Especially when you consider that if a Harris-Buttigieg ticket won, and if someone assassinated Kamala, which isn't beyond the realm of possibility, then gay Pete would be president.
In my mind I'm starting to think it will be Beshear, because Kentucky & Appalachia would be a counter foil to JD. That said, as long as it's a straight white (Christian?) male, I don't think it will matter much.
In order to keep them both alive, you'd have to go with color, sexuality, or gender for the next five or six people in line...
Gotta pick Beshear so he and Vance can have a debate down beside where the waters flow, on the banks of the Ohio.
This is the VP debate I didn't know I wanted. Look at this guy. If you found a sketch artist and told them to turn the phrase "ghee wiz" into a human with dockers and a tucked in Nautica polo, they would draw Andy Beshear. Meanwhile, JD Vance consciously puts pages of him fcuking a couch and he gets a pass. Maybe we could start a rumor that he doesn't make his own biscuits and gravy from scratch.
I've always been impressed by Pete's temperament. He goes on Fox and gives them a schooling, all while being calm and genial. Plus he's young enough to wait out potentially 8 years of a President Harris for his shot. (Unlike someone like Newsome, who I think wouldn't accept even if the state residency rule didn't apply).
Are you saying he can't afford a real Polo or even a classic Izod? The right is a better voting bloc than the left. So much respect for how they follow their candidate.
If you were to go to a club, line up all the males, and ask the bouncer to put money on who has roofies in their pocket, they would pick JD Vance 90% of the time.
In college, the Roots made Izod popular. I look at Andy and it's hard to see that. And I just forgot about Ralph Lauren
You must be fairly (well, comparatively) young. I remember when they didn't need influencers- people just put them on and wore them. Late 70s on, for the most part. RL came into prominence around that time (I don't recall owning a polo until I was a late teen undergrad, but I had worn Izods since at least middle school), but Lacoste had been a brand for quite a while, started by the player himself.
I feel "OK" about MI being in the Blue column. I think Shapiro could help with PA, although a significant number of pennsyltuckians voted for a Turkish out-of-towner for Senator, so I dunno if we can trust them. In WI, they've elected, and RE-elected Ron Johnson. They also elected Scott Walker, so that doesn't help, either. So, I guess Shapiro might be the pick.
I've been trying to wrap me head around this for a couple days. The good news is there a lot of quality candidates. I am starting to think Kelly might be the best choice. His backstory (combat pilot, astronaut, Senator from a battleground state on the border, son of a cop, husband of Gabby Giffords) all lend him significant gravitas. Though if I was choosing on the basis of who would cream Vance in a debate, it would be Mayor Pete, hands down.
Much as I like Pete he’s having to deal with a bunch of right wing Christian wing nuts. Much as I like Newson. Straight talker and charismatic. His baggage is Donny’s Coke sniffing squeeze. Whitmer, a double woman ticket, come on! Shapiro seems the strongest for all the reasons mentioned. Got to point out though. Calling Kamala black! Is a bit strong for my mind. She is the same racial make up as JD (with the weak chin) Vance’s kids.
Bigots I’ve known and observed run the gamut. Some are diehard haters who never shy away from letting their bigotry guide their words & deeds. Others are more measured and take their cues from their peers and let social pressure dictate their reactions. Others are in some level or another of denial ("I'm not a racist/homophobe/misogynist, BUT...") and will embrace opportunities to show that they "only have a problem" with certain members of a targeted group by being "OK" with "one of the good ones." And there are bigots who would refuse to vote for "a gay man" in a primary, but would vote for a man who is gay as VP. You and I both know there were many white Democrats who voted for Obama who never would have welcomed him into their homes as a son-in-law. Being a bigot is not a binary switch. Like any form of identity, it's situational and relational, and as noted above exists on a wide spectrum. I've no doubt there are some Democrats who would refuse to vote for a ticket with an LGBT+ person as VP even though they're cool with a mixed-race woman as President, but I'm unsure that, push comes to shove, there would enough of them in the jurisdictions that matter to tip the election. That said, Buttigieg is probably not the best option nor the most likely, so this is all just a thought experiment anyway.
I'm warming up to the notion that Kelly is the best pick. I would enjoy watching Buttigieg feast on Vance's corpse with a national audience watching, but I don't know if the VP debate is going to be a decisive factor. At any rate, methinks whomever Harris taps will wipe the floor with Vance, because that guy is a charisma-deprived empty shell of a man who has to maintain the constant tension between what he knows and what he has decided he needs to believe.
Repped for your explanation, tho I don't share your belief that he wouldn't be something of an anchor to swing voters, if any remain.
You may be right. I have similar feelings about Whitmer--I love the idea of an all-woman ticket but recognize that the gain in enthusiasm on one side might not be enough to counter misogyny on the other. So what should be a positive in my view very likely couldn't be in the cold light of public opinion. At any rate, I'm not advocating for Buttigieg as the running mate, I just like the idea of it. In a better country and a saner media environment, maybe it would work.
There was talk about this early in her term. But I’m sure she won’t encourage people who want to hang her VP no matter who she/he might be.