Vice-President Kamala Harris

In order to try to make up for the last one, I'll go in a different direction here.

Not positive if it's the best move strategically, but I would really love to see a Harris/Buttigeig ticket. I'm impressed every time I see him speak recently, and of course an openly gay man in that position would be a great step forward, especially as anti-LGBTQ rhetoric has ramped up in the last few years. I also think their response so far to Kamala shows it would give the right derposphere trouble trying to attack him without displaying the homophobia some of them are afflicted with.

I am not going to address any of the points, as I don't want to be responsible for continuing the derail, but I would like to point out that both Bubbles' and Bobo's recent posts bring up some more good points. I do agree that it is possible that anti-Jewish protestors on both sides are likely just the very loud parts of a very small minority, so you guys did soften my stance, at least for the moment.

As someone who has never loved AOC (she's ok; Ilhan Omar has always been better, but no Congressperson adequately represents the left), our problem with her, which is thoroughly documented, is that she voted "Present" instead of "No" on the funding of the Iron Dome (for which she later apologized), and held a beer-summit style Zoom meeting with Zionist propagandist Amy Spitalnick.

In other words, everything here is dealing with the actions of Israel and related US war funding and nothing to do with anybody's religious identity. Huh, how about that? I'm eagerly awaiting your recognitions of these facts and your apology for your antisemitism smear! Any minute now, I bet!

While I think Buttigeig is a very smart and capable politician, much moreso than Harris imo, I don't think that the Democrats will take the risk of running an all-minority ticket in a general election, especially with Harris being one of the weaker Democrat candidates in the last few decades. If we were looking at a sure-thing kind of election (Obama in 2008 and 2012 or Clinton 1996), it would make more sense, but I don't see it happening with what is going on at the moment.

Pete The Rat voluntarily signed up for the US military (and not for free college or whatever, but to advance a future political career -- this is known) and worked for the revolting McKinsey consulting firm (a firm which has worked on behalf of numerous dictators across the world AND horrifying domestic agencies such as ICE). He may or may not be a literal CIA asset, I don't know, but he's effectively functioned as one.

He's a deeply evil person. A soul-less striver with no discernable personality.

The left thoroughly reviles this creep, as they should. A significant percentage of this group may or may not be persuaded to hold their nose and vote for Harris, and to some degree, depending on the VP choice. She should pick that Walz guy; he's not already hated by any significant part of the Democratic constituency, seems kinda funny and charismatic, etc.

How does this work, changing a position over many years? Isn't there a point in time where you are on one side and then the other?

Their goal should be to get elected. I believe Walz represents a better asset with regards to that goal than Pete The Rat. Pete is a disqualifying choice for some people that will either vote Democratic, third-party, or stay home. Walz is not.

With that said, I doubt the VP will move the needle too much either way, whether it's CIA Pete or whomever else. I DO think it will be some indication of how Kamala plans to govern.

.....but but, but,,,, Butt/Harris has a certain ring to it (on both sides I would suspect)

I think you are correct, especially when we look at how "DEI hire" has gotten traction in conservative ecosystem already.

Not that I think this criticism is true, but the US conservative ecosystem is basically a practical application of the the infinite monkey theorem at this point, so it doesn't matter if it is.

Lol. Good description.

Ofc half of the guilt is upon those who "uncharitably" interpret "death to America"

In which sense a buttigieg/Harris ticket would be a double minority one?

Racially it wouldn't be, and sexually neither (afaik Kamala is hetero)

Genius.

? Other than Obama, Harris is the best candidate the Dems have fielded since Bill Clinton nearly 30 years ago. Worrying about an "all minority ticket" is a bit silly; the people who will vote for a woman of color for POTUS but will balk if there's a very basic gay white dude in the VP slot are a trivial portion of the electorate. I don't think Pete is a particularly strong pick but disqualifying him because Democratic voters in 2024 AD will be scandalized by an openly gay man is silly.

Shapiro/Harris would be a double minority ticket racially and I haven't read that might be a problem with voters anywhere.

My choice right now for VP would be Mark Kelly the AZ senator. As of now 538.com has Kamala trialing Trump in AZ by 2%. I think Kelly could help win AZ and NV and potentially have a national impact on immigration issues.

It was Shapiro for a while because I thought Kamala would need the help in PA but right now 538.com has Kamala ahead in PA by 0.6% and it has been a constant rise since 7/21/24.

The problem with Shapiro is that he is Jewish and might cause a rift with MI Arab voters. I think Shapiro would nail down PA but he could also cause some negative consequences beyond MI. If FL was close I would pick him because of the Jewish population in FL (3.3%) but really the only state that has a Jewish population that could matter is NV (2.2%).

The problem with Buttigieg is that he has never won a statewide office. I also think that his being gay could stir up some anti-gay people in some of the swing states. Personally I like him. And since he has adopted children in his marriage Vance would continue to stand out like Palin did.

picking cia ratboy pete as veep would be suicide. not career suicide or anything, but like actual life suicide, if you won the election. i doubt she's that dumb, but who knows

no it isn't

The Jewish population in Nevada (and let’s be honest, we really just mean Clark County) skews much further to the right than your typical Jewish population in other major city centers. There is a very large orthodox community as well as a large retired community of Jews that is significantly more conservative than the 75% left leaning stat you might find elsewhere.

I've seen this in some other places as well, but am not sure where it comes from. Can you enlighten me?

While I would quibble with the wording of it being "the" problem, I can understand how that could cause an issue with some people, but that can be said for many characteristics - a positive for one community/demographic might be a problem for another. I assume that's all part of the calculations when choosing a VP.

this.

bro wrote that Palestinians as a people weren't capable of being civilized. compared student protesters to the KKK. and wanted to defund public universities that considered divestment. and that's not to mention the sexual harassments/assaults that his office covered up. he's a bad pick in a time where the dems are gaining such momentum that they just need to not shoot themselves in the foot.

we have 3 different threads spewing that the left is anti-semetic, when it's clearly those on the left trying to separate the specific actions taken above like shapiro's from being attributed just to his faith. and in here we just get "nah they hate jews, won't pick him". meanwhile Kamala Harris' husband is jewish and literally no one has a problem with it.

Doubtful.

ratboy pete is cia, and the epitome of the banality of evil

Kelley is the one person under consideration who is not only much smarter than average but is also the only person who knows what it's like to be meticulous in getting the best solutions to things since in the past, if he didn't, he probably would be dead.