POLL: Who Should Kamala Harris Choose as Her VP Now That President Biden Declined The Nomination? (If Nominee)

[p0rtia]

Oviously Kamala is reading TFB and saw our list.

[bob]

He really isn't that impressive. He is a good speaker in a room full of good speakers.

Buttigieg is regularly (and fairly widely) praised for his oratory skills.

The conventional wisdom is that a vice-presidential nominee should be a zippy attack dog that says the things a presidential nominee "shouldn't" say. Buttigieg would fill that role great.

But the conventional wisdom is wrong. This and the last two elections have shown the presidential and vice-presidential nominees no longer are constrained by such roles. The Republican presidential nominee for the past three cycles* habitually says unpresidential things, and his supporters love him for it.

So the Democrats should by all means continue to deploy Buttigieg and his skills. But that doesn't mean he should be the veep nominee.


* George the Younger wasn't partially presidential either, and he won twice. The most "presential" nominees of this millennium (McCain and Romney) both lost. Lessons have been learned.

[Suranis]

So the Democrats should by all means continue to deploy Buttigieg and his skills. But that doesn't mean he should be the veep nominee.

Oh indeed.

[Foggy]

I love Buttigieg, and not because he's gay, but because he's super articulate and is capable of marshaling facts and calmly winning arguments like few people in public life. I actually don't know anything about him being gay, but I know a lot about what he says, and that man has his head on straight, even if he isn't straight himself. I want him to be president someday.

But I think he would be a terrible pick for Harris, for the simple reason that she is going to be subjected to enough bigotry as it is.

If we're picking a VP for the votes he'd bring, I don't think there will be that many that he commands, and I don't think she needs that small number of votes.

If we're picking a VP to take over if the president croaks, then okay, Mayor Pete. But nobody thinks Harris will die in office. If we're picking a VP to train for 8 years, don't be ridiculous.

Mayor Pete is doing great in the position where he is. Being VP is a terrible job, you're supposed to keep your head down.

Full disclosure, I'm all in for my homeboy.

[bob]

Mayor Pete is doing great in the position where he is.

Too also, if deemed worthy of a promotion, he could be "promoted" to a more prestigious cabinet position. (But sadly, not AGOTUS.)

[Dr. Ken]

Mayor Pete is doing great in the position where he is.

Too also, if deemed worthy of a promotion, he could be "promoted" to a more prestigious cabinet position. (But sadly, not AGOTUS.)

Yes he should stay in the cabinet. Garland needs to go though.

[AndyinPA]

[sugar magnolia]

Mayor Pete is doing great in the position where he is.

Too also, if deemed worthy of a promotion, he could be "promoted" to a more prestigious cabinet position. (But sadly, not AGOTUS.)

Mayor Pete could probably knock out law school in 6 months, and graduate at the top of his class to boot.

[MikeDunford]

I don't think there are going to be a lot of people out there who are in camp "I was going to vote for the black woman but the gay VP nominee is a dealbreaker." Yes, it increases the amount of vitriol coming from the other side, to the extent that is possible. But at this point, I think that's likely to be entirely counterbalanced by increased excitement from the left.

I don't think Pete is the right pick for other reasons. Right now, my first pick is Kelly, with Interchangeable Governors as a close second.

[SuzieC]

I understand that Labor has a problem with Kelly. Hope it doesn't knock him out of contention, as he is my pick as well.

[Foggy]

I don't know that there's any urgency here, now that I think about it. Maybe it's better if all the focus is 100% on Harris for the next few news cycles. If she holds off on making (UK: taking) a decision for a couple weeks, the media will go insane, but if she makes a good pick the furor will die down. And there are several most excellent picks to choose from.

Politically, I don't see a big downside if she takes two weeks to decide. Many people are still learning about her. Two weeks of talking about her and not her choice of VP might be just the right thing.

Or maybe cookieism.

[qbawl]

Imho Beshear and Pete both have the same issue. I live in Cincy and I have heard and seen many good things about the KY governor, however as popular as he is I am not sure he can deliver the electoral vote of KY and even if he did there are not that many of them compared to Mich, Minn, or PA.
For Pete, I think he is brilliant and one day WILL be President, at this time I doubt he can deliver Indiana's electoral votes.

[bob]

Politically, I don't see a big downside if she takes two weeks to decide. Many people are still learning about her. Two weeks of talking about her and not her choice of VP might be just the right thing.

Concur; presuming there'll be no serious fight at the convention, announce it there.

[Foggy]

That's a month away. The media will go batshit again.

Not that I object.

[MikeDunford]

I don't think delivering the home state is a big factor anymore, honestly. Things have just become too national.

Kelly took steps to start to deal with his labor issue earlier today - backing legislation in a full-throated pro-labor statement.

On timing: when it's an open cycle, the announcement is usually pretty close to the convention start date, and helps build excitement going into the convention. There's more pressure on Harris to pick and announce than usual, but I think she's got 2-3 weeks.

[MikeDunford]

That's a month away. The media will go batshit again.

Not that I object.

They're gonna anyway, and a feeding frenzy around "who is the VP pick" that focuses attention on how good (or not) different contenders are on big, popular Democratic issues not the worst place to park them while they do.

[Volkonski]

We have had cases in the past when failure to carefully vet a VP candidate has embarrassed a presidential candidate.

Eagleton was an example.

Harris can't build on the Biden campaign's VP vetting because they didn't do any. He already had her.

She should take her time and choose carefully.

[p0rtia]

Mayor Pete is doing great in the position where he is.

Too also, if deemed worthy of a promotion, he could be "promoted" to a more prestigious cabinet position. (But sadly, not AGOTUS.)

IMO, Mayor Pete's current position is a relatively low rung on a a long ladder that goes all the way up. He'll climb who knows how many rungs if Harris wins, but he won't stay where his is.

[June bug]

Hey, folks. Let’s not forget the VP choice has to be made in time for a virtual nomination before August 7.

[bob]

Hey, folks. Let’s not forget the VP choice has to be made in time for a virtual nomination before August 7.

Good point; I was curious about that as well.

Due to Ohio's mucking, I think that's correct (and at least it is being presumed as correct by the party, for safety's sake.) The veep nominee will likely be rolled out by August 7, and I presume there either will be an official announcement, or at least a leak.

[MikeDunford]

Hey, folks. Let’s not forget the VP choice has to be made in time for a virtual nomination before August 7.

Good point. Thanks.

[keith]

I like Kelly. Can Gov. Hobbs appoint his replacement?

Yes.

[keith]

I love Buttigieg, and not because he's gay, but because he's super articulate and is capable of marshaling facts and calmly winning arguments like few people in public life. I actually don't know anything about him being gay, but I know a lot about what he says, and that man has his head on straight, even if he isn't straight himself. I want him to be president someday.

But I think he would be a terrible pick for Harris, for the simple reason that she is going to be subjected to enough bigotry as it is.

If we're picking a VP for the votes he'd bring, I don't think there will be that many that he commands, and I don't think she needs that small number of votes.

If we're picking a VP to take over if the president croaks, then okay, Mayor Pete. But nobody thinks Harris will die in office. If we're picking a VP to train for 8 years, don't be ridiculous.

Mayor Pete is doing great in the position where he is. Being VP is a terrible job, you're supposed to keep your head down.

Full disclosure, I'm all in for my homeboy.

We are in violent AGREEMENT here.

Except I dunno who your homeboy is, but my homeboy is Kelly.

Originally I thought picking Kelly would be bad for Arizona because it would be hard to replace him in the Senate, but I realize he still has to 2026 on his term and by Az law his replacement (by a Democratic Governor) would have to also be a Democrat.

However, if it is between Shapiro and Kelly (and I think that's the situation at the moment), the simple fact is that Harris can win without Arizona but not Pennsylvania. I happen to think that she will win Arizona anyway, but Shapiro does give a favourite son boost in a vital state.

Edit: Kelly's 'problem' with Labor is, IMHO, a furphy. Az is a right-to-work state so he does have to tread carefully to keep constituents on board, but this supposed controversy is do to his apparent lack of support for the Union Support bill currently being worked on. He is not a sponsor of the bill, but does everyone have to be a sponsor? He has said that he will vote for it when (if) it comes up for a vote (several times) but wants to work on improvements ahead of that. I have forgotten exactly what he wants to improve, but I think it had something to do with contractors.

[roadscholar]

Cooper… c’mon now. Great choice. His first name is Roy!

[sad-cafe]

I understand that Labor has a problem with Kelly. Hope it doesn't knock him out of contention, as he is my pick as well.

I do not want him-simply because he is a senator from Arizona. We need to keep all the votes in the Senate we can.