Why the "weird" attacks work

 So, republicans really don't like being called weird. And the democrats like to call them weird. Because they are weird. They have these weird religious views that they want to force on everyone else. JD Vance is especially weird. He keeps attacking childfree people and having really "weird" views on parenthood and childless people. This wouldn't be a huge deal in and of itself, but these motherfrickers really wanna force their views on people. They have this idea that the American family is "under attack" because other people dare to exist and live differently, and they want to take back the American family...by...basically forcing everyone else to be like them. And attacking this works because much of mainstream society is inherently more liberal these days, and they don't want to go back. Hence why a huge phrase that comes up among democrats in this era of Harris being our nominee is "we don't go back." 

Now, some on the right have tried to weaponize this against the left, pointing out how some on the left are "weird." We all know what they're going after. Pink and purple haired SJWs, etc. But in some ways these attacks aren't landing as well. Why? Because most of these people are tiny minorities of people as a whole, and most don't want to force their views on others.

NOW, to be fair, SJWs are pushy, and this is why I'm so intent on muzzling them. I'm of the opinion that the left can win culture wars if we fight them defensively, let the right look like the insane ones, and when we look insane, we lose to them. Which is why I tend to reject SJWism. Those guys ARE kind of weird. While most sane "normal" lefties are just tolerant of others, and their preferred ways of living, SJWs have this thing of ramming it down everyone's throats. They push "celebrating diversity" and tend to try to normalize the more freaky parts of the left that make us look bad and "weird." And that's why "wokeism" doesn't work, and that's why they need to be in the back seat of the culture war movement, not in the front making all of the decisions. 

Again, the left has the energy because the RIGHT is putting their foots in their mouths and looking weird. In recent election cycles like 2016, they would just let the left self destruct and come off as weird. And this is why I've always been critical of the social justice types. Because they make us look bad. Because they put "wierd" front and center and then ram it down everyone's throats. Which isn't a winning strategy. Again, stay quiet and let your opponents make mistakes. And if you let them, they'll trip all over themselves.

Which brings us back to 2024. 2024 is shaping up to be a radically different environment than the late 2010s in terms of the energy on social issues. It reminds me more of 2012ish and what I've been saying all along. You got these religious crazies, they wanna ban abortion, they wanna ban porn, contraception, they have this whole weird project 2025 thing, and people don't like it. And they look weird. And now we can just defend our stuff with virtually no cost. Because we're letting our opponents make all of the mistakes while we keep our mouths shut and just point off how weird the crazy religious authoritarians are. 

All we really need to do is not screw up, and we will win. I mean there isnt anything inherently wrong with being weird as long as you keep it to yourself. But trying to force it on others causes problems. And this is why the right is losing now, and that's why the left has to avoid making the mistakes it often does. Make them look like the crazy ones wanting to shove stuff down our throats, don't be crazy and try to shove stuff down their throats ourselves. 

Thus concludes this lesson on "weirdness", pushiness, and the culture war. 

No election update today, refer to Tuesday's forecast

 So, not much has changed in the past 3 days since Tuesday when that round of polls radically changed the polling averages. I mean, we're still at a 25% Harris chance in the two way data and around a 50% chance (mightve dropped slightly to 47%) for the five way data. 

All I'll really post is this. This is around the time when we were to finalize the decision to replace Biden or not. As I said, gather data through July, and make a decision at the end of in the first week of August. It's now August 2nd. And I can safely say replacing Biden was a good choice. I just hope we can keep the momentum going. 

Keep in mind, when Biden dropped out, we had a 13% chance. Biden was losing every "swing" state and even Virginia. Minnesota, Maine, and New Hampshire were all in immediate danger of flipping too. It was grim. Now we've recovered to Biden's pre debate baseline, and I really don't think this upward trajectory is done either. I think we're gonna keep moving toward the 50-50 mark roughly. Idk what Harris's REAL chances of winning are, all I have are polls, but I'd say 25% probably undershoots it. I'm tempted to say it's more 40-60 in Trump's favor right now. I gotta give trump the edge, but Harris has real energy and it's gonna be competitive. Here's the snapshot of the trajectory as of now. That's a very sharp movement in Harris's favor. 

I don't get the Mark Kelly appeal

 So, out of all the picks that are in the final batch of candidates for VP, the one that really stands out to me in a BAD way is Mark Kelly. He's basically a centrist democrat from Arizona, a sun belt state. Some people seem genuinely excited for him, like they WANT him, they think he would be the best candidate. And it just seems so dumb. The dude has no appeal to me. Like, his big appeal seems to be the whole "he was an airforce pilot and astronaut." WHO CARES?! How does that help me? How does that do anything for me? What is this guy for? I think of this guy, and I notice he voted against the PRO act, ya know, that super pro union legislation Biden is for, and he's against universal healthcare. So already failing on several big purity tests for me.

But OMG, wouldnt you wanna see him knock Vance around in the VP debate? Honestly, anyone can take the couch fricker, and I dont wanna choose a VP for short term sound bites. I mean, you could theoretically throw me up against Vance in a debate and I would probably eat the guy from breakfast. He's such a weak candidate. Like anyone can beat him. I just dont want this centrist guy whose big claim to fame is being an astronaut and who looks like Dr. Evil being VP when there are other options. Keep in mind, whoever Harris picks is the de facto 2032 democratic frontrunner. Either go all in with policy like with Walz, OR, go all in with electability like Shapiro. I really have to say it, if we need to compromise and pick a guy to shore up support for the ticket, Shapiro is the obvious option. Again, we all know what my electoral analyses say, we all know how important PA is, if you're gonna make me compromise, please take my governor. You need him. Don't take Kelly. That's my stance on that.

And yes, I know some progressives hate Shapiro, but once again, I find his flaws acceptable. I dont care about Israel, I don't care if he's an ultra zionist, to be fair, the free palestine crowd is more out of touch and terminally online than I am, and that's saying something. It's only weirdo left wing extremists who are ride or die on that, and most will go Jill Stein no matter who is chosen. 

Heck I know she's no longer in the running, but this is why I've been warming up to Gretchen Whitmer. Semi progressive relatively speaking, and then from Michigan, another essential state to lock down. Ya know? And that's part of the reason I went all anti "DEI" against white males above. Because it's like...well if the best pick is two women, JUST RUN TWO WOMEN! Seriously, no self respecting swing voter is gonna say oh i aint gonna vote for this ticket because women. Sure, SOME people might do that, but those guys are "MAGA." Like full stop. 

Just...dont pick a boring centrist with no strategic value, or misperceived value (as in, oh hey, we might go from being down 5 in the sun belt to being down by 3, meaning we go from a 11% chance to a 27% chance. No, lock down PA, which is currently at 75%, and can shift to closer to 50-50. Seriously, given the way the rest of the map is going, you lock down PA, you win. Or maybe at worst go 269 if you fail to win NE2. Either way, someone like Shapiro brings so much more value to the ticket than Kelly does.

And yeah, let me also rip Beshear real quick. he's from a hard red state, he's socially progressive but once again, probably economically centrist. I also wonder what value he actually brings. Again, centrist brained people seem to think that he will help Harris win the sun belt. Others think he will be a good foil to Vance given Beshear is the real deal in being from Appalachia. Either way, I question his value too.

Again, Walz on policy, Shapiro on strategy. The other options suck IMO. 

Hint: DEI doesn't work any better when it favors white males

 So, I was watching the Daily Show lampoon how race and gender plays a role in the VP pick and ugh, I'm going to be honest, I HATE this. This weird conventional wisdom that Kamala Harris HAS to choose a "safe" boring centrist white male VP pick. Like if you have the first black woman president, that's HISTORIC and THE MOST PROGRESSIVE THING EVER! But TWO women of color on the ticket? Can we do that? Isn't that going too far/

Look, I know I'm kind of the bull through the china shop on race issues lately with this crap. I mean, I'm unironically using the term "DEI" to sub up this weird mentality the left has on race. But honestly? I don't do it from a place of racism. i do it from a place of "screw this stupid race crap". In 2016, I was called a sexist for not wanting Hillary as president, and in 2024, I'm supporting this black Indian woman who may actually be the most progressive option we got this time. It's never been about race or gender for me. It's ALWAYS been about policy with me. And that said, I dont like the idea of "balancing the ticket." Because that tells me you're not serious about progressive policy. You're gonna moderate. 

Look, if the best candidate for VP is a white male, so be it. But I wouldnt choose a white male just for the sake of it. Especially a moderate one who wants to make the ticket worse. If say, Gretchen Whitmer is the best VP choice, I say go with it. Don't force yourself to limit yourself to white males, especially boring centrist ones. Because if anything makes me go "ugh" over voting democrat, its voting for this boring centrist candidate who I dont like. It's why I hated Hillary, the woman who ran in 2016. And it's why I don't like most of Harris's prospective choices.

At this point, Harris is a possibly good candidate. if anything, Biden dropping out of the race is actually quite fortuitous for progressives. We end up positioning ourselves to get a candidate MORE progressive than Biden, because this "balance the ticket" nonsense led to Biden choosing a relatively progressive woman of color. But now they wanna tone it down again with choosing a white male, and that just really makes me gag reflex kick in.

Like, I dont think democrats realize this, or they dont care, but idk, it's like having a reflex due to autism. You cant eat certain foods with certain tastes or texture issues, it just makes you gag. And that's how I feel about voting for centrists. i feel like it goes against my very being to support centrists who I know actively work against my goals. And honestly, let's face it, just as Kamala suddenly got the in to take over for Biden, who do you think is gonna be the presumptive frontrunner for the 2032 primary 8 years from now? Whoever Harris picks. If Harris doesnt die or get early onset dementia that causes her to step aside like Biden is doing now. Do we want a boring centrist white guy? I mean, the fact that we went from hope and change with Obama to 2008's sloppy seconds with Clinton is why she was so well recieved, it kicked in that gag reflex where i just couldnt vote for her and stay true to my principles. Same thing here. I don't know how Harris is gonna govern. She could either be the most progressive president since Johnson or even FDR, or she could just be another "Obama" who has the aesthetic of being progressive, while being as corporate and centrist as it gets. All I know is in 2032, I'm probably gonna want someone even BETTER. More progressive. Trump will probably be dead in 2032. Who knows what the MAGA movement will look like. It could scatter without Trump in charge. And I'm going to be honest, I might approach 2032 like I did 2016. I'm gonna be advocating for UBI in all likelihood. What my other priorities are depends on what Harris does in her presidency. I mean, if she does a good job, I might just drop healthcare from my priority list, and green policies, and education. Who knows? If she does such a good job it knocks out some priorities, it might make me lean into others. And I'm gonna be leaning into UBI. Because I KNOW I ain't getting that from her. Too ambitious. And will a centrist wanna give us UBI? NO! They're gonna run on being a steady hand and not doing anything. And my electoral gag reflex will probably kick in and I'll go third party again. 

That's just how I see it. I don't care about the race or gender of the person who wants to do nice things. I just want them to do the thing. If anything, I dont want a candidate who DOESNT do the thing. And that excludes a lot of quite frankly bring white males. 

I'm so sick of diversity discussions. And it goes both ways. I dont care about someone being a woman or not being white, I mean, does that make my life better in any way? NO! Same thing if they ARE a white male. Hire the best people for the job. I don't care what they look like. I care about their policies. I'm just so fricking over all of this identity politics crap. Just give me good leaders who think like me and care about the same policies I do. That's literally all I care about. In 2024, it just means pushing the ticket the furthest left it will go. Which is why I favor Tim Walz. Or, given we are in the underdog position, I can accept the electoral argument, in which case Shapiro is my overwhelming favorite pick. Because PA is THE pivotal swing state, it's the key to hitting 270 for both parties, and it has 19 electoral votes, whereas other states are in the 6-16 range and would leave us at 267 or something statistically. So yeah. I mean, I'll admit, if pushing the overton window left means focusing on electability, so be it, but go with Shapiro then. There's no reason to go Mark Kelly or Andy Beshear in those instances. Because they dont bring electability to the ticket like Shapiro does. So thats how I feel. Either go Walz for policy, or Shapiro for electability. Dont make some weird choice in the name of corporate centrism. I mean, even though I'm opinionated on policy, I do understand the fragility of our electoral situation and that's why Ive been as accommodating as I've been. But seriously, a lot of the picks floating around are centrist brain garbage by corporate democrats who wanna force the party to the center. They're the same idiots who thought Beto O Rourke would actually be a thing. Ya know, centrist, white, but also kinda low key progressive socially? Yeah. I dont go for that. Might work in the sun belt, but as a rust belt dude, yeah no, screw that. Turns me off. 

And yeah. I'm rambling, I'll stop. 

Is there any reason someone might "feel" the economy is bad other than ignorance?

 Someone on reddit asked:

Liberals, at least on Reddit, often malign people saying they "feel" the economy is bad, saying that it conflicts with data that says the economy is strong. Often, these people are labelled as simply uninformed. The question is, is it possible the economy might actually be bad for them? Like if you break the economy down by class, region, job sector, etc... is it possible their feelings actually do align with the data as pertains to them?

 I just wanted to give my answer here, as it makes a nice blog article encapsulating my views on the subject and the larger political context we find ourselves in:

Well, certain liberals, typically upper class ones who care a lot about metrics, malign people for thinking the economy is bad. This is really only a centrist/conservative liberal argument. If you're on the left side of liberalism, or the hard left, or the populist right (which MAGA is), you're likely there because youre suffering. Something isnt working for you. In 2016, it was jobs and wages and healthcare. many people didnt feel like they ever recovered from the recession. I sure didn't. My area is poor AF, there are no decent jobs, it's all minimum wage servitude you cant live on, and a lot of people didn't really feel it.

Nowadays, it's inflation. The metrics say everything is good, but in reality people feel stressed out about money and how expensive things are. The economy is good by the metrics. But the problem is, the metrics are flawed. But for some reason that particular class of liberal has this weird mentality of just throwing "the metrics" in peoples' faces and telling them they're stupid if they don't think the economy is good. To be fair, in MAGA's case, they mght have a point. Most of those guys will attack the economy when a democrat is in office then act like Trump fixed everything and blah blah blah. It really is just feels and vibes for them. And rank partisanship.

BUT, let's have a more serious conversation about this. There's a lot we can say about this phenomenon in general. And as someone on the "the economy sucks no matter what the metrics are" train, I have strong opinions about this.

But first, let's look at the divide here ideologically. What is making the economy so divisive for people these days? Why, it's neoliberalism. It's globalism, the tide that raises all boats mentality, GDP growth good, etc. For the last 40 years, while the economy looks good on paper, people have been suffering. They lost their good union manufacturing jobs with benefits and now they work at walmart for $10 an hour. Those jobs have gone overseas. They've been automated. Some might say immigrants are taking them. And that's where you get the origins of MAGA. "Make America Great Again", ie, bring back the jobs, kick out the immigrants. I dont agree with their pitch and their solutions, but I understand how they got to where they are.

Those of us on the left have a host of different ideologies and solutions. Bernie Sanders in 2016 ran on the idea that it's the millionaires and billionaires screwing everyone and how he wanted to bring back unions, raise the minimum wage, give people universal healthcare, free education, and student loan forgiveness. I tended to align more with this at the time. My analysis is a little different than Bernie's, as I'll get to, but yeah. Can't blame him for his platform either. Part of the problem is corporate greed. The rich getting richer while exploiting cheap labor in the 2016 situation, or greedflation in the post COVID era. The left is getting warm here.

But, my own analysis is different still. You see, I consider myself a human centered capitalist similar to Andrew Yang. As I see it, there have been major trends in certain areas of the country, like the Rust Belt, where the jobs have just been disappearing. Again, a lot of it is outsourcing, but automation is a big one. And the jobs that replace the jobs that used to exist are considered inferior in quality for most. They pay less, they have inconsistent hours, they have no benefits, you gotta work multiple to survive when you used to be able to feed a family on one income. And people aren't happy. And it's not gonna get any better. Not without widespread systemic change.

Andrew Yang, and myself, think the long term answer to these problems is a universal basic income. With Yang, it's more "automation is destroying jobs and we need to do this since many won't have jobs left" mentality, which just gets sneers from the same liberals who crap on the trumpers, as they'll go on about how the economy will just create more jobs and things will be fine and blah blah blah. But I go a bit further than Yang.

I ask...should we be spending all of this time working anyway? As I see it, if automation can do all of this work for us, why should we continue working? Why should we keep trying to create jobs in the first place? Is work really that great in the first place? As such, I push for significant economic reform, and a variation of Yang's human centered capitalism.

Now, when Yang pushed the idea, he kinda was going in the right direction, he cited that the economy should be centered around people, not for profit. He believes human well beiing should be the primary measurement for the economic success, and that we should move away from GDP and toward this "American Scorecard", which is a battery of measurements to try to measure well being.

My ideas are fundamentally similar, but are iterated a little differently, taking a stronger stance against work itself. I believe that the economy exists for humans, not humans for the economy, jobs are a means to an end, not an end in itself, and that we should move away from measures like productivity and GDP toward some measure of work life balance, actively seeking to destroy the concept of the modern job so that we can all work less and live better. I believe work itself isn't working, and that the answer to the problems with the economy are to move away from the concept of our standard of living being decided entirely by work.

As such, to me, the problem with the economy IS a mismatch between the metrics and actual human well being. These snooty upper class liberals who live in what yang would call "the bubble", the areas of the country where the economy works, like big cities and suburbs, where people have access to high paying high prestege jobs, LOVE to just look down their noses at us, and they're the ones telling us to adapt to the new economy. "JuSt MoVe" or "LeArN tO cOdE" are common mantras of these people. And it's obnoxious.

So yeah, there is a divide even among liberals over this stuff, and yeah, the ones that run the democratic party tend to be the snooty upper class types with good jobs who tend to look down at the rust of us and lecture us about how the economy is good and if we're not succeeding it's our problem. In another era, these guys would be republicans. Heck many of them probably voted for McCain and Romney, but now since Trump is in charge of the GOP they are trying to come over to our side and ruin our party and push it to the right economically so that it tends to reflect their upper class meritocratic values. But those values dont work for us any more. In the previous pre trump, pre sanders, pre yang era, republicans tended to be all on the same page on economics. And the MAGA people would look down on everyone else and call them lazy too. And they would often be racist while doing it. Now, they're kinda pissed off at the economy and going in their direction, while the left is going in its own, and as an anti establishment leftie who doesnt get along with the so called "brahmin left" very well, I feel politically homeless a lot of the time. Because im basically a progressive. I like people like Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders. I dislike Hillary Clinton types. Biden is okay. Harris is okay, but let's face it, I think the economy needs a significant transformation not seen since the new deal to actually fix it, and that means changing the goalposts of success. Or maybe even rethinking the idea of success altogether. Because if anything, the more I look at capitalism, the more I realize that it just seems to be set up to enslave us to rich business owners who maximize their profits. I know that sounds kinda Marxist. I wouldnt consider myself a Marxist as my analysis is more in the left/social libertarian camp as la UBI oriented scholars like Karl Widerquist or Phillipe Van Parijs, but yeah I kinda think that as long as capitalism puts profits over people, and expect us to conform to its harshness rather than working for us, that it's a bad system, and it doesnt matter what the metrics say. Screw the metrics, the metrics suck. We need to overhaul this entire system.

And yeah, that's my opinion on this.

Debunking typical BS talking points on healthcare

 So I keep trying to research Harris's position on healthcare, and it's vague. She seems to be backing off of single payer, but has no clear vision for healthcare yet, no position that can be supported or attacked. But, I did want to address a couple of the more standard talking points I see from the center against Harris's ideas.

1) A robust healthcare system will raise taxes on the middle class!

"Oh noes, the horror!" 

Okay, but look. The middle class is gonna pay anyway. Like, to defend BERNIE'S plan, let me say this. His main taxes were a 7.5% payroll tax on employers, and a 4% tax on households making more than $29000 a year. Harris didn't even wanna do this, claiming she wanted to raise the threshold to $100k in her plan and make up for it with taxes on the rich. I cant vouch for her plan as her math has always been kinda fuzzy. But people still complained about how $100k is middle class and blah blah blah, 37% of households.

Now, I do wanna go back to the whole "you're paying anyway" thing, but let's focus on the 100k thing. Look, your median income is $70k household wise. $100kis still middle-ish, but one thing I hate about centrists is they keep trying to consider people who make six figures and are in the top 2-20% of the population to be "middle class". Just "upper middle class". YOURE NOT MIDDLE CLASS, YOU'RE NOT MIDDLE ANYTHING! 

I'll say this. $150k, let's go with that. thats what my UBI break even point would be for a household with 2 adults. Beyond that, you're not really middle. Biden is trying to carve out this weird electorate where no one under like $400k pays higher taxes. The threshold for the top 1% is like $600k. So thats ridiculous. Like, I'm sorry, if youre top 20%, you should pay more taxes. You're the ones actually benefitting from the economy and all of the economic growth of the past 40 years, it's only right you pay it back and pay it forward. 

Now, for the rest of us. 7.5% payroll tax 4% household tax. Okay, so taxes go up. But...premiums...go down. You're no longer paying hundreds of month to a private company only for them to not cover anything and stick you with a $5000 deductible. I mean, that's the thing. Yes, your taxes go up. So what? You're no longer throwing thousands at healthcare in a private setting and you probably save money. Your typical household pays 11% of their income on healthcare, 4% in taxes in exchange for that is actually a good deal that SAVES YOU MONEY!

As for the 7.5% employer side payroll tax, that literally just replaces existing private spending. Your employer contributes that much to your healthcare plans as it is. Now instead, they pay a tax of roughly the same amount. So it's basically just replacing one form of spending with another. 

As such, idk why people complain about how universal healthcare raises taxes. Do Americans hate something so much if it's a "tax" that they'd rather pay more as a rivate service? if so, americans are fricking dumb, and I'm not gonna apologize for that remark.

Anyway, that brings me to the next point I want to discuss.

2) "But what if I like my private plan?"

Okay, but who actually does? All I hear americans do is complain endlessly about how their health insurance is screwing them over and they gotta pay thousands for something after spending hundreds a month on insurance.  It's nonsense. Who are these people who like this crap? Once again, it seems like we're just allowing the 6 figures yuppie class to dictate policy for the rest of us, and we need to stop appealing to these people as "swing voters". This is what corporate dems want. Actual americans who arent wealthy and privileged hate the existing system and want change. Even a lot of MAGA voters want change. They just dont know what it should be.

Now, again, Ive softened on single payer due to my own reasons. Mainly costs and wanting to fund a UBI instead. I have become more pragmatic, and I have come around to the idea of private insurance coexisting with a public option. But I'm not gonna be like "yeah man private insurance is so amazing." It's not. It sucks. Healthcare is inherently broken in the US and its the for profit model that makes it so. Honestly, I think we need universal healthcare to solve the problem, and im tired of liberal band aids that involve some weirdo expansion of the ACA. ACA is that uncanny valley of suck where conservatives hate it for doing anything at all and lefties hate it for not doing enough. We wouldnt be still having this debate if ACA actually fixed things. 

That said, I support some sort of universal healthcare. Could be single payer, could be a public option. But do SOMETHING here. Im sick of centrists saying we cant because we gotta appeal to upper class people who used to vote for john mccain and mitt romney back in the day. I wish they'd go back to the republicans. I wish theyd take their party back from trump, and i wish we could move left by getting working class people on our side who would benefit from actual progressive policy. I hate how things are realigning. I hate MAGA, I hate corporate democrats. This is why I've been disaffected for the past decade. And now Kamala Harris could do nice things, but I wonder if she will because she has to appeal to these weirdos who IMO dont even belong on the left. It's crazy. Ugh. I know Harris is better than Biden and better than Trump, but I really have a strong dislike of these centrist types who are trying to keep the democrats centrist and push harris back to the right. I dont get along with them and I dont see the world the same way as them. I hate being in the same party as these people as they hold us back. 

Who will be Kamala Harris' running mate?

 So, more speculation on this matter. It seems like the options are being whittled down to 3 choices. Tim Walz, Andy Beshear, or Josh Shapiro. 

Policy wise, Walz is my pick. He's supposed to be the most progressive of the bunch, while also being more approachable, but I actually think he's the least likely one being considered. 

Shapiro is the most likely. Apparently betting odds sites are going nuts for him, and the VP is going to appear with Harris in Philly on Tuesday, and who is governor of PA? Cough cough, hint hint. 

The other one who still seems in the running is Beshear. I see a lot of liberals going nuts over him and how "progressive" he is, but idk, red state governor? Gets on cable news and starts talking like an enlightened centrist? maybe he isnt as bad as I think but he doesn't fit the mold of what I want.

But yeah, it seems like it's a governor. it's not Roy Cooper, he dropped out. 

I'm kinda glad Mark Kelly doesn't seem to be a front runner. Never got the guy's appeal. OMG, he was an astronaut? Who cares? What are his political positions? Oh, he's a centrist? F that guy. That's literally my mentality with him. 

Again, I want to keep Kamala as left as humanly possible, and I'm gonna approach this VP pick as a litmus test for how dedicated to progressive causes she is. 

Anyway, it seems implied whoever it is is gonna be a governor, and Kelly is kinda needed for Arizona right now. 

Another one possible is Pete Buttigieg according to the betting odds sites. But yeah, he seems to be highly unlikely. 

All in all, probably Shapiro. Which some progressives are freaking out about, but let's face it, on the issues he's bad, I'm kinda apathetic. Oh he called those nuts in DC protesting for palestine bad things? Good. Those guys are fricking nuts! Oh, he's for vouchers? Eh...i mean, i dont really like the idea of school vouchers as it undermines public school funding somewhat, but at the same time, living in PA, a lot of our inner city public schools are trash and I had to go to private school as a kid just to get a not crappy education where I wouldn't get beat up every day. So...idk. Like, I'm not big on the idea, but I kinda understand the argument as someone on the pulse of a PA voter. And yeah. Like, this is what people dont understand about the likes of Fetterman, Shapiro, etc. I mean, PA is a pretty moderate state. But it's not moderate necessarily in the way the dem party likes to moderate. It's kinda this rough around the edges we could go progressive on economics but on non economic issues we kinda have weird quirky centrist views kinda moderate. Like a lot of progressive purity tests being leveled at people here don't resonate with me. I dont care about israel. heck, being anti israel in PA is gonna piss off the jewish vote while not getting us a darned thing with the left. Fracking, again, everything here is "muh jerbs." Education, it's like whatever works. And yeah. Really, what wins and loses PA is kitchen table stuff. Wages, jobs, healthcare, I mean, my own ideal platform is built out of my experiences with rust belt PA. UBI (instead of a focus on wages and jobs), medicare for all (healthcare), higher education (because that crap ain't affordable and there aint jobs to make up for it). You know? 

So...all that said, idk, Shapiro's flaws are flaws I can live with. I know a lot of online lefties hate the guy for some reason, especially in this era of these people being bugnuts over israel, but to be blunt, these leftists need to get over it already. It's not a winning issue, it doesnt affect most people, and it's a really terminally online fixation and not an issue that resonates in the real world. Locking down PA may just lock down the electoral college for us, and yeah. Would I prefer someone else? Someone more progressive? Sure. But I'd rather take whatever compromises Shapiro has than fricking Beshear or Kelly. Really, what I DONT like are CORPORATE moderates. ECONOMIC moderates. Moderates on healthcare, or labor rights, or welfare. You know? So...yeah. That's my take on that.

If it's Harris/Shapiro, then I support the ticket. I mean, I've been saying from the start, it's the best choice strategically. You guys know me, despite my ideology, I'm a numbers guy, and we all know what the electoral map looks like here. We need PA. It's the #1 swing state we need to win. We live or die by PA this election. So, yeah. Shapiro is the obvious strategic choice.