emocratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has narrowed her search for a vice presidential running mate to two finalists, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has narrowed her search for a vice presidential running mate to two finalists, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, three sources with knowledge of the matter said on Monday.

Harris, the U.S. vice president, is expected to announce her selection by Tuesday, ahead of her first scheduled public appearance with her running mate in the evening at Temple University in Philadelphia.

    • qprimed@lemmy.mlEnglish
      35·
      4 months ago

      indeed. Bernie remains a reasonably clean and reasonably clear assessor/signaler. he makes complex political decisions that much easier for voters.

      going to miss the golden yardstick of his judgment when he finally bows out.

      • JaymesRS@literature.cafeEnglish
        5·
        4 months ago

        My sole problem is Bernie as the Oprah of politics. He enabled quite a few people/trolls who were pretty toxic, the worst of the Bernie Bro/Chapo Trap House dirtbag movement, Briahna Joy Gray, and David Sirota off the top of my head.

            • Anamnesis@lemmy.world
              1·
              4 months ago

              So your objection is with fans of the podcast legitimately calling Warren a snake for withholding her endorsement until after Biden had solidified the Dems against the left? I can’t agree with that; it was a fuckup on her part and if she was a real left wing politician she would be have thrown her support behind someone who actually believes in what she says she stands for, rather than waiting until the moderates in the party had a fait accompli. I’ve never forgiven her for that.

          • JaymesRS@literature.cafeEnglish
            1·
            4 months ago

            Bernie was and is a great senator, I voted for him in the primary in 2016. However, the people you chose to surround yourself with say a lot about what you value.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          7·
          4 months ago

          Warren is also excellent and we have a number of less popular policy wonk politicians around who are extremely driven on specific topics - Whitehouse, as an example, is excellent on climate change.

    • MagicCuboid@lemmy.world
      3·
      4 months ago

      My friends in Minneapolis are pretty enamored with Walz. I don’t think they’d be thrilled to have to share him haha

  • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
    83·
    4 months ago

    Walz would be good, just please don’t pick Shapiro. Can we avoid shooting ourselves in the foot for once? We’ve got a good thing going with Kamala.

    • TimeChild@lemmy.world
      17·
      4 months ago

      Do you think Shapiro would lock down PA? I like Walz more from what I know, but seems MN is in the bag regardless. Can’t see the strategy side of his pick other than Walz seems to be the progressive favorite, and checks the old white male box.

      • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
        31·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think he does lock down PA, his approval is solid but nothing crazy. And on top of that he has so many vulnerabilities. School vouchers and protest response, on top of old quotes being dredged out and the potential cover-up of sexual misconduct of one of his aides.

        I would have looked at Kelly for his cheap points to score with low information voters (combat decorated Navy captain, astronaut), but Walz is also incredibly popular and has a good track record.

      • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
        23·
        4 months ago

        She going choose Shapiro because DNC tells her too and fucking hurt her campaign. Goddammit for once do the right thing here Shaprio is a horrible choice that fucking none of us want. Hence why they pick him. Dumb fucking Democrats hate them.

      • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
        20·
        4 months ago

        Walz is more likely to deliver Wisconsin and maybe Michigan, which are also valuable. (And like the other commenter, I also question the ability of a VP pick to reliably deliver their home state.) Wisconsin seems to really like Walz as much as we do here in Minnesota. And I think he does well in Pennsylvania, Walz has the vibes of an older and more mellow version (but not as old as he looks, school lunchroom duty will age anyone) of what we all thought Fetterman would be. Walz is from a small town, is a former national guardsman and high school football coach, and iirc used to enjoy hunting. He appeals to working class, blue collar voters in ways very few other Democrats can. He’s also involved with the national party (possibly the convention), someone on TikTok knew something was up with Biden just before he dropped out because Walz flew to DC to meet with Biden. The establishment Democrats like him and so do the progressives - he’s exactly who we need right now.

        Also, he’s the reason we’re all calling Republicans ​weird.

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think “running mate from state X will lock down state X” deserves as much credence as political parties give it in general.

      • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
        13·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think Shapiro would lock PA. I think it’s pretty likely she could pick him and lose the state or not pick him and win.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        2·
        4 months ago

        We definitely need any help we can get with PA. If PA goes blue that opens up a few avenues to the White House. Without it I think the only route is taking every single other swing state. Or maybe a surprise flip of a red state.

      • solrize@lemmy.world
        2·
        4 months ago

        Neither state is in the bag and no one can lock down PA. Shapiro and Walz are both white males. We are in a not very good timeline no matter what, so I’ll try not to worry.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    66·
    4 months ago

    It’s gotta be Walz. Shapiro would be a slap in the face to the Arab-American community, which we all very much need the support of if we want to prevent the fascists from winning the presidency.

  • EnderWiggin@lemmy.world
    26·
    4 months ago

    I wanted Kelly, but I’d be pretty happy with Walz. Shapiro would just take the wind out of the sails.

    • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
      5·
      4 months ago

      Harris closed out her search by interviewing three top candidates - Walz, Shapiro and U.S. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona - at her Naval Observatory residence on Sunday, the sources said.

      Kelly caused a stir on Sunday night when he posted on X “Now, my mission is serving Arizonans,” which was interpreted as a sign he was no longer in the running. He deleted the post and replaced it with “I’ve learned that when your country asks you to serve, you always answer the call.”

      Sounds like nothing’s official yet about eliminating Kelly. I think he’d be the best choice as well

      • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
        2·
        4 months ago

        I really like Kelly, too. I think there was just a lot of risk involved with pulling an incumbent Democratic Senator in a swing state that could potentially give an extra seat to the Republicans in an election year that’s already difficult for the Democrats on the Senate side.

      • EnderWiggin@lemmy.world
        3·
        4 months ago

        And the more I read the more fired up I get. I have liked Walz for a while but just been spending more time reading deeper into his background, experience, and policy positions. Feels like he’ll really help drive the campaign and align to a lot of the wider progressive objectives.

      • MagicCuboid@lemmy.world
        3·
        4 months ago

        I’ve read hand-wringing over the fact that he’s Jewish and supports Israel. I’m not sure if there are other concerns.

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          4 months ago

          That’s not just hand-wringing, it’s a serious strategic concern in an election where the Dems need to mobilize young progressive voters, and those same voters are heavily depressed by the US’ complicity in an actual genocide.

          Harris needs to steer the fuck clear of anything to do with Isreal right now. She’s done a good job of keeping her own hands relatively clean on the issue so far (skipping Netanyahu’s visit was a smart choice), and it would be a serious misstep now to tie herself to anyone who has a history of strongly supporting Isreal.

          I’m not exactly expecting her to turn around and condemn Bibi and pledge to stop the war; there’s no way she’s gonna risk pissing off AIPAC like that. But she definitely needs to thread a very fine needle here, and in that context Shapiro is not the play.

          • MagicCuboid@lemmy.world
            2·
            4 months ago

            Pretty psyched she picked Walz! I agree with your concerns above, they just don’t apply to me as I’d vote either way.

    • USSMojave@startrek.websiteEnglish
      8·
      4 months ago

      Immature children on this site downvote the MBFC bot when they don’t like what they hear. Thought we were better than that

      Edit: and there you go, proving my point 🙂

      • subignition@fedia.io
        9·
        4 months ago

        Doing the whole “you’re downvoting me so I must be right” bit is pretty immature all on its own tbh

      • reddithalation@sopuli.xyz
        3·
        4 months ago

        i really don’t like the idea of ground news though, they act all unbiased an etc and then tell you exactly how biased your media is and what to think about it, AND THEN summarize it with (surely 100% trustworthy and pure) LLMs.

  • PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk
    8·
    4 months ago

    Brit here, coming in peace: why was Pete Butt-something not closer in the fight for the running mate slot?

    He seems to be fairly sensible, youthful, a bit of charisma about him, and seems like he would represent the country well to outsiders.

    • abrake@lemmy.world
      18·
      4 months ago

      Just guessing but:

      1. He’s gay and that might turn off some swing voters especially people who are already hesitant about having a black woman at the top of the ticket
      2. He’s never won any election beyond a municipal one, so he may be seen as electorally untested.
      3. His resume is a bit thin with just his time as a mayor of a small town and time as the transportation secretary.
      • PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk
        5·
        4 months ago

        Thanks for taking the time to get back to me, it’s appreciated from across the pond.

        As for point 1, I thought that would be a strength. I don’t think anyone from backwardsville would vote Democrat anyway so his sexuality wouldn’t be an issue, but I’d have thought a different viewpoint would have been appreciated little more amongst the blue electorate.

        As for the second and third points, I guess that’s a valid concern. I’m hoping that the pivot away from ancient politicians taking top roles will make more of an impact and allow those with a shorter track record to shine - very much like the Trudeaus, Attals, or Marins elsewhere in the world.

        Thanks all the same!

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          3·
          4 months ago

          As someone else from the US I think your analysis on point 1 is correct. Anyone so dedicated to bigotry to be turned off by a really charismatic and vanilla gay man was already voting for Trump. Democrats way too often jump at shadows of secret bigots in their mind and end up enforcing bigotry in the process. Even right now the idea that the VP must be a white man is ridiculous.

          I’m not saying all the various forms of bigotry are solved, but if you’re voting based on minority traits of a VP, you already knew who your candidate was with or without them.

    • MrVilliam@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      4 months ago

      Excellent question. I think the answer is that the people who choose such things are thinking more about election strategy than job performance. And while I think this is not an issue with anybody who would vote for Harris in the first place, the people making the choice might think that Buttigieg’s sexuality hurts election chances? Or maybe because he has young kids at home that he might want to be there for? Idk, I thought he didn’t have enough experience when he ran for president, but Biden fucking nailed it by making him Secretary of Transportation. He’s killing it and developing much-needed political capital and federal experience to the point that I think he’s ready now. He’ll have his turn very soon, I’m pretty sure. Potential presidential nominee in 32.

      • PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk
        3·
        4 months ago

        Brilliant answer, thank you for your time and effort. We seem to be in the same page - he seems to be a young and idealistic politician where he hasn’t really put a foot wrong yet.

        Looking at the alternatives with an outsider’s perspective, there just doesn’t seem to be anybody on Pete’s level but I guess that’s a very subjective opinion.

        Thanks all the same!

  • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    4 months ago

    I would’d have a problem with either. But “Harris/Shapiro” sounds like a personal injury law firm, while “Harris/Walz” sounds like some political consultant firm.

    Either is better than “Trump/Vance”, which just sounds weird.

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
    2·
    4 months ago

    Walz.

    Harris is the single most likely candidate to be assassinated in living memory. I’d prefer her backup to not be someone that doesn’t support universal healthcare. And he backs school vouchers and the, you know, fucking genocide.