Official Kamala Harris VP Thread

[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.

Were they adopted? Or did they use a surrogate? Twins says surrogate to me because implanting more than one embryo. But of course, that could also be natural. But, I didn’t think they had even come out and said whether it was adoption or surrogacy. Also don’t think it’s anyone’s business. They seem like great dads and a beautiful family.

Not, I only follow Buttigieg so closely, so if some has a reliable source pointing to adoption or surrogacy, feel free to share. They seem to value their privacy enough that they would not have come out and said. In which case, don’t assume one or both aren’t the biodads who used an egg donor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It feels like people are just throwing out names to raise their profile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

His everyman appeal, with an impressive slate of professional/policy accomplishments, makes him a huge asset. He is the antidote to all the coastal elitism charges from the right, is refreshing in every way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right. He's going to appeal to that demographic. He also has a way of talking that doesn't come across as condescending

[Anonymous]

Has anyone considered Gregg Popovich? He'd have to give up an exciting rebuild. So maybe Steve Kerr?

[Anonymous]

I feel like we should have a pick by now. I realize this is ridiculous because she only became top ticket a week ago, but I'm getting anxious.
Just rip the bandaid off already!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like we should have a pick by now. I realize this is ridiculous because she only became top ticket a week ago, but I'm getting anxious.
Just rip the bandaid off already!

Slow your roll, good vetting takes time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone considered Gregg Popovich? He'd have to give up an exciting rebuild. So maybe Steve Kerr?

Um no and no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

His everyman appeal, with an impressive slate of professional/policy accomplishments, makes him a huge asset. He is the antidote to all the coastal elitism charges from the right, is refreshing in every way.

I think this is something people on DCUM forget, and it's not just a right wing talking points it's how many people in the country feel about the democratic party, that they look down on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like we should have a pick by now. I realize this is ridiculous because she only became top ticket a week ago, but I'm getting anxious.
Just rip the bandaid off already!

Slow your roll, good vetting takes time.

+1
It’s also difficult for Democrats because we’re used to anxiety. This is more like anticipation. I wouldn’t mind any of the people allegedly shortlisted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

It feels like people are just throwing out names to raise their profile

Yep. Wonder if any GOP not up for reelection this year will cross to express their interest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like we should have a pick by now. I realize this is ridiculous because she only became top ticket a week ago, but I'm getting anxious.
Just rip the bandaid off already!

Please don't act like that orange clown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

His everyman appeal, with an impressive slate of professional/policy accomplishments, makes him a huge asset. He is the antidote to all the coastal elitism charges from the right, is refreshing in every way.

I think this is something people on DCUM forget, and it's not just a right wing talking points it's how many people in the country feel about the democratic party, that they look down on them.

Seriously, people HAVE to leave this and their bubble to visit the South and Midwest. Or even areas of blue states, just outside their backyard!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

His everyman appeal, with an impressive slate of professional/policy accomplishments, makes him a huge asset. He is the antidote to all the coastal elitism charges from the right, is refreshing in every way.

I think this is something people on DCUM forget, and it's not just a right wing talking points it's how many people in the country feel about the democratic party, that they look down on them.

Seriously, people HAVE to leave this and their bubble to visit the South and Midwest. Or even areas of blue states, just outside their backyard!

You know some of us actually live in the South and Midwest, right?
- Minnesota, formerly of Fairfax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

His everyman appeal, with an impressive slate of professional/policy accomplishments, makes him a huge asset. He is the antidote to all the coastal elitism charges from the right, is refreshing in every way.

I think this is something people on DCUM forget, and it's not just a right wing talking points it's how many people in the country feel about the democratic party, that they look down on them.

NP. I know. I think it's really important, and it would make him a great pick.