Official Kamala Harris VP Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is it’s going to be Kelly.

I’ve heard a lot of folks say Shapiro but I have trouble seeing folks support the first Jewish VP in this environment right now (I’d love to be pleasantly surprised). The same goes for Pete who would be my pick (but again, doubt folks will support the first openly gay VP either).

Is he going to help in the rust belt, and is he popular enough in AZ to turn the tide there? Polls showing Trump way up by margins outside the MOE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would the DNC want to run anyone other than Harris? Her name is already out there, and she's the most visible non-biden Democrat currently. It feels like they want to make this a much more chaotic process than it needs to be. Just follow party line and say she's a good candidate and MOVE ON.

Because the Dem governors are all polling higher than her. If this really is about saving us from Trump, why not go with a candidate who is polling higher? Everyone is acting like Kamala has already won. I think that's dangerous, especially as Biden screwed her over and she's tainted because of him. Remember how we watched with dread on election night 2016.

People are by-and-large unknowledgable about these governors, that's why the poll so high, and there's a bunch of energy for someone new. I think it'll be an even riskier mistake to start with a completely new candidate and different campaign, because 5 months out from the election, a governor whose relatively unknown is polling high.

But we've seen how Kamala performs on the national stage on her own and it was abysmal. If this election is really as important as people say it is, maybe some risk-taking is warranted.

Her speeches today were great! She's grown as a person, PP. And Trump is a wreck by comparison.

Delivering speeches is not a weakness for her. At all. She’s always been quite good at that, and she has a polished, professional look that is made for politics.
Where she goes off the rails is extemporaneous speaking on almost ANY topic. She just isn’t well-versed enough in the details to handle questions so she reverts to generalities and talking on simplistic circles and laughing when she feels stuck or cornered and it gives second-hand embarrassment.
Plus she is a very vocal supporter of the antisemitic protests (until just this weak when she finally added a vague “I dont agree with everything that’s said but I understand the emotion behind it” caveat)….and she strongly advocated for bailing out criminals who were vandalizing cities during 2020 saying that they won’t stop and they shouldn’t stop.
She’s a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was about to create the same thread.

Kinzinger.

Unity ticket.

Kinzinger would be great.

As would pritzker. He’s effective and a real billionaire and successful businessman so as the added advantage of being an irritant to Trump. He must be higher on the Forbes list.

I thought Dems hate the rich.

Americans of all political sides LOVE the rich. Big Donors on both sides dictate policy. Contrary to some other countries, particularly European nations, where most wealthy families don't flaunt their fortunes. I'm French. In France and Germany, it's not done to splash your money about. The people you see doing that in Paris are mostly foreigners. The French populace is very pitchfork-y

Well, it took them what, 1,000 years to get pitchforky. Centuries of kings, queens and guillotines. The US is still a screaming toddler next to France. No street cred until one of your leaders is banished to an island in the middle of the ocean.

[Anonymous]

My bet is mark kelly - white, straight, male, veteran, swing state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is it’s going to be Kelly.

I’ve heard a lot of folks say Shapiro but I have trouble seeing folks support the first Jewish VP in this environment right now (I’d love to be pleasantly surprised). The same goes for Pete who would be my pick (but again, doubt folks will support the first openly gay VP either).

Cisgender white male?

NO WAY. Nor should any cisgender white male be considered as VP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My bet is mark kelly - white, straight, male, veteran, swing state.

He will not be chosen for some of those exact reasons:

- working against him is the fact he’s a white, straight, male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My bet is mark kelly - white, straight, male, veteran, swing state.

He will not be chosen for some of those exact reasons:

- working against him is the fact he’s a white, straight, male.

Why do you keep posting this nonsense. Is this the new GOP talking point, Dems don't like white straight men? Not a winner guys. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My bet is mark kelly - white, straight, male, veteran, swing state.

He will not be chosen for some of those exact reasons:

- working against him is the fact he’s a white, straight, male.

Why do you keep posting this nonsense. Is this the new GOP talking point, Dems don't like white straight men? Not a winner guys. Try again.

If you think there isn't any WSM or SWSM discrimination coming from the left Dems you are blind. My son is a SWSM and I can tell you that in searching for internships/jobs over the last years it has been clear. I've told him that he has to work twice as hard to overcome being a SWM.

There are Dems that want to keep pushing their agenda...the DEI quota and all that. That's how far left the Dems have gone. Now, I do support DEI...but balanced DEI. Just like Affirmative Action...DEI is not perfect and has to be kept in check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My bet is mark kelly - white, straight, male, veteran, swing state.

He will not be chosen for some of those exact reasons:

- working against him is the fact he’s a white, straight, male.

Why do you keep posting this nonsense. Is this the new GOP talking point, Dems don't like white straight men? Not a winner guys. Try again.

If you think there isn't any WSM or SWSM discrimination coming from the left Dems you are blind. My son is a SWSM and I can tell you that in searching for internships/jobs over the last years it has been clear. I've told him that he has to work twice as hard to overcome being a SWM.

There are Dems that want to keep pushing their agenda...the DEI quota and all that. That's how far left the Dems have gone. Now, I do support DEI...but balanced DEI. Just like Affirmative Action...DEI is not perfect and has to be kept in check.

Keep throwing stuff out there eventually something might stick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My bet is mark kelly - white, straight, male, veteran, swing state.

He will not be chosen for some of those exact reasons:

- working against him is the fact he’s a white, straight, male.

Why do you keep posting this nonsense. Is this the new GOP talking point, Dems don't like white straight men? Not a winner guys. Try again.

If you think there isn't any WSM or SWSM discrimination coming from the left Dems you are blind. My son is a SWSM and I can tell you that in searching for internships/jobs over the last years it has been clear. I've told him that he has to work twice as hard to overcome being a SWM.

There are Dems that want to keep pushing their agenda...the DEI quota and all that. That's how far left the Dems have gone. Now, I do support DEI...but balanced DEI. Just like Affirmative Action...DEI is not perfect and has to be kept in check.

Keep throwing stuff out there eventually something might stick

Well...let's just see who Harris picks as her VP and my point will be proven if it's not Kelly or another SWSM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is it’s going to be Kelly.

I’ve heard a lot of folks say Shapiro but I have trouble seeing folks support the first Jewish VP in this environment right now (I’d love to be pleasantly surprised). The same goes for Pete who would be my pick (but again, doubt folks will support the first openly gay VP either).

Cisgender white male?

NO WAY. Nor should any cisgender white male be considered as VP.

That is absurd. The most qualifying and unifying VP should be chosen. That whackadoo statement is just as bad as the far-right extremists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris cannot win.
Her at the top of the ticket is huge huge mistake.
Like opening nobu in canton Ohio then wondering why it’s not doing well.
So over the dems and their dumb dumb choices at all times

I’m over it too, but this is where we find ourselves. We have zero control what party leadership decides. I am upset at endorsing Kamala because she somehow “deserves” it. No. That’s not the way to win an election people.

He's endorsing her because she can access the funds he's already raised and so the party has a candidate right away. She's the VP and if he doesn't endorse her then that alone ends up being a liability.

Can she win? I don't know, but what I do know is that appealing to women about their rights will likely be very effective. 81 year old Joe Biden wasn't exactly an asset there.

Appealing to women who want women to be able to have abortions is not enough of a platform to win a presidential election.

It is the representational issue. It represents many different issues.

Let’s prioritize national issues and what we care most about when standing in the voting booth:

-education
-infrastructure (because even with telework we still need safe highways and bridges)
-healthcare (beyond abortion- remember cancer?)
-defense (because 9/11 was really, really terrible)
-trade (unless paying $300 for a pair of US made shoes works for you)
-climate change

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris cannot win.
Her at the top of the ticket is huge huge mistake.
Like opening nobu in canton Ohio then wondering why it’s not doing well.
So over the dems and their dumb dumb choices at all times

I’m over it too, but this is where we find ourselves. We have zero control what party leadership decides. I am upset at endorsing Kamala because she somehow “deserves” it. No. That’s not the way to win an election people.

He's endorsing her because she can access the funds he's already raised and so the party has a candidate right away. She's the VP and if he doesn't endorse her then that alone ends up being a liability.

Can she win? I don't know, but what I do know is that appealing to women about their rights will likely be very effective. 81 year old Joe Biden wasn't exactly an asset there.

Appealing to women who want women to be able to have abortions is not enough of a platform to win a presidential election.

It is the representational issue. It represents many different issues.

Let’s prioritize national issues and what we care most about when standing in the voting booth:

-education
-infrastructure (because even with telework we still need safe highways and bridges)
-healthcare (beyond abortion- remember cancer?)
-defense (because 9/11 was really, really terrible)
-trade (unless paying $300 for a pair of US made shoes works for you)
-climate change

This +1 Very well said!

[Anonymous]

There's only 4 names being considered:

Beshear
Kelly
Shapiro
Cooper

[Anonymous]

This country is NOT ready for a ticket of:

Harris/another woman
Harris/gay guy
Harris/black male or female

Like it or not its going to be a swing state, "boring" white male.