Communion Posted July 28 Posted July 28 11 minutes ago, shelven said: My personal feelings on Shapiro's politics aside, from an electoral standpoint, my biggest concern with him is that he probably makes Harris favoured in Pennsylvania but makes her the underdog in Michigan because of how aggressively pro-Israel he is. And Harris's path to 270 becomes a lot harder if she loses Michigan. Even if she wins Wisconsin, she still needs either Georgia or both Arizona and Nevada. I still think Walz and Beshear are the safest choices. They're good at messaging to more moderate and rural voters without supporting policies that risk alienating parts of the Dem base. They might not give a huge boost to any particular state like Shapiro could do in Pennsylvania, but I think they'll have a net positive effect across all the swing states, which is more important given Harris's pretty precarious path to 270. I guess Cooper falls into this bucket too, although I frankly haven't seen enough of him to get a sense of how effective he'll be as an overall messenger for the ticket (plus putting a 67-year-old on the ticket after making a big deal about switching to a more youthful campaign would be a bit weird). So basically 10 2 2
shelven Posted July 28 Posted July 28 1 minute ago, Communion said: So basically Yeah pretty much Although I think I'm less hung up on "top tier TV skills" than a lot of people are. Harris is already a strong public speaker, so I don't necessarily think the VP pick needs to be a 10/10 on that as well. A good VP pick helps offset some of the president's weaknesses, and in this case, I think one of Harris's main weaknesses is coming across as relatable to rural voters. You don't need to be a booming public speaker to do that (and if anything, being a bit more soft spoken might actually help in that regard). 5
Vroom Vroom Posted July 28 Posted July 28 21 minutes ago, shelven said: My personal feelings on Shapiro's politics aside, from an electoral standpoint, my biggest concern with him is that he probably makes Harris favoured in Pennsylvania but makes her the underdog in Michigan because of how aggressively pro-Israel he is. And Harris's path to 270 becomes a lot harder if she loses Michigan. Even if she wins Wisconsin, she still needs either Georgia or both Arizona and Nevada. I still think Walz and Beshear are the safest choices. They're good at messaging to more moderate and rural voters without supporting policies that risk alienating parts of the Dem base. They might not give a huge boost to any particular state like Shapiro could do in Pennsylvania, but I think they'll have a net positive effect across all the swing states, which is more important given Harris's pretty precarious path to 270. I guess Cooper falls into this bucket too, although I frankly haven't seen enough of him to get a sense of how effective he'll be as an overall messenger for the ticket (plus putting a 67-year-old on the ticket after making a big deal about switching to a more youthful campaign would be a bit weird). That's why she should pick Whitmer. She would win Michigan and probably help win Wisconsin. Harris should go all in and do an all women ticket. Let's make history 1
midnightdawn Posted July 28 Posted July 28 I think it will be Kelly. Apparently he and Kamala already get on well. And he has more of an everyman appeal rather than the button-uped image of Beshear and Shapiro. Either of those two with Kamala will be serving corporate law firm. 3
Sannie Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Anybody from the area… how well is Walz liked? Could he bring in the rust belt including all the way over in PA? Him being from the RB has to help, surely.
shelven Posted July 28 Posted July 28 3 minutes ago, Vroom Vroom said: That's why she should pick Whitmer. She would win Michigan and probably help win Wisconsin. Harris should go all in and do an all women ticket. Let's make history Yeah, it's a shame the Dems are too scared to try the all-female ticket because I really think Whitmer's the best of both worlds here. She gives a meaningful boost in her home state like Shapiro, but she'll also excite the base and is a safer choice for other states outside her home one, like Beshear or Walz. I do get the hesitancy with doing an all-female ticket because it's easy to imagine (straight) male voters feeling intimidated by it. But on the other hand, I think strong individual candidates ultimately carry the day over identity and optics considerations, so I'm not sure if it would actually be as big of a problem in practice as it would be in theory. But unfortunately I really can't see them doing it because on the surface, it comes across as a big risk. 1
midnightdawn Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Paul Begala was on CNN saying it's a total lie to think a VP will help geographically (Romney still lost Wisconsin with Paul Ryan as the VP).
bunnyeyes Posted July 28 Posted July 28 We need a two woman ticket but we won't get it—not because it couldn't win but because it's viability will be immediately dismissed by party heads. 1
Communion Posted July 28 Posted July 28 (edited) 25 minutes ago, midnightdawn said: Paul Begala was on CNN saying it's a total lie to think a VP will help geographically (Romney still lost Wisconsin with Paul Ryan as the VP). I think the geographical location belief is a bit debunked. You rarely automatically get a polling boost because people identify with people from their state. But the conventional wisdom that a VP is meant to make up for the top of the ticket seems largely true, in that's how most people approach it: Obama picking Biden because Biden could still resonate with white, rural voters Trump picking Pence to appeal to Republican Christians culturally at odds with Trump I'm not sure of the timeline by I wouldn't be shocked if the heated primary between Obama & Hillary influenced McCain's pick of Palin. Romney was an older generation of GOP showing that he'd pass on the torch to someone 20 years younger than him and seen as "the new GOP" at the time. The issue mainly is that some people (centrists/moderates/conservatives) are trying to argue the real issue is ideology and that voters are ideologically-driven and thus Kamala is "super left" and needs someone much more moderate than her on the ticket, be it Shapiro or Kelly. I think progressives get this conventional thought, but believe it's far more cultural than ideologically. She doesn't need a centrist. If she's stereotyped as a big city West Coaster, she just needs someone who can appeal to more rural America, with there being plenty of options progressives are fine with, be it Beshear, Walz, etc. Edited July 28 by Communion 6
Pop Art Posted July 28 Posted July 28 I've really been enjoying Walz's refreshing energy in the TV spots I've seen him in over the past week, and I can't stress enough how much I LOVE the way he succinctly but accurately describes the current GOP: weird. It's so obvious and simple yet very effective. Plus the juxtaposition he makes calling them weird with his view of those that may be different as still neighbors who deserve common decency is...really heartwarming honestly. I really appreciate what I've seen of him so far and I think (?) his policies and views are on the more progressive side compared with the other options on the table, so I think for now he's my personal choice. 3
Communion Posted July 28 Posted July 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sannie said: Anybody from the area… how well is Walz liked? Could he bring in the rust belt including all the way over in PA? Him being from the RB has to help, surely. Someone from Minnesota can chime in but from what I've seen of how people describe Walz's defining trait, it's that he's an establishment Democrat who has reconciled with the reality that he exists in a very progressive party (within Minnesota) and met the moment by bending to progressives' demands, as opposed to being at odds with them (see: Newsom) due to the rare moment for the DFL party to actually pass much of their legislative agenda. He was not who progressives wanted in the primary apparently. The progressive choice is now the head of the Minnesota State Senate. The main thing that sticks out in his tenure as governor is that, despite the largely progressive legislation passed, he seemed taken back that Uber actually went through with their threat to boycott the state if the state legislature passed a minimum wage bill for rideshare drivers. It was apparently the first bill he vetoed as governor in his 5 years. There's also calls amongst Minnesotan progressives for him to be more responsive to demands re: the state divesting from companies connected to the Israeli government. That one user claims it's Shapiro being Jewish that draws attention, but most of the choices progressives are fine with take a far more passive role in relation to Israel, accepting national support as a cultural norm they have to live with and navigate. In comparison, Shapiro actively pushed for bills that banned universities from accessing state funds if they divested from Israel and which would allow the PA government to punish businesses found to be participating in BDS. (Yglesias also apparently doesn't know it's Walz, not Waltz) Edited July 28 by Communion 3
shelven Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Yglesias' tweet is also misleading because it ignores GOP candidate quality. Mastriano and Masters were both awful candidates for the GOP, so I don't think Shapiro and Kelly are suddenly electoral gods just because they beat the weirdo freaks that they were up against. Kelly in particular won by 2% and then slightly under 5% against two terrible candidates, despite the massive amount of goodwill that his wife has. I don't know anything about Walz's opponent in 2022, but the fact that I know nothing about him means he probably wasn't an utter disaster in the way Mastriano and McSally/Masters were, so saying that Walz is worse at getting votes because his race against a somewhat normal opponent was more in line with his state's overall party leaning than Shapiro and Kelly's races against electoral poison is a very surface level analysis. 3 1
Blade Posted July 28 Posted July 28 I know rallies don't make much difference but why was I just reading up on the 2020 race in AZ and realized Biden only had 1 event in AZ and still won the state. Covid really made campaigning in 2020 completely different for Democrats and just slightly different for Republicans since they were more likely to hold events. I wonder if the difference we're seeing in enthusiasm for Kamala events compared to Biden is skewed by the fact that Biden's GE campaign never really had the chance to go full force? Mind you, the base still seems more on point than Clinton's campaign when there was no covid either but still... 1
Communion Posted July 28 Posted July 28 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Blade said: Not to get anyone's hopes up and we all get excited for a good choice and she ends up with Shapiro of all people, but I looked back to see if I ever posted about Beshear and..... Beshear was the one who ratted to the media that Biden was set to appoint a far-right, anti-abortion judge from Kentucky to a lifetime appointment. Andy Beshear, the man that you are. Quote Democratic President Joe Biden is poised to nominate a conservative anti-abortion lawyer to a federal judgeship in Kentucky, according to Gov. Andy Beshear. The Louisville Courier-Journal first reported the possible nomination of Chad Meredith to a lifetime judgeship in the eastern Kentucky district. Meredith worked for former Gov. Matt Bevin and Attorney General Daniel Cameron. He is also a member of the Federalist Society. During a news conference on Thursday, Beshear called Meredith "an individual who aided and advised on the most egregious abuse of power by a governor in my lifetime." "What my understanding right now is it has not been submitted, which I hope means in the very least, it's on pause. If the president makes that nomination, it is indefensible," Beshear said. Edited July 28 by Communion 1 3
GraceRandolph Posted July 28 Posted July 28 All these VP picks are kinda boring. I'm actually nervous about the Democratic bench going forward, sorry. 3
Harrier Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Somebody send the VP venn diagram to Kamala, she does love them after all Tim Walz let's gooo 1 2
GraceRandolph Posted July 28 Posted July 28 12 hours ago, N.M.K. said: "Wealthy donors" lmao the nefarious conspiracies Did YOU just fall out of a coconut tree. Billionaires don't donate to politicians for shits and giggles. 1 1
Sannie Posted July 28 Posted July 28 (edited) 5 minutes ago, bunnyeyes said: So where are we on election predictions post-Biden exit? Still a little early, but from we are seeing polling wise, Kamala is in a statistical tie withTrump already and is ahead in a couple national polls and state polls. And that's despite Trump's honeymoon phase and the benefit of getting shot that made everyone think he would win in a landslide. Trump has hit his ceiling and has shown it's near impossible for him to bust above it. With Kamala polling neck and neck, she could very well pass him in the coming weeks, especially if she gets a boost from VP and DNC. Kamala's job now is to keep this momentum going and keep picture perfect from now until early election starts. Edited July 28 by Sannie 2
Sannie Posted July 28 Posted July 28 3 minutes ago, Sannie said: this pollster has a near perfect rating on 538 To add to this, the dem nominees for senate in these states are blasting away their GOP opponents, so it just feels like the rust belt may be Kamala territory. VOTE DOWN BALLOT PPL. 4
Lil Mxnster Posted July 28 Posted July 28 It should be Walz. That guy is charismatic af. He shows that Democrats can have their contradictions within the Party and still be a likeable person who can be understood -- he's open-minded, but serious about important issues Beshear and Shapiro are ordinary and boring, although the former seems kinder. Kelly also seems an interesting option. 5
Recommended Posts