this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
295 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3856 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Mark Kelly would be a pretty exceptionally qualified old white guy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I really like him, but I think she'd do much better naming a younger VP. He is exceptionally qualified, but he's probably going to quell some of the enthusiasm young voters are showing for Harris.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

he's probably going to quell some of the enthusiasm young voters are showing for Harris.

There are a lot of younger voters who fondly remember all of the amazing science outreach that Scott Kelly (Mark's twin brother who is also an astronaut) did during his year long mission on the ISS. If anything, I'd wager that younger voters are more aware of the Kelly's than older voters — and are more likely to get excited about a NASA astronaut than some Midwestern governor they've only vaguely heard of.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Kelly's "True American Hero" angle will resonate with Never-Trump Republicans, without offending Democratic sensibilities. The worst thing anyone has said about him is he opposes Medicare for all, but his explanation for that opposition is not unreasonable, and does not preclude either universal healthcare or the ACA.

(His argument is that Medicare offers mediocre coverage, and people should not be forced from an employer-sponsored plan with excellent coverage into a plan that offers less.)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

I partially agree, but there needs to be things that appeal to older and conservative voters willing to bridge the gap.

Plus an elder statesman that can keep the House under control will make Harris’ job infinitely easier.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Why pull a popular senator from a western purple state who isn't term limited when there's a popular governor (Roy Cooper) from an eastern purple state who is?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Any Arizona Democrat can warm a seat in the Senate. Kelly can do much more for the Democratic party at the national level than at the Arizona level. His background is too appealing to leave him at the state.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What’s his brother doing now? Put him in the Senate seat

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Not a terrible idea, but he's got the same sort of background and national recognition, and could be put to better work at the federal level.

I'd put Scott in the cabinet. He's qualified to serve as Secretary of Interior (the department that NASA falls under) or Sec Def. Or, we could signal that instead of eliminating Education like the GOP wants, President Kelly deems it so important that he wants his twin brother to look after it when he can't.

Or, if we don't want to give him a department, Chief of Staff: he can run the day to day operations of Mark's White House.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago
  1. Ties to Giffords.
  2. im not convinced Cooper is someone we can collectively rally around yet.
  3. His career makes a significant statement, and one that the right would have difficulty rebutting