Mark Cuban Reveals He Was Approached By Kamala Harris As Potential VP Pick: 'I'm Not Very Good As The No. 2 Person'

In an alternate timeline, billionaire and investor Mark Cuban could have been Kamala Harris' vice presidential pick.
However, the Shark Tank star said he turned down an offer from the Democratic presidential candidate's campaign for vetting papers, adding that he wouldn't be a great collaborator as the second-in-command.
More from Deadline
Inside Gavin Newsom & Alex Padilla's Media Blitz Of Trump & JD Vance: "Is He Confused Again?" Governor Mocks POTUS
Paramount-CBS And Trump Legal Teams Say They Are In "Continued Mediation" To Settle '60 Minutes' Lawsuit, Ask Judge To Extend Some Filing Deadlines
Paramount Plan To Pay Off Trump Sparks California Senate Probe, Requests For Ex-CBS News Brass To Testify
'I'm not very good as the No. 2 person. And so, the last thing we need is me telling Kamala, you know, the president, that, 'No, that's a dumb idea,' right? And I'm not real good at the shaking hands and kissing babies,' he told The Bulwark host Tim Miller.
When theorizing how that may or may not have changed the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, Cuban responded that it 'obviously' would have given the Democratic ticket a different vibe, given the contrast he strikes with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.
'My personality is completely different than Tim's. My experiences, my backgrounds are completely different. I think I've cut through the sh– more directly. I'm not a politician. And so it would have been different, but it would have been awful,' Cuban maintained. 'She would have fired me within six days.'
When Miller, a former Republican consultant-turned-Never Trumper, said that reality 'would have been better than the present situation,' the former Dallas Mavericks owner conceded, 'Well, yes, that's true.'
As Miller noted, Cuban previously appeared at Harris' rallies and has been vocal against president Donald Trump, his tariff policies and general demeanor, previously endorsing Hillary Clinton in 2016 and calling the current POTUS a 'jagoff.' Cuban has also tossed around the idea of running for president as a Republican, but has described his politics as libertarian and independent in nature.
Best of Deadline
The Fox News To White House Pipeline: TV Personalities Who Joined The Trump Administration
Celebrities Voting And Encouraging Voting In The 2024 Election
Kamala Harris Celebrity Endorsements: A List Of Celebrities Supporting The VP

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Social Security Benefits Are an Estimated 8 Years Away From Being Slashed -- and the Cuts Are Even Bigger Than Initially Forecast

Most retirees rely on their Social Security income, to some varied degree, to make ends meet. The 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report is calling for an even steeper reduction to retired-worker and survivor benefits come 2033 than was forecast last year. Ongoing demographic shifts are (mostly) responsible for Social Security's financial woes. However, the longer Congress waits to implement reforms, the costlier it'll be on working Americans. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security represents more than just a monthly check for most retirees. To many, it's a financial lifeline that surveys and studies have shown they'd struggle to make do without. For 23 consecutive years, national pollster Gallup surveyed retirees to determine how important their Social Security income was to covering their expenses. Every year, no fewer than 80% of respondents noted it was necessary, in some capacity, to cover their costs. A separate analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Social Security pulled 22 million people above the federal poverty line in 2023, including 16.3 million adults aged 65 and above. If the Social Security program didn't exist, the poverty rate for this group would be nearly four times higher (37.3%, estimated) than it was in 2023 (10.1%). For lawmakers, ensuring the financial health of Social Security should be of paramount importance. But based on the latest Social Security Board of Trustees Report, America's leading retirement program is on anything but stable ground. In January 1940, the Social Security program doled out its very first retired-worker benefit. Since then, the Social Security Board of Trustees has published an annual report intricately detailing how the program generates income, as well as where every dollar in outlays ends up. But what tends to garner even more attention is the Trustees' forecasts of what's to come for Social Security. Specifically, the short- (10-year) and long-term (75-year) projections, which are regularly updated to reflect fiscal policy changes, monetary policy shifts, and an assortment of demographic adjustments. Last week, the 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report was released -- and it contained some rather chilling news for current and future retirees. To begin with, the program's long-term unfunded obligation continues to widen. Every annual report since 1985 has pointed to a 75-year funding deficit between projected income to be collected and forecast outlays, which includes annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). In present-day dollars, discounted to Jan. 1, 2025, this 75-year deficit stood at a staggering $25.1 trillion. However, the more worrisome news is the short-term forecast for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund (OASI). This is the fund responsible for doling out monthly benefits to retired workers and survivors of deceased beneficiaries. Beginning in 2021, the OASI began outlaying more in benefits than was being collected in income. This outflow from the OASI's asset reserves is expected to grow with each passing year. By 2033, the OASI's asset reserves are projected to be completely exhausted. Before going any further, let's make clear that the OASI doesn't need a penny in asset reserves to remain solvent and continue to pay benefits to eligible recipients. With the lion's share of Social Security income collected from the 12.4% payroll tax on wages and salary, there will always be income to disburse to qualified beneficiaries. But if the OASI's asset reserves are depleted in eight years, as the latest Trustees Report predicts, the current payout schedule, inclusive of COLAs, won't be sustainable. The Trustees are forecasting a 23% cut to payouts may be necessary for retired workers and survivor beneficiaries by 2033 -- this is up from an estimated 21% cut outlined in the 2024 Trustees Report -- to sustain monthly benefits without the need for any further reductions through 2099. With Social Security providing a financial foundation to retirees for more than eight decades, the obvious question for current and future retirees is simple: How did Social Security get into this mess? What can be said with certainty is that "congressional theft" and "undocumented migrants receiving traditional Social Security benefits," which are two common myths/scapegoats mentioned by some people online, are the wrong answers. Rather, Social Security's worsening financial outlook is a function of numerous ongoing demographic shifts, as well as inaction on Capitol Hill. Some of these shifts are well-documented and understood by the public. For example, baby boomers reaching retirement age and leaving the workforce in larger numbers are weighing down the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. Likewise, people are living longer today than they were when Social Security initially began paying retired-worker benefits in 1940. To be somewhat blunt, the program wasn't designed to dish out payments to retirees for two or more decades, as is somewhat commonplace today. But a number of these demographic shifts aren't nearly as visible -- nevertheless, they're playing a key role in weakening the program. For starters, the U.S. fertility rate (i.e., hypothetical lifetime births per woman) hit an all-time low in 2023. A laundry list of factors, ranging from people waiting longer to get married and have children, to concerns about the health of the U.S. economy, have reduced the number of children being born and will, eventually, weigh down the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. Rising income inequality is another issue for Social Security. Based on data from the Social Security Administration, approximately 90% of all earned income (wages and salary, but not investment income) was subject to the 12.4% payroll tax in 1983. By 2023, only 83% of earned income was subject to this program-funding tax. In simple terms, the wages and salaries for high earners have been increasing at a faster pace than the National Average Wage Index, which determines the upper range of earned income exposed to the payroll tax. In short, more earned income is escaping the payroll tax as time passes. Insufficient net migration into the U.S. has been problematic, too. Social Security relies on younger people migrating to the U.S. and contributing to the program for decades via the payroll tax before earning a retirement benefit for themselves one day. Since 1997, the net migration rate into the U.S. has dropped off dramatically. The final culprit is the aforementioned lack of action by lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Although plenty of bills have been proposed, the cavernous ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill as to how best to strengthen Social Security has led to an ongoing stalemate. If there's a silver lining here, it's that lawmakers do have a knack for coming to Social Security's rescue in the 11th hour. But the longer Congress waits to tackle this issue, the costlier it's going to be on working Americans to fix. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Benefits Are an Estimated 8 Years Away From Being Slashed -- and the Cuts Are Even Bigger Than Initially Forecast was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Washington Post

an hour ago

• Washington Post

Andrew Cuomo wants to be New York's mayor. Do Democrats want him back?

NEW YORK — The room pulsed with hundreds of hotel, casino and maintenance workers wearing 'Union Strength is Built at the Ballot Box' T-shirts like armor against an uncertain economic future. They chanted loudly for the man they once helped push to resign from office in disgrace. 'CUOMO! CUOMO! CUOMO!' Andrew M. Cuomo stepped onto the stage and welcomed the two powerful unions gathered before him. Four years ago, the workers and their leaders joined a widespread Democratic movement to force Cuomo out of the governor's mansion amid allegations of sexual harassment from 11 women. But on this day in June, they were trying to help him become New York's next mayor.

Fast Company

an hour ago

• Fast Company

Map: All 250 million acres of public land the Trump budget bill would sell off

The Senate budget bill—also called the reconciliation bill, or Trump's 'One Beautiful Bill Act'— is making headlines for its drastic cuts to Medicaid, its rollback of clean energy tax credits, and the fact that it would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion. It's also threatening to take away millions of acres of public land. Nearly 150 groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity, and local organizations like Alaska Wilderness League and New Mexico Wild, have urged Senate members to reconsider this 'unprecedented' sell-off of public lands. The Senate budget bill would be a 'fire sale' of America's public lands and waters, Bobby McEnaney, director of land conservation at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. The bill would force the sale of between 2 million and 3 million acres of public lands from the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, acres that span 11 Western states. (The state of Connecticut is about 3.1 million acres, for comparison). The bill also makes even more public land eligible for sale—more than 250 million acres, including hiking trails, ski resorts, wilderness study areas, national monuments, and critical wildlife migration corridors. New areas would also be opened for oil leasing and offshore drilling under the bill, including in the Gulf of Alaska. If passed, the bill would likely be 'largest single sale of national public lands in modern history,' according to the Wilderness Society. It's a move Senate Republicans are making, multiple groups note, in order to pay for billionaire tax breaks. The bill 'trades ordinary Americans' access to outdoor recreation for a short-term payoff that disproportionately benefits the privileged and well-connected,' the Wilderness Society says. Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah and chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, has also said the bill would create opportunities for housing. But nature organizations say it would do no such thing—and that it would bring more harm to the public. 'There is no provision to prevent lands sold under Lee's bill from being developed into high-end vacation homes, Airbnbs, or luxury housing projects,' the letter signed by dozens of organizations reads. Selling these lands, they add, 'threatens public access, undermines responsible land management, puts environmental values, cultural resources, and endangered species at risk along with clean drinking water for 60 million Americans and betrays the public's trust.' That 250 million acres of public lands are at risk can be hard to visualize. The Wilderness Society made an interactive map, showing both the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands the bill makes eligible for sale. The map illustrates how those 250 million acres span 119 congressional districts, reaching all the way from Alaska down through the Western United States, and over past the Rocky Mountains. 'This bill would lead to a wave of irreversible extraction that will rob future generations of public access to lands and waters that belong to all of us—just to bankroll tax cuts for the superrich,' McEnaney said in his statement. 'As currently proposed, Americans will soon lose permanent access to the public lands close to home, their favorite trails, their parks, and their favorite recreation areas. Once these lands are sold, and the no trespassing signs go up, there will be no going back.'