Kamala Harris was definitely at the right place at the right time and to her credit she has run away with it. A normal primary (say Biden made a retirement announcement a year ago) and I don't think she gets the nomination normally considering how the DNC tends to select their candidates.
The only remaining question was what the Obamas would do, and with them endorsing Harris it's all hands on deck from the Democrats side behind her.
What was Trump thinking selecting JD Vance? He was clearly pushed to help with Ohio, problem is that he's such an awful VP candidate that he actually hurts Republicans just by being around. Nowhere in history had a VP pick have a net favorable negative since conventions became a thing. He's associated with Project 2025 which is a step away from outright feudal theocracy system.
A week ago it was a 78 year old white male convicted felon and an 81 year old white male with cognitive issues that couldn't tell Zelensky from Putin.
Now it's a 78 year old white male convicted felon and 59 year old black woman and former attorney general ...and Trumps VP choice is a couch ******
And it really appears that Trump and Republicans were caught completely off-guard by Democrats immediately supporting Kamala Harris after the surprise step down
Last edited by Firebot; 07-26-2024 at 08:50 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
My new favorite emerging trend is excusing clearly objectionable people because they are good at interviewing other people.
I guess, but you don't have to listen to all things people say or all things people do. His show is a lot and yeah, he's annoying on some points and goes on and on. I actually think he's a terrible debater. But his interviews are good, here's one with Ana Kasparian
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
How important is gender? We all thought it was a slam dunk Trump would pick a woman for VP, Noem, Lake etc... but he chose JD Vance to stay in the midwest and counteract old man Biden. But now that Kamala is the candidate, Trump should kick Vance to the curb and actually select a woman.
And would Kamala consider Whitmer and a female/female ticket? Or is that suicide?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Obama was pretty smart picking the least objectionable politician. A guy who looked like what people expected a president to look like. I think Harris should do the same thing here.
Though I subscribe to the theory that the VP pick isn’t meaningfully helpful at improving but can be a distraction if done wrong. So a nice safe boring white dude from the Midwest. Which hilariously will be a “DEI” hire.
The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I guess, but you don't have to listen to all things people say or all things people do. His show is a lot and yeah, he's annoying on some points and goes on and on. I actually think he's a terrible debater. But his interviews are good, here's one with Ana Kasparian
I feel like the humour of responding to “My new favorite emerging trend is excusing clearly objectionable people because they are good at interviewing other people” by repeating “Yeah but his interviews are good” is probably lost on you.
What was Trump thinking selecting JD Vance? He was clearly pushed to help with Ohio, problem is that he's such an awful VP candidate that he actually hurts Republicans just by being around. Nowhere in history had a VP pick have a net favorable negative since conventions became a thing. He's associated with Project 2025 which is a step away from outright feudal theocracy system
And it really appears that Trump and Republicans were caught completely off-guard by Democrats immediately supporting Kamala Harris after the surprise step down
Vance was a total ego pick because Trump was 100% sure he was going to win and Vance was on board with pushing the authoritarian flavour that Trump likes. He was picked because he is a project 2025 guy and Trump didn't want another Pence moment.
I think one of the problems with Mark Kelly is that gun control is one of his biggest causes. Don't get me wrong, it's a worthy cause for sure especially considering his family's personal experience with gun violence, but politically it could be detrimental at this crucial point. They already have Harris, a former prosecutor running for president. With both of them on the same ticket, the whole "they want to take our guns away" crowd would be emboldened.
And while most gun nuts already lean towards the Republicans, there are a fair share of Democrat supporters who don't want drastic changes to gun laws. Timing is everything and I don't think this is the election that Democrats want to go all in on progressive liberal agendas that are going to further polarize people.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Tim Walz would be my pick. The dude just seems to get it. He speaks and carries himself very well. He has to be in the running with all of the appearances he is doing and press coverage he is getting.
