Why Mark Kelly is the only choice for the Democrats.

At the end of the day, Kelly is able to broaden the electorate more than other potential VP candidates.

Since the decision as to who will be the VP pick for Democrats is coming up in mere hours, I figured I’d throw my two cents into this debate with, who I see, as the most unquestionable pick…Senator Mark Kelly.

Mark Kelly

Mark Kelly has four things going for him right now, but also one thing going against him. So, let’s start with the positives.

1. Captain in the US Navy - Win Back the Military! This is a HUGE one. This is the highest-ranking military officer that Democrats have had on their ticket since Lloyd Bentsen (a colonel in the US Army, both O-6 pay grade). As someone whose father is a Vietnam War veteran (Marines during the Tet Offensive), and goes to the VA hospital all the time, I can tell you that veterans like talking to other veterans. There is a brotherhood between veterans that many of us “civies” will never fully appreciate.

   What’s even more important is that he is an officer who saw combat and engaged with the enemy. Granted, it was in Operation Desert Storm, but still, he flew combat missions during the war. And, again, as someone who goes with my dad to the VA quite often, there is a difference in the way that combat veterans interact, and reminisce about the war. True, JD Vance was in Iraq as a Marine, but he never was an officer, was a war correspondent, thus never engaging with the enemy. As Vance said, he was “lucky to escape any real fighting”.

   Right now, Democrats need to win veterans, and Kelly is the guy to do it. If he talked to them, veteran to veteran, than could peel a lot of Donald Trump’s support nationwide. But for this to be beneficial, Democrats need to make VA issues a front-and-center part of their campaign. Again, this one is big.

2. An astronaut - Reclaiming Patriotism and the Flag! This helps in two ways. First, along with his military service, Kelly shows a selfless service for his country. In addition, unlike Vance who ran to the elitist institution of Yale and worked as a venture capitalist, Kelly’s entire higher education was entirely under the umbrella of the Navy. Again, selfless service.

   The second way Kelly helps is that astronauts are smart people, and many times seen as American heroes. To this day, I say that Democrats royally fucked up by not picking John Glenn in 1984. Being an astronaut who has spent his entire professional career serving his country, he gives the Democrats the opportunity to win back patriotism, something that has been lost in the party since 1972 (or maybe 1967).

3. Making the gun issue personal. It’s nice to finally see the Democrats not being afraid of the gun issue. And honestly, since Trump was shot a few weeks ago (which seems like years ago now), it seems like the gun-loving tone of the GOP has quieted down a little.

   Kelly is able to bring the personal story of his wife, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, to the forefront. He can provide a real story as to how gun violence has affected him and his family personally. It’s not the story of “Michelle from Ohio who lost a brother”. No, it’s the future vice president of the United State of America! Most Americans are already for gun reform, and having Kelly on the ticking might make many voters think, for the first time, that something could be done about it.

   Also, gun violence is an issue that cuts across race, age, and gender (unless you are someone named Cletus who has their own entire arsenal in rural Kentucky).

4. He’s from a swing state. This isn’t really important, as I will mention under Josh Shapiro, but it’s there. For those of you who like to live in the fantasyland of “picking a VP from a state”, there you go.

The only negative that I can see is that if he is elected as Vice President, Democrats could lose that Senate seat. Of course, he would be the tiebreaking vote in the Senate, and if he is VP, that means that the president is Harris, who can just veto something. Still, I think that’s less of an issue.

So, that’s my pitch for Kelly. What about the rest?

Josh Shapiro

First, let’s look at Josh Shapiro. To me, it seems that the only reason that he is being considered is because he’s from Pennsylvania. That’s a pretty low bar. Why not Fetterman or Casey? Also, to date, vice presidential candidates picked purely because of geography really don’t have an impact in the state like the myth says it does.

Still, there are two issues with Shapiro. First, if Democrats are going to pick a person from Pennsylvania, they need to decide if they are going to pick someone who appeals to Sheetz or Wawa voters. If there is any state that has a strong east-west divide, it’s definitely Pennsylvania. Biden did poorly in Philadelphia compared to 2016. Between 2016 and 2020, the Democrats saw a net lost in votes (around 4,000), so maybe having a Wawa-region guy might be a better idea.

The big question is what the Democrats’ strategy in Pennsylvania is. If the Democrats see the Philly suburbs as the key to victory (Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, and Bucks Counties), then Shapiro might be the best person. However, if Democrats want to lower the margins in rural counties out west, the Shapiro isn’t the candidate, as Fetterman performed better in those counties, while performing worse statewide.

The second issue is not religion. Unfortunately, we live in a time where the far-left and far-right want to conflate Israeli foreign and domestic policy with anti-Semitism. According to Ben Shapiro, if you oppose Israeli policy, you must be anti-Semitic. On the far-left, if you are Jewish, then you must be 100% for Israel. The whole issue has become a clusterfuck, just so one side or the other can play the “Jewish” card. Personally, I think most people see through that.

What is an issue, however, is that Shapiro (Josh, that is) did volunteer for the Israeli Defense Forces, and was not obligated to do so. This could have a backlash from those on the far left. Of course, many will say “well, who are they going to vote for? Trump!” No, but they could just stay home and vote for nobody. Picking a possible “rock the boat” candidate could cause issues.

My main issue is that he is only being looked at because of his state. Had he been the Governor or New York to the north, New Jersey to the east, or Maryland to the south, nobody would be talking about him. I think the “put all of your chips on Shapiro winning the Philly suburbs” is as risky as picking Joe Lieberman in 2000 to win Century Village in Florida.

J.B. Pritzker

A billionaire representing a party trying to reclaim its roots as the party of the working class. Nope. Next.

And, as my governor, I’ll say that he has done a good job in Illinois as far making it more fiscally sound (along with Mike Madigan being gone). But he’s also using my tax dollars to pay for hotels for undocumented immigrants, which is pissing me off royally. People in rural Illinois could use that money! I truly believe that being a billionaire would turn off more progressive voters than Gaza.

Tim Walz

I like Walz. Unlike Shapiro, who still comes across as a politician, Walz has the ability to talk to people like real people. Also, when he makes an attack, he doesn’t have to scream like Shapiro. Shapiro gives me that 2004 Howard Dean Iowa Caucus vibe.

What makes Walz a good choice is that he can truly speak to Midwestern voters (as I know, because I am one). This helps in both Michigan and Wisconsin. And if we want to be honest, Walz would probably play better in Western Pennsylvania, as it has more of a Industrial Midwest working-class vibe, than Philadelphia, which feels more East Coast, though working-class as well. Democrats need to move away from that “Coastal Elite” moniker, especially with the presidential candidate being from California. Basically, we need someone who can talk to Sheetz and Culver’s voters, whereas Shapiro purely comes from the Starbucks crowd.

As of now, I don’t see any faults with Walz. I just think that Kelly provides the Democrats with better alternatives, especially with veteran voters.

Pete Buttigieg

This one is going to be harsh, which is the reason I’m glad I don’t work in politics anymore. I don’t have to deal with social-justice warrior snowflakes that flinch at every little thing that doesn’t comport with their world view.

First of all, I like Mayor Pete. Honestly, out of all the candidates that are being considered for the vice presidential slot on the Democratic ticket, I would want Buttigieg to be the actual vice president. I think he would do the best job in that position, end of story.

However, it’s not Pete that I worry about, but the activists and donors. Democrats already have major problems with bowing to the LGBTQ+ donors and activists, many times in the face of popular opinion. These donors and activists want the Democrats to only talk about “Don’t Say Gay” in Florida. The result…Republican Ron DeSantis wins the Florida governor’s race by the highest vote margin in 40 years, and the highest ever for a Republican. Yeah, that strategy didn’t work out so well, did it?

And as much as Buttigieg tries to focus on the issues, those activist would take the spotlight and make the campaign about a new “glass ceiling being broken”. Remember how well that helped Hillary?

As with Josh Shapiro, it’s extremely unfair that some candidates should be disqualified by guilt by association. And while I think that that association is a little strong with Shapiro (remember, IDF volunteer), it’s totally hurting Buttigieg, and unfairly so. It’s a shame. If I didn’t worry about the “Human Rights Campaign” being front and center (which has nothing to do with what human rights is traditionally know for), then I would breathe easier. But it wouldn’t, unfortunately.

Andy Beshear

Just watch the video below from three days ago. Take a few minutes and watch it.

Okay, let me wake you up. If anyone looks like a politician from the old DLC mold of the 1990s, it’s Beshear. This doesn’t fly in 2020’s populist political atmosphere. And do you really think that him being “moderate” is going to win over voters? I mean, yeah, some, but they would probably be the same voters won over by Kelly or Walz.

Beshear comes across more like a politician than Shapiro. My “vibe meter” is playing Tim Kaine all over again. He brings no energy, no excitement, and nothing to the ticket. He doesn’t even have a geographical advantage, as there’s no way in hell Democrats are winning Kentucky in the near future. And if his daddy hadn’t been a popular governor, he wouldn’t be governor today. Let’s just look at the facts.

So that’s my unsolicited advice. Have a wonderful day.