Senate Census Kamala Harris - VP choice predictions?

I think that's massively misreading what the choice was back in 2008... Obama's primary issue wasn't that he was black and needed to appease the racists (though I'm sure there may have been some of that); his issue was that he had absolutely no foreign policy experience at all. He was assigned to the FRC and sat for like 12 months before he started running for President; this is arguably one of the President's most important jobs so he imported someone with literally decades of experience there to calm nerves along those lines.

 

I, at least, am not calling him pro-genocide. But I do think it’s an ethically wrong approach, from a place of ignorance, at best. And I do think it would suppress votes from those who have supported the protesters but were open to a new approach by Harris, mostly the youth vote and the more left-leaning vote and the antiwar vote.

 

That's even worse. Biden's "experience" was being on the wrong side of pretty much every US foreign policy issue for his whole career.

 

At the time, the only major one was Iraq and... pretty much everyone was on the wrong side there (Obama wasn't there to vote, which helped him immensely).

 

I agree that it may suppress that vote, and I’m definitely not disagreeing that there’s disadvantages to him being selected. I think the question is whether or not the advantages he brings counteract the possible negatives. For example, for better or worse, they are going to assess whether those young voters would a) believe his views negate the actual Presidential candidates views and b) be likely to vote in the first place given low youth voter turn out.

I think the real disadvantage could come from Michigan Arab-American voters. That’s the part I think they’ll be seriously looking at whether they can afford to lose.

 

Personally, I would not pick Shapiro. I would not advocate for Shapiro. I don't know what internal data they have that's making Shapiro look good.

But there are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay fewer Muslims (1%) and/or Palestinians (some portion of 3%) in Michigan compared to Black/African-American people (14%) in the state. If Harris' numbers increase AA turnout (and hold it regardless of VP pick), it... probably doesn't matter that she chooses Shapiro, as awful as that is.

 

Is Pennsylvania THE swing state, though? And does he translate well to other swing states?

Basically, even if he does guarantee Pennsylvania, which could still be wrong, could they win Pennsylvania and still lose?

Mark Kelly has very similar issues as Shapiro, and while AZ has fewer Electoral College votes he may have more national appeal.

And Walz would just be “do no harm, reassure the left and the center of the Democrats” and be a good governing partner.

 

Ben Shapiro for Kamala Harris's VP?!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

Personally, I think Kelly's labor issues are potentially overblown, but I also like what I'm hearing of Walz. I'd prefer both of them to Shapiro. I'd also love Pete, but that ain't happening.

 

I’m not as read-up on the supposed labor issues with Kelly and Shapiro, but I do see the PRO Act as overblown and more just another bill that would be nice, and also charter schools taking over being a much bigger issue (for labor unions and in general).

 

Does anyone think that whoever Harris picks would kill their chances for a 2028 run if Harris loses this year? I personally do not think it would and if Harris loses, she's out for 2028. So in contrast, whoever she picks will probably have a good chance in 2028. However, I don't think that Cooper or Kelly would have ambitions for the presidency. Whitmer (who is my pick for 2028), Shapiro, and Beshear likely do. They'd all be competing with Newsom though.

Btw, hasn't Kelly come around to unions as of late? Conversely, hasn't Shapiro backed off of education vouchers?

 

Kelly is one of only four Dem senators to not have endorsed the PRO Act. He was in Sinema's company. I think that sent a clear signal, and I don't take his "Oh sure, I support it now" pivot seriously when he's vying for a position on the ticket.

 

It most likely would. Which might be part of the reason for Whitmer’s comments.

I don’t know too much about the PRO Act, but it seems less consequential than Charter School network takeovers, both in general and to labor (since teachers’ unions are a big chunk of current labor unions, one of the few non-manufacturing sectors that unions have had power over).

 

From what I’ve been reading / hearing, and maybe these people are biased because some of them are admittedly Never Trump Republicans, Shapiro’s advantage is that he is very popular in Pennsylvania and that’s an essential state to win. I’m skeptical how much his popularity there would translate to them actually carrying the state, but that seems to be the long and the short of their analysis of why he’s such a good option.

I agree though, that if he didn’t have the disadvantages of being both gay and not being able to bring them any clear swing state advantage, Pete is probably the best one out there.

 

Buttigieg's tenure as Secretary of Transportation has been pretty bad and it's by far the most consequential position he's ever held.

 

I keep seeing "didn't endorse the PRO Act" -- what does this mean? Did he not co-sponsor it? Because there hasn't been a vote yet, right?

 

Yes, he didn't co-sponsor it. The others were Sinema, Coons, and Warner. I know Manchin did sign on.

 

Arguably the VP is even less consequential than Cabinet Secretary.

He’s fairly brilliant rhetorically and seems to elude a lot of passionate support from people (although admittedly this is likely from upper class white collar workers). I think he’d do fairly well as a VP, which would prepare him for a potential Presidential run. I don’t think judging him by the issues to DOT has had is particularly fair - it seems he’s been saddled with crisis’ not particularly of his own making. In fact it probably prepares him well for a lot of issues which would arise during a Presidency.

 

Buttigieg lacks charisma, has awkward interviews, and has 0% appeal to minority voters. Plus a debatable record on the Cabinet. In debates and speeches he can be good. But overall he’s very hit or miss. Someone said “AI based on Obama” and yeah it’s that general tone, for both the appeal and the weakness.

 

Really? I think his interviews are pretty great. He’s able to get to the heart of an issue and organise his thoughts really well. He reminds me of Obama in that respect (although Obama had a lot more charisma).

Having said that, I’m aware, for various reasons, why it’s not happening, and won’t happen in the future. But from an intellectual point of view I think he’s brilliant.

 

So, yeah, overblown imo. Coons is on-record of being against right-to-work, etc. and he's not "signed on." If he votes against it, sure, it's absolutely a black mark -- but it's been put forward every year for like 3 years and it doesn't go anywhere...

 

I edited my post to elaborate, but he’s very hit or miss. He had a prime time interview with Rachel Maddow and the MSNBC panel in the past week, many saw as a blatant VP shadow campaign kickoff, and he crashed and burned on softball questions and general connection. He’s a good essay-writer for debate arguments - when his speeches and interviews and debates are geared a special way. When he’s in defense mode instead of attack mode, he usually crashes and burns. He can refute a person’s argument against gay marriage using their own quotes and reasoning, but he can’t articulate well or in the moment on anything not in that vein unless he goes into AI Obama mode that’s just optimistic talk (and hope he he doesn’t get interrupted). In 2020, his 0% African-American support became a talking point and brought up in debates, and he never won support in that area despite trying at it.

 

Yes, it doesn't go anywhere. I don't think that all 46 Democrats who co-sponsored it were sincerely committed. That makes it an easy win which Kelly didn't take for some reason. This is part of a pattern with him. He also joined Manchin and Sinema to kill Biden's appointment of David Weil to lead the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division. He also needed a lot of pressure to support Julie Su for Labor Secretary (she wasn't confirmed either). Those appointees were notable for being more pro-worker than normal.

 

Maybe the "some reason" was it helps him with AZ voters, until he actually -- you know -- needs to make a vote? It works just as easily in reverse of why would be take the easy loss if he didn't have to?

His AFL-CIO record is pretty spotless except that one Weil nomination, according to their own website. You could be right, I could be wrong -- but there's absolutely nothing either way to support either position, other than he's got a pretty good voting record...

EDIT: How 'bout this, we just both hope it's not Shapiro?

 

If the Kamala camp believes Shapiro can deliver Pennsylvania for them then I think they would pick him, it’s probably the state they need most. Kelly has more of the “American Hero” persona going on though, that will be tempting to provide masculinity to the ticket. Right now they’re all being intensely vetted behind the scenes so who knows what will end up happening.