Cruz Crushes During CNBC Interview on Economy

April 19, 2016

Writer

In an interview on CNBC'S Squawkbox, a panel grilled Ted Cruz on the state of the economy. Cruz answered each question succinctly, showing a deep understanding of how the economy works --- and what it will take to get back on track.

The interview also displayed a stark difference between the two Republican candidates leading the field.

"Honestly, everybody is playing this except for Ted Cruz, and it is the victimhood card," Glenn said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Donald Trump is saying we're a victim of China. . . where Ted Cruz is saying, 'I'm going to get the government and the tax burden out of the way for the American people because the American people can do this.'"

The Squawkbox panel asked Cruz detailed questions, demanding explanations and specifics --- and Cruz delivered every single time.

"The fed has, for those with assets, has driven up stock prices, driven up assets values, but that's not built on anything real. It's not built on an increase in the intrinsic value of those assets. It's just based on playing games with money, which means a crash will be coming," Cruz said. "It's far better, if you want to drive up the economy and jobs, it's far better to reduce the burdens on small businesses, where you're creating a whole lot more jobs and we're producing more. That's actually growth. I want asset values to go up because there's more production because it's actually worth more."

While some of the candidates whine about corruption and a rigged system or apologize for America, recommending a European style of government, there is one candidate who believes in the American people. That candidate is Ted Cruz.

Co-host Stu Burguiere also had a tip for journalists interviewing Donald Trump.

"End a lot of questions with, 'Can you explain this?' and see what [Trump] comes up with. Because he can't explain any of it because he doesn't know. He'll go back to China and everything else. Hold him to it. Make him explain those specifics. That would be really helpful," Stu said.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: There was an interview -- there was an interview with Ted Cruz on CNBC, where he was talking about, you know, the -- the basis points in Germany and the VIX and stuff that most people don't even know.

Can you explain some of these things? Can you explain what's happening to the economy, what's happening to the global economy and how to fix it?

PAT: The VIX. Yeah, you rub it on your chest when your nose is all stuffy and --

GLENN: Does anybody know what that is? Yeah, volatility. Okay. Good. It's the spread of volatility and what the market thinks.

PAT: You're telling me it's not a vapor rub?

STU: Well, it's also a vapor rub.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

STU: You're both right.

GLENN: You're both right. Yes. Okay. Thank you so much for that, Stu.

So let's listen to some of these answers from Ted Cruz because it goes to the credibility of who can handle the economy without nationalizing the banks? Who understands what's coming and how to fix it?

TED: The problem with using monetary policy, it's a very ineffective way to juice the system because you create bubbles. So you're right: The fed has, for those with assets, has driven up stock prices, driven up assets values. But that's not built on anything real. It's not built on an increase in the intrinsic value of those assets. It's just based on playing games with money, which means a crash will be coming. It's far better, if you want to drive up the economy and jobs, it's far better to reduce the burdens on small businesses, where you're creating a whole lot more jobs and we're producing more. That's actually growth. I want asset values to go up because there's more production because it's actually worth more.

PAT: Now, you tell me that Donald Trump could have had that conversation. There's no possible way. All he would have said was, "We're losing to everybody. We're losing to Mexico. We're losing to China. We're losing to Taiwan. We're losing to Japan. We're losing to everybody." That's all he would have said.

GLENN: Because, honestly, everybody is playing this except for Ted Cruz. And it is the -- the victimhood card.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Donald Trump is saying we're a victim of -- of China. And, really, of ourselves because we have bad negotiating tactics against China. And I'll make China, I'll make Mexico pay. Where Ted Cruz is saying, "I'm going to get the government and the tax burden out of the way for the American people because the American people can do this. They've just been told they didn't build this. They've been told that, you know, they have to do their patriotic duty and pay higher taxes. They're not victims here. They just need to get the government under control, and they're going to be able to do it."

And I think that's -- that is the biggest difference. Who is a victim? And who says, "Yes, we can. We're going to do this. We can do this?"

PAT: He also shows that he understands how the system works. He understands what makes the economy run, the inner workings of it, what the fed has to do with it. He knows all that stuff. And he proves it again with this.

JOE: Growth around the world. Economic growth --

TED: Yep. Yep.

JOE: -- almost cures all ills. It cures the sentiment that we have right now, the feeling that people aren't getting ahead. Helps you pay down deficit. Helps everything.

TED: Yes.

JOE: But we're in a weird world right now. I checked for you this morning, the German tenure (phonetic) is at 15 basis points. Japan, there are negative interest rates. So it's not just the anemic recovery in this country, it's a global phenomenon that we've really never seen the likes of, and I don't know how to explain it. I wonder if you know how to explain the cause and the cure.

TED: Well, Joe, you're preaching to the choir. And I wish that more of the presidential candidates would focus on growth. Because you're right, growth is foundational. My number one priority as president will be economic growth. Every other problem we've got, whether it's unemployment, whether it's the debt and the deficit, whether it is strengthening and preserving Social Security or Medicare or whether it is rebuilding our military and keeping us safe, you got to have growth to make it work.

And we have been trapped in stagnation for the last seven years. And if we don't turn that around, nothing else gets fixed. And it's driven by a number of factors. You know, historically since World War II, our economy has grown on average about 3.3 percent a year. And yet from 2008 to today, it's averaged only 1.2 percent a year.

If we stay at this level of stagnant growth, one in 2 percent GDP growth, these problems are not solvable. And that's why we need an economic agenda. My economic agenda is focused very directly on growth. Because if you get back to historic levels, 3, 4, 5 percent growth, suddenly the federal budget numbers turn around dramatically. It is by far the biggest factor impacting the federal money.

GLENN: You know, here's the amazing thing, I spent -- last week I spent seven hours with him. And we were at my house and in between tapings of stuff they were cutting, we talked about this. And for the first time, I was overcome with security that, we're going to make it. We're going to make it. He is so rooted in the facts of how an economy works, that he was like, "Glenn, I'm telling you, we have $19 trillion in debt, but we have a 17-trillion-dollar economy."

Do you know what the rate of growth was under Ronald Reagan?

PAT: Yeah, it was -- I think we talked about this the other day. It was like seven.

GLENN: 7 percent.

PAT: 7 percent.

GLENN: He's like, "If we can just get us up to 5 percent, it changes everything. You don't have to worry about it. You have the money to pay that debt down." He said, "The problem is, we're at this growth of 1 percent." And he said, "We've got to stop that." And the way to do that is to get rid of regulation and to change tax policy. And here he is on his tax policy.

TED: My tax plan is simple, it is a simple flat tax. For a typical family of four, first $36,000 you earn, you pay nothing. Zero income tax, zero payroll tax, nothing. Above $36,000, each marginal dollar, you pay a simple flat tax of 10 percent. No longer is a hedge fund billionaire paying a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Everyone pays the exact same.

Another difference, by the way, no longer do you have any differential rates between ordinary income and dividends or cap gains. Short-term and long-term cap gains, it doesn't matter. Everything is 10 percent, which means people actually allocate capital based on where it's efficient, rather than what the tax laws say because the tax laws are neutral to everything.

And then on the business side, on the business side, we abolish the corporate tax. As you know, we have the most punitive corporate income tax of any developed country in the world. We abolish the Obama taxes. We abolish the payroll taxes, which are the single biggest tax most working Americans pay. And we abolish the death tax, which is a tremendously unfair and punitive tax on farmers, on ranchers, on small businesses. And we replace all of those with a simple 16 percent business flat tax. And the effect is an incredible catalyst for job creation and wages going up and bringing jobs back to America. That's my priority: High-priced jobs coming back to America, wages going up for everyone.

GLENN: Okay. He goes into the tax plan. Now, why will this actually work? Listen to this. 726.

PAT: Yeah. Okay.

TED: The problem is the history of the fed has not been very good in terms of being smarter than the market and I think trying to guess what's happening in the market. I think we're far better having a rules-based monetary policy, ideally with some tie to gold so that you just have stable dollars. So that you know that when you're investing a dollar today, you know that the dollar is going to keep a consistent worth, rather than fluctuate wildly.

VOICE: I guess my point -- and then back to Joe's point about the growth stagnation around the globe. What explains that?

TED: Well, some of it is, many countries in the globe have followed the pattern of the United States of hammering small businesses with taxes and regulation, and you end up with a spiral. That gives an incredible --

JOE: They might have led the way, Senator. I don't know if they followed us.

TED: You're right. You're right.

JOE: Europe, you know, they invented structural --

TED: Well, now Bernie Sanders tells us how wonderful Sweden is.

VOICE: Don't get me -- we've been talking about that today, the -- the notion that there's big sum of money and greedy corporations and greedy rich people pull out of that. They don't generate any of that wealth or any of that growth or any of those jobs or any of those tax receipts. All they do is take.

But 51 percent of the country in polls is buying into that. What have we done wrong?

TED: So, Joe, you're telling me, you don't believe it when Hillary Clinton said, "Don't let anybody tell you businesses create jobs?"

JOE: No. That's another one. Or, "You didn't build this." I don't believe that one either.

TED: The catalyst of our economy is small businesses. Two-thirds of all new jobs come from small businesses.

GLENN: Two-thirds.

TED: If you want to have the stagnation we have, it's very simple, you do what we've done the last seven years, you slam small businesses with crushing taxes. You know, yesterday I was in Buffalo, New York.

GLENN: Now, listen to this.

TED: I met with Charlie, the butcher. He's got seven restaurants. By the way, an incredible sandwich, the Beef on Weck, I highly recommend it.

And I remember visiting with Charlie, great example of a small business man. And he was talking about the effect of a $15 minimum wage here in New York State.

And he said, "Listen, I've got seven restaurants." He said, "I'd like to have 20." He said, "I could have 20, but I can't afford at this rate."

How many jobs are you talking about, if you added another 13 jobs? He said, "It would be about 160 jobs." And this was a conversation I had with him, just talking to him. That's being replicated in small businesses all across the country. So if I'm president, my priorities will be lifting the tax burdens and lifting the regulatory burden so that small businesses, we can go from those seven Charlie the butcher shops to 20.

GLENN: If my tax burden went from 40 percent to 16 percent, how many jobs would we create?

PAT: Hundreds probably.

GLENN: Hundreds of jobs.

PAT: Hundreds.

GLENN: Hundreds of jobs. And we're all the same. Anybody who owns a small business, we're all the same. We are being -- if they cut regulations, now, not necessarily in this business, but I know just from HR, we've got three people, I think, working in HR. What are their jobs? Their jobs are to keep us compliant.

If we just reduce the regulation that -- that eat up so much of a small business' time and so many of our resources just keeping us in compliance with the federal government, how many jobs would we create? Who has a compliance officer in a small business just to keep you compliant with the laws for Obamacare?

How many jobs are being eaten by the federal government?

See, they say -- Barack Obama says, "The federal government creates jobs." And that's because, if you go to Washington, they are creating jobs. These places are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And they're all federal jobs. What do those federal workers do? They create paperwork for people like us. They create situations where you need somebody to stay in compliance. That's the problem.

And nobody else is really talking about these things.

PAT: How do you -- if you're an economic person at CNBC and you know this stuff pretty well, like they obviously do, how do you not say, "Wow. That's our guy --

GLENN: I don't know.

PAT: -- that's our guy?"

GLENN: I posted this. This is 41 minutes of his interview. And I have never heard a politician talk like this. Never. This guy smoked MSNBC -- or, CNBC. There was nothing they could bring up on the economy that he couldn't answer. Remember, they started with, "Can you explain this?" And then she followed with, "Okay. But tell us, how is this happening with Europe?" And he answered the question.

I mean --

STU: Yeah. By the way, quick tip for journalists interviewing Donald Trump: End a lot of questions with "can you explain this" and see what he comes up with. Because he can't explain any of it because he doesn't know -- he'll go back to China and everything else. Hold him to it. Make him explain those specifics. That would be really helpful.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: By the way, you're talking about regulation, Glenn. The average US firm, the annual cost burden for regulation is $233,000.

GLENN: How many jobs do you create with an extra 233,000?

PAT: 50,000 a piece. Four.

STU: Yeah. Four or five jobs.

GLENN: The average place. The average place in America.

STU: And that's --

GLENN: Would have money for four extra jobs and some money left over.

STU: And, by the way, that's just federal regulation. The total cost nationally, $2.08 trillion. Trillion.

GLENN: And that is just burnt money. That is $2 trillion that is just burnt. There's nothing -- there's nothing being created with that $2 trillion. Nothing being created of any value. Anything that you can take and turn into something, there's nothing that you can turn and sell to somebody else. That's $2 trillion of burnt money.

STU: And just to go off on manufacture specifically, because everybody talks about them, the average cost for manufacturers, just compliance, is $19,564 per employee. $19,000 per employee. But that hits different for the size of your firm: A big employer, it's $13,000, it costs. For a small manufacturer, small businesses, as you were just talking about, two-thirds of all --

GLENN: All jobs in recessions are created by small businesses.

STU: 13,000 for big employers. 35,000 per employee for small businesses.

GLENN: So you want to raise -- you want to raise -- you are working in the manufacturing industry, you go ahead and say, "I want -- I want Ted Cruz as president because he's going to cut all of the regulations or a lot of the regulations. They go from $35,000 a year just to keep that employee in compliance. And they cut it down to $10,000 a year. What do you say those -- those jobs and those employees get a 10,000-dollar raise?" And the rest of it is used to create new jobs, to grow their business, or to be able to reward the people that are -- are -- took the risk in the first place.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Squawkbox

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

What we DO and DON'T know about Thomas Matthew Crooks

Jim Vondruska / Stringer | Getty Images

It has been over a week since 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks narrowly failed to assassinate President Trump while the president gave a speech at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennslyvania. Despite the ongoing investigations, we still know very little about the would-be assassin, which has left many wondering if the agencies involved are limiting the information that Congress and the public are receiving.

As Glenn has pointed out, there are still major questions about the shooter that are unanswered, and the American people are left at the whim of unreliable federal agencies. Here is everything we know—and everything we don't know—about Thomas Matthew Crooks:

Who was he?

What we know:Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, approximately an hour south of Butler. Crooks went to high school in Bethel Parks, where he would graduate in 2022. Teachers and classmates described him as a loner and as nerdy, but generally nice, friendly, and intelligent. Crooks tried out for the school rifle team but was rejected due to his poor aim, and reports indicate that Crooks was often bullied for his nerdy demeanor and for wearing camo hunting gear to school.

After high school, Crooks began work at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a dietary aide. In fact, he was scheduled to work on the day of the rally but requested the day off. He passed a background check to work at the facility and was reportedly an unproblematic employee. Crooks was also a member of a local gun club where he practiced shooting the day before the rally.

It was recently revealed that sometime before his attempted assassination, Crooks posted the following message on Steam, a popular computer application used for playing video games: "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." Aside from this, Crooks posted no warning or manifesto regarding his attack, and little other relevant information is known about him.

What we don't know:It is unclear what Crook's political affiliations or views were, or if he was aligned with any extremist organizations. Crooks was a registered Republican, and his classmates recall him defending conservative ideas and viewpoints in class. On the other hand, the Federal Election Commission has revealed he donated to a progressive PAC on the day Biden was inaugurated. He also reportedly wore a COVID mask to school much longer than was required.

Clearly, we are missing the full picture. Why would a Republican attempt to assassinate the Republican presidential nominee? What is to gain? And why would he donate to a progressive organization as a conservative? This doesn't add up, and so far the federal agencies investigating the attack have yet to reveal anything more.

What were his goals?

What we know: Obviously we know he was trying to assassinate President Trump—and came very close to succeeding, but beyond that, Crooks' goals are unknown. He left no manifesto or any sort of written motive behind, or if he did, the authorities haven't published it yet. We have frustratingly little to go off of.

What we don't know: As stated before, we don't know anything about the movies behind Crooks' heinous actions. We are left with disjointed pieces that make it difficult to paint a cohesive picture of this man. There is also the matter that he left explosives, ammo, and a bulletproof vest in his car. Why? Did he assume he was going to make it back to his car? Or were those supplies meant for an accomplice that never showed up?

The shocking lack of information on Crooks' motives makes it seem likely that we are not being let on to the whole truth.

Did he work alone?

What we know: Reportedly, Crooks was the only gunman on the site, and as of now, no other suspects have been identified. The rifle used during the assassination attempt was purchased and registered by Crooks' father. However, it is unlikely that the father was involved as he reported both his son and rifle missing the night of the assassination attempt. Crooks' former classmates described him as a "loner," which seems to corroborate the narrative that he worked alone.

What we don't know: We know how Crooks acquired his rifle, but what about the rest of his equipment? He reportedly had nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and several homemade bombs in his car. Could these have been meant for a co-conspirator who didn't show? Did Crooks acquire all of this equipment himself, or did he have help?

There's also the matter of the message Crooks left on the video game platform Steam that served as his only warning of the attack. Who was the message for? Are there people out there who were aware of the attack before it occurred? Why didn't they alert authorities?

We know authorities have access to Crooks' laptop and cellphone that probably contain the answers to these pertinent questions. Why haven't we heard any clarity from the authorities? It seems we are again at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy, which begs one more question: Will we ever know the whole truth?

Who will be Kamala Harris' VP pick?

JIM WATSON / Contributor, Chris duMond / Stringer, Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Over the weekend, President Joe Biden officially dropped out of the 2024 presidential election and put forward his endorsement behind his Vice President Kamala Harris.

Glenn recently predicted that Biden would step down due to the mountain of pressure within his party to do so. But now that we are here we are faced with an all-new line of questions, like, who will be the candidate on the Democratic ticket? Who will be their pick for vice president?

As of now, the answer to the first question seems to be Kamala Harris, who received the support of the president and several prominent democrats. It's still too early to call for certain, and Glenn doesn't think it's likely, but assuming Kamala becomes the Democrat nominee, who will her VP pick be? There are endless possible options, but there are a 5 big names that could prove beneficial to Harris' campaign:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom

Bill Pugliano / Stringer | Getty Images

Governor Newsom has spiked in popularity within his party since his taking office in 2019 due to his scathing criticisms of President Trump and other Republicans. Newsom has been a popular contender as a possible Biden replacement, and a future presidential bid seems likely.

His widespread recognition may be a boon to Kamala's ticket, but the California governor comes with a dark side. Newsom was famously nearly recalled as Governor in 2021, hanging on to his office by a narrow margin. He also faced criticism for his hypocrisy during the COVID lockdowns, attending large gatherings while the rest of his state was locked inside. There's also the issue that both Newsom and Kamala are from California, meaning that if they were to appear on the same ticket, that ticket would lack geographical balance and would potentially lead to a Constitutional issue that would force the duo to forfeit all 54 of the states' Electoral College votes.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro

Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Images

Another prominent Democrat Governor, Josh Shapiro has also been floated as a potential VP pick. Governor Shapiro has become a viable pick due to his well-received performance as Pennslyvania's Governor. The governor has good support within the swing state due to his handling of the I-95 bridge collapse, the train derailment in East Palestine, which had effects on his state, and the assassination attempt on the former president last week. Shapiro would bring much-needed support from the swing state if he was put on the ticket.

That being said, Shapiro has little time to build nationwide name recognition before the DNC in August and the November election. This would be Shapiro's debut on the national stage, and he would find himself in the most unforgiving situation possible.

Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg

FREDERIC J. BROWN / Contributor | Getty Images

Former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and opponent of Biden during the 2020 Democratic primaries, "Mayor Pete's" name recognition might be what Kamala needs on her presidential ticket. Buttigieg rose to popularity during the 2020 election due to his youth and status as "openly gay." Buttigieg has served as the Secretary of Transportation during the Biden administration for the past four years and has formally endorsed Harris.

Nevertheless, Buttigieg has some dark spots on his resume. The East Palestine train derailment disaster has besmirched his reputation as Secretary of Transportation. And while his youth may work in his favor when compared to the other elderly members of our federal government, it also means Buttigieg lacks the experience and prestige that other politicians enjoy.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer

Noam Galai / Stringer | Getty Images

Yet another governor of a crucial swing state, Whitmer was elected in 2018, two years after President Trump was elected, helping secure the state for the Democrats. Whitmer is known for her strong opposition to Trump, both during his presidency and his reelection campaign. Whitmer serves as co-chair for the Biden-Harris campaign and as vice chairperson of the DNC, which gives her influence over the Democratic party, something that would come in handy as a Vice President. Gov. Whitmer also established the Fight Like Hell PAC, which is dedicated to helping Democrats get elected and to stopping Trump by any means.

On the other hand, in a statement following Biden's resignation from the election, Governor Whitmer stated that her role “will remain the same.” It is also worth noting that if she were to be chosen as Kamala's VP, that would make their ticket all-female, which may foster some "woke points," but is politically risky.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear

Lexington Herald-Leader / Contributor | Getty Images

Andy Bashear has seemingly beaten the odds twice, having been elected and reelected as the Governor of Kentucky, despite the deep-red nature of the state. Beshear, who has moderate tendencies, would be a boon to the Harris campaign as he has a track record of reaching rural, typically conservative regions where Democrats tend to struggle. He is also known for his propensity to talk about his Christian faith and willingness to work with Republicans, which are traits that might help win over moderates.

But, like Gov. Shapiro, Bashear has very little time to whip up national support and recognition. He also is unlikely to be very much help for the Harris campaign in winning over important swing states.

Glenn's Show Prep