Presidential Race 2024

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The VP pick doesn't really give a candidate a boost.

But it can hurt a candidate and I think both VP candidates did just that for their tickets.

[Darrell Green Fan]

Originally Posted by nonniey

But it can hurt a candidate and I think both VP candidates did just that for their tickets.

Walz has not hurt Kamala nearly as much as that whack job Vance has hurt Trump. The Pubs are desperate to find something, anything on Walz. So they resort to the claim of stolen valor when he simply misrepesented his military service. Where Vance is doubling down on really stupid and offensive statements.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Darrell Green Fan

Walz has not hurt Kamala nearly as much as that whack job Vance has hurt Trump. The Pubs are desperate to find something, anything on Walz. So they resort to the claim of stolen valor when he simply misrepesented his military service. Where Vance is doubling down on really stupid and offensive statements.

He hasn't hurt Kamala at all, I wanted Kelly but after reading all the pro on Walz he was the right pick.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Darrell Green Fan

Walz has not hurt Kamala nearly as much as that whack job Vance has hurt Trump. The Pubs are desperate to find something, anything on Walz. So they resort to the claim of stolen valor when he simply misrepesented his military service. Where Vance is doubling down on really stupid and offensive statements.

And that has what to do with the price of tea in China? My point is Harris would have been much better off choosing a moderate as her VP. That would have played into her attempt to portray herself as more moderate than she is. Kelley would have been her best choice and she'd probably have got a point or two more at the polls with him (and that may be the difference between winning and losing).

[Darrell Green Fan]

Originally Posted by nonniey

And that has what to do with the price of tea in China? My point is Harris would have been much better off choosing a moderate as her VP. That would have played into her attempt to portray herself as more moderate than she is. Kelley would have been her best choice and she'd probably have got a point or two more at the polls with him (and that may be the difference between winning and losing).

Not sure I understand the price of tea in China comment. We were discussing the VPs and my comment addressed the VPs on the ticket as I defended her pick.

For the record I preferred Kelly to as he was from a swing state. But after learning more about Walz I have no problem with the pick. Above all else he is a good guy and likeable, you just can't say that about Trump and Vance.

I disagree with your comment that both choices hurt their running mate, Vance has been damaging and the Pubs have so little on Walz that they have resorted to critcizing Walz for claiming he went to combat when he did not, meanwhile Trump calls those killed or captured "losers", he claimed the Presidential Medal of Honor given to a rich donor was more important than the Congressional Medal of Freaking Honor. They just don't have much on Walz obviously when compared to all Vance has given the Dems.

So no I don't agree with you when you say she would be comfortably ahead had she selected Kelly and that both VPs have hurt their running mate.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Darrell Green Fan

Not sure I understand the price of tea in China comment. We were discussing the VPs and my comment addressed the VPs on the ticket as I defended her pick.

For the record I preferred Kelly to as he was from a swing state. But after learning more about Walz I have no problem with the pick. Above all else he is a good guy and likeable, you just can't say that about Trump and Vance.

I disagree with your comment that both choices hurt their running mate, Vance has been damaging and the Pubs have so little on Walz that they have resorted to critcizing Walz for claiming he went to combat when he did not, meanwhile Trump calls those killed or captured "losers", he claimed the Presidential Medal of Honor given to a rich donor was more important than the Congressional Medal of Freaking Honor. They just don't have much on Walz obviously when compared to all Vance has given the Dems.

So no I don't agree with you when you say she would be comfortably ahead had she selected Kelly and that both VPs have hurt their running mate.

I said Walz was a mistake she should have chosen a moderate ie Kelley. Your reply was Vance was worse. That response didn't address what I said (ie What has that to do with the price of tea in China - this is a colloquialism meaning what you said was not relevant to what I said - seems a lot of these old common sayings are starting to die off).

Kelley would have reinforced Harris's messaging attempt to portray her as more moderate than she actually is and almost certainly would have gotten her more votes probably a 1-2% difference - that difference may be the difference in stopping Trump (who must be stopped - wanted to remind you I'm sending my vote her way despite hating her policies - My vote isn't for her it is against Trump).