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

Prtizker is a non-entity in the Veepstakes. He's better deployed as a surrogate, thumbing through his rolodex of other billionaires to get them to drop some cash. He's not very popular, and he will deliver exactly zero states.

Same with Pete and Walz. They are non-entities who are better deployed as surrogates. They talk purty, but delivery zero states.

Shapiro's history is not surprising, in that I had feared something along these lines coming out from his background. Both the pro-palestinian left, as well as the anti-semetic far right will work to erode much of the advantages he could provide as veep.

Beshear would make the Dems lose KY and OH and WV by fewer % points, but his appeal won't allow the campaign to win any of them.

Thus, I landed on Kelly as the preferred candidate by process of elimination. And while he also has a history, like everyone else, his appears to be the least-problematic of the group; OTOH, he might help with two critical states.


Tallest midget, perhaps, but this is [one] reason why I disliked the timing of binning Biden. I hope they get this right, AND lean on those not selected to work as surrogates.

 

Reuters sources said it's between Shapiro and Walz

 

He’s probably the safest choice in that he’s a terrific messenger, up-beat. His progressive record would resonate with the base. Long career in the National Guard. Can speak very well to rural America. I’m sure he’d be terrific on the campaign trail. No real EC help, though.

I doubt Shaprio’s negatives would mean much in the long run, despite the opinions of some in here. But they would get some traction out of the gate, and time is short.

I’ll come around to whoever gets the nod. Harris is driving this bus. She’s the one who has to embrace this partnership. As they said on PSA last week, this is someone you have a private lunch with every week. You have to really like this person (obviously, as in all things, Trump operates differently), and see them as someone you can work effectively with for at least four years.

 

With less downside risk too I think.

 

Naked rookie bowling? Elephant walk? Or landshark?

 

Honestly, I’ve been too lazy to really look into his overall career. I think of him as the governor of Minnesota. But he won a Republican seat in the House in 2006, and won re-election in ‘08, ‘10, ‘12, ‘14 and ‘16. I assumed he’d been an officer in the National Guard, but he’d enlisted and retired as a master sergeant before getting elected to Congress. Wikipedia says this: “Upon his swearing in, Walz became the highest-ranking retired enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress.” He was one of the most bipartisan members of Congress, yet got perfect scores from Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, unions, the National Organization for Women. He became the ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs and also served on the Ag Committee. He has a long history of supporting LGBT rights.

The guy’s won six House races in a GOP district and back to back races for governor.

 

Reading through the description here, I'm really warming up to Walz. And I thought he'd be much older based on his appearance, but he's still 5 years below the retirement age.

And someone else mentioned the other day about a study that shows VP candidate has very little bearings on winning his/her home state, so not picking Shapiro is probably not going to be a blunder.

 

Ok, let's examine this for a moment:

Your theory is that ONE rust belt type will magically deliver an adjoining state, and magically get the entire region on board (Walz),

But another rust belt type somehow won't do the same (Pritzker). Or Shapiro. Or any other in the laundry list of rust belt types.

I'm gonna call bullshyte on this theory.


In reality, its the same stoopid Dem self-own. IOW, people who were ALREADY gonna vote for Harris "get the vapors" over a VP pick who talks purty. It's an entirely partisan play that won't get the small sliver of "connvinceables" to come over to Harris. Rather, this type of pick merely reinforces their own biases.

Walz won't deliver any additional states, and he won't broaden the tickets appeal, beyond giving some pre-existing Dem voters "the vapors." VP choices barely impact their own states, let alone adjoining states, nor entire regions. Otherwise, why not pick Pritzker and his hotel billions? Or Shapiro, won't he magically turn Ohio blue, since he's next door to them, and ignite the entire region?


This looks like a mistake to me. Yeah, Walz "talks purty," but so did Beto and Abrams, and a thousand other "flavors of the month" that ultimately failed politically for the Dems. It made them feel better about losing, I guess.

 

The Happy Warrior rises again

 

I have some unique reasons to like the guy, but if this is correct, I'm pretty damned excited about the selection. Re: Shapiro, it was odd to me that the anti-Trump, former-GOP crowd seemed to think him the obvious choice. Kristol on the Bulwark yesterday. Chris Christie. Kristol said Shapiro is the best politician among the short list. But Walz list of elections won dwarfs Shapiro's. Anyway, as much as I value listening to, for example, the Bulwark (though I preferred it when Sykes was host), I don't think never-Trumpers (Christie can't claim the title) really understand the Dem base. The dynamics within the party. Shapiro may have been a fine choice. Kelly, too. But something about former Republicans preferring him was off-putting to me.

 

The NYT reporting it, too.

 

Early on I liked to float the idea of him among friends in a purely MN homer (shoutout to Betty Mccollum for one of the 1st to float his name) desire. Though as he gained traction I began to worry he would get picked. He passed a fantastic ambitious agenda but I'm not sure the LT Gov will have the same popularity to maintain dem control in House and Senate to help advance and fix the kinks in it.

 

Wasn't the Shapiro pick a non-starter after the Vereb thing became a media topic? A campaign that will likely be a lot about women's rights in general and then you essentially hand the GOP an easy attack vector to frame the Dems as huge hypocrites for putting a guy on the ticket who so poorly handled the fall-out of a harassment complaint within his gubernatorial cabinet.

 

I truly don't even understand how such things happen. If you are a guy who clearly has aspirations beyond the Governorship, then even just plain old cynical political opportunism means you nip anything that your opponents might use against you in the bud.
Ship that mofo off. Even if there are somehow personal loyalties or whatever in play.
You're a politician, if you want a pal, get yourself a dog.

 

Also, if he was the governor of Connecticut nobody would have thought twice about him. He was purely a geographical pick. Which is fine but Walz will hopefully drive more turnout in PA and everywhere else.

If I was the campaign manager, I'd model his campaign after Ed Davey. He already has the political chops. Who doesn't love an older dude having a complete blast?

 

Interesting that Walz isn't even a choice in the thread poll. Epic fail BigSoccer. Talk about a rapid rise.

 

It'll be interesting to hear Syke's take on this choice, from his Milwaukee perspective.

 

Being from Lake Wobegon, and all, I don't know if you ever check out Garrison Keillor's writings on his website. He publishes an essay every few days. He's been in an unnatural state of bliss since Harris became the head of the ticket. I fear a Minnesota Lutheran as her running mate might just be more happiness than he can take.

 

Meh, the reasons cited for Walz were ridiculous.

Picking a running mate from a deep blue state instead of a swing state seems suboptimal.