TOR

"I want a Harris-Cheney ticket."

Bad idea.

Liz Cheney is only anti-Trump, not anti-Republican.

But I do agree that Liz would be a heavy hitter on the campaign trail.

REDIAL @ #4

Also, agreed.

But as we all know, a presidential race is all about reaching that coveted #270

No doubt a team of number crunchers are working on that 24/7.

If the number crunchers can come up with a V.P. choice that helps Harris and, at the same time, also deprives Trump of reaching #270, all the better.

REDIAL

I'm leaning against Kelly because both he and his wife have vendetta that could be used against Harris in the general. But then money talks and his wife's gun control group just donated $15,000 to Harris which could also be used as a negative by the Trump campaign.

And I don't know if Kelly has the political juice to carry all of Arizona's 124 delegates.

Fron a practical standpoint, Pennsylvania's Gov. Josh Shapiro would seem like a better choice. #1 Pennsylvania is Joe Biden's home state and #2 Pennsylvania has 274 delegates.

I'm just thinking that Pennsylvania would have a more dependable electoral college vote than Arizona, a state that always seems to be involved in cutting throats.

I don't dislike Kelly. I think he's earned every accolade this country has to offer.
But he does have a bone to pick with the Republican Party and I wouldn't want that (and his wife's $15,000 contribution) be misinterpreted as a quid-pro-quo.

Harris' nomination and election to Office is going to be an enormous upheaval in American politics. Trump et al are already stroking out and digging deep for talking points. I see no reason to offer them any fuel for their fire.

Harris' nomination is a given. Unless the dynamic duo of Trump and Speaker Johnson push a campaign finance case against Harris that they'll take all the way to the Supreme Court to get Harris disqualified.

I'm just sayin' ~ Under all that exuberance, Harris has to tread carefully.

TONY

Under normal circumstances, you'd be right. I seem to recall that the FEC rarely enforces a rule that requires a candidate to return donations if he is no longer a candidate. It could be argued that the Biden/HARRIS campaign entitled Harris to use the $91 Million remaining in the re-election coffers for her own campaign.

(Providing proof, of course, that she did use those funds. It's possible that she didn't)

At the same time, the dynamic duo of Trump/Johnson could argue that Harris received an unfair (and illegal per FEC rules) advantage over her opponent and therefore should be disqualified.

In your opinion, all things considered, which way do you think the U.S. Supreme Court would swing?

TONY

"The only thing the FEC can rule on would be whether the money donated to Biden/Harris can be used by Harris to continue the campaign, now with her on top, instead of Biden."

That's the basis of Johnson's threatened lawsuit. And, as I stipulated "with proof."

I'm just curious what you think the U.S. Supreme Court would do if or when faced with that kind of decision.

I know what I think they'd do but you're better informed ~ which is why I ask.