this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
341 points (90.5% liked)

politics

19229 readers
3422 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Etterra 77 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Sure dude, but no offense, I'm hoping for the war veteran, swing state astronaut. Strategically he looks like the best choice IMO.

[–] Mad__vegan 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I liked him too until I found out it would prompt a special election that Democrats could likely lose

[–] takeda 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] taiyang 33 points 4 months ago (2 children)

He's a sitting senator of a red leaning state who won because of who he is. He has to vacate to run for VP, which is bad for keeping that seat. Losing the senate easily hamstrings any efforts a President Harris would bring, especially with GOP being the way they are.

Granted, that can be a problem for all swing state guys. Just isn't as terrible for governors (although that can screw with other things, like voting rights in a given state).

[–] spamfajitas 54 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Senator Kelly's replacement would be required by Arizona law to be a Democrat appointed by the Governor (also currently a Democrat). The special election to replace the replacement wouldn't be until 2026. If he's the right one for the job, it might be worth potentially taking a hit 2 years into a Harris administration.

[–] taiyang 13 points 4 months ago

That's a good point. I didn't know it wasn't until 2026. The main point is to sure up Arizona, which is understandable. The guy from Pennsylvania might be good for that reason, too, but that's a little less iffy as it's a little more blue, especially since it sounds like Philly is loving the Harris hype.

[–] GlendatheGayWitch 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

How is he both the Secretary of Transportation and a Senator simultaneously?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

He's not? They're talking about Mark Kelly.

[–] taiyang 2 points 4 months ago

It's in reference to Kelly, as per earlier comments.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He's pretty moderate though. I'm not sure he's really the best choice nationally - Harris won't need help bringing the middle over, she needs to convince progressives to vote.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, actual progressives will vote against fascism, no question. Don't let the trolls fool you. It's the people in red areas with only modest critical thinking skills that need to be won over. Hammer home the fact that Kelly isn't an absolute nutter. Paint that as the big difference between him and the republican ticket. And have the fact that he was in the military proudly displayed, and the fact that he was an astronaut can bring up the rear of their message.

People who love astronauts are already into science. It's the classic conservatives/moderates that need to be won over.

[–] Etterra 3 points 4 months ago

The progressives need motivation more than anything, and now they have it with Harris. It's the wishy-washy groups - centrists, right of center, and undecided (how can you be undecided right now wtf?!) - that need coaxing.