HARRIS IS SELECTING MARK KELLY

[Anonymous]

14:56 here again.

I haven't seen MK speak much except today I saw him on CNN with an interview --- he seemed kind of low-energy and not the best speaker. He has the tough-guy/white guy image... but is he an asset to the ticket re: persuasive powers/speaking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it won't be Kelly. Between his ex-wife and shining for an MLM he may have too much baggage. Hopefully they are vetting very carefully.

What’s happening with his ex wife?

They had an acrimonious divorce. Now she speaks well of him and says she'd even vote for him...So nothing.

Ex-wife also gave an interview saying Harris was not useful as VP and thinks she should not be on the ticket, Kelly would be better president than Harris. Not very helpful comments for Kelly as he auditions for the supporting role.

I really don't see the issue here. The ex wife of a candidate doesn't have to like/dislike their running mate. Who cares?

If you're on good terms with your ex, you wouldn't say things publicly that hurt their prospects. What else will she say going forward?

I don't see how this hurts his prospects.

Two ways. 1) Do you want a VP nominee whose ex-wife is denigrating the qualifications of the Presidential nominee? 2) Her willingness to do an interview at a critical juncture and insult his potential boss suggests that acrimony remains. That adds an unknown wildcard.

1) do not care, an ex-wife is not someone I'd expect to be a cheerleader for a ticket. 2. Her interview was fine so not a wildcard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:14:56 here again.

I haven't seen MK speak much except today I saw him on CNN with an interview --- he seemed kind of low-energy and not the best speaker. He has the tough-guy/white guy image... but is he an asset to the ticket re: persuasive powers/speaking?

I've posted this is a big difference between Kelly and Walz (and Shapiro). But my guess is white middle and working class independent-leaning voters will respond better to Kelly's heroism narrative, straightforward speaking style (conveys an impression of honesty), and moderate record than Walz's progressive one, even if he is funny and a much better orator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it won't be Kelly. Between his ex-wife and shining for an MLM he may have too much baggage. Hopefully they are vetting very carefully.

What’s happening with his ex wife?

They had an acrimonious divorce. Now she speaks well of him and says she'd even vote for him...So nothing.

Ex-wife also gave an interview saying Harris was not useful as VP and thinks she should not be on the ticket, Kelly would be better president than Harris. Not very helpful comments for Kelly as he auditions for the supporting role.

I really don't see the issue here. The ex wife of a candidate doesn't have to like/dislike their running mate. Who cares?

If you're on good terms with your ex, you wouldn't say things publicly that hurt their prospects. What else will she say going forward?

I don't see how this hurts his prospects.

Two ways. 1) Do you want a VP nominee whose ex-wife is denigrating the qualifications of the Presidential nominee? 2) Her willingness to do an interview at a critical juncture and insult his potential boss suggests that acrimony remains. That adds an unknown wildcard.

1) do not care, an ex-wife is not someone I'd expect to be a cheerleader for a ticket. 2. Her interview was fine so not a wildcard.

MAGA seems pretty desperate to spin something up. But Kelly has been a senator for a while, right?

[Anonymous]

I'm still feeling Shapiro 🔮

[Anonymous]

Kelly seems like drama.

Shapiro seems like drama.

But a boring safe pick didn’t help Hillary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kelly seems like drama.

Shapiro seems like drama.

But a boring safe pick didn’t help Hillary.

Kelly is great and not dramatic. I guess being a fighter pilot and astronaut is dramatic, in a good way?

[Anonymous]

I can't wait for Kelly to get picked, then people start to mix up him and his twin. That'll be fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait for Kelly to get picked, then people start to mix up him and his twin. That'll be fun.

Don't hold your breath because on TUES. Aug. 6, 2024 at a rally in Philadelphia she will announce that Shapiro is her VP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:56 here again.

I haven't seen MK speak much except today I saw him on CNN with an interview --- he seemed kind of low-energy and not the best speaker. He has the tough-guy/white guy image... but is he an asset to the ticket re: persuasive powers/speaking?

No cisgender white male is an asset to Harris as VP

There you're wrong. Conservative cisgender white males like Trump and Vance are not an asset. But there have been plenty of white cisgender males who have become allies to the LGBTQ+ community and who will resonate. Frankly, there is no LGBTQ candidate that will be a political asset and who is electable on the national stage, YET. The American society moves slowly. LGBTQ+ rights have come a long way and still have a long way to go. But while there has been traction in more liberal areas of the country, to elect LGBTQ+ candidates to statewide and local offices, the county has not come far enough yet to elect an LGBTQ+ candidate to a national office. A candidate, even a popular one like Buttigieg, will only serve to ensure that the ticket loses to Trump. And that would be a disaster. So, the LGBTQ+ community is going to have to rally behind a white male ally instead of another minority candidate. It's a compromise, but the nation needs longer until the LGBTQ+ community is more universally accepted. It took over 100 years after the end of slavery for a black man to be elected to national office and 100 years after American suffrage for a woman to be elected to national office. It's only been about 40 years since the start of civil rights for the LGBTQ community. I know it's hard, but you have to have patience and wait for the right time. Trying to go too fast, only means that we'll take one step back after our two steps forward. And we will be lucky if electing Trump to a second term is only one step back. It could easily be three steps back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm still feeling Shapiro 🔮

I am too.

[Anonymous]

No announcement yet and Op said it would happen last night in all caps. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s Kelly. He will help her with immigration, which is her weak point, and his wife is an asset. Down side is he’s not a great speaker; gets mired in technical facts. But he could deliver Arizona.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still feeling Shapiro 🔮

I am too.

I'd love to see PA go blue without losing a senator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kelly seems like drama.

Shapiro seems like drama.

But a boring safe pick didn’t help Hillary.

Kelly is great and not dramatic. I guess being a fighter pilot and astronaut is dramatic, in a good way?

He is obviously a very intelligent person that has done some things that very intelligent people do. The past eight years have told us that we need more intelligent people serving in high ranking positions in government. I'm fine with Kelly as VP but a swing state governor from the mid-west would be a more strategically advantageous choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm still feeling Shapiro 🔮

I am so excited about voting for Harris. But if she chooses Shapiro, I’m sitting this one out.