Official Kamala Harris VP Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely love Pete (I’m liberal) and many conservative leaning voters respect him too. But his unpopularity in the Black community means he’ll never be President or VP. His record as transportation secretary also leaves him open to excessive attacks from the right (some are unfair, but it is what it is).

If Harris picks him the black community would get on board. He had Jim Clyburn’s support and he (Buttigieg) is the father of two black children. Pete would be a phenomenal ally for the black community and all of America.

I didn't realize both of Pete and Chasten's adopted kids are Black.

https://people.com/all-about-pete-buttigieg-children-8683180

That will cause problems too. There’s an anti adoption movement now, and trans racial adoption has been controversial for a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely love Pete (I’m liberal) and many conservative leaning voters respect him too. But his unpopularity in the Black community means he’ll never be President or VP. His record as transportation secretary also leaves him open to excessive attacks from the right (some are unfair, but it is what it is).

If Harris picks him the black community would get on board. He had Jim Clyburn’s support and he (Buttigieg) is the father of two black children. Pete would be a phenomenal ally for the black community and all of America.

He's also on record as telling his black constituents he didn't care so good luck with that.

He brings nothing to the table that Harris needs and actually poses a risk to losing votes

He's a no.

Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely love Pete (I’m liberal) and many conservative leaning voters respect him too. But his unpopularity in the Black community means he’ll never be President or VP. His record as transportation secretary also leaves him open to excessive attacks from the right (some are unfair, but it is what it is).

If Harris picks him the black community would get on board. He had Jim Clyburn’s support and he (Buttigieg) is the father of two black children. Pete would be a phenomenal ally for the black community and all of America.

He's also on record as telling his black constituents he didn't care so good luck with that.

He brings nothing to the table that Harris needs and actually poses a risk to losing votes

He's a no.

Get over it.

You're wrong and I'm not getting over it. He brings a lot that she needs - he's an adept communicator, messenger, and attack dog. He loves policy and has a brilliant and calm demeanor. Any of the choices are risky and she very well may not choose him, but he's still the smartest pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely love Pete (I’m liberal) and many conservative leaning voters respect him too. But his unpopularity in the Black community means he’ll never be President or VP. His record as transportation secretary also leaves him open to excessive attacks from the right (some are unfair, but it is what it is).

If Harris picks him the black community would get on board. He had Jim Clyburn’s support and he (Buttigieg) is the father of two black children. Pete would be a phenomenal ally for the black community and all of America.

I agree. Pete is really dynamic - he is a veteran, from the Midwest, part of the LGBTQ community, and he’s brilliant (plus a brilliant speaker), and yes, his kids are non white so I agree on the allyship piece. He also strikes me as a genuinely good person - I recall a moment in the 2020 debates when he beautifully stuck up for Biden regarding congressional hearings against hunter. I’m nervous that his sexual orientation would sadly be a political liability on a presidential ticket, but IMO hes one of the most promising young people in the party and im excited to see where he goes.

The problem I see with Pete is that Indiana is mostly a lost cause. He won't get elected in his home state because it really has gone off the deep end. He has a better chance of becoming the Senator from Maryland than Indiana. VP is really his only shot at an elected office.

More likely with Pete is that he remains an executive branch high-level appointee. Perhaps takes an ambassadorship with a critical nation to build up his foreign policy chops.

He's a brilliant guy who plays well to Blue state audiences....but has zero chance in place of birth. But I guess that's the story for lots of gay people who need to leave their "home" behind.

But he no longer qualifies to run for office in Indiana. They sold their home and are no longer residents. They purchased a home in Michigan because that is where his husband was born. So he could run for office in Michigan which is a battleground state. With his national profile, I could see him actually running to replace Whitmer. He would be a good candidate and would have a big head-start in name recognition and platform to anyone else in either party. He would immediately start as the front-runner. Whitmer is term-limited, so she cannot run in 2026.

If he decides to stay in federal politics, his skills would make him an excellent press secretary or communications director. Both higher up inner circle presidential staff from his current cabinet position.

LOL no way in frozen hell is Pete Buttigieg becoming the Governor of MI as a carpetbagger. MI residents have a crazy chip on their shoulder about outsiders.

What the f#ck.

[Anonymous]

Walz Walz Walz Walz

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely love Pete (I’m liberal) and many conservative leaning voters respect him too. But his unpopularity in the Black community means he’ll never be President or VP. His record as transportation secretary also leaves him open to excessive attacks from the right (some are unfair, but it is what it is).

If Harris picks him the black community would get on board. He had Jim Clyburn’s support and he (Buttigieg) is the father of two black children. Pete would be a phenomenal ally for the black community and all of America.

I didn't realize both of Pete and Chasten's adopted kids are Black.

https://people.com/all-about-pete-buttigieg-children-8683180

That will cause problems too. There’s an anti adoption movement now, and trans racial adoption has been controversial for a while.

It would cause problems with the terminally online left, who are unreliable voters at best. But I do understand not wanting to invite that level of distracting criticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Walz Walz Walz Walz

Yes, yes, yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shapiro is likely a net negative. He brings PA, but his Jewish heritage and his stance on Gaza highlight the Israel/Gaza issue and not in a good way. I think Harris trying to tread a fine line in supporting Israel but taking a hard stance on the Gazan war and prioritizing getting hostages returned, while limiting violence against Gazans. Shapiro counters that message. And worse, makes the Israel-Gaza conflict a bigger part of the campaign. I think Harris is trying to make that a back-burner issue.

Buttigieg is also net negative. While many Democrats are going to take his LGBTQ status in stride, many independents, moderates and moderately leaning Republicans are not. Especially with the transgender debate, this again highlights a topic that Harris is trying to ignore/back-burner. She doesn't not want transgender rights to get back on to the short list of campaign topics. It's find on the long list, but she wants to keep it off the short list. Buttigieg would be fantastic as press secretary and/or communications director. He's truly a gifted communicator and having one of those positions which is a higher ranked/more senior position in the inner circle than his current position, would be a step up for him. In those positions, he would be a net positive to the campaign rather than a net negative.

Kelly probably has the best national profile of all of the options. His military career and his NASA careers make him a nationally known figure. His marriage to Gabby Giffords and his advocacy for gun rights is both a blessing and a curse. Fortunately, he does take the most popular stance, which is gun rights with gun controls. Everyone is entitled to guns (he is a gun owner himself who proclaims that he probably has more firearms than most Arizonans). But multi-action guns like AR-15s and devices like bump stocks that turn guns into multi-action weapons should be banned. Support for background checks, support for closing gun show loopholes. Support for registration. Support for mental health screenings. Many, many gun owners support the same. Most of the people who don't agree with his stances, are more likely to already be committed Trump voters or leaning that way. Definitely a net positive. Another good thing is that with his very, very high profile Senate campaign, he was pretty thoroughly vetted by unofficial sources (e.g. media and RNC opponents). They will have to dig deeper, but there is a lot of background already covered on him.

Beshear, Cooper, Walz are all in much the same boat. They have a lot of positives, are likely to deliver crucial swing states, but they all have relatively low national profiles. Outside of a regional recognition, they all suffer from being unknown to most of the nation. The lack of national profile can be both good and bad. They have many people who don't have preconceived ideas about them, or previous disagreements with them, but they have to be vetted much more carefully than other options. The vetting process needs to be much more thorough with these candidates because there hasn't been a lot of exposure for these candidates on a national scale yet.

I like Kelly the most, but I'm sorry, Walz is WAY better than Beshear and Cooper. Walz looks much older than 60 though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely love Pete (I’m liberal) and many conservative leaning voters respect him too. But his unpopularity in the Black community means he’ll never be President or VP. His record as transportation secretary also leaves him open to excessive attacks from the right (some are unfair, but it is what it is).

If Harris picks him the black community would get on board. He had Jim Clyburn’s support and he (Buttigieg) is the father of two black children. Pete would be a phenomenal ally for the black community and all of America.

He's also on record as telling his black constituents he didn't care so good luck with that.

He brings nothing to the table that Harris needs and actually poses a risk to losing votes

He's a no.

Get over it.

You're wrong and I'm not getting over it. He brings a lot that she needs - he's an adept communicator, messenger, and attack dog. He loves policy and has a brilliant and calm demeanor. Any of the choices are risky and she very well may not choose him, but he's still the smartest pick.

Does he appeal to white working class conservative leaning mean and women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shapiro is likely a net negative. He brings PA, but his Jewish heritage and his stance on Gaza highlight the Israel/Gaza issue and not in a good way. I think Harris trying to tread a fine line in supporting Israel but taking a hard stance on the Gazan war and prioritizing getting hostages returned, while limiting violence against Gazans. Shapiro counters that message. And worse, makes the Israel-Gaza conflict a bigger part of the campaign. I think Harris is trying to make that a back-burner issue.

Buttigieg is also net negative. While many Democrats are going to take his LGBTQ status in stride, many independents, moderates and moderately leaning Republicans are not. Especially with the transgender debate, this again highlights a topic that Harris is trying to ignore/back-burner. She doesn't not want transgender rights to get back on to the short list of campaign topics. It's find on the long list, but she wants to keep it off the short list. Buttigieg would be fantastic as press secretary and/or communications director. He's truly a gifted communicator and having one of those positions which is a higher ranked/more senior position in the inner circle than his current position, would be a step up for him. In those positions, he would be a net positive to the campaign rather than a net negative.

Kelly probably has the best national profile of all of the options. His military career and his NASA careers make him a nationally known figure. His marriage to Gabby Giffords and his advocacy for gun rights is both a blessing and a curse. Fortunately, he does take the most popular stance, which is gun rights with gun controls. Everyone is entitled to guns (he is a gun owner himself who proclaims that he probably has more firearms than most Arizonans). But multi-action guns like AR-15s and devices like bump stocks that turn guns into multi-action weapons should be banned. Support for background checks, support for closing gun show loopholes. Support for registration. Support for mental health screenings. Many, many gun owners support the same. Most of the people who don't agree with his stances, are more likely to already be committed Trump voters or leaning that way. Definitely a net positive. Another good thing is that with his very, very high profile Senate campaign, he was pretty thoroughly vetted by unofficial sources (e.g. media and RNC opponents). They will have to dig deeper, but there is a lot of background already covered on him.

Beshear, Cooper, Walz are all in much the same boat. They have a lot of positives, are likely to deliver crucial swing states, but they all have relatively low national profiles. Outside of a regional recognition, they all suffer from being unknown to most of the nation. The lack of national profile can be both good and bad. They have many people who don't have preconceived ideas about them, or previous disagreements with them, but they have to be vetted much more carefully than other options. The vetting process needs to be much more thorough with these candidates because there hasn't been a lot of exposure for these candidates on a national scale yet.

I like Kelly the most, but I'm sorry, Walz is WAY better than Beshear and Cooper. Walz looks much older than 60 though.

Walz looks like a guy you'd go to a game and grab a beer with. IMO that's a positive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely love Pete (I’m liberal) and many conservative leaning voters respect him too. But his unpopularity in the Black community means he’ll never be President or VP. His record as transportation secretary also leaves him open to excessive attacks from the right (some are unfair, but it is what it is).

If Harris picks him the black community would get on board. He had Jim Clyburn’s support and he (Buttigieg) is the father of two black children. Pete would be a phenomenal ally for the black community and all of America.

He's also on record as telling his black constituents he didn't care so good luck with that.

He brings nothing to the table that Harris needs and actually poses a risk to losing votes

He's a no.

Get over it.

You're wrong and I'm not getting over it. He brings a lot that she needs - he's an adept communicator, messenger, and attack dog. He loves policy and has a brilliant and calm demeanor. Any of the choices are risky and she very well may not choose him, but he's still the smartest pick.

DP. Just be prepared to be disappointed. He has all of the things that you say, but those skills are far more useful in a position like press secretary or communications director. Those are people who are hired to do the work for the politicians. The image that he has is currently not electable nation-wide. And he does not add to the swing state calculus, which she really needs right now. He is not winning her any purple states. So, right now, he's really not at the top of the short list anywhere except in the minds of liberals who are already voting or committed to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shapiro is likely a net negative. He brings PA, but his Jewish heritage and his stance on Gaza highlight the Israel/Gaza issue and not in a good way. I think Harris trying to tread a fine line in supporting Israel but taking a hard stance on the Gazan war and prioritizing getting hostages returned, while limiting violence against Gazans. Shapiro counters that message. And worse, makes the Israel-Gaza conflict a bigger part of the campaign. I think Harris is trying to make that a back-burner issue.

Buttigieg is also net negative. While many Democrats are going to take his LGBTQ status in stride, many independents, moderates and moderately leaning Republicans are not. Especially with the transgender debate, this again highlights a topic that Harris is trying to ignore/back-burner. She doesn't not want transgender rights to get back on to the short list of campaign topics. It's find on the long list, but she wants to keep it off the short list. Buttigieg would be fantastic as press secretary and/or communications director. He's truly a gifted communicator and having one of those positions which is a higher ranked/more senior position in the inner circle than his current position, would be a step up for him. In those positions, he would be a net positive to the campaign rather than a net negative.

Kelly probably has the best national profile of all of the options. His military career and his NASA careers make him a nationally known figure. His marriage to Gabby Giffords and his advocacy for gun rights is both a blessing and a curse. Fortunately, he does take the most popular stance, which is gun rights with gun controls. Everyone is entitled to guns (he is a gun owner himself who proclaims that he probably has more firearms than most Arizonans). But multi-action guns like AR-15s and devices like bump stocks that turn guns into multi-action weapons should be banned. Support for background checks, support for closing gun show loopholes. Support for registration. Support for mental health screenings. Many, many gun owners support the same. Most of the people who don't agree with his stances, are more likely to already be committed Trump voters or leaning that way. Definitely a net positive. Another good thing is that with his very, very high profile Senate campaign, he was pretty thoroughly vetted by unofficial sources (e.g. media and RNC opponents). They will have to dig deeper, but there is a lot of background already covered on him.

Beshear, Cooper, Walz are all in much the same boat. They have a lot of positives, are likely to deliver crucial swing states, but they all have relatively low national profiles. Outside of a regional recognition, they all suffer from being unknown to most of the nation. The lack of national profile can be both good and bad. They have many people who don't have preconceived ideas about them, or previous disagreements with them, but they have to be vetted much more carefully than other options. The vetting process needs to be much more thorough with these candidates because there hasn't been a lot of exposure for these candidates on a national scale yet.

I like Kelly the most, but I'm sorry, Walz is WAY better than Beshear and Cooper. Walz looks much older than 60 though.

Walz looks like a guy you'd go to a game and grab a beer with. IMO that's a positive

NCO for 20+ years and a high school football coach who grew up in rural Nebraska.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely love Pete (I’m liberal) and many conservative leaning voters respect him too. But his unpopularity in the Black community means he’ll never be President or VP. His record as transportation secretary also leaves him open to excessive attacks from the right (some are unfair, but it is what it is).

If Harris picks him the black community would get on board. He had Jim Clyburn’s support and he (Buttigieg) is the father of two black children. Pete would be a phenomenal ally for the black community and all of America.

He's also on record as telling his black constituents he didn't care so good luck with that.

He brings nothing to the table that Harris needs and actually poses a risk to losing votes

He's a no.

Get over it.

You're wrong and I'm not getting over it. He brings a lot that she needs - he's an adept communicator, messenger, and attack dog. He loves policy and has a brilliant and calm demeanor. Any of the choices are risky and she very well may not choose him, but he's still the smartest pick.

Does he appeal to white working class conservative leaning mean and women?

Of course not. He is the opposite of the smartest pick—does actual harm and brings little substance or history of accomplishments. The Pete stans are exhausting and do not acknowledge his weaknesses. Best not to engage further. Let’s keep the focus on the solid prospects.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shapiro is likely a net negative. He brings PA, but his Jewish heritage and his stance on Gaza highlight the Israel/Gaza issue and not in a good way. I think Harris trying to tread a fine line in supporting Israel but taking a hard stance on the Gazan war and prioritizing getting hostages returned, while limiting violence against Gazans. Shapiro counters that message. And worse, makes the Israel-Gaza conflict a bigger part of the campaign. I think Harris is trying to make that a back-burner issue.

Buttigieg is also net negative. While many Democrats are going to take his LGBTQ status in stride, many independents, moderates and moderately leaning Republicans are not. Especially with the transgender debate, this again highlights a topic that Harris is trying to ignore/back-burner. She doesn't not want transgender rights to get back on to the short list of campaign topics. It's find on the long list, but she wants to keep it off the short list. Buttigieg would be fantastic as press secretary and/or communications director. He's truly a gifted communicator and having one of those positions which is a higher ranked/more senior position in the inner circle than his current position, would be a step up for him. In those positions, he would be a net positive to the campaign rather than a net negative.

Kelly probably has the best national profile of all of the options. His military career and his NASA careers make him a nationally known figure. His marriage to Gabby Giffords and his advocacy for gun rights is both a blessing and a curse. Fortunately, he does take the most popular stance, which is gun rights with gun controls. Everyone is entitled to guns (he is a gun owner himself who proclaims that he probably has more firearms than most Arizonans). But multi-action guns like AR-15s and devices like bump stocks that turn guns into multi-action weapons should be banned. Support for background checks, support for closing gun show loopholes. Support for registration. Support for mental health screenings. Many, many gun owners support the same. Most of the people who don't agree with his stances, are more likely to already be committed Trump voters or leaning that way. Definitely a net positive. Another good thing is that with his very, very high profile Senate campaign, he was pretty thoroughly vetted by unofficial sources (e.g. media and RNC opponents). They will have to dig deeper, but there is a lot of background already covered on him.

Beshear, Cooper, Walz are all in much the same boat. They have a lot of positives, are likely to deliver crucial swing states, but they all have relatively low national profiles. Outside of a regional recognition, they all suffer from being unknown to most of the nation. The lack of national profile can be both good and bad. They have many people who don't have preconceived ideas about them, or previous disagreements with them, but they have to be vetted much more carefully than other options. The vetting process needs to be much more thorough with these candidates because there hasn't been a lot of exposure for these candidates on a national scale yet.

I like Kelly the most, but I'm sorry, Walz is WAY better than Beshear and Cooper. Walz looks much older than 60 though.

Beshear comes across as being inexperienced. And though nots not fair people accuse Harris of not being experienced enough. You don't want a ticket that people feel is inexperienced.

Cooper needs to stay in NC until term is up.