of the others.
This is a process that ordinarily takes months. It’s scary how compressed her timeline is. I hope she takes every bit of the small amount of time she has. Vetting a VP normally would have researchers literally reading every single thing the person has ever written. Everything they’ve ever been quoted as having said. Reviewing every picture. Speaking to lots of people who know them. All that besides exploring their affiliations, voting record, policy choices, campaign promises, campaign donors, their financial records, and you still need to try to figure out whether you get along.
I hope she does not listen to people arbitrarily rushing her over one or two days’ headlines.
Just a few days back, Kelly was a front-runner. Then Shapiro shot to the top of markets like Predictit, and Walz had so little name recognition that they couldn’t get a poll result for his favorable - unfavorable. Now, Shapiro is falling and Walz is in 2nd at Predictit. And new information is still filtering out about all of them.
If it were just about speed, they could just roll a die. All of them are qualified and bring some positives with them. Taking time is not because Harris is dithering over which one to pick.
Actually, that’s not a bad whole campaign speech.
All I can say is, seeing as how a near consensus here is to NOT pick Shapiro, my money is on him being the pick! (Maybe I’ve worked in government too long!)
I would hope that the candidates are honestly volunteering what possible skeletons may be hiding for the good of the process.
Sure, but thems the breaks. There’s 93 days until election day. Early and mail-in voting is going to starts in some states in 60 days or so. Every day that she hasn’t named a VP is another lost day for the ticket to be on the stump. And as @Zakalwe notes, one of the criticisms of her during her primary campaign was she dithered on committing to campaign strategies and making tough calls among her advisors.
I don’t think waiting until this weekend is an unreasonable timeframe, but if she goes past it I’m going to raise an eyebrow.
As had been said many times, she’s going to appear with her choice on Tuesday. Logistically, she pretty much has to announce by sometime tomorrow.
Indeed clearly her deadline, last possible, is the Tuesday event. Maybe she will have their names read off and then the envelope please! Call up each one and say they’re fired? Give the winning one a rose?
Tonight or tomorrow morning for the Sunday shows or even Monday evening … not much difference.
Every day she hasn’t announced a VP is a day that the campaign maintains the excitement in anticipation of her announcement. People and the media will spend this weekend speculating about her choice instead of waiting with bated breath for Trump’s first attack on that choice.
There is an article on Fox which I will not link to stating that all betting sites are now saying Shapiro is a lock. It comes from Fox but all the info is verifiable if you look at the betting sites along with direct quotes from those that run the sites. Take that for what you will.
I’ll give your death pool winner credentials more weight. What do you think?!
Some people on here give it great weight. I always say bookmakers set odds in order to ensure they make money. They are not in the business of predicting the future. They are in the business of predicting how the majority of people will bet given the odds they set.
Coming up empty searching for this. Is the article still there?
Was it on Fox News’s main website, or a quasi-fake “Fox News” local TV channel website (e.g. Fox 7, Tampa-St. Petersburg**).
** to be clear, that’s a made-up station to demonstrate what I was talking about. It need not be a Fox station, either – plenty of Sinclair far-right stations are CBS, NBS, or ABC affiliates.
On the main website. Came up on my phone.
ETA it comes up on the app but it looks like it redirects to Fox business dotcom. You might have more luck looking directly there.
I think this is it. It’s from “fox business”, but I found it by just googling “betting sights predict shapiro”. It was the top hit.
Some keywords from the title, perhaps? Smells weird so far.
The article could have been pulled within minutes of posting, but your phone will have the article cached so you can always go revisit until you clear your phone’s browser history.
EDIT: Never mind – I’ve read the last few posts. Similar story here, I presume: