Harris decides on Tim Walz as running mate

[Pommer]

Actually, I don't think replacement theory is any of the things you mentioned when boiled down to pragmatic talking points.

“Replacement theory” is inherently racist, (if you take away the racism, it’s naked tribalism, plain and simple).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Whether it exists or not, I was more interested in the belief that it exists.

I see....you're more interested in beliefs than reality.

Why should I care if white people were no longer a majority?

I'm sure I don't know.

 

[KCfromNC]

OK, so you are saying

I was asking why sanctuary cities was listed as evidence for supporting open borders, since the two are different.

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

A list of questions is not evidence.

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

I would have thought that posts would have already been researched before being offered here as evidence.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

“Replacement theory” is inherently racist, (if you take away the racism, it’s naked tribalism, plain and simple).

But when has it ever been controversial to suggest that tribalism exists in politics, and that political strategists leverage it?

While no Democrat that I'm aware of has gone as far as proposing that undocumented immigrants should be able to vote in federal elections...(Though some jurisdictions have proposed at local level)

Their proposals do include things like expedited pathways to citizenship for them, and full citizenship for any children born to those folks once they're already on US soil.

By all polling data about voting patterns, that would suggest the potential for a big increase in potential Democratic voters in 15-20 years, correct? And as I noted before, it wouldn't be the first time tried approaches to pack the electorate with additional people who might vote their way. There were some Democrats proposing to lower the voting age to 16 at one point. Why? Because they know 16-17 year olds would vote for them over Republicans by 2:1.

If Republicans were trying to find ways to expedite the immigration process for people from countries that are traditionally conservative, it'd be pretty obvious why they were doing it, correct?

I think it goes without saying that DNC strategists are likely already well aware of this and have done the math.

 

[Francis 1928]

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?

I believe that Harris made the decision go for Walz, rather then Shapiro , because antisemitism has been growing rapidly in the democrat party .Its ok to be antisemetic apparently, in 2024 as long as you are a democrat. She wanted to please her antisemetic voters, and feared had she chose to run with Shapiro , she would have risked those voters staying home, or voting for Kennedy possibly. Now , Shapiro would have guarenteed most likely Pennsylvania. Although I believe Pennsylvania has been blue since 2008 ,it would be a long shot for Trump to win that state anyway. Pennsylvania unfortunately has been a factor in the electorial college. It used to be that You needed Ohio to win the presidency, Last presidential election proved that theory wrong of course,considering Trump won Ohio, and still lost in the general .

 

[Whyayeman]

I believe that Harris made the decision go for Walz, rather then Shapiro , because antisemitism has been growing rapidly in the democrat party

I think maybe Harris chose Walz for two fairly obvious reasons and one maybe less obvious one:

Their political philosophies were a good match; Walz is an honest to goodness Democrat; she believes they could work together on the stump and in office. So far, it seems to be going well.

I think that all the calculations about swing states are somewhat over-thought. The presidential campaign is not an Olympic sport, but an attempt to gain power for four years (or eight).

 

[Francis 1928]

I think maybe Harris chose Walz for two fairly obvious reasons and one maybe less obvious one:

Their political philosophies were a good match; Walz is an honest to goodness Democrat; she believes they could work together on the stump and in office. So far, it seems to be going well.

I think that all the calculations about swing states are somewhat over-thought. The presidential campaign is not an Olympic sport, but an attempt to gain power for four years (or eight).

Intetesting outlook on the matter. So you dont think that Shapiro being Jewish had anything to do with her choice? She may have been losing the vote possibly in places like Michigan, where the antisemitism is growing and dominant had she chose him. They even have young white liberals joining those forces.He would have been a better choice in my opinion, considering he didnt lose control of a big riot in his state like Walz of course did.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It's always about some minority demographic group "replacing" the majority demographic group in society and how that's a Bad Thing. There's no context in which that isn't racist.

So, if whites become a minority demographic does that mean that the things we do that people point at as racist will no longer be racist?

 

[BCP1928]

So, if whites become a minority demographic does that mean that the things we do that people point at as racist will no longer be racist?

LOL! Racism doesn't depend on numbers.

 

[civilwarbuff]

LOL! Racism doesn't depend on numbers.

Actually you need to have the power to impose racism. As a minority we would no longer have that power (politically)....or so the claims of 'current' minorities goes......

 

[civilwarbuff]

Actually you need to have the power to impose racism. As a minority we would no longer have that power (politically)....or so the claims of 'current' minorities goes......

Just thinking.....given the above who then would become the next/newest racists?......Just thinking out loud......

 

[BCP1928]

Actually you need to have the power to impose racism. As a minority we would no longer have that power (politically)....or so the claims of 'current' minorities goes......

One of the reasons that Replacement Theory seems racist is that it appears to regard all other racial groups as a unified block. In the real world, these groups don't even get along with each other all the time. It's a moot point, anyway. White people who believe in the Great Replacement are already in the minority and have been for some time. But nobody has told me why I should care if white people are no longer a majority.

 

[BPPLEE]

One of the reasons that Replacement Theory seems racist is that it appears to regard all other racial groups as a unified block. In the real world, these groups don't even get along with each other all the time. It's a moot point, anyway. White people who believe in the Great Replacement are already in the minority and have been for some time. But nobody has told me why I should care if white people are no longer a majority.

They may not get along with each other but the majority of them vote for Democrats

 

[Whyayeman]

So you dont think that Shapiro being Jewish had anything to do with her choice?

That is, I think, an example of over-thinking the issue, stemming from thinking of the election as a race to the finishing line next November when it is a campaign for power over the next four years.

 

[BCP1928]

But when has it ever been controversial to suggest that tribalism exists in politics, and that political strategists leverage it?

While no Democrat that I'm aware of has gone as far as proposing that undocumented immigrants should be able to vote in federal elections...(Though some jurisdictions have proposed at local level)

Their proposals do include things like expedited pathways to citizenship for them, and full citizenship for any children born to those folks once they're already on US soil.

By all polling data about voting patterns, that would suggest the potential for a big increase in potential Democratic voters in 15-20 years, correct? And as I noted before, it wouldn't be the first time tried approaches to pack the electorate with additional people who might vote their way. There were some Democrats proposing to lower the voting age to 16 at one point. Why? Because they know 16-17 year olds would vote for them over Republicans by 2:1.

If Republicans were trying to find ways to expedite the immigration process for people from countries that are traditionally conservative, it'd be pretty obvious why they were doing it, correct?

I think it goes without saying that DNC strategists are likely already well aware of this and have done the math.

But the math is not reliable, as even the Democrats are aware. Hispanics, for example, tend to social conservatism and would vote Republican (as many do already) if the Republicans were nicer to them. The Democrats know this and are counting on the leopard not changing its spots. But it's inherently a long game. Nobody seriously believes that the Democrats let ten million aliens into the country in order to have them vote illegally in upcoming elections.

 

[BCP1928]

They may not get along with each other but the majority of them vote for Democrats

OK, so what?

 

[civilwarbuff]

One of the reasons that Replacement Theory seems racist is that it appears to regard all other racial groups as a unified block. In the real world, these groups don't even get along with each other all the time. It's a moot point, anyway. White people who believe in the Great Replacement are already in the minority and have been for some time. But nobody has told me why I should care if white people are no longer a majority.

Maybe the same reason no cares that any other minority is not a majority

 

[BPPLEE]

OK, so what?

So letting millions of them into the country and giving them a path to citizenship increases potential voters who will vote Democrat and all their children will be US citizens so that's more people who are likely to vote for Democrats in 18 years. That's why they don't want to do anything to fix the problem at the border

 

[BPPLEE]

But the math is not reliable, as even the Democrats are aware. Hispanics, for example, tend to social conservatism and would vote Republican (as many do already) if the Republicans were nicer to them. The Democrats know this and are counting on the leopard not changing its spots. But it's inherently a long game. Nobody seriously believes that the Democrats let ten million aliens into the country in order to have them vote illegally in upcoming elections.

Maybe not to vote illegally but to give them a path to citizenship then they can vote legally and all their children will be US citizens who can vote in 18 years.

 

[BCP1928]

Maybe not to vote illegally but to give them a path to citizenship then they can vote legally and all their children will be US citizens who can vote in 18 years.

It's certainly not a slam dunk that they will vote Democratic. 18 years is a long time in partisan politics. But your post suggests that the issue isn't really racist but political. Can I conclude that people are afraid of "white replacement" not because they're white, but because of the way they vote?