• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      115 months ago

      I think Shapiro’s Israel stance would be poison. Kelly would probably blunt momentum, but maybe the cool factor of being an astronaut could get him through it without bringing the ticket down.

      From a progressive standpoint, I actually kind of like Buttigieg. Like Harris, he started out as vaguely progressive but turned toward the moderate lane after realizing the progressive one was stuffed full, but he hasn’t done some of the performative centrism of the purple state elected officials and he’s got some dynamism in both his policy (his supreme court reform was good) and conveys a different feel from trying to pick someone to signal that the Democratic party is also the home for conservatives. Plus you can put him in front of a camera anywhere and expect him to do a good job.

      I wouldn’t vote for him or Harris in a primary, but I can feel positive about them on a ticket.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        155 months ago

        My issue with Buttigieg is that he used to work for McKinsey & Co, and apparently was their “Wiz Kid”.

        “McKinsey has assisted opioid manufacturers, tobacco companies, fossil fuel companies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and authoritarian governments around the world, and in each case has covered up its footprints. Again and again, McKinsey has come to town and left people worse off.” (Source)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          Hey sometimes McKinsey also helps people. Like when they explained to new York that maybe, just maybe, throwing garbage in bags on the streets instead of trash containers makes your city stinky. Still cost them a fortune that advice right there but…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      65 months ago

      Why are people continuing to say this? The VP has no say over POTUS. They are the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, and count the electoral ballots in an election. That’s it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It was a liability when the President was 81. I’m not so sure we should be focusing on vetting the VP for POTUS otherwise.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            125 months ago

            IMO we should always be vetting the VP for POTUS. Seems silly not to. Old age isn’t the only risk.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              15 months ago

              As a backup, sure, but not a likely candidate. They are typically appointed to balance out the ticket. The more left Harris brings her platform, the more likely her nomination will be to her right.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                55 months ago

                If you think the VP’s positions on things should be irrelevant to the left because Harris isn’t going to die, why would their positions be any comfort to the right as a balance to the ticket? Either they’re irrelevant and no one should care, or they aren’t and anyone caring is doing so for good reason.

                And this is all indulging in the fantasy that vice presidents aren’t likely future presidential candidates.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            75 months ago

            If the next president is a black woman, her life will constantly be in danger from the Trump cultists or other far right extremists. Or she could have an aneurysm randomly one day. People die all the time from a wide variety of causes that aren’t old age.

            The choice of VP is always important.