More campaign advice than VP choice advice, but, put the Harris-Biden Israel-Ukraine support against Putin-Hamas front and center of the campaign. Link Trump's attempted coup, cozying up to Russia, and Republican resistance to aid to Ukraine. As side benefit, it can with luck produce a Sista Solja moment for a noisy break with that winglet of the Party.
Democrats need to put an ad campaign showing Republicans being friendly with Russians like Putin, Russian oligarchs on their yachts and in their gaudy palaces, and the crushing, depressing poverty and crime in Russia, set to sad Soviet Union music with a message like "This Is the Future Republicans Want" and a link to a website that details the similarities between the modern Republican Party and Putin's United Russia party.
Fwiw Roosevelt "picked" Garner because he needed his delegates to get the 2/3 required delegates. Dem nominees had less leeway to really pick their own running mates for a long time because of the politicking needed to overcome the 2/3 rule and the need to mollify factions in the strange post-Civil War Dem coalition.
Not that this really matters but you had a similar issue with Whigs when William Henry Harrison was stuck with Tyler to appease southern Whigs and then you had the weird case of the southerner Zachary Taylor getting the northerner Fillmore foisted on him although the two ended up being on the opposite side of the slavery issue from what you would expect.
By recruiting retired General Mark Milley, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as her VP, Harris would have a VP with tons of national and international experience and skills, a man full ready to take over as President, if needed, and one able campaign effectively against Trump and Vance, and a man who just happens to be white but who the record shows earned every promotion coming up through the ranks in the army over 45 years of distinguished service. Our military has a much higher favorability rating than any other branch of our federal government. 2032 is a very long way off. Let's not insist we cross that bridge before the bridge of this November. Perhaps you, Mr. Yglesias, as journalist might inquire of VP Harris if she might consider General Milley as worthy of being among those to be vetted?
This gets to why I hope she picks Walz. If Walz were running for president in a primary against the current field of VP contenders, I’d probably vote for him.
Matt, what’s your take on Sec Pete? He’s notably missing. His abilities on the stump seem to be worth something and he’s obviously prime President age in 1-2 terms.
I'm a Democrat who lives in Arizona and am frankly relieved you did not mention Mark Kelly, since I have heard him suggested. I think there has to be a larger, more long term calculation too, especially if there are a number of equally good VP picks to choose from. If she picked Kelly and won, that would take away a popular Democratic senator in a state that has had few in the last decades. Losing a Democratic senator in an important swing state might damage Democrats much more in the end than having him as VP. As much as I loved Obama, it was devastating for Arizona when he picked her to be head of Homeland Security in 2007, only a year after she had become Governor.
Harris needs to tweet out a link to that piece, saying over it: "Suck a lime, you whiny losers, we've got places to go," accompanied by a picture of her sitting in the driver's seat of the most boat-like American car possible (cherry '72 Cadillac El Dorado convertible, perhaps). Instant 5%+ polling bump guaranteed!
A recent study says that AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) is likely to shut down sometime this century due to climate change (melting polar ice dumping a bunch of freshwater into the northern Atlantic).
If it's true, and if the AMOC shuts down, Britain and a big chunk of northern Europe will become unlivable, or at least impossible to grow crops in.
I know, I know, we have an election to win. I want Kamala to win! I loathe Agent Orange! But it's just so, so terribly sad to me that in order to win we have to double down on "drill baby drill" and "cheap fossil fuels for everyone, f**k yeah!" Climate change is, to borrow an expression from our President, a big effing deal, and I don't know how convinced I am that EVs will save us.
Don't get me wrong, I love green energy, but isn't it time to go for both, and: yes, we need green energy *and* we need to cut down on fossil fuels? Are we ever going to have a CO2 tax or will it continue to be political suicide forever?
At the very least, bragging about burning up fossil fuels to drive a big-ass car and calling people who complain about it "losers" strikes me as somewhere between clueless and obnoxious.
And this is why I will never run for office in the US.
"Don't get me wrong, I love green energy, but isn't it time to go for both, and: yes, we need green energy *and* we need to cut down on fossil fuels? Are we ever going to have a CO2 tax or will it continue to be political suicide forever?"
The answer to (b) depends on (a).
If we have lots of useful green energy and electric cars, a CO2 tax will be politically tolerable. If we don't, it won't. That's the reason everyone is focusing on green energy and electric cars first.
No country in the world is going to vote to reduce their material living standards.
I was close to writing something very similar before I read this. The casually dismissive treatment of this issue on this substack (including often by the owner/author) really irks me. It simply is not the case that because fracking is popular in swing states and because people like cheap gasoline everywhere that it's ok to treat climate change as an "unpopular" issue that should be shunned and mocked. In fact, it's a monumentally dumb attitude that will make all our governance problems worse in the medium term.
I will stress that I agree climate change is a problem. Here's the thing though: it should be painfully obvious at this point that Democrats will do more for environmental issues than Republicans -- in his last administration, Trump literally had a plan to subsidize coal burning power plants to undercut renewables and keep marginal coal mining operations in business. Not affirmatively banning fracking is far less damaging to the environment than that!
I understand and agree with that, but I am reacting to a more general vibe on here that tends to underplay the reality and scale of the problem because it is perceived to lack electoral salience. I think the Obama/Biden and Biden/Harris administrations have generally played this issue correctly, emphasizing the need to address the problem over the long term, recognizing that the transition will be relatively slow (decades long), and investing in the industries required to both hasten the transition and capture a larger share of global GDP growth associated with green energy and industries. The deepest green approaches have been rejected, not because they are "wrong", but because they are currently impractical. But the goal should be to make those approaches practical with more innovation, investment, inducement and better policies.
"it's ok to treat climate change as an "unpopular" issue that should be shunned and mocked"
Nobody on here is saying we should shun and mock climate change as an issue. Just that we should shun and mock people who advocate reducing living standards to fight it, because that strategy is never going to be a success anyway.
Fighting climate change (as long as the costs aren't too high) is very broadly popular and it's not wrong at all for politicians to do it or even talk about doing it. Just don't support policies that will lose you the election and don't make it your #1 campaign issue (because there are other things that people care more about).
"The deepest green approaches have been rejected, not because they are "wrong", but because they are currently impractical. But the goal should be to make those approaches practical with more innovation, investment, inducement and better policies."
This is literally the exact view of Matt and most SB commenters.
I think the “white man” DEI is unintentionally great. Kamala is using it to consider better qualified candidates than she would otherwise be able to within the dem coalition. Dems speak in inclusion, so she’s working her audience. Maybe Wes Moore is unfairly excluded. But, idk, Maryland is a deep blue state like California so he doesn’t have proven swing-state appeal.
>Biden would be too old to harbor his own continued presidential aspirations (oops)
This is, I think, unfair.
Biden stood aside for Hillary for the good of the party. He came out of retirement in 2020 because he was (rightly) convinced that he was the only one who could defeat the incumbent. He dropped out for the good of the country.
Even though Harris took positions farther left than ideal in 2020, my home is that this was doing what she had to do to cater to Democratic primary voters, and that Harris is a smart enough politician to know that to win a general election, you have to pivot to the center.
It should be noted that even Trump is going through the motions of attempting to pivot to the center. While I certainly don't believe him when he says he won't use his executive authority to ban all abortions in blue states, or his recent attempts to distance himself from project 2025, I will give credit when credit is due, that he is at least making the attempt. Harris needs to do similar. On the border specifically, Harris needs to take credit for the reduction in migrant crossings and directly pledge to continue Biden's recent asylum restrictions.
Maybe I overestimate the shallow judgment of the average voter but I think some people need to be scratched from the list because they are just too far outside how we picture a president or vice president. Both Jared Polis and Pritzker fall into this category for me.
This relates to one of my biggest veepstakes bugaboos, which is that people wildly overrate the chances of VP candidates without Washington experience. Quick: who was the last Democratic VP nominee without Washington experience? And who was the last Republican? The one before that?
The worst possible VP pick is someone who hurts the tickets chances of winning. The second worst is one who stops being useful on November 6. What’s the point of Josh Shapiro after you’ve won Pennsylvania? What does Roy Cooper bring to the Harris administration?
My question, which we may see answered in November, is how much she can even fix her issues. The perception is that Biden was too left and Harris is by all accounts much further to the left than Biden. Harris would need to pivot so far that I just don't see it being enough.
This relates back to the original sin: a seasoned californian politician does not make a great VP pick. Biden shouldn't have even chose her in the first place.
More campaign advice than VP choice advice, but, put the Harris-Biden Israel-Ukraine support against Putin-Hamas front and center of the campaign. Link Trump's attempted coup, cozying up to Russia, and Republican resistance to aid to Ukraine. As side benefit, it can with luck produce a Sista Solja moment for a noisy break with that winglet of the Party.
Democrats need to put an ad campaign showing Republicans being friendly with Russians like Putin, Russian oligarchs on their yachts and in their gaudy palaces, and the crushing, depressing poverty and crime in Russia, set to sad Soviet Union music with a message like "This Is the Future Republicans Want" and a link to a website that details the similarities between the modern Republican Party and Putin's United Russia party.
Fwiw Roosevelt "picked" Garner because he needed his delegates to get the 2/3 required delegates. Dem nominees had less leeway to really pick their own running mates for a long time because of the politicking needed to overcome the 2/3 rule and the need to mollify factions in the strange post-Civil War Dem coalition.
Not that this really matters but you had a similar issue with Whigs when William Henry Harrison was stuck with Tyler to appease southern Whigs and then you had the weird case of the southerner Zachary Taylor getting the northerner Fillmore foisted on him although the two ended up being on the opposite side of the slavery issue from what you would expect.
By recruiting retired General Mark Milley, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as her VP, Harris would have a VP with tons of national and international experience and skills, a man full ready to take over as President, if needed, and one able campaign effectively against Trump and Vance, and a man who just happens to be white but who the record shows earned every promotion coming up through the ranks in the army over 45 years of distinguished service. Our military has a much higher favorability rating than any other branch of our federal government. 2032 is a very long way off. Let's not insist we cross that bridge before the bridge of this November. Perhaps you, Mr. Yglesias, as journalist might inquire of VP Harris if she might consider General Milley as worthy of being among those to be vetted?
This gets to why I hope she picks Walz. If Walz were running for president in a primary against the current field of VP contenders, I’d probably vote for him.
Matt, what’s your take on Sec Pete? He’s notably missing. His abilities on the stump seem to be worth something and he’s obviously prime President age in 1-2 terms.
He's being vetted and his husband and the Second Gentleman are doing a Harris fundraiser together on August 2. Clearly under consideration.
What do you think about Mark Kelly?
I'm a Democrat who lives in Arizona and am frankly relieved you did not mention Mark Kelly, since I have heard him suggested. I think there has to be a larger, more long term calculation too, especially if there are a number of equally good VP picks to choose from. If she picked Kelly and won, that would take away a popular Democratic senator in a state that has had few in the last decades. Losing a Democratic senator in an important swing state might damage Democrats much more in the end than having him as VP. As much as I loved Obama, it was devastating for Arizona when he picked her to be head of Homeland Security in 2007, only a year after she had become Governor.
Matt, the "merit" ship has sailed both practicality and ideologically from the D party.
Certainly not compared to the R party...
>>One that emphasizes the record fossil fuel production in the Biden-Harris administration<<
The Guardian seems very cross at the Biden administration for making America "the world's biggest fossil fuel state."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/24/fossil-fuel-liquified-natural-gas-louisiana
Harris needs to tweet out a link to that piece, saying over it: "Suck a lime, you whiny losers, we've got places to go," accompanied by a picture of her sitting in the driver's seat of the most boat-like American car possible (cherry '72 Cadillac El Dorado convertible, perhaps). Instant 5%+ polling bump guaranteed!
A recent study says that AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) is likely to shut down sometime this century due to climate change (melting polar ice dumping a bunch of freshwater into the northern Atlantic).
If it's true, and if the AMOC shuts down, Britain and a big chunk of northern Europe will become unlivable, or at least impossible to grow crops in.
I know, I know, we have an election to win. I want Kamala to win! I loathe Agent Orange! But it's just so, so terribly sad to me that in order to win we have to double down on "drill baby drill" and "cheap fossil fuels for everyone, f**k yeah!" Climate change is, to borrow an expression from our President, a big effing deal, and I don't know how convinced I am that EVs will save us.
Don't get me wrong, I love green energy, but isn't it time to go for both, and: yes, we need green energy *and* we need to cut down on fossil fuels? Are we ever going to have a CO2 tax or will it continue to be political suicide forever?
At the very least, bragging about burning up fossil fuels to drive a big-ass car and calling people who complain about it "losers" strikes me as somewhere between clueless and obnoxious.
And this is why I will never run for office in the US.
"Don't get me wrong, I love green energy, but isn't it time to go for both, and: yes, we need green energy *and* we need to cut down on fossil fuels? Are we ever going to have a CO2 tax or will it continue to be political suicide forever?"
The answer to (b) depends on (a).
If we have lots of useful green energy and electric cars, a CO2 tax will be politically tolerable. If we don't, it won't. That's the reason everyone is focusing on green energy and electric cars first.
No country in the world is going to vote to reduce their material living standards.
I was close to writing something very similar before I read this. The casually dismissive treatment of this issue on this substack (including often by the owner/author) really irks me. It simply is not the case that because fracking is popular in swing states and because people like cheap gasoline everywhere that it's ok to treat climate change as an "unpopular" issue that should be shunned and mocked. In fact, it's a monumentally dumb attitude that will make all our governance problems worse in the medium term.
I will stress that I agree climate change is a problem. Here's the thing though: it should be painfully obvious at this point that Democrats will do more for environmental issues than Republicans -- in his last administration, Trump literally had a plan to subsidize coal burning power plants to undercut renewables and keep marginal coal mining operations in business. Not affirmatively banning fracking is far less damaging to the environment than that!
I understand and agree with that, but I am reacting to a more general vibe on here that tends to underplay the reality and scale of the problem because it is perceived to lack electoral salience. I think the Obama/Biden and Biden/Harris administrations have generally played this issue correctly, emphasizing the need to address the problem over the long term, recognizing that the transition will be relatively slow (decades long), and investing in the industries required to both hasten the transition and capture a larger share of global GDP growth associated with green energy and industries. The deepest green approaches have been rejected, not because they are "wrong", but because they are currently impractical. But the goal should be to make those approaches practical with more innovation, investment, inducement and better policies.
"it's ok to treat climate change as an "unpopular" issue that should be shunned and mocked"
Nobody on here is saying we should shun and mock climate change as an issue. Just that we should shun and mock people who advocate reducing living standards to fight it, because that strategy is never going to be a success anyway.
Fighting climate change (as long as the costs aren't too high) is very broadly popular and it's not wrong at all for politicians to do it or even talk about doing it. Just don't support policies that will lose you the election and don't make it your #1 campaign issue (because there are other things that people care more about).
"The deepest green approaches have been rejected, not because they are "wrong", but because they are currently impractical. But the goal should be to make those approaches practical with more innovation, investment, inducement and better policies."
This is literally the exact view of Matt and most SB commenters.
"somewhere between clueless and obnoxious"
Yes, but you've just described the median undecided voter in a race between Harris and Trump!
☹️
[Imagine the "Why Are You Booing Me? I'm Right!" animated GIF here]
I think the “white man” DEI is unintentionally great. Kamala is using it to consider better qualified candidates than she would otherwise be able to within the dem coalition. Dems speak in inclusion, so she’s working her audience. Maybe Wes Moore is unfairly excluded. But, idk, Maryland is a deep blue state like California so he doesn’t have proven swing-state appeal.
Moore has said no.
>Biden would be too old to harbor his own continued presidential aspirations (oops)
This is, I think, unfair.
Biden stood aside for Hillary for the good of the party. He came out of retirement in 2020 because he was (rightly) convinced that he was the only one who could defeat the incumbent. He dropped out for the good of the country.
If only all of us had such "aspirations"
Even though Harris took positions farther left than ideal in 2020, my home is that this was doing what she had to do to cater to Democratic primary voters, and that Harris is a smart enough politician to know that to win a general election, you have to pivot to the center.
It should be noted that even Trump is going through the motions of attempting to pivot to the center. While I certainly don't believe him when he says he won't use his executive authority to ban all abortions in blue states, or his recent attempts to distance himself from project 2025, I will give credit when credit is due, that he is at least making the attempt. Harris needs to do similar. On the border specifically, Harris needs to take credit for the reduction in migrant crossings and directly pledge to continue Biden's recent asylum restrictions.
Maybe I overestimate the shallow judgment of the average voter but I think some people need to be scratched from the list because they are just too far outside how we picture a president or vice president. Both Jared Polis and Pritzker fall into this category for me.
By "outside the picture" do you mean they "fill the frame", as it were?
I just don't want them to take Polis away from Colorado.
This relates to one of my biggest veepstakes bugaboos, which is that people wildly overrate the chances of VP candidates without Washington experience. Quick: who was the last Democratic VP nominee without Washington experience? And who was the last Republican? The one before that?
The worst possible VP pick is someone who hurts the tickets chances of winning. The second worst is one who stops being useful on November 6. What’s the point of Josh Shapiro after you’ve won Pennsylvania? What does Roy Cooper bring to the Harris administration?
It’s hard to compare Washington experience and executive experience. Both are important.
Get you a man who has both. (ie Tim Walz)
My question, which we may see answered in November, is how much she can even fix her issues. The perception is that Biden was too left and Harris is by all accounts much further to the left than Biden. Harris would need to pivot so far that I just don't see it being enough.
This relates back to the original sin: a seasoned californian politician does not make a great VP pick. Biden shouldn't have even chose her in the first place.
For what’s it worth I think Shapiro is the best match aesthetically. They’d just look great together in ads. Complementary.