There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

solrize ,

Is there a quick tldr of what Kelly wants to do regarding Ukraine?

TexasDrunk ,

TL;Dr: Something.

Seriously though, this was his official statement back in December: …senate.gov/…/kelly-statement-after-senators-meet…

solrize ,

Thanks, it says

“… Abandoning Ukraine at this moment without the ammunition and weapons they need would be a massive gift to Putin and a strategic error for our own national security. Time is running out, and I will continue working with my colleagues in the Senate to find the necessary agreement to move this critical aid package forward.”

Can I presume that Vance said basically the opposite?

TexasDrunk ,

I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.

-JD “Couch Cushion” Vance

solrize ,

Well it’s a question of how deeply the US should be involved, rather than Russia vs Ukraine per se.

TexasDrunk ,

Vance’s stance is that he doesn’t care. I can extrapolate that means he is against helping, so no involvement. Because even if he didn’t care but wanted to give Russia a black eye, he’d pretend to care.

solrize ,

Yeah that sounds about right. Thanks.

circuscritic ,

Arizona is not a solidly blue state, and Mark Kelly is unusually popular for a senator.

Arizona Democrats also don’t have that deep of a bench to pull out a candidate that’s a lock for a statewide race.

I’m not saying it’s impossible for any Democrat to win the election for Mark Kelly’s seat, I am saying it’s a significant risk that they probably won’t want to take.

And that’s before taking into account that Arizona Democrats already have a handful with the seat being left open by their current manic pixie dream senator.

Zipitydew , (edited )

Kelly’s seat would go to a Dem replacement. They wouldn’t have to run for reelection until 2026 in a special election. The seat would be safe for at least 2 years out. Arguably a gamble worth taking to make sure we still have elections come 2026.

caffinatedone ,

Assuming Harris wins, the first midterm federal election is usually ugly for the president’s party, so it’d be a risk. Especially coming off of this election where dems will have to be extremely lucky just to hold onto the majority (even with the vp tiebreaker).

leadore ,
@leadore@lemmy.world avatar

Without knowing more specific + or - details about the possible choices, I’d pick Shapiro over Kelly when you add up all the variables:

  1. As a governor Shapiro has executive experience, which Kelly doesn’t. Cooper is also a governor but is already 67.
  2. Pennsylvania is an absolute must-win state. Arizona is also very important but is not a must-win. Gotta get PA.
  3. Shapiro is only 51 so would still be plenty young enough in 8 years to run for POTUS.
  4. With Shapiro you’re not taking a current Senator off the field like with Kelly. Yes the Dem gov will appoint another Dem but will that person (or other Dem) be able to win again in 2 years vs. keeping Kelly in place who is highly likely to be re-elected. We really need to build up a bigger majority in the Senate over the next couple of cycles to be able to get important things done.
Maggoty ,

Well as of right now the Democrats have a solid lock on state wide elections. If they’re going to do it, now is the time. A 2 year incumbent that doesn’t leave the party is highly likely to get reelected.

Shapiro’s also got some baggage, his Israel position for example. Kelly however will be vulnerable to a swift boat attack. However as VP that will have less impact than as a candidate. Whereas the Israel issue will cause some of the left to stay home.

It’s all really complicated, I’m sure they’re putting a lot of thought into it.

leadore ,
@leadore@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah TBH I haven’t read about all the details of the candidates’ vulnerabilities so I was just going by their stats and locations. I’m sure we’ll hear all about whatever downsides whoever gets picked has. I really don’t see what could be gained by picking Cooper from NC though. Everyone also assumes it can’t be Whitmer because you can’t have two women, which is pretty irritating. It would be nice if having a two-woman ticket would be thought of as normal or even possible but I’m too old to ever see that happen in my lifetime.

58008 ,
@58008@lemmy.world avatar

A 60-year-old? Running alongside a 59-year-old?? What is this, a fuckin’ crèche? Their mother’s milk is still wet on their faces! How can they compete against a worldly wisdom-haemorrhaging wise man in his 80s like Trump when they’re barely out of their baby diapers, while Trump is already well into his adult diapers phase?

Jesus, go back to your pogo sticks and bubblegum and stickerbooks and let a grown-up have a shot. Sheesh.

LodeMike ,

Blast me, Kelly 🥺🥺

laverabe ,

Why not AOC? Really need some young blood and someone who is progressive. She also meets constitutional age requirements now.

Infynis ,
@Infynis@midwest.social avatar

I don’t think the country as a whole has made that much progress yet. She’ll probably have to choose a white guy unfortunately

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah. It saddened and annoyed me seeing that article “can Harris rebuild Obama’s coalition?”- like. Uhm. No? What’s past is gone and can never truly rebuilt. Yes, the ship of Theseus is a new ship. And this is the Ship of Harris, anyway.

laverabe ,

We’ve made more than people think.

If you went back in time 100 years ago and told them who was president in 2008 and reelected again in 2012, they would put you in an insane asylum.

I think people really don’t care about race or gender in POTUS as much as the media puts out, people really just want to not go bankrupt from medical debt, or not have to pay $500,000 for their childrens college and other “bread and butter” personal issues.

99% of the US is progressive, they just don’t know it yet. Everyone benefits from improved policy, that message just needs to be communicated better in a way that even the most stubborn conservative will understand. Bernie Sanders was proof of that because he was capturing the working class and it terrified the 0.01%

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

I’d love AoC for pres, and consolation prize of VP. (Don’t tell the corpo dems this but the VP job is usually a political dead end…)

The reality is you need to pick VPs defensively. Some one who makes a good presidential candidate generally doesn’t make a good VP candidate.

As much as I like AoC… I don’t mind Kelly.

Maggoty ,

It used to be the setup job, you did VP before president.

phdepressed ,

Just like Obama needed Biden. Harris also needs a white guy to appeal to (sub)conscious biases. DNC will probably push her towards a moderate so unlikely to be someone like AOC. We’ll see.

Voroxpete ,

Because they know AOC + Harris will be way too scary for the “pathetically insecure white dudes” demographic.

Zipitydew ,

Which sadly means swing states. And is where the election is truly won. AOC isn’t going to help and potentially hurts.

AFKBRBChocolate ,

They’re going to pick someone who is popular in a purple state, and is going to help calm people who want to see someone more mainstream. I’d love a progressive, but it’s going to be a straight white male from a purple state. I’ll be super surprised if it’s anything else. And I get it: the #1 objective here is to win, and every decision has to be predicated on that.

And besides, AOC is really young and will have lots of opportunities.

MyOpinion ,

Really need to win Arizona.

slimarev92 ,

Why would they risk losing a critical senate seat in a purple state?

Nollij ,

Because it might get them the Whitehouse

Voroxpete ,

Arizona has a Dem governer, who gets to pick the replacement. The seat is safely theirs no matter what.

ralphio ,

So in the scenario that he is the VP and they win, a democrat would be appointed to the senate, but instead of the seat being up in 2028 in a presidental general election year the seat would be up in an off election year with a democratic president (2026). I’m not sure this is wise in terms of keeping the senate.

www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00222.htm

Zipitydew ,

I’m thinking about it like this.

Trump wins 2024 - the possibility of no 2026 elections is not insignificant.

Harris/Kelly win 2024 - Moderate risk the Dems lose 1 Senate seat in 2026.

If Kelly being on board helps Harris win swing states I think it’s worth it. I’d take the potential risk of a hostile Senate in the future over the impending risk of fascism in a few months.

girlfreddy ,
@girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

The Harris campaign is still vetting candidates and has not made its pick yet. Still, according to electionbettingodds.com, which averages online betting sites, Kelly has a 34.9 percent chance of being the presumptive nominee’s vice-presidential pick.

Jfc. Taking the odds from an aggregate of betting websites and using that as a verified source seems crazy to me.

Reverendender ,

I would suggest that it might be a significantly more accurate source than standard polling.

Zaktor ,

It’s not. People aren’t just coming into the bet as neutral computational machines trying to maximize odds. They’re betting on people they like. Some are spending money to intentionally warp the odds. The only population control is people with money willing to risk it in a process with <1.0 expected return. That’s a subpopulation already known for making bad choices.

Here’s a previous “betting odds” headline: Andrew Yang has the same 2020 odds as Elizabeth Warren

tal ,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

I mean, it’s the closest thing you have to a futures market, and if you assume that markets are efficient, you can extract information there – people do use those.

FaceDeer ,
@FaceDeer@fedia.io avatar

They're not using it as a "verified source", except in that they're saying "this is the source."

It's actually not a bad approach. Prediction markets (which betting sites are just a form of) are often very good at reflecting what the current well-informed belief on a subject is, because people who make bets on ill-informed beliefs quickly end up not having money any more and thus not betting any more. It's just important to bear in mind that it's not literally saying "this is what's going to happen," it's saying "this is what well-informed people currently believe is going to happen based on current information."

Maggoty ,

Less crazy than you think. Those markets actually have a pretty good record as long as you pair it with more traditional data points.

AmidFuror ,

Heavy favorite = 65% chance it will not be him.

confusedbytheBasics ,

He’s my top choice for VP as well. :)

TexasDrunk ,

I want to watch the “support the troops” folks shit on a vet and an astronaut. That wouldn’t play well with the traditionally red voting military.

The dude is a national goddamn hero. I get the reasons not to choose him, but I like him for it.

confusedbytheBasics ,

I donated to Harris and Kelly. Hoping you get to see that. The awful feeling when some of the older vets I know stood up for Trump after he tried to make fun of McCain for being a prisoner of war. Ick

Ghyste ,

I honestly wish that Kelly was up for president, but vp is nice too.

catloaf ,

Well, he would still be second in line. This would be closer than he had been. And if Kamala wins, it’ll be quite a few VPs to Presidents.

teft ,
@teft@lemmy.world avatar

Fuck yeah. I hope it’s him and Kamala. Harris Kelly 2024.

someguy3 , (edited )

Guy is 60. I’m becoming a fan of Beshear.

*Sigh. I’m saying pick the person who can run and win in 8 years.

andrewta ,

Sixty isn’t old. He’s old enough to have experience.

someguy3 ,

I’m thinking get the person who can run and win in 8 years.

cygnus ,
@cygnus@lemmy.ca avatar

I’m thinking get the person who can run and win in 8 years.

I think at this point it’s more important to pick the candidate that increases the chances of victory. Trump won’t be in any shape to run (or likely even alive) in 2028 and hopefully MAGA will have died along with him.

Nollij ,

Maga will not die with Trump. Instead it will splinter, and become a lot more chaotic. Even moreso if that happens at a time of strength for the movement.

girlfreddy ,
@girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

Yup. MAGA is just the Tea Party’s child that’s come of age.

Whatever offspring MAGA presents to America will be even worse.

Zorsith ,
@Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

It’s 5 years under the typical retirement age, I would absolutely consider that “old”.

Hylactor ,

Maybe that should be retirement age. Young people of today will be lucky to retire at all.

PythagreousTitties ,

65 is retiring early.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

When you can’t even be elected president until you’re 35, I don’t think 60 is a terrible age.

xmunk ,

Sixty is old. Let’s stop normalizing boomer politicians.

Hobbes_Dent ,

That’s ageist bullshit. Seriously. 60.

Zaktor ,

If he were shooting to be president from 60-68, sure, great. But teeing up a run from the VP slot means he’s looking at 68-76. That’s starting the most important job in the world past retirement age.

If he were some genius lawmaker with big new ideas, maybe you excuse that because they’re uniquely valuable, but nothing seems like he’s a big ideas man. You don’t need to push limits just to preserve the status quo.

tal ,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

VP doesn’t have to be about setting up a Presidential run. Harris was VP, but lots of Presidents weren’t a VP. Can just be aimed at shoring up the current ticket.

Zaktor ,

Cheney is the only VP in recent times that served with a 2-term president and didn’t go on to get the nomination and run for president. Biden was supposedly selected because Obama didn’t think he had a run in him so he’d be dedicated to the administration, but ended up running anyway.

aStonedSanta ,

It’s not ageist. 60 is old for an agile brain imo.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Cognitive decline can begin as early as age 45. The youngest you can be to be elected president is 35. Should we only have a 10-year window in which people should run?

bmj.com/…/cognitive-decline-can-begin-early-age-4…

aStonedSanta ,

65 is oldest you can run. Second term only if ran again. So oldest would be 69-73. I’d prefer that tbh.

xmunk ,

Sixty year olds are usually sharp and deeply knowledgeable. I think we should demand better for literally the most powerful person in the world though and in this case I’m less pissed off at sixty year olds in general and more specifically pissed off that we’re in a death grip of neoliberalism and politicians that aren’t planning for the long term.

America has no attention span - it is generally making decisions for today that are driven by people who won’t see the full consequences of their decisions… we need more people who actually give a shit about what the world will look like in twenty or forty years. And to be perfectly fair, some of our eldest politicians really fucking do care and I’d include Biden in those ranks… but we seriously need to change course.

TransplantedSconie , (edited )

Kamala is 59.

This guy:

Is a decorated vet

Is an astronaut

Is in a state that is a must win and makes it easier to win.

He checks a ton of boxes.

He also grows a bad ass mustache.

Yawweee877h444 ,

He directly opposes Medicare for all. Opposes the green new deal. Supported expanding oil drilling.

I’m just sayin’ if you’re gonna list positives it’s only fair to list accurate negatives too.

I will argue time and time again, opposing Medicare for all is NOT a moderate position, it’s a right leaning position.

Maggoty ,

It wasn’t expanded as most people understand it. It was supporting a round of permit auctions in the already drilling Gulf of Mexico.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •