https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mark-kelly-kamala-harris-vp_n_669ea19ee4b030a2640a86d8
Kelly is a low-profile senator with a strong resume from a swing state who could bring “demographic balance” to the Democratic ticket.
I'm Canadian so I don't really get a say in this, but he seems like a decent guy. Most astronauts are hard working, smart, and know to rely on other smart people to get tasks accomplished. His wife ain't no pushover either, nobody can question that couple's commitment to America.
It’s funny. Literally every astronaut I’ve met is exactly like this - quietly competent, affable, team player. As is the astronaut candidate I’ve met.
And yet…
Every person I’ve met who has been keen on becoming an astronaut or astronaut candidate has been an insufferable self-aggrandizing jerk face. Like, just awful people who suck all the air out of any room they’re in, expounding on how they (or the idea they’re selling) are the most amazing thing ever.
Unfortunately, in contrast to astronauts, most of the politicians I’ve met are complete shits. Only met a few at the civic level who are excellent. And one at the federal level. Everyone else has been truly🤮.
My BIL was selected as an alternate for teacher in space. He did some of the training, but he honestly wasn’t even too bothered that he never got called to go, which probably means he’d have done well up there.
3 Astronauts. 1 candidate. Only really got to know one astronaut (family friend) and one candidate (supervised her training in an unrelated field) super well. I’ve had long term interactions with two wannabes who were disasters.
For those that don't remember:
What does this have to do with anything? Edit: figured it out, he is married to Gabby Giffords.
One of the people who was shot at this event is then-US representative Gabby Giffords. She was shot in the head and survived, but six people were killed. She is Mark Kelly's wife. I would presume they're going to have very strong opinions on gun control laws because of this.
And he would def have something to say about the nature of political violence. A madman with a gun is no basis for doling out governmental powers.
A madman with a gun is no basis for doling out governmental powers
Almost as bad as becoming king because some moistened bint lobs a scimitar at you!
Not just an opinion, she/they started an entire organization to fight the gun lobbies.
And, just like AOC, he will understand on a personal level what’s at stake in the current contest for America.
I changed my mind, I like this guy, oil drilling or no.
He does not support Medicare for all, and also does not support the green new deal, according to his wiki. He also supported increased oil drilling.
So he's pretty moderate right IMO, which sucks. I hope he's not her choice.
Yeah, see this is why I was so attached to Biden. The average Democrat isn’t really all that left. All this stuff with climate change and unions under Biden was very much an anomaly, and we’re probably returning to a certain amount of status quo with Harris.
Idk, I could be wrong; maybe she’s super left and this guy’s being floated as a gift to the New York Timeses of the world so the ticket will be acceptable to the six figure Manhattan shitheads that their editors are friends with, so they won’t print bullshit about her to try to lose her the election. And she still doesn’t want to destroy American democracy and all climate change remediation since Obama, which makes her worth voting for. But yeah we can expect a certain amount of corporate bullshit to come back into the equation now, I think. 😕
From what I've heard, it sounds like her senator policy stances were left of Joe? But chances are, her vp will prolly be more center, and who knows what her policies look like when she has to take stances that aren't representing just California.
Joe did a pretty good job as president courting progressives though. It was all much further left than his time in the senate. Still not far enough left for me, but better. I hope Harris follows that. The population generally is moving in that direction, so they need to.
The average Democrat is to the left of their representatives on a lot of things, including climate change: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/
Kelly is not an average Democrat representative, he's definitely on the right end of the caucus.
True, but he is representing AZ, and technically he should be following the wishes of his constituents.
The real problem with picking him I would think, would be opening a senate seat in a purple/red state like AZ. The last thing the senate needs is another Sinema (or an even worse republican ).
Not a problem. The governor of Arizona, a Democrat, will fill that seat, and Arizona law requires she fill it with a Democrat.
The Green New Deal was a white paper produced by a DC think tank. Obama implemented some of it. Biden implemented a lot of it through the climate change bill.
I think "electable" is dead in the water and, for now, a thing of the past. What the Democrats need is someone who will get dems to the polls come election day. Luke warm glass of milk isn't going to cut it because MAGA is fired up. Dems need to be fired up too.
What the Democrats need is someone who will get dems to the polls come election day.
Democrats in contested states.
We win the popularity contest, time and again, but because we keep picking blue-state Democrats, we keep losing elections.
If we would ever pick a Democratic candidate who has actually won an election in a red state, the election would be a runaway landslide, and the GOP would have to come crawling left.
Because we abandon the Red and contested states entirely, the GOP is free to run candidates like Trump.
His position on healthcare seems to be Medicare for All Who Want It, without forcing people to drop their private health insurance if they prefer to go that route.
Yet the people around this instance thinks he's a great VP candidate...
Funny how you're upvoted a lot for mentioning this, but someone else does, then it's a downvote parade.
If the goal is preventing Trump from winning and shoring up harris's weak points, Kelly is a pretty good choice. We can argue about drilling and green energy after Trump is in jail for all his crimes.
Trump is never going to jail. For fuck sakes, when will you stop drinking that kool-aid? It's a practical fantasy at this point. If he hadn't gone to jail for two impeachments and so far hasn't gone to jail for the recent convictions - what makes you think he'll ever go to jail now? Get over it.
Impeachment don't come with jail sentences. He hasn't gone through sentencing for his convictions yet. There's still time.
From wikipedia:
Kelly ran as a moderate in 2020 and voiced support for bipartisanship.[79][80][81] Since joining the Senate, he supported abolishing the filibuster in order to pass voting rights legislation[82] and a federal minimum wage increase to $15 per hour. He has criticized Joe Biden's approach to border security.[83][84] As of October 2022, Kelly has voted in line with Biden's stated position 94.5% of the time.[85]
Abortion
As a candidate in 2020, Kelly said he was "pro-choice" and was endorsed by Planned Parenthood.[86] He supports codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law.[87] He has said that late-stage abortions should be legally protected.[88]
Climate and environment
Kelly has voiced support for climate action, but said he "does not favor" the Green New Deal.[89] The League of Conservation Voters gave him a 97% score in 2021.[90] In 2022, Kelly also advocated for an expansion of oil drilling in the wake of rising gas prices.[91][92]
Guns
Kelly became an outspoken advocate for gun control following the attempted assassination of his wife, former U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords, at the 2011 Tucson shooting.[93]
Kelly voted for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in response to the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas.[94][95]
Health care
Kelly supports building on the Affordable Care Act to include a public health insurance option.[93][96] He opposes Medicare for All.[97]
Immigration
Of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Kelly has said, "Dreamers are as American as anyone", and has expressed support for it.[98][86]
Trump administration
In February 2021, Kelly voted to convict Trump for incitement of insurrection in his second impeachment trial,[66] and has been outspoken in his disdain for him.[99]
A mixed bag, could be a hinderance or could get with the administration if its truly more left than Biden.
This is interesting. People are calling him a mixed bag, yet looking into this he clearly supports expanding on existing solutions and has supported potential solutions that offer real-world results, such as expanded drilling. A realistic solution that makes sense in a swing state. The only outlier is Medicare for All and he'd probably say behind closed doors that he needed the votes and compromised with reinforcement of the ACA.
From what I remember and have seen recently, he strikes me as someone who is quietly playing the game. Becoming VP may allow him to step out and take more progressive stances. Or less progressive, of course. I'll have to look into him more, though it's my opinion he's a good pick, both for more favorable (for us) policies and for the larger election strategy.
I'll make an early call that he's more progressive than he seems at face value. Shame we don't have that bot which messages us X time later. I'd like to come back to this in the future, see if I was right.
He's also one of the only democrats that's refused to sign the PRO act iirc, so I don't think he's, uhhh, pro labor either, which is a somewhat large issue I would say
Sure. He's white, straight, and male, to balance out the ticket for racists/sexists/homophobes. Package him, ship him out, and let's defeat Trump and Project 2025!
He stood by his wife, then-US Representative Gabby Giffords, after she was shot in the head during a 2011 assassination attempt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
Basically, he also gets points for just being a good husband.
Could you shortly define "fairly progressive" in this context for a non-American? (Nordic, specifically.)
Don't ask lemmings to define people's progressive cred rofl
Literally nobody is left wing. It's a pure, unattainable ideal, untainted by mortals and their worldly failings.
I was more interested in how he replies than the actual answer.
Sort of making them confront their own statements.
He's a pair of wraparound sunglasses and a selfie in a truck away from looking like a lot of Trump's base. That sort of thing helps because we should not assume voters humans are rational.
Trump's base is voting for Trump... Going after them even a little is a waste of everyone's time, energy, and money.
Yes, but if people adjacent to Trump's base see themselves on the Democratic ticket they'll be less likely be alienated from the party.
I've lived in Trump country. For every Red Hat there's five or six undecided guys who work/drink with them. If they see a guy who could also be pounding Rolling Rocks with them on the Democratic ticket it will help a little bit. And when there's 10,000 votes between us and fascism we need all the help we can get.
To repeat: Stop assuming humans will be rational.
So, first of all, I don't think ANYONE assumes magas will be rational.
Second, at least half of Republicans are magas at this point, probably more. So it's more like for every red hat there's 1 that might be on the fence, but very few of them would vote blue. But the Dems spend a shit ton of time and money trying to sway them... Mostly without success. Meanwhile millennials and zoomers are overwhelmingly progressive, and now make up about half the voters in the country. They aren't on the fence between Trump and not Trump, they're on the fence between voting Dem or not showing up (or voting 3rd party, which is the same as not showing up). All they need to show up and vote is for someone who actually represents them to run... Someone they can vote FOR. Dems are by and large almost there... They've already got the social stuff, they just need to embrace progressive economics, and they'll never lose again. People who are undecided between fascism and not fascism are not people who's votes we need anymore... They can slowly become irrelevant as the boomers die and life gets better under progressive policies.
Right?! How about instead of "balancing" the ticket for bigots on the right, we balance it for progressives on the left?!
Oh but the left never votes and the center right always does... Yeah, because the center right always has at least 2 candidates to choose from while the left has none.
Believe me, I agree with you; I wish I had a true Progressive to vote for this November! By the way, we're not really balancing the ticket for right-wingers, it's more courting undecided voters, whether they be left, center, or right. Like it or not, the swing states will decide this election. And we can't let Donald Trump and Project 2025 win, there's too much at stake.
Please vote, volunteer, and donate for Kamala Harris. When she's president, turn that attention to getting progressives elected. Showing the American people an improvement in their lives is the only way to avoid these narrow 50/50 splits between good and bad candidates as we reform and improve things...
I don't believe there are that many undecided voters in the center... The "undecided" voters are all on the far left... And they're deciding whether to show up, or not show up at all. Going after them by showing that the Dems will actually be fighting for them (against the oligarchy) is the smart move. The center is already decided.
However, I am open to the possibility that what's true on a national level might not necessarily be true in the swing states... So if anyone has any studies comparing the center undecided with the left undecided in the swing states, I'd love to see it
Manchin got us to 50 in a deep red state. There are so many red states in middle America that, in the current political spectrum, it is nigh impossible to get to 50 dems in the senate.
I hear you, Manchin wasn’t my guy, but we would have got bunk from the Biden administration without him.
Something something, it’s easy to hate, harder to love.
I recognize he's done some decent things and he's a dem in a deep red. I'm not a fan - but recognize his position. Rather have a DINO than Rep.
Manchin got us to 50 in a deep red state
With significantly more funding from the party coffers than other candidates and significant efforts to make sure that West Virginia would never get a choice of anyone but him and Republicans.
The desperately poor white working class of West Virginia might have primarily defaulted to Republican because of far right demagogues doing a better job than conservative Democrats of pretending to want to change the system to something that doesn't abuse the poor as much.
A progressive candidate who genuinely cares about systemic poverty and agrees with the majority of West Virginians on the need for single payer health care could feasibly win in WV if not for the DNC fighting so hard to avoid it in favor of a coal baron beloved by party brass even know that he's registered as an independent.
Anecdote time: last week a 30 year old woman I work with stated with confidence she wouldn't be voting this year. Earlier today she told me she would be voting for Harris and asked who the vp would be. I said Shapiro, beshear, or Kelly. She looked up each of them on Wikipedia and immediately said something to the effect of, "why have I never heard of Kelly? I'd vote for this guy at the top of the ticket. I hope she picks him."
The guy's bio speaks for itself. Plus we'd get fun twins hijinks at the naval observatory and I think we as a nation need that.
I like him, but PLEASE don't vacate a Senate seat right now..! The balance is too tenuous at the moment. The Rs just lost a seat with Vance that could be filled with someone that isn't batshit crazy; let's not pull the same stunt in AZ.
E: I'm hearing that the way it works in AZ is that the person leaving their seat gets to assign the new member. If that's the case, then i withdraw my complaint.
Democratic Governor appoints new Senator to carry out remainder of term. It's safe. A special election would then happen in 2026.
I'm still shocked no one is taking seriously the "Democrats should pick Romney as Presidential choice because reasons" that has seriously been floated.
I wonder: how many times has someone given a big platform to someone so they can suggest that the Republicans should select a Democrat as their choice? Probably never? Why is it that people always say - with a straight face and very, very seriously - that it is Democrats that should run Republicans on their tickets, because something something unity and tone.
Because it's not a good idea. They select him and don't convert Republican voters, lose a good portion of the progressive base and only get marginal, less reliable, swing voters with that move. That's at least a ten point loss right there.
It's going to be a safe bet like Josh Shapiro or, slightly less safe, Cooper.
Yeah, it's of course a ridiculous idea that moderates and Republicans seem to suggest that Democrats do, but I never see anyone given a big platform to suggest that, say, the Republicans should force donnie to step down and select Hillary as the centrist option, for example. I mean, the New York Fucking Times let Aaron Sorkin suggest that Mitt Romney should be the Democratic pick. I mean, what. The. Actual. Fuck.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/21/opinion/biden-west-wing-aaron-sorkin.html
Add this to another in a long list to why I laugh right out loud in someone's face when they insist that NYT is "liberal".
It's also a near-perfect demonstration of Murc's Law - it's not up to Republicans to amend their awful and despicable ways, no, the Democratic Party has to nominate someone like Mitt Romney in the hopes that would somehow heal a divide (by coming all the way over to the right, basically) that the right wing is entirely responsible for.
The irony is that liz is much more right wing than donnie; she just happens to believe in the rule of law.
As a leftist, you kind of should hate the NYT opinion essays. They're written by people who are explicitly invited to write the opposite of the NYT's editorial board's point of view. The old name was "Op Ed" which stands for "Opposite the editorial opinion". They changed it because the term started to lose meaning when the op-ed no longer showed up literally opposite the editorial column in the printed newspaper, and is instead its own page on a website.
https://open.nytimes.com/how-we-redesigned-the-new-york-times-opinion-essay-ad5e0270f5bc
The entire point is to not be an echo chamber. The redesign makes it very clear that it's an opinionated essay written by a guest by putting the words "Opinion - Guest Essay" in bold and red at the top.
Cooper
Was curious why "less safe"? I was thinking that's a decent strategic pick, a southern democrat that's able to win the same elections that Trump and Robinson won, while still pretty well aligned with the democrat platform broadly. He has a good chance to immediately be 16 electoral votes, he has to vacate his governorship this year anyway, so you don't vacate a known factor in favor of a less known factor. Pandering to Pennsylvania may be a bit more likely with more bang for the buck though given that Pennsylvania has historically been more "winnable" and has more votes though..
I say that only because the lift effect may not actually turn it into a locked swing state. NC has been more lean-right than a true swing state so it's, in my mind, riskier than picking the PA governor for the reasons that you highlight. But regardless, I think any of Shapiro, Cooper or Kelly would be a great balance to the ticket and i would not at all be disappointed with any of them. Honestly it's an embarrassment of riches with regards to potential VPs and a great position for Democrats.
I don't like that option, but I do think it would be effective to disrupt the Republican party. It'd really force a lot of modern "Republicans" to face what the party has become.
I think it'd be better to out him as VP under Harris than president though. To have a traditionally popular Republican candidate on the ticket would give them a huge platform to point out that the MAGA party is not the Republican party many supported before. It's just Fascists who stole it because people were too dumb to pay attention.
We are two bullets away from a theocratic nutjob president, that's a really concerning thought with the large number of Repub terrorists in this country.
To see an example of how they are getting hilarious dragged for it....
https://www.wonkette.com/p/aaron-sorkin-sets-land-speed-record?utm_source=publication-search
Not a fan, and I don’t like his relative lack of political experience. However, his status as a white male veteran who is the husband of Gabby Gifford could win some points.
Hate that it comes to that, but this is what we get. Fuck, I just want out of this shithole.
Yeah, and I don’t know that Drumpf fans care all that much about military service. Well, at least they don’t care what Drumpf says.
He was running against someone who also had vaguely credible military service, so there was room to discredit without blowback
It's harder to nitpick a military record when running a draft dodger as your candidate. Given that the GOP is "supposed" to be law and order, it should provide some challenge for them to be running a draft dodging felon against a prosecutor and ex-military ticket.
His opponent's service was literally draft dodging. For the war Kerry was honored and injured in. We're not talking about someone with a better service record dismissing some lesser record as insubstantial.
That people were making fun of an actual combat injury, regardless of whether his opponent did some air drills back at home, proves that military service isn't some sacred trait. And John Kerry didn't just serve, he was an actual war hero who saved people's lives and took a bullet in the process. Nothing either Kelly or Vance has done remotely compares to that and he was eviscerated for the very thing that's supposed to be such a gotcha for the Republicans.
How's that going to help anything? Right now, we're looking for solutions to improve our society through progressive means. Fighting wars is not the answer regardless if formerly served or actively served.
It's about perception. I'm not saying to go fight wars. But military leaders have the respect of those that could lean right. It's always about the middle. The left and the right are set. It's the centrists that make a vote happen.
Oh, but some of the clueless idiots here think he's a WONDERFUL choice apparently. God damn, people are such fucking morons that don't know anything about the candidates thoroughly. They just saw him as a replacement, got a boner and now will smite anyone critical of it.
Stupid idiotic voters are the bane of our existence every election cycle. We should hold them accountable as much as politicians. Because their stupid decisions fucks us all over.
I'd like it to be mayor Pete. Young, smart, well spoken, Rhodes scholar, veteran. Plus it would set him up for a serious run at the presidency in the future.
I don't hate him, but he's already 60. That means that if Harris goes 1 term and loses, or goes 2 terms and can't run again, Kelly is 68 before he can run himself, which he will inevitably do. If he's 68 when he starts, then he is running the country in his 70s and we have made 0 progress on this age problem that seems to plague presidential candidates. Beshear is 46, which keeps him in his 50s for most of his terms.
People around here seem to love old farts despite bitching about how tired they are of old farts running the country.
Ironic.
It's pretty odd to me that people feel like they really need to shore up the "moderate" lane. Boosting the AZ chances makes perfectly fine sense, but Harris isn't expected to be particularly progressive. She's a middle of the road Democrat, so unless she's going to come out fighting for big progressive change, just run her as a solidly competent Democrat. No need to find a new Joe Lieberman.
Plus, for the love of god, don't give up an iffy senate seat.
isn’t expected to be particularly progressive
Absolutely true if you look at it objectively.
But people aren't objective. She's a black, partly asian woman and thus her existence as a presidential candidate is already majorly "progressive".
Yes, you have the right wingers throwing out "whore" for no reason, for saying her mothers name should be enough to disqualify her...
Now these people are too far gone to get any hope of their vote to be sure, however I suspect milder versions of those sentiments lie perhaps even subconsiously in some moderate voters. They may feel vaguely "uncomfortable" and doubling down might just exacerbate that while a milquetoast white dude might alleviate that discomfort.
Dem Governor, his seat is filled by her appointment. She’s been pretty great on not taking GOP shit from the state legislature, so I don’t expect any “concession” from her to try to appease anyone. She knows the GOP only takes and never gives those.
On that last point, it is possible to run for VP while still holding the Senate seat, and only give up the Senate seat if they get that promotion. It makes campaigning a little tough, since it has to be done around their day job, but it's manageable.
And their Governor is a Democrat, so if Kelly has to give the seat up the Governor can name an interim Democrat to replace him.
The vacancy would be filled at the next general election (2026), and Arizona's senate seats are not safe. Kelly's term would otherwise go until 2028. It's not immediately catastrophic, but I have a hard time believing the VP (for a young nominee) is going to matter enough to be worth opening that seat up.
Let's see what you folks missed...
Navy combat pilot. Would be the first of those in the administration since HW.
Arizona would be a nice get electoral wise.
Navy combat pilot. Would be the first of those in the administration since HW.
Why would this ever be an asset for the presidency? It's completely unrelated to the skills involved and doesn't demonstrate any particular merit of bravery or understanding the costs of war. I don't particularly want someone whose chosen role in warfare was comfortably dropping bombs on people they couldn't even see.
Some people would say that when you are commander in chief it's good tha5 you have military experience. So far, JD Vance is the only person with such experience.
JD Vance was a "combat correspondent" in the Marine Corps, and separated after one tour as a Corporal (E4).
Kelly was a Navy Captain (O7).
One of these men was trained and entrusted to operate the space shuttle; the other, a digital camera.
Didn't you see the movie Independency Day? Clearly it could be a huge asset for a US President.
GW left the military as a First Lieutenant (O2). Kelly retired as a Navy Captain, (O7).
If their careers were firearms, GW's would be a .22LR revolver; Kelly's would be a 20mm CIWS.
Unexpected? He and Josh Shapiro were the immediate go-tos for basically all the news outlets after Harris emerges as the frontrunner for the nomination. Not sure what this headline is about.
That being said, I'd love to see either Kelly or Shapiro on the ticket as VP. Could get some great things done.
Our first astronaut president. If he had a little Aldrin, we might see him punch a flat earther in the face. That would be awesome. Specially if it was a republican flat earther. LOL.
Hey guys! I've got a great story!
Lots of randos on Reddit, Mastadon, and Lemmy are saying "Kelly" should be the VP.
GFY Huff....
He is center enough to balance her ticket. Problem is we’ll stave off fascism for one more cycle but we won’t get important changes pushed. It’ll be a don’t rock the boat presidency.
Winning the presidency will be a wake up call for Republicans. Trump would be finished politically. If Dems hold the Senate and take the House it's a mandate
We're playing for time here. Good chance that Trump will be dead or clearly too old to run in 4 years. MAGA is a cult and without the cult leader, much of the danger is diffused.
That's kind of assuming they can't just find any other freak to take command while doing everything the foundations and conservative PACs and corporate donors want. I don't actually think trump really has all that much charisma beyond his slightly flamboyant mannerisms and his weird accent that I've never heard anywhere else. They could pretty easily replace him with some other brainworm candidate, probably get someone way younger and slightly more well-spoken, lose maybe like, 10% of the diehard trump supporters, and then gain back those numbers and more after running their candidate for like five months and trying to ride with slightly more centrist appeal.
Trump isn't like, the end of this, he's just a kind of canary in the coal mine for what's to come, because the conditions which created him still exist and are actively worsening pretty much all the time. It's not gonna end with him.
How does center balance center? Or do you merely mean she's a woman of color and he's a white man?
Did you literally stop reading right there? If so that’s on you.
Finish the fucking sentence.