He definitely has more baggage than the other choices:
Except if you read the editorial he wrote, he’s mainly critiquing Arafat and the PLO. He literally says he supports peace but doesn’t think it’s realistic (edit: and closes the article by saying that he hopes he’s proved wrong). He also mentions how Israel won’t relinquish sufficient land to Palestine for peace to be made.
There are many legitimate criticisms of Shapiro (your first link, for example, as well as his flip-flopping on school vouchers), but claiming he’s significantly more pro-Israel than any of the other candidates is misleading. I’m not aware of any other candidates who called Netanyahu the “biggest barrier” to Middle East peace.
But is the average voter going to actually read his editorial and form their own opinion? Or will they get swayed by loose quotes and bad optics?
Good point. But then we shouldn’t be pushing those quotes imo
Either way, Waltz is probably better as a VP pick anyway.
Looks like she picked Walz today.
I’m sorry, but progressives are a wing, not a core. If you want us to become the core, we need to convince people of the importance of simple progressive policies, and how they can benefit people out in their day-to-day life. Not just assume we already are something we’re not.
This is especially important these days, when so many independents are fleeing Trump, and applying pressure to the dem party to move closer to the center to court them. We need to convince some of them to become more of us, increasing our numbers.
Then we actually will be core. We can’t just lie about the dem voters not leaning more neo-lib than progressive, though, that accomplishes nothing.
What is the top issue among dem voters this cycle? It isn’t Gaza or the climate, it’s the economy. Again. 63% of dem voters said it’s the top priority as of Feb. That’s a majority, a core, and not a particularly progressive position.
They’re just people, though, they can be convinced of the primary importance of sustainability.
What is the top issue among dem voters this cycle? It isn’t Gaza or the climate, it’s the economy. Again. 63% of dem voters said it’s the top priority as of Feb. That’s a majority, a core, and not a particularly progressive position.
Since when is the economy not a progressive issue? IMO the primary failing of the Democratic Party has been its utter refusal (probably due to the influence of corporate donors) to apply any progressive solutions to economic issues.
Perhaps, at the same level as all our other issues, in specifically an income inequality framing. Though usually we’d specifically say “income inequality”, where when a typical American says “economy” they mean unemployment rate, stock market and these days, inflation.
Walz plz
Shapiro is an argument to sacrifice MI and WI for PA, and it doesn’t even come close to guaranteeing PA.
You have no path to the white house with our MI and WI.
On Wednesday, he continued his sentiment noting that protesting is a right that should be protected, but that a Jewish-owned business should not be held responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.
That’s from their linked article about how he tried to stifle free speech by condemning protestors. Yet the article says he said they should protest elsewhere and not attack Jewish businesses.
These articles critiquing him on Israel always seem to omit that Shapiro has called Netanyahu the “biggest barrier” to peace in the Middle East. They also omit that his college editorial focuses on his personal views on Arafat. Even though he opines that both sides should set aside their differences for peace, the point of that article is that he doesn’t think it’ll happen.
The article goes on to say he made “a false equivalence between criticism of Israel and antisemitism.” Again, he literally said they should protest not in front of businesses, as well as one other comment where he said the encampments were unsafe.
I also think it’s laughable that these same people continue to hold up Walz as some sort of example of perfection. He has refused to engage with the BDS movement and actively engaged with AIPAC (more than Shapiro has, from my understanding). He even stated “Israel is our truest and closest ally in the region, with a commitment to values of personal freedoms and liberties, surrounded by a pretty tough neighborhood.” The only thing he’s done that is remotely in support of Palestine is to say that Democrats shouldn’t ignore the uncommitted activists if they want to win. That’s a logical statement about the math behind winning an election, not a support of Palestine.
I gotta say, I didn’t know much about Shapiro before this so started, and frankly I still don’t.
But nothing is more suspicious than seeing someone go from limited mention to being called a zionist constantly, 0 to 100 like I’ve seen with Shapiro.
But nothing is more suspicious than seeing someone go from limited mention to being called a zionist constantly
I think that’s a pretty natural consequence of:
-
Reports that he is the front-runner to be Harris’s vice-presidential pick (which pretty naturally takes someone from “who?” to the topic of national discussion); and
-
The Philadelphia Inquirer digging up an old op-ed where he says that the Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves.
I’m going to skip over everything else that has been reported about that op-ed and focus on that one line. Because that is bonkers.
I do believe people’s political opinions can change, and that’s why I’ll forgive most of the op-ed (my opinions have certainly changed since I was 20, and I’m not much younger than Shapiro). But that one line speaks to a bigoted, colonialist mindset that would have been more at home in the 1860s than the 1990s.
I honestly think it’s disqualifying. For someone to think like that at age 20 points to such a lack of empathy, it’s probably the sign of a sociopathic personality.
-
deleted by creator
Makes zero difference for me. I’ll vote for Harris no matter who the Vice is.
Then you are not the target audience for a vp pick.
Correct. But each potential VP has it’s advantages and disadvantages. It’s utterly impossible to predict which one will gain and lose more. It’s like timing the markets. Can’t be done. At the end of the day, Harris is at the top going up against Trump, and that will be the deciding factor.
VP pick shouldn’t be for pleasing a certain demographics.
Change my mind.
☕
Sure, if your intent is to lose the election.
Presidential pick is for pleasing a certain demographic
If you don’t lock in something with a vp pick, you are doing it wrong.
Oh good, I was worried for a minute that we needed more than your vote.
We made sure that he hasn’t fucked any furniture, right?
I think there is a playbook for vetting any inanimate object fucking at this point after the Vance thing.
John Cena for VP?
Nobody can see him.
Isnt that Dave Bautista?
Only when he’s standing very, very, very still.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Nice try, Kamala.
Very sane mod here lmao 🥾👅
There is one functional question for a VP pick. Can they give me the state I need?
And Pennsylvania is it folks. Georgia is nice, but not a dependable thing. From the Campaign’s POV, if Shapiro can secure Pennsylvania and he doesn’t have a literal serial killer body dump in his backyard, they’re going to smash that button.
A) It’s not a given that Shapiro will deliver PA. B) Even if he does, he makes Michigan a loss. C) Bad VP picks lower enthusiasm. Hillary chose to ignore the progressive voters that were energized by Bernie’s campaign and instead picked boring centrist Tim Kaine. It turned out to he a bad strategy, even if it did deliver Virginia.
Do you have any data to support that?
Well, over 100,000 Democrats voted, “Uncommitted,” in the primaries because of the genocide in Gaza, which was already nearly the 150,000 that Biden carried the state by in 2020, and well more than the 10,000 that Clinton lost by in 2016. Most polls still have Harris behind Trump in Michigan, so picking an Israel apologist as VP is almost certainly going to make Michigan go red.
As for Tim Kaine, I can give you two main data ponts: 4.4 million voters who turned out for Obama stayed home for Clinton, and Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election. It’s hard to quantify how much of that lack of enthusiasm was caused by her poor VP pick, but it’s safe to say an obscure centrist senator certainly didn’t generate any enthusiasm.
Anyway, I don’t know if that data is up to your standards, but since you didn’t supply any to back up your assertions, I’m not sure it matters.
They voted uncommitted because Biden is literally sending bombs and money. Not because he said he supports Israel. They also made it a huge point to say they’d vote for Biden in the general election. And they’ve largely gone inactive since March.
Also, you must not have looked at the polling recently. She’s ahead in Michigan. The best Trump is doing is getting dead even without Kennedy in the poll.
If you’re going to withhold your vote over one of the least powerful positions in our government then you either don’t understand how the vice presidency works or you weren’t going to vote for Harris anyways.
Only one poll has Harris with a large lead, most polls conducted at about the same time show Trump with a slight lead, and the Five Thirty-Eight average has them in a statistical tie. Seems much more likely that the one poll is an outlier rather than Harris suddenly gaining a 10 point lead in a matter of days. Also, while the leaders of the Uncommitted movement may support Biden in the general, that doesn’t mean that they speak for the entire Muslim population of Michigan, and on the ground reporting indicates they definitely don’t.
I’m not going to withhold my vote over a Shapiro pick, but I think there are a lot of people in Dearborn who might feel differently. Harris is a part of the Biden administration, so if she wants to win back Muslim Americans, she’s going to need to show she differs from Biden on Gaza. Shapiro says the opposite.
Anyway, I’m getting a lot of conjecture and opinion here, but not a lot of data, so I think I’m gonna leave it at this.
The only polls with trump in the lead are SoCal and Redfield who always skew right. Like I said above, everything else runs equal to Harris lead.
Which is why the polling averages look like this.
And in your own article, about Biden, from April, they say they’d vote for Biden against Trump.
You’re running away because you shot your mouth off and you’re just now realizing the data doesn’t actually support you.
Edit to add - imgur threw an NSFW warning on it… That’s hilarious.
JFC, I guess I’m breaking the data down for you:
Public Opinion Strategies (7/23-7/29): Harris: 45% Trump 45%
Morning Consult (7/24-7/28): Harris: 53% Trump 42% (This is a HUGE outlier)
SoCal Research (7/25-7/26): Harris: 46% Trump: 49%
Redfield and Winton Strategies (7/22-7/24): Harris: 41% Trump: 44%
Glengariff Group (7/22-7/24): Harris: 42% Trump: 41% (Only other poll with Harris having a slight lead, and it’s within the margin of error)
Emerson (7/22-7/24): Harris: 49% Trump: 51% (Though this one does have them tried if you add in third parties)
So, when you said, “You must not have looked at the polling recently. She’s ahead in Michigan,” (and by the way, dont think I didnt catch that goalpost move with, “equal to Harris lead”) that wasn’t really true; she’s ahead in one of the 3 latest polls (by a margin so large it seems like a polling mistake), and she’s only ahead in two of the six polls done in the last month. You are right though, the 538 Average does have her up by 2.2%, but again, that’s probably mostly because one poll is giving her a ten point lead, which is a huge outlier from the rest of the data.
Anyway, is the data good enough for you yet, guy who demands data but only cites a signal polling average throughout his grand assertions about Shapiro, Harris, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan? Have I finally given you enough proof to meet your rigorous evidentiary standards? Standards which you yourself will not meet? Well, I actually don’t care. Here’s a bunch of quotes from the article you think proves, “they,” will vote for Biden:
“If it came down to Trump and Joe Biden, I will vote for Trump. Because it doesn’t get worse than Joe Biden,” a man named Salah told me.
I’ve now come to understand the incandescent rage many feel toward Biden. And in Dearborn, I heard a lot more than distaste for him. I heard many who fully believe that Donald Trump will fight for them more than Joe Biden—and plan to take that belief to the ballot box in November.
“What do they say? ‘What are they going to do, vote for the guy that banned Arabs?’ And the answer is yes,” Amer Zahr, a Palestinian American comedian and Dearborn local, told me at one of the city’s many Yemeni cafés one afternoon… “Imagine thinking it’s a good argument to say to a community that has lost 30,000 people, ‘Watch out for the guy that’s going to ban you.’ You’re really asking me whether I’m going to take a ban or a genocide? I’ll take a ban.”
I asked Hammoud. How does he square support for someone who was widely seen as favorable to the Israeli government? “Biden is deeply committed to Zionism, a true believer, not acting on the whims of some lobby. That scares me a lot more,” Hammoud said.
The truth is Ahmed was one of the only Arabs I could find in Dearborn who openly admitted they actually planned to vote for Biden in November. I spent much of my time there immersed in the city’s café culture, and the more I talked to people, the more I saw the full extent of what was happening in Dearborn.
I did manage to find one person who voted for Biden in the primary, a student named Shreya. But she’s already starting to change her mind. “I’m thinking about it now, and I’m not sure I want to vote anymore,” she said. “We only have bad options. And now I’m thinking uncommitted is a better option too. I can’t support what’s going on with Palestine,” she said. “The easiest choice now feels like voting uncommitted.”
BOY, I SURE WAS WRONG ABOUT THIS ARTICLE, WASN’T I?
All of it does.
Oh yeah just hand waive. Because that’s data.
we had this discussion when people said Biden dropping out would mean certain defeat. people are severely underestimating the danger of depressing voter turnout countrywide. this is not much of an issue for the GOP but for Dems it’s their main antagonist.
i think they’re going to take PA anyway. it’s not worth risking losing on other states showing that there’s nothing new and everything is actually the same as the democrats you always hated for never listening. Biden dropping out was the first time this image has cracked, mending it right back would be a liability; falling into the Hillary trap there imo.
To be honest, this is why they leak the names early in every campaign. They’re running internal polling on them, doing focus groups, and waiting to see if any skeletons toss open a closet door. If there was a red flag in that polling they’d pull him out of consideration.
There’s also the art of political theater to consider. Say they did flag Shapiro for exactly the thing you’re worried about. They might bring him along to stuff like the meet and greet just to make people in Pennsylvania feel more included.
All this is to say they have a ton more data on this than we do. What little we have shows Kelly and Shapiro as the most well known and liked of the names that were put forward. I have a bit more faith that they’re getting good data since they flushed the Biden group out of the campaign. And her campaign is noticeably better run.
i hope so. for me as always it shouldn’t matter who it is. you’re literally voting against a fascist who proudly announced he wanted to be a dictator, and whose entourage has publicly announced a step by step plan to completely dismantle what little is left of American democracy. the VP could literally be a trashcan and i wouldn’t think republicans should be elected.
the VP could literally be a trashcan
We tried that in the UK. He didn’t get elected, sadly
it’s this kind of anti trashcan political climate that led you down the Brexit path to begin with… too bad you didn’t learn from it.
Haha, can we get Cookie Monster as a midterm reveal?
that might unironically guarantee the election
This isn’t how it works anymore; it hasn’t been for like 24 years. There is near-zero home-state advantage in 2024.
That’s … An interesting take. They certainly aren’t going to flip a deep red or blue state. But they can absolutely swing a close race. Which is the case here.
It’s not really a take, it’s the statistical fact of the last 2+ decades and has been the consensus among political analysts and strategists for almost as long.
There was a long discussion about this on the 538 podcast last week, and four years ago, and eight years ago. It may be worth a point in a give home state, but even that is less than likely because of how polarized the electorate is and low-information voters have less of an opinion about their state-level leaders than they do nation politicians.
It all comes down to the takeaway being that you’re better off picking a good messenger who is charismatic and can do unfriendly media hits well. That’s the strategy unless you need to balance something out of the ordinary like Obama did when he picked Biden in 2008.
It’s been a discussion for that long. But it’s been a hot take just as long with evidence flying both directions. I’m going to stay firmly on the side of common sense. And point out that someone winning statewide elections ought to be able to campaign in that state.
There is absolutely not “evidence flying in both directions.” We’re done here.
Because Michigan and other states don’t matter at all. The entire election revolves around who wins Pennsylvania.
Of course they matter. Pennsylvania however, matters far more. Because of the way the electoral college works Pennsylvania is a must win for the Democrats. If they lose there then Michigan won’t matter at all because Trump will have 270 votes.
Good news lol
How can it be anyone other than the astronaut?
Probably because of the electoral college. There’s reason to believe she is going to choose a governor as her VP pick, which would exclude Mark Kelly.
That and if she picked Kelly, that would remove a Democrat from the Senate, and the Senate can’t afford to lose any Democrats.
Damn that’s probably why it doesn’t seem like it will be him. Too bad we have to play the election game vs choose the best VP for the job, but here we are.
Not an issue
Hot take: Jacobin is a terrible publication.
Normal take: Jacobin is an amazing publication.
Measured take: Jacobin is a good publication that veers into terminally online takes with a bit to high a frequency.
Indifferent take: Jacobin is a publication.
deleted by creator
