posted by Heretic
But isn't the usual goal when making a VP pick to get someone who shores up real or perceived weak spots in the presidential candidate?
With Obama, you had the far more experienced Biden. A big part of why Vance is considered by many to be a bad pick is because he's just a younger mini-me to Trump; while his first VP pick was a more traditional midwest religious guy who was safer and more establishment. With Walz, you have a guy with more real experience and also checks the "military" box due to being in the National Guard, which could be a positive since it took Vance about .5 seconds to play that card when the left came after him.
Fair enough points. But when we are at a time when we are excited to have ANY candidate that's under 90 years old; and then bring up the topic of experience (in this case 2 years), I stand by what I said. Two years only of experience isn't a big deal anymore.
Now, if we are looking at things like life experience and/or likeability, that's something that we can hold up and compare.
Vance is already under attack from the dems because of his crazy cat lady comments.
With Walz we shall see if he receives *equitable amounts of hysterics from the dems.
* since the Dems love to preach this idea, I think the word is appropriate