More VP discussion

 So, as I really survey the field, and look at considerations, I've really come up with two major endorsements of who I would want for VP.

The first VP I choose based purely on policy preferences. Here, I choose Tim Walz. Kyle covered VP discussions yesterday and he really came out swinging for Walz. And Walz is the most progressive option. He's done tons of stuff for Minnesota and I'd love him to succeed Harris. 

However, my second choice is the "strategic" choice. And this strategy intersects with me two ways. First, it's about maximizing our chances to win in the fall. Second, it's about finding the candidate with the flaws I can tolerate MOST. In this sense, I've really honed in on Josh Shapiro. 

Look. All roads to the white house, that are viable, at least, go through PA. If you don't get PA, you'll need to get at least 2 other states, if not 3 in an Arizona/Nevada situation as those two only secure 17 electoral votes. With NE2, Michigan, and Wisconsin, we get 251 electoral votes. PA will give us 270 flat (currently 18% chance). Arizona will give us 262 (5% chance), or 268 with Nevada (1% chance). Georgia (13% chance) or North Carolina (1% chance) will net us 16 each. 

It's just math. Lock down PA. And honestly, locking down PA might have a spillover effect into Wisconsin and Michigan. To be fair, Walz could also have that effect, especially on Wisconsin, but we really do need all 3 of those states to win, and PA would likely best secure our odds there. 

The second reason I'd prefer Shapiro of the "strategic" options is because of the flaws of the candidates being most seriously considered, Shapiro's flaws are minimal to my own policy preferences. His big beef with the left is him being an "ultra zionist". Given I literally couldnt care less about Israel at this point and if anything have disdain for the far left purity testing in this regard, I can live with that.

Meanwhile if we went with say, Mark Kelly, Kelly would be a more moderate VP economically, he's not for medicare for all, he's not for the PRO act. He's kind of more corporate friendly. I know a lot of the K hive is fawning over him because "he's an astronaut" or whatever, but meh, he's boring, and honestly? AZ is only 11 electoral votes. He may have a spillover effect into Nevada, but that gives us 17. PA gives us 19 and the spillover effect could bring us up to 44. And that's what we NEED to win. 

Meanwhile what does Andy Beshear bring to the ticket? He's an enlightened centrist and governor of a safe red state. He's basically the more "Joe Manchin" type democrat if you ask me. not that he's THAT bad. But ya know, blue candidate from a rural appalachian state that's normally reddest in the nation? He brings no real appeal to the ticket.

Neither does Roy Cooper. He's an old white guy. It's like getting a younger Joe Biden on there. Except even more centristy and I like him either way. 

Honestly, as such, I'm putting forward two recommendations: Tim Walz and Josh Shapiro. 

If you want more that I could live with, JB Pritzker is fairly progressive and has rust belt appeal. Kind of the runner up for the "policy" approach. 

Whitmer is more progressive than Shapiro and would lock down Michigan, but I doubt they'd choose a woman VP because they want some white guy to balance the ticket (ugh, I hate it when identity politics goes the other way too). 

But yeah. That's what I'm thinking.