Harris decides on Tim Walz as running mate

[Merrill]

Which particular policies from this platform do you view as problematic for his run?

well let's see --in terms of what Walz has endorsed or implemented:

1. Giving free healthcare and driver's licenses to illegals
2. Open borders (sanctuary states / cities)
3. Expanded affirmative action
4. Unconditional military and financial support for Israel
5. Allowing sex change operations on 6 year olds

do I really need to go on? Pretty sure that stuff is a deal-breaker for a lot of people

Walz is a complete left-wing psycho and makes Bernie Sanders look moderate

 

[RocksInMyHead]

well let's see --in terms of what Walz has endorsed or implemented:

1. Giving free healthcare and driver's licenses to illegals

Making sure that the poor (regardless of immigration status) have access to healthcare is a good thing, IMO. And allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses makes the roads safer - they're going to be driving anyways, so making it so that they have to pass an exam, carry identification, and carry insurance is a net benefit to society.

2. Open borders (sanctuary states / cities)

Sanctuary cities have nothing to do with "open borders." It's a concept that aids local policing efforts and makes communities safer. If people don't have to fear being deported when they go to the police, they're more likely to report crimes in the community. That's a good thing, right?

3. Expanded affirmative action

Fair enough - if you hate affirmative action, there's no real argument on this one. But far left? Puhlease.

4. Unconditional military and financial support for Israel

Wait, this is considered a left-wing position now? I thought the far left hated Israel? Or is that last week's talking point?

5. Allowing sex change operations on 6 year olds

Uh, no. He didn't.

Walz is a complete left-wing psycho and makes Bernie Sanders look moderate

We've got three things that have been relatively mainstream Democratic policies for at least the past decade, one thing that's generally associated with US Right, and one thing that never happened. Doesn't sound like much of a psycho to me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But are his stances reflective of a large enough percentage of rural Midwesterners, though?

The stances aren't the thing. It's who they are.

Sure, there will be some staunch progressives in the rural Midwest, much like I saw a few MAGA hats floating around in coastal New Jersey a few weeks ago, but a pro-MAGA person running in Coastal New Jersey would still be facing a tough uphill battle (even if they were born and raised there)

I have no idea about the Jersey Shore, I've never been to any Jersey. This is about who Walz is. The kind of voter who is obsessed with the "lefty policies" of Gov. Walz wasn't going to vote for Harris/Walz anyway.

They know people like Tim Walz and they like them.

They also know some people like Donald Trump, certainly not that wealthy, but certainly self-important people who have a modest bit of wealth, and they don't like them.

Telling the rural voters of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania who Walz is and reminding them who Trump is will have an impact.

 

[Merrill]

Making sure that the poor (regardless of immigration status) have access to healthcare is a good thing, IMO. And allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses makes the roads safer - they're going to be driving anyways, so making it so that they have to pass an exam, carry identification, and carry insurance is a net benefit to society.

Sanctuary cities have nothing to do with "open borders." It's a concept that aids local policing efforts and makes communities safer. If people don't have to fear being deported when they go to the police, they're more likely to report crimes in the community. That's a good thing, right?

Fair enough - if you hate affirmative action, there's no real argument on this one. But far left? Puhlease.

Wait, this is considered a left-wing position now? I thought the far left hated Israel? Or is that last week's talking point?

Uh, no. He didn't.

We've got three things that have been relatively mainstream Democratic policies for at least the past decade, one thing that's generally associated with US Right, and one thing that never happened. Doesn't sound like much of a psycho to me.

1. Illegals are not entitled to driver's licenses and healthcare. I am under no obligation to start paying for this stuff for people who came here illegally and are not contributing to the system legally (many get paid under the table, or are on welfare)

2. Sanctuary cities have everything to do with open borders, and it is all part of a system to prevent immigration enforcement and import future voters

3. The left is divided on Israel: some support that country unconditionally (like Walz) others condemn it (like Omar).

4. Walz turned Minnesota into a "sanctuary state for people seeking gender-affirming care". Now parents are bringing their kids to the state to get puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone therapy, or even top surgery (thousands of girls aged 12-16 have had this done in the US) or complete sex-reassignment

Minnesota governor protects rights to gender affirming care

Gov. Tim Walz has signed an executive order protecting the rights of LGBTQ people from Minnesota and other states to seek and receive gender affirming health care.

apnews.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I have no idea about the Jersey Shore, I've never been to any Jersey. This is about who Walz is. The kind of voter who is obsessed with the "lefty policies" of Gov. Walz wasn't going to vote for Harris/Walz anyway.

No, obviously the red-hats aren't going to vote for a "Harris/anything" ticket, but that's not who I'm concerned with.

But that's not the voter bloc I'm referring to. We already know which way the "red at all costs" and "blue no matter who" types are going to vote for.

I'm talking about the people who are "gettable" votes by either side (if the candidate selection is tailored to it).

The question is, are there enough "would vote for Harris/Walz but not Harris/Shapiro" to outnumber the inverse.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think there is a degree of whistling in the wind about the Democrat choice.

They appear to be gaining ground - if the polls are to be believed. Some polls put them neck and neck while the most recent put Harris and Walz ahead. Early days, I know, but there are signs that that the pairing is well thought of. This is from the Guardian, citing a new poll:

​

Harris leading Trump by 6% among likely voters - poll​

Kamala Harris is leading Donald Trump by 6 points, 53% to 47%, among likely voters, according to a new poll by Marquette Law School.​

​

Among registered voters, 52% said Harris is the choice for president while Trump is the choice of 48%.​

​

Moreover, since becoming the Democratic nominee, Harris is seen favorably by 47% and unfavorably by 50% of registered voters, while 3% say they haven’t heard enough, according to the survey.​

​

The survey was conducted July 24-Aug. 1, 2024, interviewing 879 registered voters nationwide, with a margin of error of +/-4.1 percentage points, Marquette University Law School said, adding that for likely voters, the sample size is 683 with a margin of error of +/-4.7 percentage points.​

I think Hillary was still leading against Trump at this point in that election cycle too, correct?

And if the Democratic strategists like Axelrod and Carville are to be believed, Hillary's major blind spot was not being able to connect well enough with rural folks in the "fly over" states.

Time will tell if Walz is more helpful to Kamala in that regard.

It's also worth noting that according to several polls, the VP candidates are still largely "unknowns" among people outside their home states.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

1. Illegals are not entitled to driver's licenses and healthcare. I am under no obligation to start paying for this stuff for people who came here illegally and are not contributing to the system legally (many get paid under the table, or are on welfare)

You are obligated to pay for anything that the country (or state) chooses to pay for. That's how taxes work. I pay for plenty of things that I disagree with - and I'm sure you do to. However, that's not what we're talking about here. If your definition of a "left-wing psycho" is just "someone who supports stuff I don't like," you're going to run into a lot of "left-wing psychos" - to the point where the invective becomes completely meaningless.

Can you explain why basic human compassion makes someone a "left-wing psycho"?

2. Sanctuary cities have everything to do with open borders, and it is all part of a system to prevent immigration enforcement and import future voters

The conspiracy theory forum is thataway -->

3. The left is divided on Israel: some support that country unconditionally (like Walz) others condemn it (like Omar).

Sure. So, how does supporting Israel make someone a "left-wing psycho"?

4. Walz turned Minnesota into a "sanctuary state for people seeking gender-affirming care".

No arguments there. I'm not sure why small government policies - government staying out of people's medical decisions - makes someone a "left-wing psycho" though.

Now parents are bringing their kids to the state to get puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone therapy, or even top surgery (thousands of girls aged 12-16 have had this done in the US) or complete sex-reassignment

Minnesota governor protects rights to gender affirming care

Gov. Tim Walz has signed an executive order protecting the rights of LGBTQ people from Minnesota and other states to seek and receive gender affirming health care.

apnews.com

I note a complete lack of, and I quote, "sex change operations on 6-year-olds" in any of this. If you're going to make accusations, at least make sure they're accurate.

I'm sure there are "left-wing psychos" out there - both people who are completely nuts and happen to be liberal, and those who have fallen far down the left-wing rabbit hole, thinking that they can create a communist utopia (and other wild stuff like that). However, while Tim Walz is certainly left of center, he's far from psycho.

Disagree with him if you want, but this sort of invective is a huge part of what's dividing our country right now. I hope that you can come to recognize that and work towards being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, obviously the red-hats aren't going to vote for a "Harris/anything" ticket, but that's not who I'm concerned with.

But that's not the voter bloc I'm referring to. We already know which way the "red at all costs" and "blue no matter who" types are going to vote for.

I get that.

I'm talking about the people who are "gettable" votes by either side (if the candidate selection is tailored to it).

So am I. There are a large number of counties that have a lot of voters who clearly switched from Obama to Trump. (Obama-Trump counties, even if Obama didn't win them.) Many of these are places with a history of rural, white, moderate Democrats. Western Wisconsin along the Minnesota border is one of those places. These are places where Trump has done better than other Republicans and conservatives of late (like supreme court justices, governors, senators) and prior GOP presidential choices.

Gov. Walz has it exactly right when he talks about "mind your own business", since we're not talking about the MAGA fanatics, they are likely to view the "Walz is woke" talking-point based issues as stuff where minding your own business is the best course whether they are fully comfortable with the MN Governor's positions on them or not.

What they Harris campaign should do after the big national joint appearance tour is over is to send Gov. Walz on a few day bus tour of Wisconsin like it is Iowa before the caucus and visit all sorts of smaller places in the rural areas. They could then do the same in Michigan and perhaps even Penn.

The question is, are there enough "would vote for Harris/Walz but not Harris/Shapiro" to outnumber the inverse.

Do I think a German-Lutheran "Dad joke" telling teacher from Minnesota will do better in western Wisconsin than a Jewish lawyer from Pennsylvania with the policy being pretty similar, yes, I do.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do I think a German-Lutheran "Dad joke" telling teacher from Minnesota will do better in western Wisconsin than a Jewish lawyer from Pennsylvania with the policy being pretty similar, yes, I do.

Wisconsin is just one key state though...

What about the others like North Carolina, PA, and Georgia?

I would have to think that Beshear would probably do better with the southern and rural midwestern states being a Kentucky guy.

Albeit, it's not a great reason for voting for someone, but it is what it is...

That was one of the appeals Bill Clinton had in 1992 and why he was able to take a lot more of the southern states than Democrats typically do.

He was perceived as having a little bit of "Southern Good ol Boy" in him which in some ways may him seem more relatable to some folks in the south and some rural folks in the midwest, despite the fact that on policy, he probably wasn't much different than Jerry Brown at the time (his opponent in the primaries)

 

[Merrill]

You are obligated to pay for anything that the country (or state) chooses to pay for. That's how taxes work. I pay for plenty of things that I disagree with - and I'm sure you do to. However, that's not what we're talking about here. If your definition of a "left-wing psycho" is just "someone who supports stuff I don't like," you're going to run into a lot of "left-wing psychos" - to the point where the invective becomes completely meaningless.

Can you explain why basic human compassion makes someone a "left-wing psycho"?

The conspiracy theory forum is thataway -->

Sure. So, how does supporting Israel make someone a "left-wing psycho"?

No arguments there. I'm not sure why small government policies - government staying out of people's medical decisions - makes someone a "left-wing psycho" though.

I note a complete lack of, and I quote, "sex change operations on 6-year-olds" in any of this. If you're going to make accusations, at least make sure they're accurate.

I'm sure there are "left-wing psychos" out there - both people who are completely nuts and happen to be liberal, and those who have fallen far down the left-wing rabbit hole, thinking that they can create a communist utopia (and other wild stuff like that). However, while Tim Walz is certainly left of center, he's far from psycho.

Disagree with him if you want, but this sort of invective is a huge part of what's dividing our country right now. I hope that you can come to recognize that and work towards being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

"You are obligated to pay for anything that the country (or state) chooses to pay for. That's how taxes work."

complete and utter nonsense --I am not obligated to pay for criminal activity, and if a political official is trying to use taxpayer money to fund illicit enterprise, he should be removed from office. Citizens of this country pay taxes and receive services in return. Illegal aliens are not citizens

Using your logic, a governor could use taxpayer money to fund the trafficking of illicit drugs and then use the excuse "that's how taxes work"!

dude give me a break--that is beyond ignorant

almost as stupid as your comment that sanctuary cities have nothing to do with illegal immigration. Who are you trying to gaslight?

" I'm not sure why small government policies - government staying out of people's medical decisions - makes someone a "left-wing psycho" though."

as if you actually believe that, or Tim Walz does: the guy who implemented mandatory vaccinations for state workers, established a hotline for ratting out your neighbors, banned conversion therapy (because in that case, politicians know more about therapy than doctors), etc.

Walz is far-left socially, and relatively moderate economically. His record shows this

 

[RocksInMyHead]

"You are obligated to pay for anything that the country (or state) chooses to pay for. That's how taxes work."

complete and utter nonsense --I am not obligated to pay for criminal activity, and if a political official is trying to use taxpayer money to fund illicit enterprise, he should be removed from office. Citizens of this country pay taxes and receive services in return. Illegal aliens are not citizens

You don't need to be a citizen to receive services in this country. Certain things are not available to non-citizens, and even more are unavailable to people here illegally, but saying that one must be a citizen in order to be served by the country is flat-out-wrong.

Using your logic, a governor could use taxpayer money to fund the trafficking of illicit drugs and then use the excuse "that's how taxes work"!

Well, no, because that would violate the law. The state, in the form of the legislature, passes laws to appropriate funds. Your taxes are those appropriated funds. If the legislature passes a law that says "illegal immigrants are entitled to coverage under Medicaid," then yes, some of your taxes are obligated to pay for that. If you don't want them to, then your options are to move somewhere where that isn't the case or to help build a majority of people in your legislature who agree with you. If you're unable or unwilling to do either, then you just have to live with it.

almost as stupid as your comment that sanctuary cities have nothing to do with illegal immigration. Who are you trying to gaslight?

I did not, in fact, say that. Of course sanctuary cities are related to illegal immigration - the concept is centered around the treatment of illegal immigrants by local police. What I said was that it has nothing to do with "open borders" - because no one actually advocates for open borders. Now who's gaslighting? Or are you just redefining things so that you can use scarier words? Oh, it's not illegal immigration anymore, now it's OPEN BORDERS! Not because anyone actually thinks the borders should be open, but just because it sounds so much scarier.

" I'm not sure why small government policies - government staying out of people's medical decisions - makes someone a "left-wing psycho" though."

as if you actually believe that, or Tim Walz does: the guy who implemented mandatory vaccinations for state workers, established a hotline for ratting out your neighbors, banned conversion therapy (because in that case, politicians know more about therapy than doctors), etc.

Then why didn't you use those examples? You're not making much sense here...

I'm not saying that Walz is pro small-government. I'm asking why you have a problem with a particular small-government policy - to the point that you're completely making up rage-bait scenarios ("gender reassignment surgery on 6-year-olds") to attack it and using it as an example of how Walz is supposedly "psycho."

Walz is far-left socially, and relatively moderate economically. His record shows this

Gee, that really sounds like a "left-wing psycho" (/s). We get it - he's more left than you. But that's not a particularly high bar. I know I'm more left that you. Am I a "left-wing psycho"?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Wisconsin is just one key state though...

That was specifically in response to the Walz v. Shapiro aspect and so I kept with the "campaign in Wisconsin" theme. Shapiro would probably help more in PA, but less in WI. PA is a less difficult state for the Dems to win, but there is no real evidence the choice was about swinging a swing state.

What about the others like North Carolina, PA, and Georgia?

Different demographics. (I also just talked about PA a bit.) I'm sure Cooper would have helped in NC, but you can't have multiple VP candidates on a ticket. In GA and NC winning for Harris is going to be more about turnout of Black voters and winning over college-educated (sub)urban voters. Walz/Shapiro/Kelly wouldn't make a difference which one in those states most likely at all.

I would have to think that Beshear would probably do better with the southern and rural midwestern states being a Kentucky guy.

The only part of the rural Midwest that has an affinity is the part JD Vance claims to be from (and southern Indiana and Little Egypt) and none of that is going to matter in this election.

Since you are leaning towards tactics, I'll be completely tactical regarding Bashear. He's got three years left on his term, why burn him now?

Albeit, it's not a great reason for voting for someone, but it is what it is...

Americans lean towards being person rather than party voters more so than most countries. It likely stems from virtually all offices in the US being individual office holders and the separation of executive and legislative power.

When no party (since there are only two) fits your personal basket political position character, personality, and temperament plus experience matter. It should matter to all of us in addition to political positions, because we never know what challenges they will face in office and no politician will get every policy position they promise no matter how hard they try.

That was one of the appeals Bill Clinton had in 1992 and why he was able to take a lot more of the southern states than Democrats typically do.
View attachment 352988

He was perceived as having a little bit of "Southern Good ol Boy" in him which in some ways may him seem more relatable to some folks in the south and some rural folks in the midwest, despite the fact that on policy, he probably wasn't much different than Jerry Brown at the time (his opponent in the primaries)

You also need to look at the relative strength by state of Perot. As for Clinton, I don't know how much the "Southern good ol' boy". (I voted for Jerry Brown and was definitely a rural midwesterner.)

 

[KCfromNC]

well let's see --in terms of what Walz has endorsed or implemented:

1. Giving free healthcare and driver's licenses to illegals
2. Open borders (sanctuary states / cities)

To pick one at random : which is it - open borders or sanctuary cities? Or is it either?

3. Expanded affirmative action
4. Unconditional military and financial support for Israel
5. Allowing sex change operations on 6 year olds


do I really need to go on?

Some evidence for any of these would be good, because they don't appear accurate on first glance.

 

[Merrill]

You don't need to be a citizen to receive services in this country. Certain things are not available to non-citizens, and even more are unavailable to people here illegally, but saying that one must be a citizen in order to be served by the country is flat-out-wrong.

Well, no, because that would violate the law. The state, in the form of the legislature, passes laws to appropriate funds. Your taxes are those appropriated funds. If the legislature passes a law that says "illegal immigrants are entitled to coverage under Medicaid," then yes, some of your taxes are obligated to pay for that. If you don't want them to, then your options are to move somewhere where that isn't the case or to help build a majority of people in your legislature who agree with you. If you're unable or unwilling to do either, then you just have to live with it.

I did not, in fact, say that. Of course sanctuary cities are related to illegal immigration - the concept is centered around the treatment of illegal immigrants by local police. What I said was that it has nothing to do with "open borders" - because no one actually advocates for open borders. Now who's gaslighting? Or are you just redefining things so that you can use scarier words? Oh, it's not illegal immigration anymore, now it's OPEN BORDERS! Not because anyone actually thinks the borders should be open, but just because it sounds so much scarier.

Then why didn't you use those examples? You're not making much sense here...

I'm not saying that Walz is pro small-government. I'm asking why you have a problem with a particular small-government policy - to the point that you're completely making up rage-bait scenarios ("gender reassignment surgery on 6-year-olds") to attack it and using it as an example of how Walz is supposedly "psycho."

Gee, that really sounds like a "left-wing psycho" (/s). We get it - he's more left than you. But that's not a particularly high bar. I know I'm more left that you. Am I a "left-wing psycho"?

"You don't need to be a citizen to receive services in this country."

non-citizens are not eligible for things like Medicaid, which they did not pay into. They were not entitled to things like driver's licenses either --at least until some left-wing governors decided otherwise. They are not entitled to social security --that is a program for citizens who paid into the program

do you think illegal aliens should be able to get American Passports too? Go down to the local passport office and tell them that non-citizens should be able to get passports and see what they say

and stop conflating non-citizens with illegal aliens, as they are NOT the same thing

and state law that contradicted the state constitution in order to extend benefits and privileges to illegal immigrants is invalid and illegal. Such laws can, and will be, struck down by state courts or SCOTUS

this is just lawlessness from the Democrats Party in an effort to import new voters and replace our existing population. It's time to send these people home and charge the people who imported them

 

[Merrill]

To pick one at random : which is it - open borders or sanctuary cities? Or is it either?


Some evidence for any of these would be good, because they don't appear accurate on first glance.

OK, so you are saying

1. Walz does NOT support Israel
2. Walz does not support affirmative action
3. Walz did NOT sign a bill allowing minors to receive unrestricted "gender-affirming care" in the State of Minnesota, making the state a sanctuary for people seeking transgender treatment, especially minors?

No evidence I present to you will convince you, because you won't read it

but I suggest you go do a little research today on all those things above and decide for yourself

 

[Whyayeman]

OK, so you are saying

1. Walz does NOT support Israel
2. Walz does not support affirmative action
3. Walz did NOT sign a bill allowing minors to receive unrestricted "gender-affirming care" in the State of Minnesota, making the state a sanctuary for people seeking transgender treatment, especially minors?

No evidence I present to you will convince you, because you won't read it

but I suggest you go do a little research today on all those things above and decide for yourself

I think Walz might well be just as you describe him. That is his attraction to a great number of voters, if the polls are anything to go on.

Lots of people support the things that the conservatives oppose. There you go - politics in a free society.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

non-citizens are not eligible for things like Medicaid, which they did not pay into. They were not entitled to things like driver's licenses either --at least until some left-wing governors decided otherwise. They are not entitled to social security --that is a program for citizens who paid into the program

Obviously they shouldn't be eligible for things like Medicaid and Social Security...

But to your one point...

Allowing non-citizens (whether they're here on an extended work visa or for some other reason) to get a state-issued drivers license is as much for our protection as it is a benefit for them. This is especially important for people coming from countries that don't have driver's license reciprocity with us due to the rules of the road being quite different.

A) It ensures that they can pass our driving tests and understand our rules of the road if they're going to be driving among us on a longer-term basis.

B) It's an additional point of registration of their address (meaning, if someone here on a green card does commit an infraction of some sort and police need to find them, state and local police are going to be able to access that much more quickly and efficiently via state DMV/BMV records, as those are on-demand for them right there in a squad car vs. having to get ahold of their federal counterparts and waiting for information)


So I have no problem with non-citizens getting a driver's licenses... in fact, for people coming from countries with road rules that are different than ours, I'd actually prefer that it be a requirement that they get one. There are some countries with very different driving cultures and different kinds of signage and traffic light usage and operation.

 

[Whyayeman]

Obviously they shouldn't be eligible for things like Medicaid and Social Security...

Of course not. Visitors to UK either have reciprocal arrangements with their own health services or pay the going rate.

However, they would never be refused medical treatment. That is just the ethical practice of the profession and common humanity. I hope illegal immigrants to America would not be allowed simply to bleed to death after a traffic accident.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Of course not. Visitors to UK either have reciprocal arrangements with their own health services or pay the going rate.

However, they would never be refused medical treatment. That is just the ethical practice of the profession and common humanity. I hope illegal immigrants to America would not be allowed simply to bleed to death after a traffic accident.

The Emergency rooms here have to treat/stabilize if someone comes in.

 

[Merrill]

I think Walz might well be just as you describe him. That is his attraction to a great number of voters, if the polls are anything to go on.

Lots of people support the things that the conservatives oppose. There you go - politics in a free society.

well yes, agreed

enough people in Minnesota, a very liberal state, wanted these policies

what I am objecting to here, is this effort to paint Walz as some kind of moderate or to whitewash his record, or deceive the public

especially the idea that

1. Walz is more friendly to the Palestinian cause and wants immediate peace, or a two-state solution in Israel. That is complete nonsense, and isn't supported by his speeches, endorsements, funding, or legislative record. He is among the top 2-3 most pro-Israel politicians in the US, and much more Zionist than Shapiro (and yes, Trump is super pro-Israel as well).

2. Walz is a social moderate: nothing in his record or statements backs that up. He is hard-left socially