Harris decides on Tim Walz as running mate

[iluvatar5150]

Maybe that's the plan: a solid, articulate team to finally get the message out about "socialist" policies that actually poll pretty well already, against a team that can do little more than rant and babble.

That would be nice, wouldn't it?

I dunno, he got elected president in 2020 so there must have been enough voters who believed his ramblings and nonsense......

there were

 

[civilwarbuff]

that's an indicator that he may be able to reach additional rural folks in places like Ohio, PA, Michigan, and Georgia

Based on all the Kentuckian jokes we here in Ohio tell.....probably not and the people in N. Ohio, PA and MI tend to view Kentuckians as hillbillies and hicks who come north to take their jobs so I doubt they would be much persuaded. Now Georgia might find them a kindred spirit so that's a possible.

 

[BPPLEE]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/06/politics/tim-walz-harris-vice-president/index.html

Walz emerged from the most accelerated vice presidential search in modern history from a shortlist that included half a dozen Democrats, including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly. The vice president held in-person interviews with Walz, Shapiro and Kelly on Sunday.

While Harris and Walz did not enjoy much of a previous relationship, aides said Harris grew increasingly enthused by how Walz genuinely carried himself and found a warm chemistry with him during a final meeting Sunday at her residence at the Naval Observatory. Harris was impressed “by his authenticity,” a person close to the process told CNN.


Granted, none of us are in the DNC strategy meetings that go on behind closed doors, but I question whether or not this is the right move, strategically.

It seems like the areas where Harris is going to have the biggest uphill challenge is in purple state voters, rural voters, and among independent voters. Picking a running mate that's equally unpopular among those groups (or that a large number of people just haven't heard of) doesn't seem like the best move IMO.

Picking a guy who's popular in a very blue state (so blue, that they were literally the only one who didn't vote for Reagan, even California did that year)
View attachment 352902

...seems less advantageous that going with someone like Shapiro.

Although, I think the best choice would've been Andy Beshear

Poll: Beshear most popular Democrat governor again

With his re-election campaign finally behind him, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has reclaimed the title of the most popular Democratic governor in the United States.

www.lanereport.com

...who was voted one of the most popular Democratic governors in the country, and is able to carry a 60%+ approval rating in the red state of Kentucky (indicating at least some measure of being able to connect with rural conservative-leaning voters)

And this little bit certainly is worth noting:

https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article281207713.html

Is tied with Hawaii Gov. Josh Green as the most popular Democratic governor among voters who also supported former president Donald Trump in 2020, with 41% approving of his job performance Is the most popular Democratic governor among 2020 voters who backed President Joe Biden, with 93% approval


It seems like Andy Beshear would've checked all of the boxes a Democratic candidate looking to take on the GOP could've hoped for.
93% approval among Biden voters
41% approval among Trump voters (which is about as good as you're going to get for a Democratic governor among Trump voters)
60%+ favorability in a quite red state


Did Kamala bet on the wrong horse here? Or am I just missing something?

Or did her handlers set her up to lose so they can save the best candidates for 2028?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I've heard this brought up before...but in practical terms, for Democrats, picking someone who's not as popular with the far-left isn't going to yield them any net losses.

There are enough people with strong opinions about the current situation in Palestine that I think it would. I personally know of several who said he was a dealbreaker for them. And the simple fact that he's Jewish would count against him in some circles as well. He's also got essentially the same background as Harris, and apparently didn't give her a notable bump in the polls in PA.

There's absolutely 0 risk of Kamala not winning the deep blue states no matter who she picks as her running mate.

So why not roll the dice on someone who may be able to connect better with different types of people?

I do think that Walz offers that though. He's a gun owner, a hunter, former military, blue collar high school teacher from the Midwest. That's quite a bit different from a lawyer, prosecutor, and attorney general from California. Connecting with people isn't just about sharing the same political philosophy - if you want to actually enact your policy promises, you have to convince people to go along with them, and Walz helps with that. He managed to get some great policies passed in Minnesota despite a very slim (1-seat) majority in the state legislature, and he has the ability to present those policy positions from a different perspective - one that may resonate with voters who might be otherwise unwilling to hear it from Harris.

For the record, I think any of the people that were on "the short list" for VP were going to end up "upstaging" Harris to a certain degree in terms of charisma and coming across as sincere (Walz certainly comes across as more sincere that her when he's on stage)

There was a worry that Shapiro would do it deliberately though. Walz is certainly charismatic, but apparently the read on him was that he would stand behind her, where Shapiro might be more likely to further his own ambitions.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Or did her handlers set her up to lose so they can save the best candidates for 2028?

If that was the goal, they would've just let Biden run.

 

[BPPLEE]

If that was the goal, they would've just let Biden run.

I think Biden screwed them and endorsed Harris when they wanted someone else.
That's why it took 5 days before Obama endorsed her.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That's why it took 5 days before Obama endorsed her.

Honestly, Obama hasn't been the greatest at picking candidates or building the party in general. He was pretty good at getting policy passed (especially considering the unfriendly legislative environment) and his legacy as the first black president is important, but pushing Biden aside for Clinton in 2016 was a major misstep, and, iirc, he didn't initially back Biden in 2020 either.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Honestly, Obama hasn't been the greatest at picking candidates or building the party in general. He was pretty good at getting policy passed (especially considering the unfriendly legislative environment) and his legacy as the first black president is important, but pushing Biden aside for Clinton in 2016 was a major misstep, and, iirc, he didn't initially back Biden in 2020 either.

Let’s not forget his allowing the party machine to atrophy during the early parts of his presidency leading to losses in congress and statehouses.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I've heard this brought up before...but in practical terms, for Democrats, picking someone who's not as popular with the far-left isn't going to yield them any net losses.

Biden wasn't the far-left's first choice either, but they all still backed him over Trump.

It's like I said before, the exercise should be trying to get the people you don't have yet, not trying to impress the people who were already going to vote for you anyway.

There's absolutely 0 risk of Kamala not winning the deep blue states no matter who she picks as her running mate.

So why not roll the dice on someone who may be able to connect better with different types of people?

For the record, I think any of the people that were on "the short list" for VP were going to end up "upstaging" Harris to a certain degree in terms of charisma and coming across as sincere (Walz certainly comes across as more sincere that her when he's on stage)

He doesn't even have to try to upstage Harris. He's already far superior as a speaker. Did you see him speak yesterday?

Walz's positions are far left though, even if he doesn't appear on the surface to be standard progressive. That's the thing. People generally get far more information today, rather than just vote in knee jerk fashion for whomever is the candidate. At least that's my hope.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There are enough people with strong opinions about the current situation in Palestine that I think it would. I personally know of several who said he was a dealbreaker for them. And the simple fact that he's Jewish would count against him in some circles as well. He's also got essentially the same background as Harris, and apparently didn't give her a notable bump in the polls in PA.

"Dealbreaker" in what way? It's not as if the democrats who feel strongly about that are going to vote for Trump out of spite. We're talking about the same kinds of people who definitely preferred Bernie, but at the end of the day did a "blue no matter who" vote and went with Biden.

What's the more likely scenario in your estimation?

That more democrats would be so disenfranchised with her picking Shapiro that they'd stay home on election day or vote 3rd party (and risk losing to Trump)?

Or that more independents and moderates in states like Ohio, PA, Georgia, and North Carolina would see a "pro-Palestinian" ticket as a reason to potentially vote for Trump?

If the state of Missouri is any indicator...it should be noted that Cori Bush just got primaried and lost to a fellow democrat (Wesley Bell) who was more pro-Israel than she was.

It should be noted as well that North Carolina (which all predictions are suggesting will be a hotly contested battleground state) has direct relationships with Israel in an economic sense. 32 Israeli companies have offices and/or large manufacturing plants in NC. (providing a lot of jobs in NC). So much so, that the state specifically enacted anti-BDS laws that actually divested in companies that were threatening to boycott Israel. (and it passed down there with bipartisan support by a 5:1 margin)


The way I see it, the Democrats have a lot more to gain by appealing to centrists in the "fly-over" and rural states than they have to lose by potentially ticking off the more ideologically zealous people in states they already are a shoe-in to win.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Or did her handlers set her up to lose so they can save the best candidates for 2028?

I don't know that "set her up to lose" is necessarily the right way to put it, I'm assuming the DNC naturally hopes she'll win.


But I could totally see them saving a potential "Newsom/Beshear" ticket for a future election.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Based on all the Kentuckian jokes we here in Ohio tell.....probably not and the people in N. Ohio, PA and MI tend to view Kentuckians as hillbillies and hicks who come north to take their jobs so I doubt they would be much persuaded. Now Georgia might find them a kindred spirit so that's a possible.

I'm in Northern Ohio...the things/opinions I hear about Beshear are generally positive.

In the more rural and suburb parts of NE Ohio, I think it's a safe bet that a Harris/Bashear ticket would sway more centrists than a Harris/Walz ticket, but again, just speaking for my region.

Minnesota hasn't exactly been the most popular state among Ohio gun owners since they abruptly opted to revoke CCW reciprocity with our state (despite us renewing theirs)

 

[Whyayeman]

With regards to the contrast, the contrast (regardless of whatever topic or attribute it's on) is the problem that the candidates have to solve when it comes to winning over the voters who will actually be difference makers.

I do see that there are these calculations over the VP choice. Yet voting is for more than just winning. A VP is first and foremost the one who will fill a dead president's shoes. It has happened in recent history so it ought to be an important consideration.

Does anybody really think that tyro Vance is presidential? Could he possibly be the Republican candidate in 2028?

 

[Whyayeman]

Or did her handlers set her up to lose so they can save the best candidates for 2028?

I don't think any political party would deliberately lose an election. Politicians want power. Some time ago a UK ex-cabinet minister told me that the best day in opposition was worse than the worst day in power.

I think your logic is faulty. The best candidates for 2028 are here already and therefore available. They will still be around in 2028. Why throw away the chance of four years in power?

Why the cynicism?

 

[BPPLEE]

I don't think any political party would deliberately lose an election. Politicians want power. And the logic of this is faulty; the best candidates for 2028 are either here already and therefore available. The will still be around in 2028. Why throw away the chance of four years in power?

Some time ago a UK ex-cabinet minister told me that the best day in opposition was worse than the worst day in power.

Why the cynicism?

I think they are saving the best for 2028

 

[Whyayeman]

I think they are saving the best for 2028

I understand that, but not the reasoning. Who do the Democratic Party think is a better candidate? Why not pick that candidate for 2024?

I can think of examples where power was lost by incompetence and by serious miscalculation but I cannot think of any example of a political party that deliberately threw away the chance of power.

 

[mourningdove~]

Maybe that's the plan: a solid, articulate team to finally get the message out about "socialist" policies that actually poll pretty well already, against a team that can do little more than rant and babble.

I actually think Harris' decision to pick Walz was an honest act on her part.
She picked someone who believes just like she does, and she isn't hiding it.
There is something to be said for transparency ...

 

[RocksInMyHead]

"Dealbreaker" in what way? It's not as if the democrats who feel strongly about that are going to vote for Trump out of spite. We're talking about the same kinds of people who definitely preferred Bernie, but at the end of the day did a "blue no matter who" vote and went with Biden.

Dealbreaker in that they would not vote for a Harris/Shapiro ticket. Period.

What's the more likely scenario in your estimation?

That more democrats would be so disenfranchised with her picking Shapiro that they'd stay home on election day or vote 3rd party (and risk losing to Trump)?

Or that more independents and moderates in states like Ohio, PA, Georgia, and North Carolina would see a "pro-Palestinian" ticket as a reason to potentially vote for Trump?

I don't think you could accurately frame Harris or Walz as "pro-Palestinian". Won't stop Trump's team from trying, but both have been supportive of Israel's right to self-defense and have denounced Hamas for its attacks.

The way I see it, the Democrats have a lot more to gain by appealing to centrists in the "fly-over" and rural states than they have to lose by potentially ticking off the more ideologically zealous people in states they already are a shoe-in to win.

In what way does Shapiro do that though? He's a lawyer and former AG from Philly. Walz fills this role much better from a background perspective. Sure, attack ads will try to paint him as "too liberal," but I really don't think that stands up to scrutiny. The things that he's "liberal" on are (mostly) appealing to the majority of Americans.

Where Tim Walz Stands on the Issues

As governor of Minnesota, he has enacted policies to secure abortion protections, provide free meals for schoolchildren, allow recreational marijuana and set renewable energy goals.

www.nytimes.com

 

[wing2000]

My intention of the thread wasn't to criticize Walz...the point of the thread was to discuss why the DNC thought he'd be a better choice than someone like Andy Beshear. (who, on paper, seems to have a lot going for him in areas that Walz doesn't)

It was Harris' call, not the DNC.

IMO, her decision came down to who she felt more comfortable with. Personal interaction and chemistry is important...behind closed doors and on the public state. Obama and Biden had it. McCain and Palin did not.

As for the political strategy, Walz appeal is his background, his easy going demeanor and his ability to connect with people. How many govenenors offer "pro-tips" in their poltiical messaging ? He's clearly not some Harvard trained lawyer from the East or West Coast. I expect that will gain some votes across rural counties in Pennsylania, Appalalacia and the Mid-West.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In what way does Shapiro do that though? He's a lawyer and former AG from Philly. Walz fills this role much better from a background perspective. Sure, attack ads will try to paint him as "too liberal," but I really don't think that stands up to scrutiny. The things that he's "liberal" on are (mostly) appealing to the majority of Americans.

I'm not advocating for Shapiro directly here (as I noted before, I think Andy Beshear was the best choice)

But, when more about Walz' positions do come out and become more well known, I think he will be a little too far left for some midwestern comfort levels in other states, just a hunch.


Left leaning publications have seemingly been trying to have it both ways with him.

If you use the search tools available for news articles and filter it down to the 2018 to 2022 time range, they were running articles boasting about how he was a governor who was able to check off more on the progressive wish list than almost any other governor...that's a contrast from the very recent articles pitching him as a "down the middle" sort of guy who appeals to people from all walks.


Crossover appeal is best gauged by finding the guys who can win as the opposite party in a state where you wouldn't expect that party to win.

For instance, Charlie Baker and Larry Hogan would be examples of that on the republican side...republican governors who were able to win in states that go blue in presidential elections.

People like Andy Beshear and Roy Cooper on the democratic side, people who could win as Democrats in conservative states.


With Walz, they're just hoping that he'll be able to win over some red & purple state folks as democrats, but his ability to do that is untested, as where we know that Beshear and Cooper can do it.


My gut feeling is that a Harris/Beshear ticket could beat Trump... A Harris/Walz ticket will likely mean 4 more years of Trump.