Josh Shapiro and Mark Kelly said to be leading VP candidates for Harris

Between the two, I take Mark Kelly.

I just don't think we can afford to lose Shapiro at the helm in PA. And it's been observed he's so pro-Israel it might kick off that whole side show about Gaza. This pick has to be as derisked as possible. Shapiro is awesome. Now might not be the moment. Though if it's him, it could be a lot worse.

Both bad choices. She should pick Pete Buttigieg, but she won't.

If it's between those two, it will be Mark Kelly.

But Kelly is a Democratic Senator. Don't we need him in the Senate?

R3, explain your reasoning on that one.

Dems can't afford to take him out of the Senate. It will be Shapiro.

R5 - AZ has Democrat Katie Hobbs as governor, so wouldn't she be able to replace Kelly with another Democratic senator?

Harris is already Jew adjacent because of her husband. Picking a Jewish VP is overkill. Just like picking a POC or a woman would be. Sorry I have no statistics to back this up, just my opinion🤔

As far as insurance policies go, Mayor Pete or AOC are my favorites.

If Jewish matters, Roy Cooper is essentially Josh Shapiro without that aspect. Though Shapiro's hotter. But Cooper is a former AG, and now two-term governor. I dunno... can we afford not to have Shapiro in the PA governor's mansion? Otherwise, I think he'd be great. But Kelly's military background qualifies him for tough, criteria based decision making in crisis, so he's great.

R10, what do you mean by insurance policies?

R3 and R10 I think that would be political hari kari.

Some people will be turned off by a conservative Jew who is so pro-Israel, particularly the extreme left wing. Mark Kelly is good on paper, but that's about it. He's kind of boring and doesn't really add anything. Kamala is a bit of a lightweight and needs someone with gravitas who can do some heavy lifting. Pete is good in that area. And he's already familiar to voters, which helps.

I still think it will be Andy Beshear. The fact he's been out in the media attacking Vance with one of Harris' Twitter accounts reposting the videos makes me think it's still him.

Plus, taking him out of KY to be VP will not be a huge lost for Democrats.

Pete won’t bring any voters she doesn’t already get. Kelly is boring so maybe the Kentucky governor?

R16 👍

Pete is no less lightweight than Kelly by any measure. Kelly exceeds Pete with his military training plainly knows how to make criteria based decisions in crisis. Pete's a slick talker, and it's impressive, and he thinks shrewdly, but he has no meaningful track record (and his performance at Transportation hasn't been perfect) and he has no other experience that particularly makes up for his track record. He's not ready yet, but some day he will be.

Harris + Shaprio = Clinton/Gore: two young people signifying change. Brings his state.

Harris + Kelly = change + an American hero archetype. Brings his state.

Pete doesn't bring anything. Not much reported, but Harris has been packing them in on college campuses. She's got the young vote.

I wonder if Beshar could bring Kentucky, though. It's Kentucky.

Arizona law allows the Governor to make temporary appointments, but requires a primary and special election to be held at the next scheduled election window (2026, in this case).

Senator Kelly was elected in a 2020 special, and 2022 for a full term. He's not up for re-election until 2028. He's gearing up to become the state's senior senator after Sinema leaves (which will grant him interesting informal powers over things like appropriations/pork and judicial nominations). And he's a bit of a singularity in Arizona politics. He has great crossover appeal with no real scandal or negativity. He's impossible to replace, and his departure will likely cost us his seat at the next election.

And so fucking what if Shapiro is Jewish? You say that like it's pedophilia.

Pete should stay in the cabinet, and maybe go for Secretary of Defense in the next term. Or move back to Michigan, make some money quietly, and run for governor someday.

Josh Shapiro is a bad choice simply because he's reminiscent of her own husband.

Josh Shapiro also bears a striking resemblance to former Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

R23, Shapiro is better looking than Mnuchin.

Shapiro's problem is that he's only been in office 18 months.

Here's a suggestion from Brett Stephens: Adam Kinzinger for her VP. It would be thumbing noses at the GOP and garner her support among Independents.

Yeah but it could also make Kinzinger President. There cannot be so much bench talent that replacing Biden was not a problem, but so little Harris can't find a VP.

Stop worrying "Oh he needs to carry a state!" Harris herself came from a solid blue state. John Edwards didn't bring North Carolina. Tim Kaine brought a state Hillary would have carried anyway.

At the end of the day, all that's going to matter is who you have going up against Vance in the sole debate. You need someone bright, photogenic and articulate and can connect with voters under 60.

There are two obvious choices

She will choose neither one.

Two.

They are both from swing states.

There may not even be a VP debate. Both Trump and Vance have been running away from the idea of debates ever since this whole thing broke open.

A vice presidential candidate needs to be someone who can be a skilled governing partner in good times, and a responsible successor in a crisis. It shouldn't really matter who comes from what state, and the voters don't subscribe to that anyway.

She should go for eye candy. So not Kelly. I wouldn't mind looking at Beshear for 8 years.

My god, enough already with Pete. It’s not happening.

Agree it should be Kelly.

Shapiro is too risky with the Israel aspect although he could bring the Jewish vote back to the democrats since a lot of them have fled with all the antisemitism shit from the squad.

Written before Harris powered ahead, but food for thought:

Gavin Newsom Governor of California Ross Barkan Electable: 5 • Exciting: 6 Newsom has steadily raised his profile with reliable Democrats, and he’s a flashy, agile debater on television. He’s a cutthroat political operator — Democrats could use that — but California’s various maladies, like a persistent housing crisis, will be laid at his feet.

Josh Barro Electable: 2 • Exciting: 4 Newsom’s red meat delights MSNBC viewers, but there’s nothing about him that helps win over swing voters. He’s also personally sleazy — check out the video of him apologizing for sleeping with his campaign manager’s wife back when he was mayor of San Francisco — and looks like a 1980s movie villain. Nominating him would be a serious mistake.

Jamelle Bouie Electable: 6 • Exciting: 9 I am not especially impressed by Newsom, and I wonder if he could survive the vetting received by a candidate for national office. However, normie Democrats love him. Either way, it does not matter, because he’s already endorsed Harris.

Jane Coaston Electable: 7 • Exciting: 1 I don’t think he’d generate any enthusiasm — he’s scary.

Ross Douthat Electable: 5 • Exciting: 4 He is feared by conservatives but unloved by liberals. His ambition almost certainly exceeds his grasp.

Michelle Goldberg Electable: 5 • Exciting: 8 He looks the part and is great on the attack, but he’d have to answer for every problem plaguing California.

Patrick Healy Electable: 5 • Exciting: 5 Trump sees Newsom as beatable because of his potential image problem with swing voters (slick, California liberal, showboater). I also have a hard time seeing a white man uniting the Democrats if it means beating a Black woman who is the sitting vice president. Newsom plays a long game; 2028 is his play.

Pamela Paul Electable: 4 • Exciting: 4 Newsom comes across as too slick, too changeable, too political. California will go blue no matter what, so he doesn’t add anything electorally. And California has been an unending source of negative news in recent years. If it’s true that California trends tend to lead the nation, most voters do not want to go in that direction.

I don't want to lose Shapiro as my Governor, so I'll go with Kelly. Besides, everyone loves astronauts.

Mark Kelly Senator from Arizona Ross Barkan Electable: 8 • Exciting: 7 Kelly is a former astronaut who has proved he can survive in Arizona. Unlike his colleague Kyrsten Sinema, he has found a way to appeal to moderates and Republicans without abandoning Democrats in the Senate.

Josh Barro Electable: 6 • Exciting: 4 Voters love astronauts, and Kelly, who has a compelling personal story, has performed well in a swing state. But this election is going to be fought more in the Rust Belt than in the Sun Belt. He is a possible contender for V.P.

Jamelle Bouie Electable: 7 • Exciting: 5 Kelly is as close as one can get to an almost generic Democratic nominee for president. If what the public wants is a generic Democrat, then I suppose he can win. It’s worth saying, however, that he has already endorsed the vice president.

Jane Coaston Electable: 5 • Exciting: 7 He’s an astronaut, for Pete’s sake.

Ross Douthat Electable: 8 • Exciting: 5 A moderate, faintly boring astronaut from a swing state, he might be the best choice on pure electability but probably not a choice to win a contested convention.

Michelle Goldberg Electable: 8 • Exciting: 8 Trump would have a hard time making this contest a referendum on machismo if he were running against a real live astronaut.

Patrick Healy Electable: 4 • Exciting: 5 He has a compelling story but doesn’t have the national profile, political identity or money to catch fire (and he has endorsed Harris). The astronaut image is cool but didn’t do much for John Glenn in the 1984 presidential race. Kelly may not have the juice to carry even Democratic-leaning states like Minnesota and Maine.

Pamela Paul Electable: 7 • Exciting: 8 As a former astronaut and a former military pilot, Kelly fits well into the heroic model Americans look for in a presidential candidate. He is also personally very appealing, always conscientious of his wife in public. And he could be a real moral force on gun control. He would also be a strong vice-presidential candidate, should Harris lead the ticket.

Andy Beshear Governor of Kentucky Ross Barkan Electable: 7 • Exciting: 5 Beshear is the dream candidate for centrists everywhere — he’s a Democrat winning in heavily Republican Kentucky — and there’s a reason he will likely be on V.P. shortlists. Only Kentuckians and Democratic insiders have heard of him, though, and he’d need a compelling narrative for a serious presidential campaign.

Josh Barro Electable: 7 • Exciting: 6 Beshear is young, handsome and good at winning elections in places Democrats aren’t supposed to. He’s also shown how abortion-rights politics can be winning for Democrats even in red states. Still, a swing-state governor like Whitmer or Shapiro would probably be more useful for the electoral map.

Jamelle Bouie Electable: 6 • Exciting: 3 Beshear has given no indication that he is interested in running for president at this moment. And he doesn’t have much of a national following. If I were to imagine a strong vice-presidential nominee for Harris, however, Beshear would be near the top of my list.

Jane Coaston Electable: 3 • Exciting: 3 A Kentucky Democrat is very exciting in theory but probably not in reality.

Ross Douthat Electable: 7 • Exciting: 4 Moderate enough to be a good general-election candidate but too moderate to win an intraparty fight.

Michelle Goldberg Electable: 9 • Exciting: 7 It takes a very skilled politician to win as a Democrat in Kentucky, and he’s been great on abortion rights. I hope Harris, who is almost certainly going to be the nominee, considers him for V.P.

Patrick Healy Electable: 5 • Exciting: 5 Yes, he’s the rare red-state governor, but that doesn’t mean he can unite and energize the moderates, liberals, progressives, independents and undecideds in a matter of weeks. His appeal as a presidential candidate is more theoretical at this point.

Pamela Paul Electable: 8 • Exciting: 8 Beshear is very appealing as the young governor of a conservative Southern state who recently won re-election. He shows that it’s possible to sell liberal positions to a more conservative state in a way that bodes well on a national level. He would be a formidable opponent for Trump and could easily sway independents and even Republicans disgusted by Trump’s enduring awfulness.

Josh Shapiro Governor of Pennsylvania Ross Barkan Electable: 7 • Exciting: 6 Shapiro won a huge victory in Pennsylvania, proving he knows how to stump in a swing state. He’s a popular center-left Democrat who’d be the nation’s first Jewish president. If he’s not the nominee, he’d be an ideal running mate; it helps that, unlike his fellow Pennsylvanian John Fetterman, Shapiro hasn’t picked too many fights with the left.

Josh Barro Electable: 7 • Exciting: 5 Shapiro and Whitmer are very similar on paper: swing-state governors with a strong demonstrated ability to appeal to voters in the middle and win, often by wide margins. Shapiro also impressively presided over a lightning-quick rebuild of damaged Interstate 95 in Philadelphia and showed sober leadership in the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Trump. A Whitmer-Shapiro ticket could make a lot of sense to win the Rust Belt.

Jamelle Bouie Electable: 8 • Exciting: 8 Shapiro is, next to Beshear, the other obvious choice to be Harris’s running mate. And with a real national fan base among Democrats, he could also probably beat Trump in his own right.

Jane Coaston Electable: 6 • Exciting: 4 Exceptionally normal. That’s a good thing.

Ross Douthat Electable: 7 • Exciting: 5 Maybe the most talented of the Democratic governors but in line behind Whitmer at the moment.

Michelle Goldberg Electable: 8 • Exciting: 7 He could help deliver the essential state of Pennsylvania, but his ardent support for Israel and criticism of pro-Gaza campus protests would reopen wounds in the Democratic Party that have lately started to heal.

Patrick Healy Electable: 7 • Exciting: 6 Trump advisers see him as formidable. Pennsylvania and Michigan are Democrats’ most urgent must-win states, and he could compete strongly against Trump in both. But would his popularity at home translate nationally? Also: He’s already endorsed Harris. Many top Democrats see him as her V.P. pick.

Pamela Paul Electable: 6 • Exciting: 6 Shapiro would be an excellent vice-presidential candidate, but given the unfortunate but real antisemitism on the left right now (as well as on the right), this may not be the right time for a Jewish Democratic presidential candidate. As a V.P. candidate, he could bring Democrats the swing state of Pennsylvania.

Chasten is all over this thread. Don't you have a scrapbooking meet to get to, C?

It's not going to be Gavin Newsom. Get that through your thick, horny skull, queen!

They have the same state of residency, and legally cannot both be on the same ticket. Why are you SO obsessed with Gavin Newsom? Do the Sacramento police have your name and photo on file as a stalker?

Kelly is a much better campaigner than you think. He’s strong in every aspect she needs.

She has so many good picks to choose from. Democrats have a deep bench.

Out of Kelly, Shapiro or Beshear, there really isn't a wrong answer.

Shapiro will cost her Michigan. He's been very open about his Israel support over Gaza. He just got into the governorship, he and Harris would be fools to team up on this ticket. Muslims will revolt along with some young folks.

R40 Bingo

If a governor of a state is the VP pick does he have to resign to run?

She's a fool to think anyone will help her win the election. She is not going to win the election. She can only protect downballot races at this point. Which she and her running mate must do, with a SMILE.

I can’t imagine voters focusing on Shapiro’s Israel stance when, as VP, he will have little input into our policy.

Would you take a job where you have little input into policy?

IT SHOULD BE COREY!

R47 We really can't have a vice president named "Cory" or "Corey."

Isn't Gov Roy Cooper from NC still in the mix?

^ Too old, too old looking

Another fun fact about Kelly - he has a twin who is also an astronaut, who fundraises for Ukraine. Kelly is pro-Ukraine, pro-science, prochoice, pro- gun control, appealing to both men and women, and his wife was actually shot in the head ("hold my beer, Donald!"). They make Donald and JD look the most pathetic.

Mark Kelly looks like he’s taking a shit every time he smiles.

Kelly is really the best choice here. Weird looks aside; he's got all of the boxes checked. Shapiro is strong speaker and advocate also.

Both are terrible choices.

Well then, who do you think should be in the running r55? Names please.

If Andy Beshear weren't so folksy and aww shucks, I'd love to have him run as VP. I'm afraid he doesn't have the temperament to take on Vance.

Beshear is a walking advertisement for highly educated, non-threatening, white, WASP, straight beta male. That's for sure. I don't think he has the fire in him to take on the Orange Menace and his smarmy henchman. Harris needs someone tough, fiery and unafraid to punch down on these loons.

If she was running against a "normal" Republican ticket, like a McCain or Romney, Beshear would be a shoe-in. Not with this gang of goons she's up against.

R58 You don’t know Andy then.

R55 For DT’s reelection chances.

[quote] I don't think he has the fire in him to take on the Orange Menace and his smarmy henchman. Harris needs someone tough, fiery and unafraid to punch down on these loons.

I don't know, R58. He hasn't wasted any time going after Vance and Trump in recent media appearances. The one from CNN was great because he got in a great zinger with the "conviction" line.

66% for Kelly.

DL has spoken, decisively.

Beshear troll undeterred.

[quote] Beshear troll undeterred.

That actually has a nice ring to it. Thank you very much!

Mark Kelly is great in interviews and can really get his points across.

A troll, undeterred,

Unburdened by what has been

Plugs Andy Beshear

Neither but if I had to choose - Shapiro. But PA has a batshit crazy Lt. Gov. doesn't it? So we can't afford to lose him there.

Mark Kelly looks like a wizened old man and he will excite nobody. I'll be disappointed in Kamala if she picks him. Just another Lieberman/Gore choice. BLAH. Don't give a rat's ass he was an astronaut.

I think Andy Beshear is the best choice. For some reason he actually appeals to MAGATs. And he doesn't talk like a politician, he's fearless.

I never saw him until yesterday. Then I saw him trashing Trump and I think it was in a Fox interview. I was shocked at how good he sounded, and I think he'd have great chemistry with Kamala. And he's young and handsome.

"Josh" is a ridiculous name for a president. What's next? A president "Scooter"?

What the hell is wrong with the name Josh? Sometimes I can't believe the stupid shit I read on here.

[quote]and his wife was actually shot in the head

Not much surprises me, but that in the plus column, that surprised me.

Mark Kelly looks like a wizened old man? Do you even fucking know who the hell he is? Do you think he’s Tony Evers? JFC

I know what he looks like. He looks like a bald hobbit.

[quote]Shapiro is awesome. Now might not be the moment.

Would you still be saying that if him joining the ticket guaranteed that Harris would win PA? THAT is the future-of-Western-democracy question. Yes, Cooper could help flip NC and should definitely be considered. No, Kentucky won't flip blue even with Beshear on the ticket. No, we do NOT need ANOTHER fat fuck white billionaire in D.C., so Pritzker is a HARD NO (plus he's from Illinois FFS - doesn't help Dems, either, in terms of winning a battleground state).

[quote]Both bad choices. She should pick Pete Buttigieg, but she won't.

No, she shouldn't pick Pete, and whether you want to admit it or not, you only had this thought because he likes the homosex. Harris already has an uphill battle as a biracial woman. Like it or not – and I admittedly don't – she needs to choose a white straight male centrist as a running mate if she wants to have the broadest appeal. Pete's barely 40 FFS! He's also the *least* experienced – by far – in terms of politics. A small-city major & DOT head aren't exactly traditional iconic-politician credentials. He needs more gravitas before a presidential run – why not do a Hillary and move to a blue state with an open Senate seat?

[quote]I think Andy Beshear is the best choice. For some reason he actually appeals to MAGATs.

Merely being elected governor of a red state doesn't mean he automatically "appeals to MAGAts," and you're batshit if you think any ACTUAL MAGAt won't be voting for Trump ten times over. Beshear has the least name recognition of anyone under consideration, and unlike Cooper, Kelly or Shapiro, he can't all but guarantee a win in a pivotal battleground state.

Btw the only reason he won in the first place is because Kentucky's former governor was horrible even by Republican standards, and I know that's saying a lot. He most likely sealed his fate when the state's teachers went on strike: instead of doing, you know, the HUMAN THING by at least showing some sympathy for one of the hardest-working, lowest-paid jobs in America, he instead accused them of "enabling child abuse" by "forcing children to stay home." (Which was just as ridiculous before Covid as it is today.)

Still, he's a total anomaly much like Jon Tester is one: at least Kentucky *has* a solid Democratic base, in part because – very much unlike Montana – it has a fairly large Black population. That alone doesn't mean Beshear should get the VP nod.

Let's have them all lipsync for their life and then the losers sashay away.

Mark Kelly is getting flack for not supporting the PRO act, which is legislation that will create more unions in jobs across the country.

R74, Andy Beshear has a better relationship with labor than Mark Kelly.

I love you Beshear Troll. Your boy really doesn't stand a chance, but I heart you anyways. Please carry on :)

Tester is an anomaly? You do know MT just finished 16 consecutive years with two, 2 term Democratic governors. And they had a Dem Senator before Tester, who has won reelection twice. And they voted for Clinton one of his terms.

Wow, lots of Beshear trolls on this thread. I blocked them and nearly half the posts are missing! R7, Trump won Montana by 17 points, and most of its elected officials are Republican, so yes, Tester is an anomaly, much like Liz Cheney is an anomaly from your neighboring state among Republicans for being so fervently anti-Trump.

You can’t be an anomaly when you elected Dems Gov 4 times consecutively, has always had a Dem Senator. An anomaly was Clinton winning in ‘92.That’s the definition of anomaly. MT is happy to elect Dems statewide.

R78, that kind of idiocy just got you a block. Open your mind, shut your mouth. Beshear troll... Christ, what's next?

R78 is too stupid to see that someone like me was tongue-in-cheek when I labeled myself "Beshear Troll" (and that's only because I was called that because I liked him the most out of the potential VP picks).

But yeah, what a moron.

R79, while you're chosen an interesting hill to die on, the FACT of the matter is that Republicans have a supermajority in BOTH houses of the Montana Legislature. You've had exactly one Democratic governor in the past 35 years.

Even TEXAS is less conservative than Montana. Jesus. (And they at least had a *good* Democratic governor: Ann Richards.)

[quote] Wow, lots of Beshear trolls on this thread. I blocked them and nearly half the posts are missing!

That’s a lot of replies. That volume on an anonymous message board promoting one candidate would be worthy of the word “troll”. No offense to the person(s) doing it.

R22 I just fucking said that. Do you not read the posted replies before you reply you retard?

There is nothing trollish about thinking Kamala should select a young, telegenic governor who was elected and then reelected in a red state. It’s completely rational, even if she does choose Mark Kelly instead.

I think the crazy poster who insists on calling everyone Beshear trolls is just upset that people want someone younger on the ticket. They need someone like Kelly or Cooper as their security blanket, because even though they like Kamala, they’d feel more comfortable with an old guy by her side.

R22 say hello to R9

R26 At the end of the day?... Youre another day older

[quote] There is nothing trollish about thinking Kamala should select a young, telegenic governor who was elected and then reelected in a red state.

It’s the volume that would make it trollish. Posting support once with a few more replies extolling the person’s virtues would not be trollish.

[quote]I think the crazy poster who insists on calling everyone Beshear trolls is just upset that people want someone younger on the ticket.

WTF? Beshear is 46. I'm pretty sure the only possible candidate younger than him is Mayor Pete, and he's even less likely to get the nomination.

What part of "choosing a VP candidate from a strategically important state" is confusing to you? Just curious, given that you seem to bizarrely be making it into an age thing. I have no problem with Andy Beshear, much like I have no problem with Gavin Newsom – but both would be terrible running mates for Harris. Two Californians on the ticket would be a disaster – "West Coast elites" would become the GOP's line of attack. And in this election, with razor-thin margins in battleground states, it could easily become a disaster if it's a close enough race to be decided by a few thousand votes – and as a reminder, that's EXACTLY what happened in 2016. (2020 wasn't at all close, but 2016 was another story.)

You definitely need to read more threads than this one if you think you're somehow in any sort of majority. You're not. And you're blindly attacking people for making entirely valid concerns, including people who aren't attacking anything about Beshear aside from the fact that Kentucky is a bright red state and will remain that way even if he's Harris's running mate.

Very simply: we need a candidate from a winnable state. That excludes both Kentucky and Illinois (the latter's already always blue), and both Beshear & Pritzker. You're making it personal when it's not: it is ALL about politics.

R89, you’re being an overdramatic drama queen. Calm the fuck down.

Nowhere did I suggest that the majority of people support Beshear. I suggested that multiple people think Beshear is a good choice, which is undeniably true. That’s something you conjured from thin air, just like your irrelevant diatribe about Newsom. My point was that Beshear is an entirely valid choice for the reasons I mentioned.

And since you’re so convinced we need a candidate from a winnable state, name the last vice-president who secured a crucial state for the winning ticket. Successful Vice-Presidential candidates balance weaknesses or help shape the campaign narrative. If winning swing states were the sole criterion, Ohio would have a lot more vice-presidential picks in living memory than JD Vance.

[quote] And since you’re so convinced we need a candidate from a winnable state, name the last vice-president who secured a crucial state for the winning ticket. Successful Vice-Presidential candidates balance weaknesses or help shape the campaign narrative. If winning swing states were the sole criterion, Ohio would have a lot more vice-presidential picks in living memory than JD Vance.

BINGO! Judging by R89's criteria, Biden would've picked anyone but Harris as his running mate in 2020 if we followed this same methodology. Biden already had California in the bag, so what was the need for Harris? As you mentioned, it was to balance his weaknesses, namely his age, and to shape the narrative of Biden. Not only was Biden the VP under the first black president, but he also has the distinction of adding the first black woman as his VP.

Gretchen has the battle experience. A two woman ticket would be a lovely fuck you to the Supremes, ALEC, and Heritage.

That’s because from the beginning of the nineteenth century until the last decade of the twentieth century, most vice presidents were chosen to “balance” the ticket. The balance in question could be geographic—a northern presidential candidate like John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts picked a southerner like Lyndon B. Johnson—or it could be ideological and geographic—Governor Jimmy Carter, a Southern conservative, picked Walter Mondale, a Northern liberal; Senator Bob Dole picked conservative Congressman Jack Kemp to woo the tax-cutting, supply-side faction of the Republican Party.That’s because from the beginning of the nineteenth century until the last decade of the twentieth century, most vice presidents were chosen to “balance” the ticket. The balance in question could be geographic—a northern presidential candidate like John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts picked a southerner like Lyndon B. Johnson—or it could be ideological and geographic—Governor Jimmy Carter, a Southern conservative, picked Walter Mondale, a Northern liberal; Senator Bob Dole picked conservative Congressman Jack Kemp to woo the tax-cutting, supply-side faction of the Republican Party.

What can this candidate do for the party? Vice presidents are considered party unifiers. That is they attract voting segments to the national ticket that the presidential candidate may not appeal to. But here’s the rub; the vice presidential role is supportive and so his or her appeal must not be seen to outshine that of the presidential candidate.

What can this candidate do for me? The presidency is about making tough decisions and taking strong actions on behalf of the nation. A president needs people who can give him advice and yet are willing to play subordinate roles to his decision-making. Most importantly, the president needs loyalty of people who will carry out the orders once they are given. A vice president therefore must be a straight talker as well as a loyalist.

What can this candidate do for the country? Personality aside, the vice president must bring a combination of talents and skills to the job that augments the president’s ability to lead as well as to govern. The vice president may lead some initiatives but more often champion the president’s initiatives to the people and work with the Congress to get them carried out.

And so it will be with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama.

His choice of a vice president presents opportunity as well as peril. Some Democratic loyalists want him to select Senator Hillary Clinton, the candidate who came in a strong second and, right along with Obama, played hard politics the whole way. The argument advocated by Clinton supporters is that she deserves the VP nod because she carries wide appeal and that her presence on the ticket can unify the Democratic party. Obama supporters counter that argument by noting that Clinton carries some highly negative factors with her and putting her on the ticket will only serve to galvanize Republican voters.

Another tricky problem to negotiate for Obama is that political commentators such as David Gergen (speaking on CNN) argue that if Obama is forced to choose Hillary he will appear weak and not his own man. In other words, less of a leader.

[quote] He's also the *least* experienced – by far – in terms of politics

Pete’s run for President and did well enough to become a national figure. I think being a Cabinet Secretary is more relevant experience than being a first-term Senator, though his lack of an electoral track record is a minus. Especially Transportation during a massive infrastructure investment.

Well, I don't think so.

See what a persuasive argument that is?

Before Biden dropped out, Chris Christie said on The View that if Kamala was the the nominee the two best choices were Shapiro and Beshear. So there you have it.

Make it Pete. He's the only one who can match Vance's youth and I want to see an older millennial v. older millennial Veep fight.

Pete would make a great VP as the disrupter candidate. He's not your father's conservative white male. He can really take the fight to the other side. I think it's time to let go of the old time thinking of "balancing out the ticket". Times have changed and strategy needs to as well.

It's already going to be difficult to get some people to vote for a black woman. Why does anyone think adding a gay man to the ticket would bring in more voters?

r66 - I like Biff.

Pete brings nothing electorally and may be a liability.

It's just fangurling. All they want is Real Housewives.

[quote]Pete brings nothing electorally and may be a liability.

That's not how you pic a VP in spite of what all the talking heads on TV are saying. The last 5 presidents didn't pic them that way either, they picked VP's they thought they could work with for the next 4 to 8 years. Someone they liked on a gut level and could take over in a minutes notice.

[quote]It's already going to be difficult to get some people to vote for a black woman. Why does anyone think adding a gay man to the ticket would bring in more voters?

Because those people you are worried about are already MAGA voters. 70% of America is ok with gay marriage now, that's the majority of Americans so moderates or people who are undecided are unlikely to hinge their vote on old time homophobia.

Plus, Pete presents as straight and that's what matters a lot more to people who have issues with gays. They are ok with "straight acting" they just dont like Yass Queens, Queer types or Richard Simmons vibes.

[quote]Pete brings nothing electorally and may be a liability.

It's true that he won't flip Indiana, so he doesn't add any electoral votes.

It will be Beshear.

He has Midwest/South appeal the others don't.

We've gotta have the hick vs. hick VP debate to really convince swing voters why they should vote Democratic/progressive.

Pete is a much better choice than removing Democrat senators and governors from iffy purple states.

R106, that's not the reason most Presidents pic a VP, you are listening to too many experts on TV. Think about it, what happens after they bring the votes? Now you are suck with a VP for 8 years who you might not even get along with? Most Presidents pick based on who can do the job dine, and then who they think they will get along with well over time. That's true of the last 5 or so presidential VP pics.

Sorry, R109?

The last five VPs were

Harris - commitment to pick a Black woman

Pence - bridge to religious conservatives

Biden - bolster expertise in governing

Cheney - marksmanship (and bolster expertise in governing)

Gore - might, might fit your theory. It was more than thirty years ago.

I think I'll listen to the experts on TV, most of whom have been inside, rather than experts trying to confirm their own bias.

Pete isn't in. His time is somewhere in the future. Get over it or at least start reasoning with more than feelings.

Nobody asked Oprah?

[quote] Nobody asked Oprah?

Oprah is still smarting about not being given a piece of pie by Michelle at the WH. That hurts a lot more than being snubbed for VP.

She didn’t need that pie.

R112 and by pie do you mean vajayjay?

[quote] [R112] and by pie do you mean vajayjay?

I know this article is paywalled, but you can get the gist of it.

R110, those are not electoral votes. Thanks for proving my point. As said before, VP's usually don't change election, and none of those you just listed brought swing states as their main contribute.

But I will play your game. Pete would bring the youth vote, LGBT vote, and the progressives in the Democratic party.

New name on the list.

NEWS: It appears Kamala Harris’s VP list includes Admiral William McRaven — who oversaw the Bin Laden raid and served as chancellor of the University of Texas system

Interesting. McRaven really hates Trump. He stepped down as Chancellor of the University of Texas in 2018, after three years, due to "chronic health issues" -- he had battled leukemia earlier.

He's 68 which isn't all *that* old, but the leukema history is worisome.

^ I forgot to mention that Sollenberger also reports that there are 12 names on the list, including some people from outside of government.

R82 You are a fucking idiot. MT had TWO Democratic Govs in a row, Brian S and Steve B. Both served two terms for 16 consecutive years of Democratic Govs. MT has had at least ONE Democratic Senator for at least 40 years. I said they have NO PROBLEM voting for Dems statewide so fuck off with your lying. You died on a hill where you were caught lying, or just being an ignorant fuck. MT is also gerrymandered to hell.

It should be Ms. Barbra Streisand.

The Left has already said no to Shapiro. He's a conservative Jew and is a hardliner on Israel, BIG TIME. Kelly already had the unions come out against him. He fucked them over.

Unfortunately Andy Beshear reminds me of Tim Kaine. He has loser written all over him.

Genocide Josh is trending and now has accounts.

[QUOTE]Kelly already had the unions come out against him. He fucked them over.

How?

Due to the intense situation in mideast, I really don’t think it is a good idea to pick Shapiro as VP at this point. I have seen enough twitter accounts attacking Harris and Biden to support genocide.

It won't be Shapiro. He compared the campus protesters to KKK members. That's a surefire way of pissing off Gen Z voters (who are already energized over Harris's candidacy) to sit home and not vote.

Kelly would be a great choice... if this was an election in the 80s or 90s. Harris's team is signaling that this election is a generational shift in power. Kelly doesn't give that on the ticket. He gives standard, old-guard politician. Plus, labor unions don't care for him.

Cooper is 67—no chance she's picking him, despite her friendship with him.

Beshear is the clear choice. He's young and has a great relationship with unions. He doesn't bend the knee to the radical right in KY while still having massive appeal among progressives, moderates, and independents. (I was reading comments from even Republicans in KY who like him.) He's the perfect pick for VP.

I'm warming up to Bashear. He seems a bit bland, but I will take safe and bland over white nationalist insurrectionists.

[quote]It appears Kamala Harris’s VP list includes Admiral William McRaven — who oversaw the Bin Laden raid and served as chancellor of the University of Texas system

It makes sense for McRaven to decline. He would get nothing out of it if Harris loses and he would have wasted a huge amount of time and energy during the campaign. The politicians on the list would all increase their stature even with a Harris lost, and set themselves up for future political endeavors.

McRaven has battled leukemia recently.

How about Martin Heinrich?

R133 Hot, but brings nothing.

Josh Shapiro is mondo beyondo pro-Israel.

I no longer like him.

[quote]How about Martin Heinrich?

R133. YES!!

[quote]Hot, but brings nothing.

Isn't hot enough?

Harris/Whitmer - come on baby light election night on fire 🔥

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate the day after President Joe Biden bowed out of the race but also told WOOD TV8’s Lansing sister station that she has no intention of being Harris’ running mate.

Asked Monday morning if she was prepared to take the vice presidency if it was offered, Whitmer replied, “No, I’m not planning on going anywhere.”

It’s the winning ticket

Hopefully Whitmer will run some day, maybe after Kamala's next 8 years. Although, if the period after the Obama administration is any indication, the pendulum will swing hard to the Right.

R128 nailed it.

Beshear doesn’t have the pro-Israel anti-union baggage that Shapiro (who ALSO is pro school voucher) and Kelly do. He’s young and more dynamic than Cooper or Priztker. He would not hesitate to call out Trump and Vance. And he’s gotten elected twice in a deep red state. That’s a better qualification than all the other ones combined.

Buttigieg is my second choice. He also is fearless, hell he goes on Fox and gives it right back to them. Nobody cares that he’s gay and if Trump went after him for that it backfire.

Whitmire would be my third choice if she wanted to be considered.

Kamala should pick someone who isn’t business as usual IMO.

We need him in PA, please, have Mark Kelly

[quote]Beshear ... (has) gotten elected twice in a deep red state.

But there's no chance of him delivering that red state to the Democratic ticket, and KY's electoral votes are negligible, anyway.

Someone who worked on campaigns said usually the President is usually only seriously looking at 2 or 3 VP pics. The reason they throw out 10 more names is just to make it look like they are really canvasing every possibility.

I wonder if the add of one more guy to the vetting is more about decided who might work for a cabinet position.

The benefit of having a popular governor on the ticket can be reduced in their state by the other side asking the question, “If you like having this person as governor, why would you vote to lose him?”

[quote]Beshear would be a shoe-in.

Thanks for inspiring me to look this up, R58. It, is, in fact, "shoo-in."

It’s Beshear.

She can’t choose a gay man or a Jew. That’s just the way it is, and I’m speaking as a gay Jew.

Astronaut trumps Hebe.

No.

Pete will be on MSNBC at 4pm est. I wonder if we will get an additional update about him still being open for an offer?

Let’s hope so

[quote] Pete will be on MSNBC at 4pm est. I wonder if we will get an additional update about him still being open for an offer?

It would be sweet if someone on-air reviewed with him all the reasons why he won’t be picked, but that’s not going to happen.

Pete will not get it and Josh won’t either. They’re non-starters.

Neither. Beshear will get the nod.

Beshear knows how to troll Vance.

The entire fucking world knows how to troll Vance including a few couches.

The story OP references was published 7/23. Much has changed

Q: Why does Vance have such a surprised look on his face?

A: Because it was a pull out couch!

We don't need a Jew on the ticket, but we need Pennsylvania.

We should not have to be begging for Pennsylvania. WTF is wrong with the people of PA?

Abolish the goddamn Electoral College.

Popular vote is all that should matter.

[quote] What the hell is wrong with the name Josh? Sometimes I can't believe the stupid shit I read on here.

Josh is the name of a high school junior who wears basketball shorts and scratches his nuts with abandon. It's not the name of a man of stature.

The Today's Oh, for God's Sake Prize goes to ^

[quote] Josh is the name of a high school junior

His first and middle names are Joshua and David, from the Bible. You can’t do better than that.

[quote] "Josh" is a ridiculous name for a president. What's next? A president "Scooter"?

We've had a president named "Jimmy," Mary.

I'd vote for a Joshie.

R142

No one cares Pete is gay? If Pete were not gay no one on DL would be giving a shit about him. He would just be another dorky straight guy with kids and a boring wife.

Then he should go by David and not Josh. Josh is the name of a dick!

Maybe the DL would not care R167, but the rest of the county are in love with Pete, he's got very high ratings for taking on Republicans on their own ground. If you want boring go look at JD Vance.

[quote]Due to the intense situation in mideast, I really don’t think it is a good idea to pick Shapiro as VP at this point. I have seen enough twitter accounts attacking Harris and Biden to support genocide.

Instead of bot-created troll-farm tweets, how about reading the opinions of actual Jewish people? They're not irked that Shapiro is Jewish; they're irked that he's being singled *out* for being Jewish. Like, say, Yair Rosenberg at the Atlantic:

"Anti-Israel partisans have every right to advocate against candidates who oppose their cause, and there’s nothing inherently anti-Semitic about doing so. But as its name implies, the “Genocide Josh” campaign is not about applying a single standard on Palestine to all VP contenders; it’s about applying them to one person, who just so happens to be the only Jew on the shortlist. And to make matters more absurd, Shapiro’s positions on Israel don’t come close to fitting the epithet.

“I personally believe Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the worst leaders of all time,” Shapiro told reporters in January, months before Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for the Israeli leader to resign. At the time, Shapiro also pressed for an “immediate two-state solution,” something Netanyahu and his hard-right government stridently oppose. The anti-Shapiro campaign ignores these remarks but makes much of the governor’s comparison of campus Gaza protesters to “people dressed up in KKK outfits.”

When he said that in an interview, however, Shapiro was distinguishing between bigoted extremists—such as the Columbia campus-protest leader who called for killing “Zionists”—and peaceful demonstrators, about whom the governor has said, “It’s right for young people to righteously protest and question.”

That all of these politicians support Israel should not come as a surprise. After all, Harris is searching for a moderate to help her win swing voters in states that are currently polling in the Trump column. Although some Democrats have grown more critical of Israel, Americans back the country by a two-to-one margin and oppose the recent campus protests, which means that any VP nominee considered by Harris would likely share such views...

And yet, activists have not organized in force to discredit any of the non-Jewish contenders for vice president on these grounds. There are no viral memes against “Killer Kelly” or “War-Crimes Walz.” Either the activists involved are extraordinarily lazy and never thought to investigate the other VP possibilities, or they think that Jews are uniquely untrustworthy. Seen in context, the “Genocide Josh” campaign and its tendentious reading of Shapiro’s record look less like a legitimate political critique than a rigged litmus test imposed on the Jewish lawmaker alone.

The irony of this whole affair is that Shapiro has actually been more outspoken against Israel’s leadership than Biden or Harris. Few Rust Belt governors would publicly rebuke the prime minister of a foreign country, let alone that of an ally like Israel. But Shapiro knows a thing or two about the subject, which is why he feels comfortable assailing both Netanyahu for thwarting peace and extremist campus protesters for engaging in anti-Semitism. The two positions are not contradictory except to binary thinkers who treat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a partisan sport, and whose understanding of the issue derives from social-media slogans. Marooned in their moralism, the “Genocide Josh” brigade misses what makes Shapiro so interesting.

The truth is that whatever Shapiro’s views, a Jewish vice president would function in precisely the opposite manner from what these critics fear. Far from a sinister Semitic Svengali suborning the president to an Israeli agenda, a Jewish veep would be trotted out to defend Harris in her inevitable conflicts with Israel’s right-wing government, and to insulate the boss from charges of anti-Semitism. As one Republican Senate staffer put it to Jewish Insider last week, if Shapiro is picked, “forget about claiming we’re the only party standing against anti-Semitism.”

Wow. This thread has only been up a week, but it has *not* aged well!

"It will be Beshear. He has Midwest/South appeal the others don't." Nope.

"NEWS: It appears Kamala Harris’s VP list includes Admiral William McRaven — who oversaw the Bin Laden raid and served as chancellor of the University of Texas system." I know he's since clarified, but he was never even close to being a serious candidate. The Harris campaign floated his name solely to test the waters, much like they did with Beshear, who's definitely not getting the VP nod but you cunts won't settle the fuck down about it until it's a done deal. The same is true for Pete.

"Beshear doesn’t have the pro-Israel anti-union baggage that Shapiro (who ALSO is pro school voucher) and Kelly do." Except Shapiro is neither "pro-Israel" or "anti-union," and Kelly is in a staunchly non-union, mostly red state. Like it or not – and it's clear many here do not – they're still the top candidates.

"The Left has already said no to Shapiro. He's a conservative Jew and is a hardliner on Israel, BIG TIME." Are you joking? You think the far left is going to flip for Trump if Harris "dares" to choose a Jew? (Never mind that Shapiro is neither "conservative" or a pro-Israel "hardliner.")

[quote]Instead of bot-created troll-farm tweets, how about reading the opinions of actual Jewish people?

Hate to burst your bubble but most people in America don't really care. What 2.4% of the population thinks about a war half way around the world is not the first thing on their list of concerns. It's A concern, but not THE concern.

[quote]Hate to burst your bubble but most people in America don't really care.

Make up your mind, cupcake. If America "doesn't really care," why does it matter in the first place who Harris chooses?

Agreed that this isn't most people's primary issue, but many DLers are single-issue voters, unless you've deluded yourself enough to assume they'd love Mayor Pete the same if he didn't suck cock.

[quote] You think the far left is going to flip for Trump if Harris "dares" to choose a Jew? (Never mind that Shapiro is neither "conservative" or a pro-Israel "hardliner.")

It's not that they would vote for Trump but you don't want them to sit out the election or waste the vote on someone like Cornell West (who's also, at least partially, funded by Harlan Crow) And Shapiro has been plenty critical of Netanyahu.

[quote]It's not that they would vote for Trump but you don't want them to sit out the election or waste the vote on someone like Cornell West (who's also, at least partially, funded by Harlan Crow).

Again, there is no reason whatsoever to assume anything of the sort. This is simply another rehash of the whole Biden vs. Bernie thing in 2020. The far left was FURIOUS that Elizabeth Warren "ruined" Bernie's chances by remaining in the race through Super Tuesday, but they sure as fuck didn't "sit out the election." The point then is the same point as today: to prevent America from being taken over by a proto-fascist. Worse still – for Trump, that is – he's gotten *more* fascist, and yet you think progressives somehow *won't* vote? Please.

The fight is for the undecideds – and yes, they exist. Nearly all are centrists, hence the reason why Harris will pick a safe candidate: I truly don't get why some people here are deluding themselves otherwise, but Shapiro and Kelly *are* the safe bets. Finally, Hillary's loss in 2016 is a major reason why some think Harris "can't win," never mind that she & Harris have very little in common, and Harris has none of her baggage. If Harris chose Pete as her running mate and lost, we'd *really* have no chance of getting a queer POTUS for the foreseeable future. (Well, that plus we'll likely become a dictatorship within two years if Trump wins. But sure, keep hand-wringing over things until that happens.)

"Josh" is short for "Joshua." It is an Old Testament name that has a very long history, going as far back to records of the Battle of Jericho.

And Joshua is every bit as American as Abraham (of course Abraham Lincoln's close friend was Joshua Speed), and if Abraham Lincoln could (and did) go by Abe, then clearly Joshua Shapiro can go by Josh.

Except, where do you vote when you're at college? First, let's not pretend the protests at the universities were reflective of the views of the entire student body or that the intensity of support for Gaza (or opposition to Israel's government or anti-semitism) does moderate as it drifts outward from a protest site.

But more, let's take Columbia (that was one that went nuts over all this, wasn't it?) 35,800 full time undergraduate and graduate students at last count. Suppose she lost them all, which she won't. That's 35,000 votes - in New York City. I think she can take the hit.

Or Harvard. Just over 30,000. In that famous Republican stronghold the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

If they don't vote where they go to school their influence diffuses further.

Those nineteen electoral college votes in PA will be viewed in the context of a calculation. And when it comes to students and Gaza, the calculation may be fuck 'em.

^ doesn't moderate. My error.

[quote] If Pete were not gay no one on DL would be giving a shit about him.

But he IS gay, Blanche! He IS gay!

[quote] Amelia Babis Kelly, the ex-wife of Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), spoke glowingly about her ex-husband’s vice presidential ambitions—despite going through a messy divorce that included threats of restraining orders and jail time. Kelly has not spoken extensively about his ex-wife. In Gabby, an autobiography he co-authored with his current wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, he described the divorce as “amicable.” However, during his initial Senate run in 2020, the Washington Free Beacon reported on court documents showing the former astronaut had a much more fraught relationship.

[quote]According to the filings, Kelly petitioned the court to jail Amelia for 179 days for contempt after she allegedly violated a custody agreement. Kelly dropped the petition one day before the hearing on it was scheduled. Amelia has consistently supported her ex-husband’s political career, telling the Free Beacon the two “continue to have a relationship based on family and friends even today being divorced for 15 years.”

[quote]Almost four years later, Amelia told the Daily Mail she would support his run for vice president, heaping praise on her ex-husband for having friends on both sides of the aisle. “I think Mark leaning a little bit more towards the right side of left is something that Kamala lacks. He brings military expertise whereas her background is in the legal field. Perhaps they could work as a team,” Amelia said.

I hate those old Jewish names...Joshua, Jacob, Nathan(iel)

GIVE US THE ASTRONAUT!!!

[quote]I hate those old Jewish names...Joshua, Jacob, Nathan(iel)

They're Bible names. That's top tier.

[quote]DLers are single-issue voters, unless you've deluded yourself enough to assume they'd love Mayor Pete the same if he didn't suck cock.

Actually I wold vote for Pete even if he was straight, he's just a very sharp, young, motivated, progressive guy. Something we have not seen at the top of the ticket in a very, very long time. That's not a single issue.

Of course there's Pete talk in a Kelly/Shapiro thread. Oh you guys LOL

KELLY!

Well this didn't age well.