Harris's VP Pick
- Thread starter TGHusker
- Start date
TGHusker
Well-known member
I personally would like Ky Gov Andy Beshear - he is a good communicator and a man of great compassion and is popular in his deep red state. However, strategically, I went with Roy Cooper, Gov of NC. I think Ky will vote for the felon regardless, but Pa and NC could determine the outcome. I'm tossed between Shapiro and Cooper. I went with Cooper because I think Harris will hold the Biden win in Pa from 2020. Trump barely won NC in 2020 and with the popular NC governor on the ticket, I think Harris can win that state and that could ultimately be the difference if she flips it to blue.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
My top three are Beshear, Kelly or Shapiro.
I'll go with Shapiro.
I've been a fan of Newsome. He would absolutely destroy Vance in a debate. However, I think there's too much baggage with him and bills he's signed into law in California. Many people blame him for the high cost of living there.
I like Pete. But, I also like him in his current position.
I'll go with Shapiro.
I've been a fan of Newsome. He would absolutely destroy Vance in a debate. However, I think there's too much baggage with him and bills he's signed into law in California. Many people blame him for the high cost of living there.
I like Pete. But, I also like him in his current position.
Last edited by a moderator:
TGHusker
Well-known member
I made the assumption that she will hold Pa - thus my vote for Cooper. I may be overconfident in that assumption however. If it is squeaky close, then Shapiro is the right choice and a NC win is just a cherry on top.
schriznoeder
New member
Strategically, I prefer Shapiro or Cooper. Personally, I prefer Buttigieg, so I voted for him.
Also, I just learned that the 12th Amendment pretty much precludes Newsom from filling the VP role in this instance (plus I think he's saving himself for a presidential run in 2028). It states that the presidential and vice-presidential candidate on the same ticket can't both reside in the same state as where the electors reside. Well, they can technically, but it would null and void the electoral votes from that state. And the D's definitely can't afford that net -54 in their vote column.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/
Also, I just learned that the 12th Amendment pretty much precludes Newsom from filling the VP role in this instance (plus I think he's saving himself for a presidential run in 2028). It states that the presidential and vice-presidential candidate on the same ticket can't both reside in the same state as where the electors reside. Well, they can technically, but it would null and void the electoral votes from that state. And the D's definitely can't afford that net -54 in their vote column.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221
Well-known member
Why would his reasoning be waiting for 2028? Is he expecting Kamala to lose in 2024? Or is he expecting Kamala to win and just be awful as a President and run against her when she would be an incumbent?
schriznoeder
New member
I probably should have said 2028/2032. If Harris wins and doesn't seek reelection, then Newsom throws his name in the hat in 2028. If Harris wins and does seek reelection, then Newsom waits until 2032.
TGHusker
Well-known member
I think there were a lot of Dems caught flatfooted here. If Biden had said in Oct of last year, that he was going to be that promised transitional President and serve only one term, then I think we would have seen Whitmer, Newsom and several others on this list running and vetting themselves in a full primary season. Now, I think some are wondering if their opportunity is 8 years away -- my pure speculation based on nothing but trying to put myself in their shoes. If Harris wins and does well -then she has the power of the incumbent. If she wins now and does terrible - most likely she runs again and will be running against a charged up GOP voting block after 8 years of Biden/Harris. Not sure Newsom, etc want to be the sacrificial lamb during 2028 if Harris governs poorly. It might be like Ted Kennedy running against Carter in 1980.
Mierin
Donor
Was this rule created in the 18th century because the states rights people didn’t want one of the states’ perspectives to dominate?
I can’t think of any other logic.
Last edited by a moderator:
schriznoeder
New member
Archy1221
Well-known member
TGHusker
Well-known member
Much earlier - had more to do with the selection of Adams as president & Jefferson as VP in 1796 (would be like Biden as President and Trump as VP in today's world) And the very messy election of 1800 involving Adams, Jefferson, Burr --which lead to the Hamilton/Burr bad ending - Hamilton dead, Burr a political piranha.
A couple good explainers:
https://www.thoughtco.com/12th-amendment-4176911
https://constitution.laws.com/12th-amendment
The 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution refined the manner in which the President and Vice President of the United States are elected by the Electoral College. Intended to address unforeseen political problems resulting from the presidential elections of 1796 and 1800, the 12th Amendment replaced the procedure originally provided for in Article II, Section 1. The amendment was passed by Congress on December 9, 1803, and ratified by the states on June 15, 1804.
Key Takeaways: 12th Amendment
- The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution modified the way in which the president and vice president are elected under the Electoral College system.
- The amendment requires that the electors of the Electoral College cast separate votes for president and vice president, rather than two votes for president.
- It was approved by Congress on December 9, 1803, and ratified by the states, becoming a part of the Constitution on June 15, 1804.
Last edited by a moderator: