#2024 Veepstakes

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Kamala Harris herself has now borrowed Walz’s lingo and is also calling her opponents “weird”, while Walz is all over our television screens, bolstering the vice-president’s candidacy and playing “attack dog” against the Trump/Vance Republican ticket. I’ll be honest: last month, I would have struggled to pick Walz out of a lineup. This month? I’m Walz-pilled. I have watched dozens of his interviews and clips. And I’m far from alone. He has an army of new fans across the liberal-left: from former Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign co-chair Nina Turner, to one-time Democratic congressman Beto O’Rourke, to gun-control activist David Hogg. “In less than 6 days, I went from not knowing who Tim Walz is,” joked writer Travis Helwig on X, “to deep down believing that if he doesn’t get the VP nod I will storm the capitol.” According to Bloomberg, the Harris campaign has narrowed down its “top tier” of potential running mates to three “white guy” candidates: Walz (hurrah!), plus the Arizona senator Mark Kelly and Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro. Both Kelly and Shapiro have their strengths – and both represent must-win states for the Dems. Allow me, however, to make the clear case for Walz. First, there’s his personality. The 60-year-old governor would bring energy, humor and some much-needed bite to the Democratic presidential ticket. There’s a reason why his videos have been going viral in recent days. Tim Kaine he ain’t. Pick the charismatic and eloquent Walz and you have America’s Fun Uncle ready to go. Then, there’s his résumé. A popular midwest governor from a rural town. A 24-year veteran of the army national guard. A high school teacher who coached the football team to its first state championship. It’s almost too perfect! Finally, there’s his governing record. You will struggle to find a Democratic governor who has achieved more than Walz in the space of a single legislative session. Not Shapiro. Not JB Pritzker of Illinois. Not even Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. [...] Think about it. Democrats can have Tim Walz on the ticket, who called the anti-war, pro-Palestinian ‘uncommitted’ movement “civically engaged” and praised them for “asking for a change in course” and “for more pressure to be put on” the White House, or they can have Josh Shapiro, who called for a crackdown on anti-war, pro-Palestinian college protesters and even compared them to the KKK. They can have Walz on the ticket, who has reportedly “emerged among labor unions as a popular pick” after signing “into law a series of measures viewed as pro-worker” including banning non-compete agreements and expanding protections for Amazon warehouse workers, or they can have Mark Kelly, who opposed the pro-labor Pro Act in the Senate (but has since touted support for it). They can have Walz, who guaranteed students in Minnesota not just free breakfasts but free lunches, or Shapiro, who has courted controversy in Pennsylvania with his support for school vouchers. They can have Walz, who calls his Republican opponents “weird” and extreme, or Kelly, who calls his Republican opponents “good people” who are “working really hard”. This isn’t rocket science. Walz is the obvious choice. Not only is he the ideal “white guy” running mate for Harris, against both Trump and Vance, but he is already doing the job on television and online, lambasting Vance in particular over IVF treatment and insisting he mind his “own damn business”.

Zeteo News founder Mehdi Hasan for The Guardian on why picking Tim Walz as Kamala Harris's running mate is the best option (07.29.2024).

Zeteo News founder Mehdi Hasan wrote in The Guardian why Tim Walz should be Kamala Harris’s running mate. Hasan’s opinion piece is worth reading.

[destiel-news-network]

(Source)

[qqueenofhades]

AHHHHHHH

WALZ WALZ WALZ WALZ!!!!

[lifenotunderstood]

[poor-boy-orpheus]

Trying to better understand the picks for Vice President? I’ve got you! According to MSNBC, these are the current individuals being vetted to be Kamala Harris’s running mate.

[deadpresidents]

I don't understand why news stories about JD Vance keep mentioning that he's the most unpopular non-incumbent VP candidate since 1980. Unless they're talking about John Anderson (maybe? who knows?), that would've been the Reagan-Bush ticket, and they won! Maybe the VP choice really doesn't have that much impact on elections?

I think they're just using 1980 as a starting point, not as a comparable example. George H.W. Bush was an excellent choice as Reagan's running mate. He brought ideological balance to the ticket, was extremely qualified, and unified the party (he was Reagan's closest challenger for the nomination in the 1980 Republican primaries). The better example for a horrible VP pick would be, as I have seen mentioned in some places, George McGovern's disastrous choice of Thomas Eagleton in 1972, which ultimately resulted in Eagleton being dumped for Sargent Shriver eighteen days later.

Dan Quayle was a very questionable pick when he first was chosen as George H.W. Bush's running mate in 1988 because people just didn't know who he was. Even though Quayle had served in the House and the Senate up to that point, he had made so little of an impact that his selection was pretty shocking to many observers. I think the bigger problem with Vance, however, is that he's just plain unlikable. Even Quayle had a certain attractive quality to him because he was a youthful pick who brought a different kind of energy to that ticket once people got over the shock of him being picked. Vance hasn't added anything to Trump's ticket, and it's easy to argue that he's actually had a negative impact on the campaign, which is the one thing a Vice Presidential nominee should never do.

In retrospect, Sarah Palin was obviously one of the worst VP picks in American history, but she revitalized McCain's campaign in 2008 and there were moments were she really shined. If she had been actually qualified or prepared for the role she would have been a different story. I was working on the Obama campaign in 2008 and remember watching her give her acceptance speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention and we were all thinking, "Oh shit...they might have something here!" And then she started having to do interviews and it immediately became apparent that there was nothing under the charisma. We went from being scared that she might be good to being scared by how extraordinarily unqualified and ill-prepared she was.

There have been misfires on the other side, as well. Joe Lieberman was one of the least-inspiring choices of my lifetime. John Edwards, one of the slimiest American politicians of the 21st Century (which is quite an accomplishment), was as much of an empty suit under big hair as Sarah Palin was. And Tim Kaine may have been well-qualified for the job, but I don't know anybody who was excited when he was Hillary Clinton's choice. I don't even remember Hillary Clinton being excited about picking Tim Kaine. Kaine wasn't a net negative to Hillary Clinton's campaign, but I didn't think he added anything, either.

When it comes down to it, I think it's more likely that you're correct about the VP selection not having that big of an impact on the election. It's still an important inflection point in a campaign because it's the Presidential nominee's first big decision and EVERYBODY is paying attention. And, sometimes, it's an indication of the type of team the President is going to build around him when he does govern. But there hasn't been a running mate that really made a difference for geographical reasons since LBJ was nominated in 1960 and helped JFK narrowly win Texas. Yet, geographical balance is always one of the most-talked about aspects of building a ticket.

The most important thing is to pick somebody who is qualified to be President if necessary and doesn't take anything away from the ticket. Ideological, demographic, or regional balance is always good, but not necessary. One of the better tickets of my lifetime was Clinton/Gore and Clinton was a young, Southern Governor who decided to double-down and chose an even younger, Southern Senator as his running mate. Clinton chose someone who he thought could help him govern. And one of the other best tickets of my lifetime was a losing one: Romney/Ryan in 2012. There was more of a demographic/ideological/regional balance with that ticket, but Romney chose Ryan because he wanted an active partner in governing and Ryan had the legislative experience that Romney lacked.

Again, it's probably less important to the general election results than it seems, but the whole "Veepstakes" deal is always fun for political junkies, so we'll never stop talking about it!

[jdpink]

You are clearly one of the party’s best communicators. You can deliver a message. You’ve been very on message while we’ve been talking. [Laughs.] I am thinking about how you see your role right now, because while Biden rarely talked to the press, you not only engage with people like me, but you also go to Fox News. And I am wondering why you do that. Because I know that there are so many people who tune in in good faith. I don’t always feel that the corporation that runs Fox News is acting in good faith, but I know that the viewers might be tuning in in good faith and getting their information from this news source. So I, as a political figure, can hardly blame a voter for not being responsive to our message if they literally have never heard it. And we’re in a very fragmented environment. Honestly, we’re lucky if we can get to somebody through TV, versus just even more fragmented internet sources. And I know that if I’m on that network, I’m one of relatively few voices with our message, and so if I didn’t go there to give that message, somebody might never hear it. I also know that you cannot assume who somebody is or how they’re going to vote just based on what network they watch. Of course, there are a lot of strong patterns, but there are a lot of people who can be moved. And sometimes the person who picked the channel is not the same as the other person who’s also in the house, listening to what’s being said. Sometimes when you explain what you believe to somebody, even if they don’t completely agree with you, they respect you more, and are inclined to maybe trust you and give you the benefit of the doubt. So that’s why I’m there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/27/magazine/pete-buttigieg-interview-election-democrats.html

[derseprinceoftbd]

[kp777]

By Jessica Corbett

Common Dreams

Aug. 3, 2024

"I hope very much that the vice president selects a running mate who will speak up and take on powerful corporate interests, and I think Tim Walz is somebody who could do that."

Ahead of a Saturday rally in Minneapolis, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders signaled support for Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris selecting Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her vice presidential candidate for the November election.

Sanders (I-Vt.) did not immediately endorse Harris last month after President Joe Biden dropped out of the contest against Republican former President Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio). Sanders explained that "I just want to make sure that her campaign understands that for too many people in this country, when they look at Washington, D.C., they feel ignored. They feel insulted that people are not understanding what is going on in their lives."

As Harris on Friday officially secured enough delegates to get the Democratic nomination, Sanders attended a town hall in Mankato and spoke with Minnesota Public Radio host Tom Crann, who asked him about his positions on Harris and Walz—a vice presidential contender backed by a growing number of progressives and Democrats.

"I'm gonna do everything that I can to see that Donald Trump is defeated and that Kamala Harris will become the next president of the United States," Sanders said. "I think she has a strong record to run on along with President Biden and I think and believe that she is going to be speaking out not only on issues of climate change, not only on issues of women having the right to control their own body, not only protecting our democracy, but the needs of working families."

As for Harris' vice presidential pick, Sanders said: "Well, I had the opportunity to talk to your governor a few days ago and I am very impressed by him. I think you have an excellent governor who understands the needs of working families. So I hope very much that the vice president selects a running mate who will speak up and take on powerful corporate interests, and I think Tim Walz is somebody who could do that."

The Associated Press reported Friday that Harris' weekend interview list includes Walz, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), and Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, JB Pritzker of Illinois, and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. Shapiro's record on climate, school vouchers, and Palestine has provoked impassioned warnings from progressives.

According to CNN, "renewed focus is being placed" on Walz, who is set to meet with Harris on Sunday.

Walz is a former teacher and coach who served in the Army National Guard and U.S. House of Representatives. Last year, he and state lawmakers with the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party passed nearly every item on a "transformational" agenda, including measures on free school meals at public and charter schools, marijuana legalization, and paid family and medical leave.

"There's a lot of pain out there. Working people are struggling and they're seeing massive levels of income and wealth inequality, and what they want is political leadership in Washington and all over this country to start paying attention to their needs," Sanders said Friday. "And that means, to my mind, a bunch of pieces of legislation that we've got to pass."

"The time is long overdue for Washington to stop worrying about the billionaires and their campaign contributors and start worrying about the needs of working families," he added, pushing for improvements to Medicare and Social Security.

After the interview and Mankato event, Sanders headed to Minneapolis for a get-out-the-vote rally with two Democrats who represent Minnesota in Congress—Sen. Tina Smith and Rep. Ilhan Omar—in anticipation of the state's August 13 primary.

Omar is facing a primary challenge from Don Samuels, a former Minneapolis City Council member. Sanders told MPR that "I think in Ilhan you have a member of Congress who really is one of the outstanding members. She's a woman of courage."

Sanders praised Omar—who earlier this year spoke on Sanders' podcast about coming to the United States as a refugee from Somalia—for her work to improve the lives of children and her criticism of the U.S.-backed Israeli war on the Gaza Strip.

Highlighting Omar's record of "representing the needs of working families in general," Sanders—who is up for reelection in Vermont this year—added that "I'm a strong supporter of Ilhan. I look forward to being with her tomorrow."

Minnesota-based Bring Me the News reported that during the Saturday event, "Sens. Sanders and Smith emphasized how important it was to encourage community members to vote in the presidential and primary elections."

"I am begging you this afternoon to remember that our struggle is not over when Kamala gets elected. We are taking on the greed of a billionaire class," Sanders said. "If we stand together as working-class people, we can win this thing."

[meret118]

For anyone disappointed that Harris chose Walz over Shapiro, in addition to her clicking with Walz, from what I've read he was the only one who told her his job was to support her during their meeting.

Shapiro on the other hand, had a lot of demands about being a very active VP. Fetterman, (a senator from the same state as Shapiro), even told Harris he didn't think Shapiro had the right temperament to be vice president, since they don't have a big role once in office. He's popular in PA, but he wasn't a good fit. I think Shapiro wants to be president instead. If you're a fan of his I absolutely think you'll have a chance to vote for him as he runs for that job at some point. (Assuming trump doesn't win, and we don't have actual elections anymore.)

I didn't know anything about Walz, and had actually thought Kelly would be the best choice. I don't think anyone can argue with the results of having Walz on the ticket though. :)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Kimberley Richards at HuffPost:

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) recently slammed Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick, over his views on rural America. During an appearance on a Tuesday segment of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” the governor criticized Vance for the way he characterized “small-town America” in his 2016 bestselling memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis.”

“People like JD Vance know nothing about small-town America,” said Walz, who was raised in rural Nebraska. “My town had 400 people in it, 24 kids in my graduating class — 12 were cousins.” “And he gets it all wrong,” he continued. “It’s not about hate, it’s not about collapsing in. The golden rule there is mind your own damn business.” Walz then said that the Republican Party has “destroyed rural America” through their policies. “They’ve divided us. They’re in our exam rooms, they’re telling us what books to read,” he said. “And I think what Kamala Harris knows is, bringing people together around the shared values — strong public schools, strong labor unions that create the middle class, health care that’s affordable and accessible — those are the things.” The Minnesota governor later emphasized his point that Republicans have created division, saying, “We can’t even go to Thanksgiving dinner with our uncle, because you end up in some weird fight that is unnecessary.”

Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Tuesday, Minnesota Governor and potential Harris VP pick Tim Walz (D) scored Trump VP pick and Ohio Senator J.D. Vance (R) good by saying that Vance “know[s] nothing about small-town America.

Walz deserves to be Harris’s VP choice.

From the 07.23.2024 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

[objectivistnerd]

2024 Democratic Veepstakes Straw Poll

Since President Joe Biden announced he would not be running for a second term last Sunday, the Democratic Party has coalesced around his endorsed candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris. However, since we're only a few weeks out from the Democratic National Convention, this has forced the traditional selection of a running mate into a massively condensed timeline. Potential contenders have had to be much less subtle than in previous cycles, and Harris's potential to become the first female President raises the salience of just who she selects to be on the ticket with her.

In this poll, please select the candidate who you think makes the most sense. This includes their level of experience, whether they bring demographic and geographic balance to the ticket, and whether they can appeal to swing voters and/or energize the base. Please choose the option which you think would make her more likely to win, even if you personally want her to lose. (I promise the DNC is not consulting a self-described neoliberal capitalist's Tumblr polls when doing candidate selection.)

Tumblr is not real life and half of y'all are communists anyway, but I love running polls with too many options so I couldn't help myself. These names came from reported short lists via Wikipedia. A few have publicly declined, but when has that ever stopped a politician?

[qqueenofhades]

[nfinitefreetime]

Veepstakes!

The way this week has been going, I fully expect that by the time I’m done with this post Kamala Harris will have announced a running mate and it will be none of these people. But what the hell, let’s speculate. To be clear, I don’t have super strong feelings about any of these folks, and a lot of them I don’t know a lot about, so take all of this with salt as usual, and remember that I know…

[misfitwashere]

Veep Stakes

Will Vance be Sacrificed?

Timothy Snyder

Jul 24, 2024

In a normal presidential campaign, such as the one Vice-President Kamala Harris is running, “veepstakes” is a harmless play on the word “sweepstakes,” invoking a friendly competition to become a vice-presidential nominee.  One can enjoy thinking about matches between the presidential and vice-presidential candidates and wonder how it will all turn out.

But “stakes” can be harder, or sharper.  One can be burned at a stake, sacrificed on a stake, or killed by a stake through the heart.  For Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, this election has morbid overtones.

Trump’s candidacy is a mortality play.  He wants to die in the White House.  Whatever else he might say, or whatever else his followers might believe, this is the essential reality.   Old-guy dictatorship involves funeral planning.  When Trump says that he admires a Putin or a Xi, what he means is “that man will die in office and not in jail.”

Since Trump is thinking about death, Vance must as well.  In considering a place on the ticket, Vance was reasoning from different premises than (for example) Andy Beshear.  If Kamala Harris asks Beshear to join her on the ticket, he can imagine running for president in 2032.  Vance, by contrast, knows that Trump, so long as he lives, will never voluntarily get out of the way.

A Vance who wishes to be president needs Trump to win in November, stay alive long enough to take office in January, and then perish.  One does not have to be an actuary to understand why Vance might think that this is a good bet. 

Vance was the choice of the tech broligarchs – Elon Musk, David Sacks, Peter Thiel.  Vance was also the preferred option of the Kremlin, whose propaganda line Musk and Sacks tend to follow. Had Trump chosen anyone but Vance, he could have been sure of that person’s loyalty to him.  But Vance is a tech brotegé, not a Trump client.

In the heady atmosphere of Milwaukee, the selection of Vance could seem like a win for everyone.  Trump gets the money he needs from the broligarchs (e.g. a promise of $45 million a month from Musk), who happily contemplate installing their guy as his successor.  Trump believed that he was running against Joe Biden and that he was going to win easily.  Vance could make his private calculations about Trump’s longevity, and go along with the show. Vance was endorsed by the Russian foreign ministry for his pro-surrender foreign policy.

A week later, with Kamala Harris as the presumptive Democratic nominee, everything looks different.  The Harris candidacy is bad for Putin and the broligarchs, but not fatal.  Putin wants Trump to win, because that is his only hope of winning in Ukraine.  But should Trump lose the election, Putin will figure out some other way of saving himself.  Russian propagandists are already turning against Vance. The broligarchs would like to run the American government.  Should they fail, though, nothing bad will happen to them.  Now Musk denies promising the monthly $45 million to Trump’s campaign.

The billionaires are entirely safe. Trump and Vance are the ones who are exposed.  Now that Trump recognizes that the election will be competitive, Vance’s weaknesses matter to him. 

Vance’s skillset is limited.  He was more articulate when he opposed Trump than in his present support. Vance saying that Trump is an “idiot” who could be “America’s Hitler” is hard to forget. On the campaign trail, Vance channels broligarch grievance and mocks everyone else.  This is backroom back-slapping delight when only the billionaires’ voices matter, as in Milwaukee. 

But in an election, other voices count. 

Vance’s policy approach is not very resonant. He specializes in weak-man politics.  His claim is that government is always impotent.  This does not work together with Trump’s strong-man fantasy.  Trump’s followers want to believe that the system can be trashed and they can still get what they want from it -- a bit of magical thinking that Trump’s charisma enables. 

Vance can’t pull that off.  When he explains that government is pointless, it is a bit too clear that what he means is that broligarchs should run wild at home while dictators should push Americans around abroad.  That is not actually what voters want to hear, including Republican voters.  Sacks found that out when he read aloud Putin’s talking points from the stage in Milwaukee.

Trump must now run an uphill campaign, pulling Vance along behind him. 

Vance is from Ohio.  Having a Buckeye on the ticket will not help Trump in neighboring Michigan or Pennsylvania, states he must win.  And if Ohio is in play, the Trump campaign has deep problems.  When Vance held a rally in his hometown, a local ally threatened “civil war” after a lost election. This does not express confidence.

Vance could even hurt in Ohio itself.  

Reproductive rights were always going to be central to this campaign; Kamala Harris is certain to raise it more clearly than Biden would have.  Vance is infamous for his (vulgar and public) support for a national abortion ban.  Last November, Ohio voters codified reproduction rights in the state constitution by referendum – by a vote of 57% in favor.  This was a personal defeat for Vance, who characterized the pro-choice Ohio majority as “sociopaths” who “murder their own children.”

Trump has been played by unreliable people, which could be uncomfortable for Vance.  And Vance must understand that the Harris candidacy alters his own situation. 

Instead of coasting to victory with Trump and waiting for him to die, Vance now must contemplate what it would mean to lose alongside Trump in November -- in an election angry Republicans have been trained to believe would be a landslide.  Trump cannot blame the broligarchs or Putin, since he cannot admit that he needed the money and support of others.  That leaves Vance as the scapegoat. 

Vance must now imagine a world, about three months from now, in which Trump instructs his followers that Vance is to blame.  Trump has driven Republicans out of the party by stochastic violence.  He was ready to sacrifice the life of his last vice-president.  If Vance leaves now, he will feel the heat for a moment, but can go back to his prior life.  The longer Vance waits to leave the Trump ticket, the greater the risk of a scenario involving a stake.

The necropolitics is no one’s fault but that of the people concerned.  Republicans did not have to nominate an aged coup-plotting felon. The broligarchs did not have to install their candidate to succeed a deceased Trump. And Vance did not have to join Trump’s ticket. 

On the Democratic side, the picture is much brighter. Kamala Harris seeks her vice-presidential nominee, following the familiar rules of the gentle version of veepstakes.  It is fun to follow.  Maybe Kelly? Shapiro?  Or Buttigieg?  Or Whitmer? Who knows? It is refreshing to imagine two candidates wishing each other well, having complementary policies, working towards a better future, towards life.