President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

60%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 05, 2024 10:22 AM UTC

Who Will Kamala Harris Choose as a Running Mate? (Vote #2)

  • 21 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

In late July, we asked readers of Colorado Pols to weigh in on their thoughts on the potential Vice Presidential selection from Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris. With the official announcement expected on Tuesday, it’s time to ask once more time.

(from left to right) Tim Walz, Mark Kelly, and Josh Shapiro

On July 29, readers felt like Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly had the edge, but things have changed a bit; North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper was then believed to have made into Harris’s top three, but he subsequently withdrew his name from consideration.

As POLITICO reports, two of the original “top three” are still in the mix:

A vetting team led by former Attorney General Eric Holder briefed Harris on the roughly half-dozen final candidates.

Harris on Sunday held interviews with Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz at the vice president’s residence in Washington. A person familiar with the selection process said it was possible that Harris has spoken virtually to other potential picks, or might do so Monday.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker have also been reviewed by the Harris campaign vetting team.

Tuesday’s announcement is scheduled to be in Philadelphia, which would indicate that Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is the frontrunner. Over the weekend, however, several potential VP picks (including Kelly and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz) traveled to Pennsylvania to stump and fundraise for incumbent Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, Jr.

The Harris for President campaign is doing a good job of maintaining some level of suspense, so we want to know what YOU think will happen. As in all of our totally non-scientific polls, we want to know what you think will happen, not who you might support or prefer personally. Think of it like a betting exercise; if you were going to lay down a sizable amount of money on the question below, which option would you select?

 

Who Will Kamala Harris Choose as a Running Mate?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Comments

21 thoughts on “Who Will Kamala Harris Choose as a Running Mate? (Vote #2)

  1. Has announcement location been correlated to VP pick in the past? I'm not sure. It could just as easily be that they set the announcement in Philly so that Shapiro could be there to pledge his support and quiet anyone discontented by him not being picked.

    1. There's no real historical correlation between location and candidate. It would be weird, though, to NOT pick Shapiro if the announcement is in his back yard. 

  2. I lean slightly to Kelly, but look at the three faces in the picture and tell me which one best says "Happy Days are Here Again?"

    It'll be Shapiro.

    1. At least Shapiro may lock up PA's electoral votes. But alas, the Squad has issued a Fatwah prohibiting Harris from selecting Shapiro because he is too Jewish.

      My guess is that Harris follows Richard Nixon's strategy in selecting someone who does no harm …. in the polls, that is.

      In 1968, Tricky Dick faced a dilemma. If he selected Rockefeller, the right wing would bolt. And if he selected Reagan, the left wing would bolt (once upon a time, boys and girls, the GOP had a left wing). So, he went with someone relatively unknown who offended neither wing.

      Voilá …. I give to you Spiro Agnew.

  3. I don't know, I don't care. 

    ALL of the candidates are better than JD Vance.  ALL of the candidates are much more lucid than DJ Trump.  To the extent that a VP can help during the campaign, all of them seem to have positives that can be played up, and none of them have Agnew- or Eagleton-sized problems.

    Apparently, those on Kamala's social media will get a text tomorrow shortly before she and Mr. X stroll on the stage at the PA event. 

  4. One year after he took his oath of office, President George Washington wrote a letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Rhode Island, known today as the Touro Synagogue.   He gave assurance to the Jewish community that in this fledgling democracy, religious “tolerance” would give way to religious liberty and “United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”.  Essentially pledging that there would be no place for antisemitism in this new nation.  Today, I am concerned if President Washington’s vow is still as strong as when he wrote that letter 234 years ago.

    Each year as we sit down at our Passover seder we are reminded in the Haggadah: “In each and every generation they rise up against us to destroy us. And the Holy One, blessed be He, rescues us from their hands.”   Ever since October 7th, the vitriolic rise in antisemitism has been exponential here in the United States.  According to the Anti-Defamation League anti-Jewish hate crimes have increased over 360%.  We’ve seen it in major cities, and across college campuses.  

    As Israeli Prime Minister Benjiman Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress on July 24th, antisemitic protestors engaged in vile hatred not just against Jews and Israel, but against our country as well. They defiled our national monuments, vandalizing them with spray paint stating, “Hamas is coming”.  They defaced a replica of the Liberty Bell and tore down the American flag in front of the Union Station, set it on fire and replaced it with the PLO/Palestinian flag.  

    And while all of this was happening, as Netanyahu spoke to our legislators, a large majority of Democrats chose to be absent, including the presumptive Presidential Nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris.   Some used scheduling conflicts as their excuse, others outrightly boycotted the address.   

    In 2017, we saw the horrific racist and antisemitic demonstrators in Charlottesville, VA at the Unite the Right rally.  Brazen protesters wearing swastikas, and marchers with torches, chanting “Blood and Soil” and “Jews will not replace us” were heard around the world.  In the aftermath of it, then President Trump called these jack-booted haters “fine people”.  And this was the impetus that brought Joe Biden to run for President and draw us back from the abyss.

    Now, seven years later, we are fighting antisemitism from the right and the left.  Progressives aligning themselves with the most illiberal propaganda and terrorist groups sponsored by Iran, and far right extremists like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers in the conservative camp taking part in the insurrection on January 6th. 

    So, what are we to do with both parties?  Both will try to make themselves look good by pandering to us in some way or another.  And it is not enough that both nominees have Jewish family members.  And although the Republicans took their bow addressing antisemitism at their convention, the question now is how the Democrats will handle it. And they have a bigger problem.

    So, I have some advice.

    In 1996, Senator Bob Dole addressed the Republican National Convention.  In his nomination acceptance speech, he acknowledged the perception that the GOP was restrictive of people of color or non-Christians, and he said this: “The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents many streams of opinion and many points of view.  But if there's anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the Party of Lincoln. And the exits which are clearly marked are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise”.

    If the Democrats are smart, it would be wise for the titular heads of their party, be it President Biden or Kamala Harris, to take a cue from Senator Dole and speak with the same conviction at their convention, on August 19th, with a full-throated support for Israel and excoriation of antisemitism from within their ranks,  and show them the exits too.

    Anything less, will fall copiously short. 

    I will be listening.  I hope you will too. 

    1. Your post is well written, but has several logical flaws:

      1. Criticism of Netanyahu, or his actions such as suppressing democracy in Israel, oe waging a war of extinction against Palestinian children,  does not equal anti-semitsm. 

      . 2. Progressives  have as wide as spectrum of political beliefs and alignments as any other group. Again, progressive criticism of the overreaction in Palestine, ( 37,000 dead to 1200 dead)) , does not necessarily equal alignment with a terrorist group, including Hamas. Protesting the continuation and expansion of the war n civilians in Gaza does not equal antisemitism. 

    2. Sorry … the parties are NOT equivalent in the extent of their problem.  

      • Democrats — The leaders — Biden, Harris, Congressional majority and minority leadership members — all express support of Israel, its right to exist, and its right to live in peace.  And support for a two-state solution, without certainty of how to get there. When members of Congress have been extreme in their statements of support for Palestinians, they have been “counseled” and disciplined. In a big tent, there are some who object to the slaughter of innocents in Gaza and the current government of Israel, and suggest the US ought to follow the law and not provide offensive weapons to those credibly accused of war crimes.  And in that big tent, there are a very, VERY few who use translated slogans that are, in the original language, used by a wide range of Palestinians, including Hamas and Hezbollah.
      • Republicans — The leaders — Trump, Vance, Congressional majority and minority leadership members — all express support of Israel, its right to exist, and its right to live in peace. And then, they express unqualified support for Israel’s right to use ANY strategies and tactics to win those goals, and have no regard for Palestinians.  Trump, when *resident, took several steps showing clear support for Israel’s claims and rejection of any support for Palestinians.  Others in Congress have been clear in their unrestrained support of Israel, suggesting willingness to see expanded American aid and unrestrained bombing. If there has been any reaction to some of the over the top statements, I’ve missed it.   ODDLY, there has been virtually no criticism of Trump as he sat down with leaders of groups expressing antisemitic views.  There has been essentially no snapback to supporters who believe in the Jewish conspiracy theories from the Right.

      P.S. Bob Dole would not be welcome in the present incarnation of the “Republican” party.

      1. Mid-West mildness – Tour of Rural America.

        MAGA and Fox News have taken over rural America, but surely there are a lot of common-sense, normies outside the urban & suburban blue zones. Apparently Walz shows well with rural audiences.

        Maybe small-town courtesy would be a good antidote to screaming culture wars. 

        1. Amen …

          Walz has taken a variety of positions and then explained how they make good sense to people throughout the community, those of EVERY political ideology.  For example, the "every kid gets access to breakfast and lunch at school" programs rely on appeals to educational equality and access, a focus on the investment for the future rather than seeing it as a "big government" / liberal spending program, and the reality that collecting nickles and dimes is not the best use of school staff's time.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

53 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!