Let's haver some fun with the VP nomination. Who would be your choice? Feel free to post the rationa

That's what I said Walz had less downside risk in my eyes.

Shapiro was still a good choice, but some of his controversies carried a bigger risk to a wider electorate base. And Dems had several other very strong options on the bench. Shapiro probably needs more time/exposure before he's ready for a national ticket.

 

Flavor of the week.

Merely reinforces Dems' own biases, rather than helping to move the views of other voters needed.

Blue state type that won't help to deliver swing states.

 

@Dead Fingers officially wins the poll, choosing “Someone Else.”

 

Walz comes from (and won many times) a very rural, swing district, located near other strong GOP strongholds. That district went back a GOP rep following his leaving Congress.

He's got credibility among moderates.

 

I think this may be so, but he also carries far less upside potential as well.

And for all his "moderate appeal," that still came from comfortably inside a deep blue state.


Its kinda like the USMNT winning the gold cup, but since that thing is always at home, it isn't all that impressive

 

@Dead Fingers Thinks we are all nuts (he’s got a point), so I am cross-posting this tweet from Mark Hertling about Walz that he posted elsewhere.

Many followers not familiar with the military are asking me “so what’s the big deal about a command sergeant major?”

Walz joined at 18 as a private. Rose through the NCO (sergeant) ranks, each requiring extreme competence at increasingly demanding jobs with more people &… https://t.co/Y0oMaYzuET

— Mark Hertling (@MarkHertling) August 6, 2024

 

You're overthinking this by a lot. The only job for a VP pick is to drive turnout. Walz can do that.

 

...from a deep blue state that Harris was already gonna win, regardless of who was the VP pick.

So, he brings nothing to the ticket.

 

Er... excuse me... there were TWO votes for 'someone else'. He might have been one vote but there was another person as well and it happens to be someone very close to me. Well, OK... it was me and I voted after it was announced but that's another matter.

 

How does not listing an obvious candidate reinforce our biases? What it does is highlight our ignorance.

Funny thing is, Walz is by far the best, most natural messenger among the three finalists. He, like Buttegeig, seems to have that ability to step on stage or in front of a camera and get the message out in a way that's compelling. Was Kelly able to do that? Has Shapiro done that outside of PA? Walz the safe choice is an oddity, too. He's the most progressive of the group, which normally doesn't make you the safe choice.

Shapiro in PA (and, really, only in PA) is a unique situation. There's really no data showing VP running mates winning states that the head of the ticket wouldn't otherwise have won. Shapiro in PA might have been that unicorn example. But a running mate has to campaign across the country - not in just one state - has to align with what the head of the ticket wants to say and stick to that script. Walz has already been doing that, and doing it effectively. Honestly, maybe it's just my YouTube feed, but similar interviews and appearances by Shapiro haven't been showing up. He may be a terrific governor, but he hasn't been making the rounds campaigning for Harris the way Walz has been.

I've hired a lot of staff over the years. One standard line of questioning is: "Why do you want this job? What about it interests you?" Walz has done a terrific job of answering these questions publicaly in the past few weeks. Shapiro, at least for me, not so much.

 

He wasn't on the radar when Harris got the nomination. That he became the VP so quickly is kinda-sorta the definition of a "flavor of the month."

So, to summarize, he talks purty, and he reinforces Dems' own biases, rather than helping to convince the convinceable.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Agreed, but thats not what a swing state pick would be. Trying to pick off a state that would have otherwise been lost by picking a red state VP would have been picking Beshear.

The smarter play would have been picking someone from a swing state.

IOW, Shapiro or Kelly.

Sure. The election is decided from a list of what, 7 swing states?

Why not pick someone from one of those swing states, and thus expand the map?

Picking a blue state type is so "USSF." Lets pick a comfortable blue state type.

Yup, the algorithm has you pegged.

Walz merely reinforces your own biases.

I've also hired plenty in my time, but this job is a popularity contest, not a contest of capability.

Dems' "Will To Lose" makes them forget about the popularity contest part of the job.

 

I searched for those vides of Shapiro. They were damned hard to find.

In any event, I'm sure Harris has no ********ing idea what she's doing. You must know better.

By the way, have you ever heard Walz talk about rural America? Or about what being a veteran and veterans affairs means to him?

 

And yet, you did admit that YouTube "fed" that to you. Your biases were merely confirmed.

She's a garden variety California Dem. So of course she likes a candidate that "talks purty." This is equivalent to have picked Beto in '16, or Abrams in '20.

As a veteran, I am well aware.

But the VP pick doesn't have to convince ME, I'm in a blue state, and I'll crawl over molten lava to vote against the other side.

The VP pick has/had to convince a voter from Kenosha, WI, St Joseph, MI, Johnstown, PA, and Maricopa County to vote for them. So really, whether or not already committed blue state Dem voters (like you or me) thinks he "talks purty" means jack shyte.

What matters if that ticket can win enough of the 50 popularity contests to get the job.



Actually, what REALLY matters is if the ticket can win enough of those 7 swing states' popularity contests (ones that Shapiro and Kelly have already won).

 

Think Minnesota isn't a deep blue state anymore. It was, but it's been getting closer and closer.

 

This is much less about ideology or demography than political talent.

Walz is the Dems' funniest and more effective "happy warrior" attack dog.

Not yet another attorney ala Obama, the Clintons, Harris, Kaine, & Biden) (I say this as a lawyer married... yo a lawyer) (1/2) https://t.co/0ChkdRe3TS

— Jeff Hauser (@jeffhauser) August 6, 2024

 

Small point here, I actually went online and searched for videos of Shapiro doing these kinds of interviews. I didn't rely on YouTube to feed me what I already wanted to see. Frankly, if that feed was providing videos fo Kelly, Walz, Buttlegeig, Witmer, Shapiro was conspicuosu by his absence. So I went out looking.

My point is that Shapiro may be a very talented governor in PA, but he didn't appear to be doing the kind of proactive messaging that (especially) Walz and Buttegeig were. Not saying he never was out there, but not to the extent others were.

Hell, yesterday, Walz held a fundraising event for Harris in Minnesota. Shapiro's social media feeds were about his achievements as governor. Fine. But as VP, you need to be out campaining for the ticket. You have to think Shaprio has the talent to do that. It would been nice to have seen him doing more of it these past few weeks. I might have a different perspective on him.

 

This pick means Democrats are likely to win Minnesota by a 52-44 margin.

 

I've seen him interviewed and he seemed like a solid choice.

 

I think this is an important point. If you wanted to select a profession even more unpopular than politicians you'd choose lawyers so having lawyers being the main supplier of politicians seems a pretty odd way of thinking and, yes... I KNOW they're often the people with the best skill set to actually make laws but the thing is, you have to get elected to do that.