Sen. Mark Kelly Emerges As Unexpected VP Candidate For Kamala Harris
Kelly is a low-profile senator with a strong resume from a swing state who could bring “demographic balance” to the Democratic ticket.
I'm Canadian so I don't really get a say in this, but he seems like a decent guy. Most astronauts are hard working, smart, and know to rely on other smart people to get tasks accomplished. His wife ain't no pushover either, nobody can question that couple's commitment to America.
It’s funny. Literally every astronaut I’ve met is exactly like this - quietly competent, affable, team player. As is the astronaut candidate I’ve met.
And yet…
Every person I’ve met who has been keen on becoming an astronaut or astronaut candidate has been an insufferable self-aggrandizing jerk face. Like, just awful people who suck all the air out of any room they’re in, expounding on how they (or the idea they’re selling) are the most amazing thing ever.
I take it you never met Lisa Nowak.
My BIL was selected as an alternate for teacher in space. He did some of the training, but he honestly wasn’t even too bothered that he never got called to go, which probably means he’d have done well up there.
For those that don't remember:
He does not support Medicare for all, and also does not support the green new deal, according to his wiki. He also supported increased oil drilling.
So he's pretty moderate right IMO, which sucks. I hope he's not her choice.
Yeah, see this is why I was so attached to Biden. The average Democrat isn’t really all that left. All this stuff with climate change and unions under Biden was very much an anomaly, and we’re probably returning to a certain amount of status quo with Harris.
Idk, I could be wrong; maybe she’s super left and this guy’s being floated as a gift to the New York Timeses of the world so the ticket will be acceptable to the six figure Manhattan shitheads that their editors are friends with, so they won’t print bullshit about her to try to lose her the election. And she still doesn’t want to destroy American democracy and all climate change remediation since Obama, which makes her worth voting for. But yeah we can expect a certain amount of corporate bullshit to come back into the equation now, I think. 😕
The average Democrat is to the left of their representatives on a lot of things, including climate change: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/
Kelly is not an average Democrat representative, he's definitely on the right end of the caucus.
The Green New Deal was a white paper produced by a DC think tank. Obama implemented some of it. Biden implemented a lot of it through the climate change bill.
I think he's pretty electable and, right now, anyone who helps win is good.
His position on healthcare seems to be Medicare for All Who Want It, without forcing people to drop their private health insurance if they prefer to go that route.
I think it’s a healthy balance, on the ticket, that helps reach those purple states more.
Yet the people around this instance thinks he's a great VP candidate...
Funny how you're upvoted a lot for mentioning this, but someone else does, then it's a downvote parade.
From wikipedia:
Kelly ran as a moderate in 2020 and voiced support for bipartisanship.[79][80][81] Since joining the Senate, he supported abolishing the filibuster in order to pass voting rights legislation[82] and a federal minimum wage increase to $15 per hour. He has criticized Joe Biden's approach to border security.[83][84] As of October 2022, Kelly has voted in line with Biden's stated position 94.5% of the time.[85]
Abortion
As a candidate in 2020, Kelly said he was "pro-choice" and was endorsed by Planned Parenthood.[86] He supports codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law.[87] He has said that late-stage abortions should be legally protected.[88]
Climate and environment
Kelly has voiced support for climate action, but said he "does not favor" the Green New Deal.[89] The League of Conservation Voters gave him a 97% score in 2021.[90] In 2022, Kelly also advocated for an expansion of oil drilling in the wake of rising gas prices.[91][92]
Guns
Kelly became an outspoken advocate for gun control following the attempted assassination of his wife, former U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords, at the 2011 Tucson shooting.[93]
Kelly voted for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in response to the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas.[94][95]
Health care
Kelly supports building on the Affordable Care Act to include a public health insurance option.[93][96] He opposes Medicare for All.[97]
Immigration
Of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Kelly has said, "Dreamers are as American as anyone", and has expressed support for it.[98][86]
Trump administration
In February 2021, Kelly voted to convict Trump for incitement of insurrection in his second impeachment trial,[66] and has been outspoken in his disdain for him.[99]
A mixed bag, could be a hinderance or could get with the administration if its truly more left than Biden.
This is interesting. People are calling him a mixed bag, yet looking into this he clearly supports expanding on existing solutions and has supported potential solutions that offer real-world results, such as expanded drilling. A realistic solution that makes sense in a swing state. The only outlier is Medicare for All and he'd probably say behind closed doors that he needed the votes and compromised with reinforcement of the ACA.
From what I remember and have seen recently, he strikes me as someone who is quietly playing the game. Becoming VP may allow him to step out and take more progressive stances. Or less progressive, of course. I'll have to look into him more, though it's my opinion he's a good pick, both for more favorable (for us) policies and for the larger election strategy.
I'll make an early call that he's more progressive than he seems at face value. Shame we don't have that bot which messages us X time later. I'd like to come back to this in the future, see if I was right.
He's also one of the only democrats that's refused to sign the PRO act iirc, so I don't think he's, uhhh, pro labor either, which is a somewhat large issue I would say
Sure. He's white, straight, and male, to balance out the ticket for racists/sexists/homophobes. Package him, ship him out, and let's defeat Trump and Project 2025!
He's a pair of wraparound sunglasses and a selfie in a truck away from looking like a lot of Trump's base. That sort of thing helps because we should not assume voters humans are rational.
Right?! How about instead of "balancing" the ticket for bigots on the right, we balance it for progressives on the left?!
Oh but the left never votes and the center right always does... Yeah, because the center right always has at least 2 candidates to choose from while the left has none.
Believe me, I agree with you; I wish I had a true Progressive to vote for this November! By the way, we're not really balancing the ticket for right-wingers, it's more courting undecided voters, whether they be left, center, or right. Like it or not, the swing states will decide this election. And we can't let Donald Trump and Project 2025 win, there's too much at stake.
Please vote, volunteer, and donate for Kamala Harris. When she's president, turn that attention to getting progressives elected. Showing the American people an improvement in their lives is the only way to avoid these narrow 50/50 splits between good and bad candidates as we reform and improve things...
Anecdote time: last week a 30 year old woman I work with stated with confidence she wouldn't be voting this year. Earlier today she told me she would be voting for Harris and asked who the vp would be. I said Shapiro, beshear, or Kelly. She looked up each of them on Wikipedia and immediately said something to the effect of, "why have I never heard of Kelly? I'd vote for this guy at the top of the ticket. I hope she picks him."
The guy's bio speaks for itself. Plus we'd get fun twins hijinks at the naval observatory and I think we as a nation need that.
I would love to see Mark at the top of the ticket, and Scott as his Chief of Staff.
I like him, but PLEASE don't vacate a Senate seat right now..! The balance is too tenuous at the moment. The Rs just lost a seat with Vance that could be filled with someone that isn't batshit crazy; let's not pull the same stunt in AZ.
E: I'm hearing that the way it works in AZ is that the person leaving their seat gets to assign the new member. If that's the case, then i withdraw my complaint.
Democratic Governor appoints new Senator to carry out remainder of term. It's safe. A special election would then happen in 2026.
Vance only leaves if Trump wins.
I'm still shocked no one is taking seriously the "Democrats should pick Romney as Presidential choice because reasons" that has seriously been floated.
I wonder: how many times has someone given a big platform to someone so they can suggest that the Republicans should select a Democrat as their choice? Probably never? Why is it that people always say - with a straight face and very, very seriously - that it is Democrats that should run Republicans on their tickets, because something something unity and tone.
Because it's not a good idea. They select him and don't convert Republican voters, lose a good portion of the progressive base and only get marginal, less reliable, swing voters with that move. That's at least a ten point loss right there.
It's going to be a safe bet like Josh Shapiro or, slightly less safe, Cooper.
Yeah, it's of course a ridiculous idea that moderates and Republicans seem to suggest that Democrats do, but I never see anyone given a big platform to suggest that, say, the Republicans should force donnie to step down and select Hillary as the centrist option, for example. I mean, the New York Fucking Times let Aaron Sorkin suggest that Mitt Romney should be the Democratic pick. I mean, what. The. Actual. Fuck.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/21/opinion/biden-west-wing-aaron-sorkin.html
Add this to another in a long list to why I laugh right out loud in someone's face when they insist that NYT is "liberal".
It's also a near-perfect demonstration of Murc's Law - it's not up to Republicans to amend their awful and despicable ways, no, the Democratic Party has to nominate someone like Mitt Romney in the hopes that would somehow heal a divide (by coming all the way over to the right, basically) that the right wing is entirely responsible for.
Cooper
Was curious why "less safe"? I was thinking that's a decent strategic pick, a southern democrat that's able to win the same elections that Trump and Robinson won, while still pretty well aligned with the democrat platform broadly. He has a good chance to immediately be 16 electoral votes, he has to vacate his governorship this year anyway, so you don't vacate a known factor in favor of a less known factor. Pandering to Pennsylvania may be a bit more likely with more bang for the buck though given that Pennsylvania has historically been more "winnable" and has more votes though..
I don't like that option, but I do think it would be effective to disrupt the Republican party. It'd really force a lot of modern "Republicans" to face what the party has become.
I think it'd be better to out him as VP under Harris than president though. To have a traditionally popular Republican candidate on the ticket would give them a huge platform to point out that the MAGA party is not the Republican party many supported before. It's just Fascists who stole it because people were too dumb to pay attention.
I'd rather not be one bullet away from a Republican president in the current climate...
We are two bullets away from a theocratic nutjob president, that's a really concerning thought with the large number of Repub terrorists in this country.
He has a horse in the olympics and does not even watch them!
Which platform was that? Fucking lunacy.
To see an example of how they are getting hilarious dragged for it....
https://www.wonkette.com/p/aaron-sorkin-sets-land-speed-record?utm_source=publication-search
I would love to see Mark Kelly as VP and then campaign for president.
He's 60 right now. If Harris goes 2 terms, that's 68.
Not a fan, and I don’t like his relative lack of political experience. However, his status as a white male veteran who is the husband of Gabby Gifford could win some points.
Hate that it comes to that, but this is what we get. Fuck, I just want out of this shithole.
The military background shuts up a lot. As it should.
Oh, but some of the clueless idiots here think he's a WONDERFUL choice apparently. God damn, people are such fucking morons that don't know anything about the candidates thoroughly. They just saw him as a replacement, got a boner and now will smite anyone critical of it.
Stupid idiotic voters are the bane of our existence every election cycle. We should hold them accountable as much as politicians. Because their stupid decisions fucks us all over.
Unexpected
HuffPo be huffing something hard.
I'd like it to be mayor Pete. Young, smart, well spoken, Rhodes scholar, veteran. Plus it would set him up for a serious run at the presidency in the future.
I don't hate him, but he's already 60. That means that if Harris goes 1 term and loses, or goes 2 terms and can't run again, Kelly is 68 before he can run himself, which he will inevitably do. If he's 68 when he starts, then he is running the country in his 70s and we have made 0 progress on this age problem that seems to plague presidential candidates. Beshear is 46, which keeps him in his 50s for most of his terms.
People around here seem to love old farts despite bitching about how tired they are of old farts running the country.
Ironic.
It's pretty odd to me that people feel like they really need to shore up the "moderate" lane. Boosting the AZ chances makes perfectly fine sense, but Harris isn't expected to be particularly progressive. She's a middle of the road Democrat, so unless she's going to come out fighting for big progressive change, just run her as a solidly competent Democrat. No need to find a new Joe Lieberman.
Plus, for the love of god, don't give up an iffy senate seat.
Dem Governor, his seat is filled by her appointment. She’s been pretty great on not taking GOP shit from the state legislature, so I don’t expect any “concession” from her to try to appease anyone. She knows the GOP only takes and never gives those.
isn’t expected to be particularly progressive
Absolutely true if you look at it objectively.
But people aren't objective. She's a black, partly asian woman and thus her existence as a presidential candidate is already majorly "progressive".
Yes, you have the right wingers throwing out "whore" for no reason, for saying her mothers name should be enough to disqualify her...
Now these people are too far gone to get any hope of their vote to be sure, however I suspect milder versions of those sentiments lie perhaps even subconsiously in some moderate voters. They may feel vaguely "uncomfortable" and doubling down might just exacerbate that while a milquetoast white dude might alleviate that discomfort.
On that last point, it is possible to run for VP while still holding the Senate seat, and only give up the Senate seat if they get that promotion. It makes campaigning a little tough, since it has to be done around their day job, but it's manageable.
And their Governor is a Democrat, so if Kelly has to give the seat up the Governor can name an interim Democrat to replace him.
The vacancy would be filled at the next general election (2026), and Arizona's senate seats are not safe. Kelly's term would otherwise go until 2028. It's not immediately catastrophic, but I have a hard time believing the VP (for a young nominee) is going to matter enough to be worth opening that seat up.
Let's see what you folks missed...
Navy combat pilot. Would be the first of those in the administration since HW.
Arizona would be a nice get electoral wise.
Navy combat pilot. Would be the first of those in the administration since HW.
Why would this ever be an asset for the presidency? It's completely unrelated to the skills involved and doesn't demonstrate any particular merit of bravery or understanding the costs of war. I don't particularly want someone whose chosen role in warfare was comfortably dropping bombs on people they couldn't even see.
GW left the military as a First Lieutenant (O2). Kelly retired as a Navy Captain, (O7).
If their careers were firearms, GW's would be a .22LR revolver; Kelly's would be a 20mm CIWS.
Unexpected? He and Josh Shapiro were the immediate go-tos for basically all the news outlets after Harris emerges as the frontrunner for the nomination. Not sure what this headline is about.
That being said, I'd love to see either Kelly or Shapiro on the ticket as VP. Could get some great things done.
HELL YES
Not just that! Fuck yeah!
Our first astronaut president. If he had a little Aldrin, we might see him punch a flat earther in the face. That would be awesome. Specially if it was a republican flat earther. LOL.
He is center enough to balance her ticket. Problem is we’ll stave off fascism for one more cycle but we won’t get important changes pushed. It’ll be a don’t rock the boat presidency.
How does center balance center? Or do you merely mean she's a woman of color and he's a white man?
Jump right in there with allegations and accusations do you?
Finish the sentence.
Did you literally stop reading right there? If so that’s on you.
Finish the fucking sentence.
Hey guys! I've got a great story!
Lots of randos on Reddit, Mastadon, and Lemmy are saying "Kelly" should be the VP.
GFY Huff....
I'd say it's likely either him or Beshear, with Beshear having a slight edge.
Can you imagine a VP debate between an actual fucking astronaut and Peter Thiel's former blood boy?
Not that he would be a bad choice for VP but I want him to stay in the Senate. He can do more good there.
In office vs in Senate I do agree. However I think the good he can do by being on the ticket does more for the nation than if he was in the Senate and Trump won. (Not saying thats the only option but its a possible outcome)
he'd be great for sure. if we could get gallego and another dem senator to replace him it would be even better. plus katie hobbs being gov would ensure republicans can't just name whatsherfacenewslady
We probably lose his seat in the Senate then. Though we aren't going to keep the Senate so maybe that doesn't mattet
The Democratic governor of Arizona is charged with filling his seat, and Arizona law requires it be filled with someone of the same party as the vacating senator. We aren't losing the seat; it's safe until 2026 at least.
Jeff Jackson from NC would be my vote. Dude has been pretty great for communicating with constituents, seems to genuinely give a shit, and is pretty progressive.
I remember his posts on r/Charlotte from when I lived there a few years ago. "gives a shit" is definitely the vibe I got from them.
YES
I don't like him.
Politically, it's a very smart move.
Cause I'm still voting D here, even not liking him. They're trying to pull all the undecideds they can.
Hell yes.
Fucking sold
So, we'd swap out a too-old guy for a younger person with a too-old guy as her backup? Sigh…
Mark Kelly is 60. The ideal age for a first-time presidential candidate is 57, so they can retire after two terms at 65. Mark is 3 years past ideal, but still 18 years younger than Trump is now.
He and his twin brother could both complete two full terms and still be 2 years younger than Trump is now.
Mark should be at the top of the ticket, though. He is far more competitive in the contested states.
He's 60 years young. That is younger than average for a congressman.
He can't even collect social security for a few more years.
no such thing as too old when republicans have shown that you can be young and incredibly shitty.
Bawww, some people in this magazine are funny.
Cwy to the modewators, shitheads. lol
Lol, not reading responses, just insta-blocking. Don't care. Good bye.
Huh?
wat
Did you even respond to the correct post??
Probably not since it could very well be a bot and it just posted it's copy pasta in the wrong spot.
Are you okay?
Based on your personal experience, which color crayon would you say tastes the best?
Spite, eh. You're a turd, man.
And you're a trolling shitlord yourself.
Almost 10 comments in this thread and near 400 words from you without one single explanation of WHY Mark Kelly is a bad choice. You're one example of why voters are so uninformed, you would rather argue than present anything credible for others to learn.
He's scared. He's low-educated. He knows it guarantees Harris the White House.
Nah, not going to. Some of the others who have commented have stated their reasons and I sided with them. Perhaps if you've taken at least a minute into my post history while you're downvoting every comment like a little stupid child (hey this isn't Reddit by the way so points don't affect me in the rate I'm posting so ha). You would see what comments I've responded to!
Like mind blowing shit there.
I fucking hate this reality right now.
Like okay, the chances of Harris winning at all is slim enough if barely. Having this prick from what I gathered, will not improve anything.
"WE D-D-DID GERD JERB! WE PROUDS DAT WE MADE SUMEONE PROFILE KARMA IN NEGATIVE LIKE DAT MATTERS AT ALL! WE DID DONE GEHD GAIS! HRUHRURHURURHHRURHURHRURUH"
What don't you like about him?
Kelly represents a swing state, so this is a move to improve their chances to win it.
Maybe if you had some sort of argument as to why you didn't like him, but I've heard nothing but good things. Willing to have my mind changed if you actually have anything more than misplaced raged.
Pfffft, I could have made one but with the infantile reaction you've all taken with potshots, rabid downvoting and everything. Do you guys honestly think you would've taken a rational counterargument? I doubt it. Don't lie to yourselves. For everytime you spam the word 'triggered' or whatever, your actions speak louder than your little words could.
Bunch of entitled manchildren you all are.
Kelly has a better chance than Harris. He should be at the top of the ticket.
