Official Kamala Harris VP Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It will be Shapiro’s if he wants it. Swing state governor, very moderate. Kamala needs a white man in order to not completely hemmorage white men to Trump.

Republicans will go full out in painting a black woman as antisemitic/anti-Israel. Shapiro neutralizes that entire line of attack, plus will keep Jewish donors engaged/excited.

Nah. Shapiro would suck a lot of the energy out of the base, particularly women and youth.

His attempts to ban state workers from participating in protests against Israeli policies were a First Amendment violation, and demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding how Americans are responding to the brutal attacks on Gazan civilians.

His attempts to transfer public funds to private religious schools through school vouchers are a repudiation of public school parents, who make up a majority of Democratic voters.

Finally, hiring a known sexual harasser to his team shows that he prioritizes political experience over the safety of young women on his team.

Harris must know how toxic he is, and she can't win without women and young people.

Exactly. These are the reasons he's not a good pick.

I do wonder if there's a bit of disagreement between the party as to who should get the VP nod seems like we're getting a lot of choices thrown out to the public

No, the reason for the delay is that the Harris team is working feverishly to vet these candidates. They want to make sure that there are no hidden bombs in their past. With the ones that were DAs and prosecutors, they have to sift through their legal career and find all the cases that these prosecutors tried and make sure that there aren't any embarassing issues. So, work history, personal history, family history, etc. It takes a lot of man-hours to conduct these background checks. Normally they have weeks to do these background checks. They start early and they work hard. Now they have days. I'm guessing they have a soft-deadline for next Wednesday (July 31) to try and hone in on the best candidate.

At this point, she has 2-3 good options and they are trying to find the one with the least background issues.

I mean these candidates didn't materialize out of nowhere just a week ago or even a month ago after the ill fated debate. They have been vetted . They have been on the list if you will. I don't think there's complete party agreement on who to go with. While none of the names are Vance level bad who will cause votes to be lost+ maybe Shapiro) it's a question of who will add the most votes and which demographic to target to grab votes
They are testing public reaction.

They've been vetted before, but not to the degree that a POTUS or VPOTUS candidate is going to need done. The level of scrutiny that they will come under as a national candidate with every media outlet putting their entire lives under a microscope is unlike anything they've been treated to even as candidates for governor, Senate, etc. For instance, governors and Senators may or may not have their entire work career hyperanalyzed, but you can bet that there are going to b journalists, or lobbyists or political bloggers that will dig through every case that these prosecutors have ever tried. The scale of interest in a (vice)presidential candidate is far higher than even a governor, Senator or Congressman.

Look at what's happened to Vance in the last week. He was vetted and the media is still finding things on him that the vetting team missed. It is very hard to analyze a person's full life even in weeks and Harris' teams is going do it in days. They are skipping anything that has already been analyzed by these people in the past. They are digging deep to try to find anything that might come up. Everyone typically has something that may not be ideal for them. The Harris team just needs to know about things and have an answer crafted in case anyone finds anything.

I don't think the vetting team missed things on Vance I think they probably didn't bother to do much research at all or didn't think people would care. Or more likely Trump with him against their advice.

When it comes to Harris VP pick I stand firm and well have to agree to disagree that it's not an issue of vetting but coming to agreement on whose best
Not just for this election but to set up for future campaigns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is clear..should be Beshear!

I have been saying this all along.

He helps in GA and NC and doesn't hurt in WI/MI/PA.

Heck, he may sway some votes in Pennsyltucky!

I would add, Walz seems like a good number 2, but he would be too old to run at the right time, and having an open primary at that juncture is not good planning.

Walz and Harris are the same age!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It will be Shapiro’s if he wants it. Swing state governor, very moderate. Kamala needs a white man in order to not completely hemmorage white men to Trump.

Republicans will go full out in painting a black woman as antisemitic/anti-Israel. Shapiro neutralizes that entire line of attack, plus will keep Jewish donors engaged/excited.

Nah. Shapiro would suck a lot of the energy out of the base, particularly women and youth.

His attempts to ban state workers from participating in protests against Israeli policies were a First Amendment violation, and demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding how Americans are responding to the brutal attacks on Gazan civilians.

His attempts to transfer public funds to private religious schools through school vouchers are a repudiation of public school parents, who make up a majority of Democratic voters.

Finally, hiring a known sexual harasser to his team shows that he prioritizes political experience over the safety of young women on his team.

Harris must know how toxic he is, and she can't win without women and young people.

Exactly. These are the reasons he's not a good pick.

I do wonder if there's a bit of disagreement between the party as to who should get the VP nod seems like we're getting a lot of choices thrown out to the public

No, the reason for the delay is that the Harris team is working feverishly to vet these candidates. They want to make sure that there are no hidden bombs in their past. With the ones that were DAs and prosecutors, they have to sift through their legal career and find all the cases that these prosecutors tried and make sure that there aren't any embarassing issues. So, work history, personal history, family history, etc. It takes a lot of man-hours to conduct these background checks. Normally they have weeks to do these background checks. They start early and they work hard. Now they have days. I'm guessing they have a soft-deadline for next Wednesday (July 31) to try and hone in on the best candidate.

At this point, she has 2-3 good options and they are trying to find the one with the least background issues.

I mean these candidates didn't materialize out of nowhere just a week ago or even a month ago after the ill fated debate. They have been vetted . They have been on the list if you will. I don't think there's complete party agreement on who to go with. While none of the names are Vance level bad who will cause votes to be lost+ maybe Shapiro) it's a question of who will add the most votes and which demographic to target to grab votes
They are testing public reaction.

They've been vetted before, but not to the degree that a POTUS or VPOTUS candidate is going to need done. The level of scrutiny that they will come under as a national candidate with every media outlet putting their entire lives under a microscope is unlike anything they've been treated to even as candidates for governor, Senate, etc. For instance, governors and Senators may or may not have their entire work career hyperanalyzed, but you can bet that there are going to b journalists, or lobbyists or political bloggers that will dig through every case that these prosecutors have ever tried. The scale of interest in a (vice)presidential candidate is far higher than even a governor, Senator or Congressman.

Look at what's happened to Vance in the last week. He was vetted and the media is still finding things on him that the vetting team missed. It is very hard to analyze a person's full life even in weeks and Harris' teams is going do it in days. They are skipping anything that has already been analyzed by these people in the past. They are digging deep to try to find anything that might come up. Everyone typically has something that may not be ideal for them. The Harris team just needs to know about things and have an answer crafted in case anyone finds anything.

I don't think the vetting team missed things on Vance I think they probably didn't bother to do much research at all or didn't think people would care. Or more likely Trump with him against their advice.

When it comes to Harris VP pick I stand firm and well have to agree to disagree that it's not an issue of vetting but coming to agreement on whose best
Not just for this election but to set up for future campaigns.

+1 Trump’s team is rather famously terrible at vetting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is clear..should be Beshear!

I have been saying this all along.

He helps in GA and NC and doesn't hurt in WI/MI/PA.

Heck, he may sway some votes in Pennsyltucky!

I would add, Walz seems like a good number 2, but he would be too old to run at the right time, and having an open primary at that juncture is not good planning.

Walz and Harris are the same age!

Yup as is Kelly they'd be just under 70 .

After 2 terms.
I think pp and others believe that the VP will automatically become nominee and give us another 8 years.which is unrealistic . The country isn't going to have 2 decades of democratic presidents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate for this exact reason.

No, he was planning to pick Tim Kaine to win Virginia, until Putin invaded Georgia.

Still a straight white man

OMG - why is this an issue even?

Because unfortunately society changes slowly. It's said that progress moves faster than conservatives want and slower than liberals want.

We have gotten to the point where much of the country either accepts or is starting to accept outwardly gay couples. We have legalized gay marriage. We are starting to accept LGBTQ individuals in smaller races in more liberal areas including upt o the state level for more liberal states. But we aren't to the point where the nation will accept an openly gay individual in a nationally elected office. It will take much longer and right now, there are still enough conservative states where putting an openly gay man on the ballot will sink that candidate. It will galvanize the conservatives and will prevent borderline red/purple from moving further purple and may make true purple states lean read.

We will continue to make progress slowly, but we aren't at the point where an openly gay candidate will be competitive on the national stage.

Solid argument. It's not time yet for a gay VP. France has its first gay prime minister now. It's still unusual. However, it seems like the time is finally right for a woman to be elected president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is clear..should be Beshear!

I have been saying this all along.

He helps in GA and NC and doesn't hurt in WI/MI/PA.

Heck, he may sway some votes in Pennsyltucky!

I would add, Walz seems like a good number 2, but he would be too old to run at the right time, and having an open primary at that juncture is not good planning.

Walz and Harris are the same age!

Yup as is Kelly they'd be just under 70 .

After 2 terms.
I think pp and others believe that the VP will automatically become nominee and give us another 8 years.which is unrealistic . The country isn't going to have 2 decades of democratic presidents

If we go by how many people vote, yeah, the country has already voted for nearly two decades of Democratic presidents. The GOP just doesn’t have winning policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It will be Shapiro’s if he wants it. Swing state governor, very moderate. Kamala needs a white man in order to not completely hemmorage white men to Trump.

Republicans will go full out in painting a black woman as antisemitic/anti-Israel. Shapiro neutralizes that entire line of attack, plus will keep Jewish donors engaged/excited.

Nah. Shapiro would suck a lot of the energy out of the base, particularly women and youth.

His attempts to ban state workers from participating in protests against Israeli policies were a First Amendment violation, and demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding how Americans are responding to the brutal attacks on Gazan civilians.

His attempts to transfer public funds to private religious schools through school vouchers are a repudiation of public school parents, who make up a majority of Democratic voters.

Finally, hiring a known sexual harasser to his team shows that he prioritizes political experience over the safety of young women on his team.

Harris must know how toxic he is, and she can't win without women and young people.

Exactly. These are the reasons he's not a good pick.

I do wonder if there's a bit of disagreement between the party as to who should get the VP nod seems like we're getting a lot of choices thrown out to the public

No, the reason for the delay is that the Harris team is working feverishly to vet these candidates. They want to make sure that there are no hidden bombs in their past. With the ones that were DAs and prosecutors, they have to sift through their legal career and find all the cases that these prosecutors tried and make sure that there aren't any embarassing issues. So, work history, personal history, family history, etc. It takes a lot of man-hours to conduct these background checks. Normally they have weeks to do these background checks. They start early and they work hard. Now they have days. I'm guessing they have a soft-deadline for next Wednesday (July 31) to try and hone in on the best candidate.

At this point, she has 2-3 good options and they are trying to find the one with the least background issues.

I mean these candidates didn't materialize out of nowhere just a week ago or even a month ago after the ill fated debate. They have been vetted . They have been on the list if you will. I don't think there's complete party agreement on who to go with. While none of the names are Vance level bad who will cause votes to be lost+ maybe Shapiro) it's a question of who will add the most votes and which demographic to target to grab votes
They are testing public reaction.

They've been vetted before, but not to the degree that a POTUS or VPOTUS candidate is going to need done. The level of scrutiny that they will come under as a national candidate with every media outlet putting their entire lives under a microscope is unlike anything they've been treated to even as candidates for governor, Senate, etc. For instance, governors and Senators may or may not have their entire work career hyperanalyzed, but you can bet that there are going to b journalists, or lobbyists or political bloggers that will dig through every case that these prosecutors have ever tried. The scale of interest in a (vice)presidential candidate is far higher than even a governor, Senator or Congressman.

Look at what's happened to Vance in the last week. He was vetted and the media is still finding things on him that the vetting team missed. It is very hard to analyze a person's full life even in weeks and Harris' teams is going do it in days. They are skipping anything that has already been analyzed by these people in the past. They are digging deep to try to find anything that might come up. Everyone typically has something that may not be ideal for them. The Harris team just needs to know about things and have an answer crafted in case anyone finds anything.

I don't think the vetting team missed things on Vance I think they probably didn't bother to do much research at all or didn't think people would care. Or more likely Trump with him against their advice.

When it comes to Harris VP pick I stand firm and well have to agree to disagree that it's not an issue of vetting but coming to agreement on whose best
Not just for this election but to set up for future campaigns.

+1 Trump’s team is rather famously terrible at vetting.

Maybe they went with Vance so they didn’t have to change the typeface much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It will be Shapiro’s if he wants it. Swing state governor, very moderate. Kamala needs a white man in order to not completely hemmorage white men to Trump.

Republicans will go full out in painting a black woman as antisemitic/anti-Israel. Shapiro neutralizes that entire line of attack, plus will keep Jewish donors engaged/excited.

Nah. Shapiro would suck a lot of the energy out of the base, particularly women and youth.

His attempts to ban state workers from participating in protests against Israeli policies were a First Amendment violation, and demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding how Americans are responding to the brutal attacks on Gazan civilians.

His attempts to transfer public funds to private religious schools through school vouchers are a repudiation of public school parents, who make up a majority of Democratic voters.

Finally, hiring a known sexual harasser to his team shows that he prioritizes political experience over the safety of young women on his team.

Harris must know how toxic he is, and she can't win without women and young people.

Exactly. These are the reasons he's not a good pick.

I do wonder if there's a bit of disagreement between the party as to who should get the VP nod seems like we're getting a lot of choices thrown out to the public

No, the reason for the delay is that the Harris team is working feverishly to vet these candidates. They want to make sure that there are no hidden bombs in their past. With the ones that were DAs and prosecutors, they have to sift through their legal career and find all the cases that these prosecutors tried and make sure that there aren't any embarassing issues. So, work history, personal history, family history, etc. It takes a lot of man-hours to conduct these background checks. Normally they have weeks to do these background checks. They start early and they work hard. Now they have days. I'm guessing they have a soft-deadline for next Wednesday (July 31) to try and hone in on the best candidate.

At this point, she has 2-3 good options and they are trying to find the one with the least background issues.

I mean these candidates didn't materialize out of nowhere just a week ago or even a month ago after the ill fated debate. They have been vetted . They have been on the list if you will. I don't think there's complete party agreement on who to go with. While none of the names are Vance level bad who will cause votes to be lost+ maybe Shapiro) it's a question of who will add the most votes and which demographic to target to grab votes
They are testing public reaction.

They've been vetted before, but not to the degree that a POTUS or VPOTUS candidate is going to need done. The level of scrutiny that they will come under as a national candidate with every media outlet putting their entire lives under a microscope is unlike anything they've been treated to even as candidates for governor, Senate, etc. For instance, governors and Senators may or may not have their entire work career hyperanalyzed, but you can bet that there are going to b journalists, or lobbyists or political bloggers that will dig through every case that these prosecutors have ever tried. The scale of interest in a (vice)presidential candidate is far higher than even a governor, Senator or Congressman.

Look at what's happened to Vance in the last week. He was vetted and the media is still finding things on him that the vetting team missed. It is very hard to analyze a person's full life even in weeks and Harris' teams is going do it in days. They are skipping anything that has already been analyzed by these people in the past. They are digging deep to try to find anything that might come up. Everyone typically has something that may not be ideal for them. The Harris team just needs to know about things and have an answer crafted in case anyone finds anything.

I don't think the vetting team missed things on Vance I think they probably didn't bother to do much research at all or didn't think people would care. Or more likely Trump with him against their advice.

When it comes to Harris VP pick I stand firm and well have to agree to disagree that it's not an issue of vetting but coming to agreement on whose best
Not just for this election but to set up for future campaigns.

+1 Trump’s team is rather famously terrible at vetting.

Maybe they went with Vance so they didn’t have to change the typeface much

🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is clear..should be Beshear!

I have been saying this all along.

He helps in GA and NC and doesn't hurt in WI/MI/PA.

Heck, he may sway some votes in Pennsyltucky!

I would add, Walz seems like a good number 2, but he would be too old to run at the right time, and having an open primary at that juncture is not good planning.

Walz and Harris are the same age!

Yup as is Kelly they'd be just under 70 .

After 2 terms.
I think pp and others believe that the VP will automatically become nominee and give us another 8 years.which is unrealistic . The country isn't going to have 2 decades of democratic presidents

If we go by how many people vote, yeah, the country has already voted for nearly two decades of Democratic presidents. The GOP just doesn’t have winning policies.

I'd say it's pretty even. I'm also a realist at best we get 2028..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It will be Shapiro’s if he wants it. Swing state governor, very moderate. Kamala needs a white man in order to not completely hemmorage white men to Trump.

Republicans will go full out in painting a black woman as antisemitic/anti-Israel. Shapiro neutralizes that entire line of attack, plus will keep Jewish donors engaged/excited.

Nah. Shapiro would suck a lot of the energy out of the base, particularly women and youth.

His attempts to ban state workers from participating in protests against Israeli policies were a First Amendment violation, and demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding how Americans are responding to the brutal attacks on Gazan civilians.

His attempts to transfer public funds to private religious schools through school vouchers are a repudiation of public school parents, who make up a majority of Democratic voters.

Finally, hiring a known sexual harasser to his team shows that he prioritizes political experience over the safety of young women on his team.

Harris must know how toxic he is, and she can't win without women and young people.

Exactly. These are the reasons he's not a good pick.

I do wonder if there's a bit of disagreement between the party as to who should get the VP nod seems like we're getting a lot of choices thrown out to the public

No, the reason for the delay is that the Harris team is working feverishly to vet these candidates. They want to make sure that there are no hidden bombs in their past. With the ones that were DAs and prosecutors, they have to sift through their legal career and find all the cases that these prosecutors tried and make sure that there aren't any embarassing issues. So, work history, personal history, family history, etc. It takes a lot of man-hours to conduct these background checks. Normally they have weeks to do these background checks. They start early and they work hard. Now they have days. I'm guessing they have a soft-deadline for next Wednesday (July 31) to try and hone in on the best candidate.

At this point, she has 2-3 good options and they are trying to find the one with the least background issues.

I mean these candidates didn't materialize out of nowhere just a week ago or even a month ago after the ill fated debate. They have been vetted . They have been on the list if you will. I don't think there's complete party agreement on who to go with. While none of the names are Vance level bad who will cause votes to be lost+ maybe Shapiro) it's a question of who will add the most votes and which demographic to target to grab votes
They are testing public reaction.

They've been vetted before, but not to the degree that a POTUS or VPOTUS candidate is going to need done. The level of scrutiny that they will come under as a national candidate with every media outlet putting their entire lives under a microscope is unlike anything they've been treated to even as candidates for governor, Senate, etc. For instance, governors and Senators may or may not have their entire work career hyperanalyzed, but you can bet that there are going to b journalists, or lobbyists or political bloggers that will dig through every case that these prosecutors have ever tried. The scale of interest in a (vice)presidential candidate is far higher than even a governor, Senator or Congressman.

Look at what's happened to Vance in the last week. He was vetted and the media is still finding things on him that the vetting team missed. It is very hard to analyze a person's full life even in weeks and Harris' teams is going do it in days. They are skipping anything that has already been analyzed by these people in the past. They are digging deep to try to find anything that might come up. Everyone typically has something that may not be ideal for them. The Harris team just needs to know about things and have an answer crafted in case anyone finds anything.

I don't think the vetting team missed things on Vance I think they probably didn't bother to do much research at all or didn't think people would care. Or more likely Trump with him against their advice.

When it comes to Harris VP pick I stand firm and well have to agree to disagree that it's not an issue of vetting but coming to agreement on whose best
Not just for this election but to set up for future campaigns.

+1 Trump’s team is rather famously terrible at vetting.

He really isn’t. Pence gave him
the religious voters who perhaps were leery of Trumps motivations. He’s also from Ohio-a state that no modern Republican has ever lost in an election.

I think he only chose Vance because he’s from Ohio as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It will be Shapiro’s if he wants it. Swing state governor, very moderate. Kamala needs a white man in order to not completely hemmorage white men to Trump.

Republicans will go full out in painting a black woman as antisemitic/anti-Israel. Shapiro neutralizes that entire line of attack, plus will keep Jewish donors engaged/excited.

Nah. Shapiro would suck a lot of the energy out of the base, particularly women and youth.

His attempts to ban state workers from participating in protests against Israeli policies were a First Amendment violation, and demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding how Americans are responding to the brutal attacks on Gazan civilians.

His attempts to transfer public funds to private religious schools through school vouchers are a repudiation of public school parents, who make up a majority of Democratic voters.

Finally, hiring a known sexual harasser to his team shows that he prioritizes political experience over the safety of young women on his team.

Harris must know how toxic he is, and she can't win without women and young people.

Exactly. These are the reasons he's not a good pick.

I do wonder if there's a bit of disagreement between the party as to who should get the VP nod seems like we're getting a lot of choices thrown out to the public

No, the reason for the delay is that the Harris team is working feverishly to vet these candidates. They want to make sure that there are no hidden bombs in their past. With the ones that were DAs and prosecutors, they have to sift through their legal career and find all the cases that these prosecutors tried and make sure that there aren't any embarassing issues. So, work history, personal history, family history, etc. It takes a lot of man-hours to conduct these background checks. Normally they have weeks to do these background checks. They start early and they work hard. Now they have days. I'm guessing they have a soft-deadline for next Wednesday (July 31) to try and hone in on the best candidate.

At this point, she has 2-3 good options and they are trying to find the one with the least background issues.

I mean these candidates didn't materialize out of nowhere just a week ago or even a month ago after the ill fated debate. They have been vetted . They have been on the list if you will. I don't think there's complete party agreement on who to go with. While none of the names are Vance level bad who will cause votes to be lost+ maybe Shapiro) it's a question of who will add the most votes and which demographic to target to grab votes
They are testing public reaction.

They've been vetted before, but not to the degree that a POTUS or VPOTUS candidate is going to need done. The level of scrutiny that they will come under as a national candidate with every media outlet putting their entire lives under a microscope is unlike anything they've been treated to even as candidates for governor, Senate, etc. For instance, governors and Senators may or may not have their entire work career hyperanalyzed, but you can bet that there are going to b journalists, or lobbyists or political bloggers that will dig through every case that these prosecutors have ever tried. The scale of interest in a (vice)presidential candidate is far higher than even a governor, Senator or Congressman.

Look at what's happened to Vance in the last week. He was vetted and the media is still finding things on him that the vetting team missed. It is very hard to analyze a person's full life even in weeks and Harris' teams is going do it in days. They are skipping anything that has already been analyzed by these people in the past. They are digging deep to try to find anything that might come up. Everyone typically has something that may not be ideal for them. The Harris team just needs to know about things and have an answer crafted in case anyone finds anything.

I don't think the vetting team missed things on Vance I think they probably didn't bother to do much research at all or didn't think people would care. Or more likely Trump with him against their advice.

When it comes to Harris VP pick I stand firm and well have to agree to disagree that it's not an issue of vetting but coming to agreement on whose best
Not just for this election but to set up for future campaigns.

+1 Trump’s team is rather famously terrible at vetting.

He really isn’t. Pence gave him
the religious voters who perhaps were leery of Trumps motivations. He’s also from Ohio-a state that no modern Republican has ever lost in an election.

I think he only chose Vance because he’s from Ohio as well.

Mike Pence is NOT from Ohio. He's from Indiana, and he was governor there while Pete Buttigieg was Mayor of South Bend. Pence was born and raised in Indiana and has never lived in Ohio.

[Anonymous]

Those who oppose Shapiro because he’s Jewish may not realize he’s to the left of some of the other, unequivocally pro Israel candidates. It will be ironic if that’s the reason he’s discounted. I think he’d be great on many fronts, including a strategic one.

[Anonymous]

Who would be better - Beshear (KY) or Cooper (NC)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those who oppose Shapiro because he’s Jewish may not realize he’s to the left of some of the other, unequivocally pro Israel candidates. It will be ironic if that’s the reason he’s discounted. I think he’d be great on many fronts, including a strategic one.

I don't think anyone opposed Shapiro because he's Jewish it's his specific actions over the Gaza War protests that could cost valuable votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who would be better - Beshear (KY) or Cooper (NC)?

If the two I like Cooper. I still like Beshear but I have moved him to 4 th place in my rankings.

My top picks are Walz and Kelly.

I just feel like Americans would prefer someone a bit older and experienced as VP.

I keep seeing Buttigeg being brought up and at first I thought it was just internet nonsense.
But Pat Ryan out of NY gave him a nod .

I hope the party realizes that's a bad move.