Quote:
Originally Posted by nonniey
And that has what to do with the price of tea in China? My point is Harris would have been much better off choosing a moderate as her VP. That would have played into her attempt to portray herself as more moderate than she is. Kelley would have been her best choice and she'd probably have got a point or two more at the polls with him (and that may be the difference between winning and losing).
|
Not sure I understand the price of tea in China comment. We were discussing the VPs and my comment addressed the VPs on the ticket as I defended her pick.
For the record I preferred Kelly to as he was from a swing state. But after learning more about Walz I have no problem with the pick. Above all else he is a good guy and likeable, you just can't say that about Trump and Vance.
I disagree with your comment that both choices hurt their running mate, Vance has been damaging and the Pubs have so little on Walz that they have resorted to critcizing Walz for claiming he went to combat when he did not, meanwhile Trump calls those killed or captured "losers", he claimed the Presidential Medal of Honor given to a rich donor was more important than the Congressional Medal of Freaking Honor. They just don't have much on Walz obviously when compared to all Vance has given the Dems.
So no I don't agree with you when you say she would be comfortably ahead had she selected Kelly and that both VPs have hurt their running mate.