Who's Your Veep?

[Edgy MD]

That's ... that's beautiful.

[TheNextMetsManager]

AOC? No. Just no.

Shapiro, Newsom, Whitmer and the others will be keeping their powder dry for 2028 or 2032.

As for Pete, you're not going to add a gay man to a black woman on a ticket. That's asking for trouble.

Roy Cooper of North Carolina could be an interesting pick as NC is gettable in the presidential election.

yes old white conservative men. That's the answer. That'll fix this country. lol.

[Chad ochoseis]

Newsom is not an option because of the 12th Amendment, which (weirdly) specifies that an elector cannot vote for both a President and a Vice President who come from the same state as the elector.

As much as I'd love to see Trump and Trumpism get smashed into orange marmalade all over the USA, Job 1 is winning in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Win those, plus the Nebraska congressional district that includes Omaha, plus all the states that the Democrats are expected to carry, and that gets Kamala to 270.

I'm not certain who can help the most across those states, but I suspect it's Whitmer. She's experienced, successful, and wildly popular in Michigan.

Sherrod Brown would be fantastic. But he's too valuable in Ohio.

[metsmarathon]

mark kelly is an interesting pick. i rather like it, for the reasons stated.

i do think there's some juice to be squeezed by having a veteran on the ticket, and bonus points i would hope that he's a damned astronaut. not that we seem to hold intelligence and accomplishment in great esteem anymore, but that shit's gotta count for something.

i don't think you win this election by pulling someone from the coasts. you need someone close to the middle, or at least appealing to the middle, to draw in those independent votes. jeffries doesn't do that. i was originally thinking whitmer makes a great ticket. mark kelly does too.

whoever it is, i hope they figure it out soon, and that there's broad support within the party for the ticket. the worst thing that can happen is in-fighting at this point. i do hope there's robust discussion regarding the relative strengths of each of the possible candidates - without focusing on electability concerns like "oh noes another black man, or a gay man, or another woman" as it makes the selection process sound more like a DEI bingo card, when if you're making out an electability bingo card, i hope it's about policy. at the very least just to eliminate that talking point.

[nymr83]

mark kelly is an interesting pick. i rather like it, for the reasons stated.

i do think there's some juice to be squeezed by having a veteran on the ticket, and bonus points i would hope that he's a damned astronaut. not that we seem to hold intelligence and accomplishment in great esteem anymore, but that shit's gotta count for something.

i don't think you win this election by pulling someone from the coasts. you need someone close to the middle, or at least appealing to the middle, to draw in those independent votes. jeffries doesn't do that. i was originally thinking whitmer makes a great ticket. mark kelly does too.

whoever it is, i hope they figure it out soon, and that there's broad support within the party for the ticket. the worst thing that can happen is in-fighting at this point. i do hope there's robust discussion regarding the relative strengths of each of the possible candidates - without focusing on electability concerns like "oh noes another black man, or a gay man, or another woman" as it makes the selection process sound more like a DEI bingo card, when if you're making out an electability bingo card, i hope it's about policy. at the very least just to eliminate that talking point.

Whitmer is a better choice than Kelly because she is a term limited governor whereas Kelly is an incumbent senator in a purple state. Giving up your incumbency in a purple state would be foolish for the party

[Edgy MD]

I would hope that winning the presidency is a priority for The Democratic Party. And by "winning the presidency," I mean "keeping the former president from winning the presidency."

All states are purple, as far as I'm concerned.

[metsmarathon]

mark kelly is an interesting pick. i rather like it, for the reasons stated.

i do think there's some juice to be squeezed by having a veteran on the ticket, and bonus points i would hope that he's a damned astronaut. not that we seem to hold intelligence and accomplishment in great esteem anymore, but that shit's gotta count for something.

i don't think you win this election by pulling someone from the coasts. you need someone close to the middle, or at least appealing to the middle, to draw in those independent votes. jeffries doesn't do that. i was originally thinking whitmer makes a great ticket. mark kelly does too.

whoever it is, i hope they figure it out soon, and that there's broad support within the party for the ticket. the worst thing that can happen is in-fighting at this point. i do hope there's robust discussion regarding the relative strengths of each of the possible candidates - without focusing on electability concerns like "oh noes another black man, or a gay man, or another woman" as it makes the selection process sound more like a DEI bingo card, when if you're making out an electability bingo card, i hope it's about policy. at the very least just to eliminate that talking point.

Whitmer is a better choice than Kelly because she is a term limited governor whereas Kelly is an incumbent senator in a purple state. Giving up your incumbency in a purple state would be foolish for the party

yeah, that's the big risk with kelly. you could lose both.
on the other hand, he really does offer a profound counterpoint to brave brave donald trump who "took a bullet scraped his ear for democracy"

[Bob Alpacadaca]

Whitmer endorsed Harris, said she won't be a choice for vice president on the ticket.


https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 497595007/

[Edgy MD]

Is America ready to get past their horrid prejudices against bald guys? Senator Kelly's résumé projects badass, but I'm not as sure that his presence does.

We're had many receding hairlines among our commanders in chief, but only three outright bald eagles — Presidents John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, and Dwight David Eisenhower. The first had legacy on his side, and the last won World War II.

President John Adams gets a grudging pass by wigging up for his official portrait.

More seriously, a presidential campaign would bring his wife back out into the spotlight. That may or may not be really effective, but I'm not sure how healthy or fair that would be to her.

[Benjamin Grimm]

When was the last time we had anyone with facial hair (as JD Vance does) on a major party presidential ticket?

Al Gore had to wait until his political career was over before he grew a beard. And I'm pretty sure it was Jesse Jackson's mustache in 1984 that kept him from becoming president. What else could it have been?

[metirish]

Would you believe I just read an article in the NYT this morning about that

The last bearded man elected president of the United States was Benjamin Harrison, in 1888. The last president with any facial hair whatsoever was William Howard Taft, elected in 1908. The last vice president with a mustache was Charles Curtis, who was Herbert Hoover’s veep. And the last major party candidate to try to break that clean-shaven streak was Thomas E. Dewey, who had a dapper little caterpillar on his upper lip and ran, unsuccessfully, for the highest office in 1944 and 1948.

J.D. Vance, Breaking the Beard Barrier https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/18/styl ... roid-share

[MFS62]

Wearing a beard that looks like the one U.S.Grant wore might not win any votes in Dixie from any who still think they won the Civil War.
Later

[nymr83]

We need to bring beards back. And maybe those wigs they all used to wear.

[Edgy MD]

Kelly brings the bonus of having an identical twin, who is also a retired naval aviator and astronaut, which could make for some fun "Is that really the Vice President?" intrigue.

Heck, you could add Alexander Vindman to the White House staff and the comic pranks would never end!

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Read where some feel William McRaven would be a savvy VP pick, going centrist where Trump went hard right with the VP.

[Edgy MD]

That would be stunning. Who are those some?

As with any military leader who hasn't served in elected office, most of his domestic policy/social policy positions are a mystery.

He has a great record as far as showing President Trump for the un-American fraud that he is. He hasn't minced words.

[Lefty Specialist]

AOC? No. Just no.

Shapiro, Newsom, Whitmer and the others will be keeping their powder dry for 2028 or 2032.

As for Pete, you're not going to add a gay man to a black woman on a ticket. That's asking for trouble.

Roy Cooper of North Carolina could be an interesting pick as NC is gettable in the presidential election.

yes old white conservative men. That's the answer. That'll fix this country. lol.

Yes, adding a member of The Squad to the ticket will 'fix' things. lol.

In the real America, electing a woman is not a sure thing, regardless of how qualified she may be. Putting two on the same ticket magnifies the risk. And the risk here is existential in the form of Trump. Roy Cooper is as liberal as they get in North Carolina, and got elected twice when Trump carried the state. Also was an attorney general who worked with Kamala when she was AG in California. He's pro-choice and on the right side of all the issues. He's not a 34-year-old Latina, but he'll do.

There's a vetting process going on as we speak, headed by former Attorney General Eric Holder. Not sure a McRaven would make the cut. Not enough of a policy record.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

That would be stunning. Who are those some?

As with any military leader who hasn't served in elected office, most of his domestic policy/social policy positions are a mystery.

He has a great record as far as showing President Trump for the un-American fraud that he is. He hasn't minced words.

Linkedin post from a guy I know who works for a centrist thinktank. They primarily believe McRaven should be the prez, and that the DNC knows this

[metirish]

Report on ABC News has it down to Kelly and Shapiro

[MFS62]

Report on ABC News has it down to Kelly and Shapiro

Shapiro would help deliver a key "swing" state. The right wing bigots are already spitting fire over a woman of color. Would having a Jewish Vice Presidential running mate lose or win any of those voters? Any other voters? I think it would be dicey.
I'm not sure of the impact Kelly would have on delivering states, but IMO he would be less of a target to the loonies.
Later

[nymr83]

Report on ABC News has it down to Kelly and Shapiro

Shapiro would help deliver a key "swing" state. The right wing bigots are already spitting fire over a woman of color. Would having a Jewish Vice Presidential running mate lose or win any of those voters? Any other voters? I think it would be dicey.
I'm not sure of the impact Kelly would have on delivering states, but IMO he would be less of a target to the loonies.
Later

Who cares what the loonies on the far left or right think? You are trying to convince undecided/persuadable voters in swing states, not the "loonies"

[Frayed Knot]

The right wing bigots are already spitting fire over a woman of color.

Any examples of this?

[MFS62]

The right wing bigots are already spitting fire over a woman of color.

Any examples of this?

The initial round of GOP attacks on presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris have so far been scattershot, inconsistent, self-contradictory, and often comical. But we’ve seen it all before, and we know how this works.

The volume and intensity of the attacks – deeply suffused with misogyny and racism – represent 1,000 trial balloons. Some will pop on their own and others will get shot down immediately, but eventually a few will get through the blitz of counterattacks. Those few will offer a clue as to what “works,” and they’ll form the basis for additional rounds of attacks playing off of the same theme or underlying premise, however false it may be.

Repeated often enough, the attacks will slowly accrete into a “thing” that unsophisticated editors and reporters notice. They start asking questions about it. Their questions may seem benign and the early round of stories often tepid (I promise you that before the week is out a reporter is going to grab ahold of the attacks on Harris as a “DEI hire” and use them as a peg to write more generally about DEI), but gradually the “thing” becomes a narrative.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-m ... ala-harris

and This one has an imbedded video:

https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala- ... ans-2024-7

Later

[Edgy MD]

Admiral McRaven has pulled his name from consideration. One down!

[nymr83]

Admiral McRaven has pulled his name from consideration. One down!

99 times out of 100 when someone publicly "pulls their name from consideration" for running mate, a cabinet appointment, an ambassadorship, etc it is because they already privately learned that they are not on the list :)