[Harris+Walz] The 2024 DNC: TURN DOWN FOR WHAT?!

[Upgrayedd 5766]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

we put our faith in Blast Hardcheese

Slab Bulkhead 

[Sbbruin 21587]

27 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

 

[SimonBolivar 10673]

Walz does have a certain Rowsdower persona.

[Sawbonz 26808]

3 hours ago, Firemans4Horn said:

The more that comes out about Josh Shapiro the more some of you sound like pussies. 
 

“he wrote “Have a kick ass summer” in his 7th grade yearbook. OMG”

He’s an ok pick. There are 3 I really like and he’s a distant 4th. You’re going to have to spend time and energy addressing stupid shit he did. He’s going to help you in a state you should win anyway and not really anywhere else

 

[Homercles 10179]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

He does look good behind the podium

[immamac 41615]

Bumping and seeding with VP speculation talk. 

[Satchel 6901]

We’re mere hours from knowing her selection.

[tx 3 putt 75225]

i think its the ky gov 

[DDD Dad 14060]

14 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

 

13 hours ago, Shut up Lou Holtz said:

Fuck ya! MST was so damn good 

['stache 21520]

I really want Walz, but my bet would be Shapiro because of how important PA is to this race. I really think they can win without him though and Walz can be very effective to rust belt moderates in PA.

[SydneyCarton 47295]

The latest reports said it was down to walz and shapiro, with a formal announcement coming tomorrow via a video. 

We'll see if it leaks earlier. 

[wildcat09 28485]

Shapiro doesn't guarantee PA and he really may not even help there as much as Walz might.  He'd be a dumb pick.  

All the reporting very well could be wrong and Beshear could still be in contention, but if he's been ruled out already I'm definitely wondering if they found some literal skeletons in his closet.

[Js1 82948]

Julian goes over what being vetted was like in 2016

I went through the VP vetting process in 2016, part of a group of potential running mates considered by Secretary Clinton. Here’s what that experience was like: I got a call from a top Clinton campaign official in mid-June 2016, asking if I would like to participate in the VP vetting process. Expectations were set at the very beginning. Sec. Clinton was vetting about ten candidates and might well select someone else—still, nothing was set in stone, I was told.  It’s a grind of a process. Teams of lawyers and investigators were each assigned 2-3 candidates to vet. Weeks before candidates were contacted, the teams had put together extensive dossiers of each person. Candidates had to answer a 150+ question background questionnaire that delved into political, employment, legal, financial and personal family history.  Once that was turned in, each candidate sat with their vetting team for several hours to answer detailed questions. They were direct and precise, mining for any potential political problem lurking in one’s background. (Memories of the Sarah Palin embarrassment loomed large in this cycle). Some questions were also meant to put the candidate on the spot, “Would you have any problem if I were to take your phone from you right now (pointing at the cell phone) and look through it?” They didn’t actually take it.  A brief follow up interview came a week or so later. Then, about a week after that, Sec. Clinton interviewed perhaps 6-7 candidates. These meetings varied in length but were generally aimed at gauging chemistry, giving each candidate a chance to make their case, and assessing governing and campaigning ability. After at least five weeks of direct candidate vetting, Secretary Clinton made her decision and Senator Kaine was announced as her running mate on July 22.  Generally, presidential nominees have sought to balance the ticket in different ways to gain a perceived political advantage— geographic (Kennedy/LBJ, Dukakis/Bentsen, Gore/Lieberman, Kerry/Edwards), ideological (LBJ/Humphrey, Carter/Mondale), experience (Obama/Biden), old Washington-trailblazer (Mondale/Ferraro, Biden/Harris). As the swing states in contention have shifted, these considerations have become more of less important. As many have said, though, what doesn’t change is the need for the VP to at least do no harm (a rule violated by Palin and probably Vance).  Are running mates chosen specifically to help the ticket win in a home state? For Democrats, not usually. Mondale (‘76), Ferraro (‘84), Lieberman (‘00), Biden (‘08), and Harris (‘20) came from relatively blue states. Gore and Kaine were exceptions, as Tennessee had voted nearly 58% for Bush in ‘88 and Virginia had gone for Obama by only 51-47 in 2012. Bentsen (‘88) was chosen when Texas was still winnable for Democrats and the GOP nominee (H.W. Bush) was a Texan.  In 2016, the speculation was that Clinton might choose a Black or Latino male to balance the ticket. This year, conventional wisdom is that a white male will be chosen. The good news is that VP Harris has several great options. VP Harris has more experience than most previous nominees and has reenergized the Democratic base without alienating moderates. She’s also opened the battleground map back up to include AZ, NV and GA. Trump doubled down on his base with the choice of Vance, making Trump perhaps less competitive with independents than he might have been with a different pick. That gives VP Harris a lot of latitude to select a running mate—a progressive or a moderate— who won’t just help her win an election but with whom she has great chemistry and will help her govern effectively.

[Js1 82948]

VP announcement tomorrow morning with a video planned after (assuming it doesn’t leak)

[RomaVicta 29500]

Well, guys, I got the call. Wish me luck.

[Js1 82948]

The VP is def going to leak out today - it always does.  Either the local media/Xitterati will catch the Secret Service rolling up to someone's house (like Vance) or it will be a coaching search flight broken (Palin's flight to Dayton)

[Pato del Muerto 52035]

New strategy:  co-vps!

[Red Five 40274]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The VP is def going to leak out today - it always does.  Either the local media/Xitterati will catch the Secret Service rolling up to someone's house (like Vance) or it will be a coaching search flight broken (Palin's flight to Dayton)

Is it my imagination or is this the most attention a VP search has ever received? Probably because of the condensed time frame I guess.

[swraith 324]

I'm still on the train of thought of "do no harm" with the VP pick.  Keep the positive vibes going.  Get a positive convention bump.  Walz seems to meet that threshold.  I do not hear any negative oppo about him.

[shakahorn 1607]

13 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

New strategy:  co-vps!

Joe Wickline is one of them?

[nbmishoid 904]

Walz’ regular guy persona and as said above beguiling manner of persuasion make him unique in this field.  Worth several million votes.
 

Will there be a  VP debate?   CSM teacher state champ coach vs Public Affairs Corporal, Yale Law, tech boi, and hater of the U S.   Talk about contrast

[Pato del Muerto 52035]

5 minutes ago, shakahorn said:

Joe Wickline is one of them?

The Joe wickline of Pennsylvania is

[TexEx15 17068]

 

[Dahobbs 17180]

2 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

 

It is going to be Walz. I don't see how you move forward with Shapiro at this point. 

[Pancho 42226]

[aggie08 20344]

This "who's going to get the final rose" manufactured drama is a huge part of why we are where we are as a country.

[RDCanecutter 25890]

Harris is gonna go straight through the Ardennes and pick Trump as VP. The deal is that he gets house arrest during her term so long as he never says shit or appears in the media. Nobody will see it coming. The new GOP compromise ticket of Romney-MTG will collapse like a straw hut in a tsunami.

[wildcat09 28485]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It is going to be Walz. I don't see how you move forward with Shapiro at this point. 

There must be some big donor pressure for Shapiro.  

[chainsaw 9573]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It is going to be Walz. I don't see how you move forward with Shapiro at this point. 

[Dahobbs 17180]

3 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Harris is gonna go straight through the Ardennes and pick Trump as VP. The deal is that he gets house arrest during her term so long as he never says shit or appears in the media. Nobody will see it coming. The new GOP compromise ticket of Romney-MTG will collapse like a straw hut in a tsunami.

Strangely, I'm not as opposed to this crazy idea as I thought I would be... 

[BrickHorn 18028]

3 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

This "who's going to get the final rose" manufactured drama is a huge part of why we are where we are as a country.

Hopefully, this will be Shapiro tomorrow:

[Ted Lange 15924]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Julian goes over what being vetted was like in 2016

I went through the VP vetting process in 2016, part of a group of potential running mates considered by Secretary Clinton. Here’s what that experience was like: I got a call from a top Clinton campaign official in mid-June 2016, asking if I would like to participate in the VP vetting process. Expectations were set at the very beginning. Sec. Clinton was vetting about ten candidates and might well select someone else—still, nothing was set in stone, I was told.  It’s a grind of a process. Teams of lawyers and investigators were each assigned 2-3 candidates to vet. Weeks before candidates were contacted, the teams had put together extensive dossiers of each person. Candidates had to answer a 150+ question background questionnaire that delved into political, employment, legal, financial and personal family history.  Once that was turned in, each candidate sat with their vetting team for several hours to answer detailed questions. They were direct and precise, mining for any potential political problem lurking in one’s background. (Memories of the Sarah Palin embarrassment loomed large in this cycle). Some questions were also meant to put the candidate on the spot, “Would you have any problem if I were to take your phone from you right now (pointing at the cell phone) and look through it?” They didn’t actually take it.  A brief follow up interview came a week or so later. Then, about a week after that, Sec. Clinton interviewed perhaps 6-7 candidates. These meetings varied in length but were generally aimed at gauging chemistry, giving each candidate a chance to make their case, and assessing governing and campaigning ability. After at least five weeks of direct candidate vetting, Secretary Clinton made her decision and Senator Kaine was announced as her running mate on July 22.  Generally, presidential nominees have sought to balance the ticket in different ways to gain a perceived political advantage— geographic (Kennedy/LBJ, Dukakis/Bentsen, Gore/Lieberman, Kerry/Edwards), ideological (LBJ/Humphrey, Carter/Mondale), experience (Obama/Biden), old Washington-trailblazer (Mondale/Ferraro, Biden/Harris). As the swing states in contention have shifted, these considerations have become more of less important. As many have said, though, what doesn’t change is the need for the VP to at least do no harm (a rule violated by Palin and probably Vance).  Are running mates chosen specifically to help the ticket win in a home state? For Democrats, not usually. Mondale (‘76), Ferraro (‘84), Lieberman (‘00), Biden (‘08), and Harris (‘20) came from relatively blue states. Gore and Kaine were exceptions, as Tennessee had voted nearly 58% for Bush in ‘88 and Virginia had gone for Obama by only 51-47 in 2012. Bentsen (‘88) was chosen when Texas was still winnable for Democrats and the GOP nominee (H.W. Bush) was a Texan.  In 2016, the speculation was that Clinton might choose a Black or Latino male to balance the ticket. This year, conventional wisdom is that a white male will be chosen. The good news is that VP Harris has several great options. VP Harris has more experience than most previous nominees and has reenergized the Democratic base without alienating moderates. She’s also opened the battleground map back up to include AZ, NV and GA. Trump doubled down on his base with the choice of Vance, making Trump perhaps less competitive with independents than he might have been with a different pick. That gives VP Harris a lot of latitude to select a running mate—a progressive or a moderate— who won’t just help her win an election but with whom she has great chemistry and will help her govern effectively.

 

Good reminder.

My choice at this point would be Waltz, but that is just going by the info that I have, the campaign is going to have a lot more information to make a decision than the average person does.

[Chips O'Toole 1307]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

There must be some big donor pressure for Shapiro.  

I would bet that it's coming more from some internal strategists that are numbers-driven saying "Fuck vibes, locking up PA = EC victory" or some such.  It's the right call on paper in most elections, but we can see and feel the vibes with the other guy who has an innate ability to connect with normal people and WILL swing votes with his message.  Also, a narrow EC victory for Harris likely ends in violence, so swing for the fences and go with the guy that could potentially start a movement all on his own.

[Js1 82948]

19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It is going to be Walz. I don't see how you move forward with Shapiro at this point. 

This.  Shapiro is just too many issues.  If your own internals have you up in PA, why risk it? 

[mdmost 42316]

8 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

VP typically hold press conferences about the economy? We really are in the throwing shit against the wall stage. Economic emergency? It's a fucking market correction to a bad jobs report and the Fed dragging his feet on lowering interest rates. 

[wildcat09 28485]

15 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Harris is gonna go straight through the Ardennes and pick Trump as VP. The deal is that he gets house arrest during her term so long as he never says shit or appears in the media. Nobody will see it coming. The new GOP compromise ticket of Romney-MTG will collapse like a straw hut in a tsunami.

SCOTUS DID just give the President free rein to have their VP killed...

[Pancho 42226]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

This.  Shapiro is just too many issues.  If your own internals have you up in PA, why risk it? 

Another thing—if Republicans are saying Shapiro is what would scare them the most, I wouldn’t trust that at all. I’d do the complete opposite. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23247]

15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

There must be some big donor pressure for Shapiro.  

I’m guessing it’s Biden more than anyone 

[Dahobbs 17180]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m guessing it’s Biden more than anyone 

why? 

[WBT 20212]

4 minutes ago, Chips O'Toole said:

I would bet that it's coming more from some internal strategists that are numbers-driven saying "Fuck vibes, locking up PA = EC victory"

I think this will prevail and should.  PA is that important.  A 0.5 - 1 pt bump there outweighs everything else.

[BurntOrange&White 38766]

51 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

New strategy:  co-vps!

Co-VP in waiting!

[Pato del Muerto 52035]

Tim walz OR Josh Shapiro 

Edited August 5 by Pato del Muerto

[Hank Kingsley 19998]

1 minute ago, WBT said:

I think this will prevail and should.  PA is that important.  A 0.5 - 1 pt bump there outweighs everything else.

I know lot of people agree with this sentiment, but it's absolutely ridiculous. 

[BurntOrange&White 38766]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Tim walz OR Josh Shapiro 

Who is the DJ Monroe of VP candidates?

[fuggled 576]

18 hours ago, Chopper said:

That's a really, really fucked up case but I don't know how anyone can blame the guy who was the AG at the time. The Medical Examiner concluded it was a suicide. <Somehow she managed to stab herself 20 times. Sure thing.> That's what sunk the case - the incompetence or, more likely, deceit of the ME. I believe Shapiro wasn't even an elected official at the time of the murder.

Just a note here...things connect to Shapiro because he was AG a few years ago when his office reviewed the case and decided to keep it classified as suicide and not re-open it.  Not saying that decision was right or wrong.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23247]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

why? 

Well, it’s an obvious explanation for one…
 

two, this thread got me wondering…

Not posting the whole thing because it’s way in the weeds but some rigorous research and reporting assuming it all checks out. 

[Chuckie Finster 22285]

I love Walz and think he'd be a great pick, but as an American Jew it is really hard to swallow that we are going to pass on an incredibly popular swing state governor purely because his views on Israel, which are essentially shared by every potential VP candidate, have been singled out FOR SOME REASON.

 

 

Edited August 5 by Chuckie Finster

[BurntOrange&White 38766]

Shapiro or Walz wipe the floor with Vance in a VP debate, easily.

 

Who does the most for securing the nomination for Kamala? 

[Firemans4Horn 17004]

From The Bulwark:

 

Quote

1. The Internet Is Not Real Life, Part Eleventy Bajillion

For days there has been chatter on the progressive interwebs about how Josh Shapiro would “divide” the party. Extremely online politicos upset about his views on Israel or school vouchers or his Kosher Obama speaking style have asserted this dispositively. Deep inside the politics internet there has been a spate of retrospective complaints about how bad a “blitz primary” would have been as evinced by the aggressive and deranged online discourse that has supposedly tainted the purity of the “veepstakes.”

If you are involved in these online meme wars, I grant that it might feel as if things are very contentious. You might see yourself as being on one side of a battle that must be won, and that your activism is the tip of the spear that represents a broader coalition behind you out in the world. For example, if you are involved in progressive or anti-Zionist online activism it might seem as if everyone hates Josh and game theory requires him to be passed over. If you fancy yourself a political polling and data nerd, you might have come to the conclusion that anyone except for Josh would be idiocy. If you are a regular resistance activist your feed is exploding with Hot Walz content.

Even the unifying, thoughtful Bulwark Redditorshave exploded in a #war between the Walz-pilled and the Shapiro-stans.

Here’s the problem with all of this.

This “war” that is purportedly happening within the party over the VP selection is all an illusion. It is taking place in a hermetically sealed bubble among political hobbyists who have extremely strong feelings about the ideological trajectory of the Democratic primary . . . and nobody else. They are a fraction of a fraction of the party.

Rank-and-file Democrats are unburdened by the veepstakes discourse. They only have surface-level knowledge about the main contenders, according to polls. And the Democrats who live in each contender’s respective states overwhelmingly love their hometown boys.

The one supposedly “divisive” name being discussed, Shapiro, is viewed favorably by 90 percent of Pennsylvania Democrats. I guess the Keystone State progressives didn’t get the internet’s memo.

The reality is, concerns about whether one of these DEI whites will salt the vibes are based on Twitter-brain alone.

2. The Real Vibes Doctors

You know who has been driving the Coconutmentum both online and out in the real world? A bunch of people who have zero fucks to give about Mark Kelly vs. J.B. Pritzker.

Let’s start with the big names who have engaged in the past month.

Beyoncé donated $4 milly to Kamala over the weekend and let her use “Freedom” as the campaign theme song. Charli XCX declared it Brat Summer. Megan Thee Stallion performed at the campaign rally Georgia.

Do you think any of them is jumping off the bandwagon because of a VP contender’s college essay? Do you think Charli has strong feelings about Andy Beshear Fall?

I do not.

My TikTok feed is littered with random peoplegetting hundreds of thousands of likes for their coconut dance. Do you think any of them are going to limit their future engagement because of the VP pick’s views on the PACT Act?

I do not.

How about the hundreds of thousands of new donors and volunteers who have flocked to the campaign? Do you think more than 3 percent of them will revert to apathy based on the selection?

Hard to imagine.

And if you want some evidence that the choice of a more centrist, white male with a dodgy track record won’t be a wet blanket on the buzzy presidential candidate, let’s head back to 2008, when this exact scenario played out.

Did any of the Obama mojo dissipate because Joe Biden made an offensive joke about 7-Eleven clerks? Did anybody boycott the 2008 convention because of Biden’s past views on abortion or criminal justice or any of his other more conservative views from decades past? No! Because normal people—people who are not reading newsletters such as this—just don’t concern themselves about the VP selection.

This is not to say that it doesn’t matter at all. A VP candidate can give a boost with a certain demographic (Pence) or do serious harm to a ticket by showing a lack of preparedness (Palin). But the latter doesn’t seem to be a concern in this case. All of the medium-bodied whites in this veepstakes read the newspaper and know the basics of American foreign policy.

The online acrimony over the VP choice reflects the same misunderstanding of the Democratic electorate that some influencers and pundits had during the Biden age discourse. Even before the fateful June 27 debate, the vast majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents were saying two things to anyone who would listen: (A) that they wanted a candidate who could beat Trump, and (B) that they thought Joe Biden was too old to do the job.

Despite this very clear message being sent in every quantitative and qualitative survey, a bunch of smartypants on cable news panels and election Twitter who all agreed with part A shouted at each other over how to deal with part B. That shouting read to some in the political world as “disarray.”

But then something weird happened. Joe Biden stepped aside. The vast majority of Democrats got what they wanted . . . and overnight, voila, unity! Things were in array!

That’s all it took.

Share

This unity was available the whole time. All the Democrats had to do was provide voters with a ticket that was responsive to their fundamental desires. The anti-Trump coalition may disagree about a LOT, but for everyone who is a part of it the thing they agree on most is that they want to be rid of his fat orange ass once and for all.

So when Kamala Harris makes her selection, as long as that person passes the bar for “presidential believability” and demonstrates the ability to do the #1 job that Democratic voters are looking for (taking on Trump), then come Chicago, the vibes will be immaculate.

Yeah, there will be pockets of disappointment if Harris goes in an ideological direction that some of us would prefer she avoid. Some of those people will complain online about it. The most obnoxious subset of that group will ostentatiously project dissatisfaction or division in order to gain status/attract engagement from other political obsessives in their cohort.

And a small but loud subset of the especially obnoxious might even try to sabotage the campaign over it. But it ain’t gonna work.

When the lights go down in the United Center in August and the Alan Parsons Project or Kim Petras blares over the loudspeakers and the Harris/Chardonnay pairing appear on the big screen, the people who exist in the real Democratic party are going to scream out with such purpose that those little social media squabbles won’t even be audible.

 

[cmontexas 3209]

12 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I love Walz and think he'd be a great pick, but as an American Jew it is really hard to swallow that we are going to pass on an incredibly popular swing state governor purely because his views on Israel, which are essentially shared by every potential VP candidate, have been singled out FOR SOME REASON.

 

Keeping the Jewish vote from defecting or staying home after after the next 2 months of DEMOCRATS SUPPORT HAMAS is a way bigger asset for Shapiro than a knock