Harris decides on Tim Walz as running mate

[wing2000]

In the end, a VP pick will not determine the race. It will be decided on the campaign messaging and ability to motivate their supporters to vote.
Right now, it clear who has the better message and the momentum. We'll see if it continues.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

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.

What makes you think that?

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.

Perhaps - and yet Beshear and Cooper didn't even make the short list. The campaign runs polls and projections for all potential VP candidates, so that suggests that they didn't see enough of a bump from those options. And, importantly (for Beshear), Kentucky isn't even remotely in play as a swing state. Nor are Ohio, Tennessee, and WV (the most similar surrounding states). Walz, on the other hand, is projected to appeal to voters in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania - all important battleground states.

The reality is that Harris doesn't need to win voters in deep red states. She needs to hold the states that Biden narrowly won in 2020 - Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona - and Beshear may not be the right person to appeal to those voters. He knows how to swing votes in Kentucky, sure, but would that translate to Michigan? Pennsylvania?

Don't get me wrong, I like Beshear and would have been quite happy with him on the ticket, but I like Walz too. They bring different things to the table, and I don't agree that Beshear is a categorically better choice. Frankly, I'm more likely to trust people who analyze voting patterns and polling for a living than some guy on the internet. Especially because I'm familiar with your biases.

 

[KCfromNC]

Sorry. But if you have to ask, I guess you have not read many of the news threads here in the political forums.

The reason I'm asking is the assertion is common in those threads but the evidence there, like in this post, is severely lacking.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Kinda like Biden's handlers did in 2020 so AOC could run this time around, if I remember the threads from back then correctly.

More recycled talking points from past elections, kinda like <insert candidate here> is the most librul ever!1!!1! stuff being trotted out.

Perhaps it is the GOP is setting their candidate to lose so they can bring someone electable out in 2028.

 

[BPPLEE]

Kinda like Biden's handlers did in 2020 so AOC could run this time around, if I remember the threads from back then correctly.

More recycled talking points from past elections, kinda like <insert candidate here> is the most librul ever!1!!1! stuff being trotted out.

Perhaps it is the GOP is setting their candidate to lose so they can bring someone electable out in 2028.

Well that's possible. They kind of got stuck with Trump

 

[KCfromNC]

How "far left" or "not far left" he is (or perceived to be)...
(worth noting, he is part of the Democratic-Labor party in the state...which is to the left of the National Democratic party, but still affiliated with them...so he probably does left-outflank a lot of democrats and the majority of moderates in the country)

So the "he's too liberal" is coming from the name of the party in his state? That's it? Something about a mat where one jumps to conclusions comes to mind.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So the "he's too liberal" is coming from the name of the party in his state? That's it? Something about a mat where one jumps to conclusions comes to mind.

Actually, by that party's own mission statements, their platform would indicate that they're more progressive than the national Democratic Party.

Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://dfl.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/DFL-Ongoing-Platform-2024-June-2.pdf

It's a situation similar to Bernie Sanders, he's obviously to the left of where a lot of the national Democrats are. He's actually not a direct member of the Democratic Party, but caucuses with them and ran on the Democratic ticket when he was taking a run at president.

 

[KCfromNC]

Actually, by that party's own mission statements, their platform would indicate that they're more progressive than the national Democratic Party.

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

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Perhaps - and yet Beshear and Cooper didn't even make the short list. The campaign runs polls and projections for all potential VP candidates, so that suggests that they didn't see enough of a bump from those options. And, importantly (for Beshear), Kentucky isn't even remotely in play as a swing state. Nor are Ohio, Tennessee, and WV (the most similar surrounding states). Walz, on the other hand, is projected to appeal to voters in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania - all important battleground states.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that Beshear would be able to flip Kentucky to a blue state in an election. I was suggesting that I could definitely see him appealing to independents and moderates in some key states. I view him as the Democratic version of what Charlie Baker was in Massachusetts. (he was a republican governor who won big in a blue state)

For states like my home state of Ohio, while it may not be a battleground state as much as Michigan and PA, the right ticket put forward could change that and turn it into a close-race state once more.

Ohio was a pretty important state from 2016 and before...as whichever way Ohio voted, tended to be the way the the election ended up going. 2020 was the only exception to that in recent history.

Ohio still has that "mix of north and south" that made it a prized state, as well as that mix of college educated and not.

And many of the blue collar Ohioans are still quite receptive to the policies regarding labor and entitlements put forth by the democrats. It's some of the social policies where the Democratic party has been losing some voters in Ohio.

I have quite a few family here who are union workers (some at the Ford plant here in Northeast Ohio, a teamster, and one that's with the plumbers union. They were long time democratic voters... all but one voted for Trump in 2016 (despite still voting democratic in state and local stuff)

That's where people need to delve into the regional component of politics. An Ohio Democrat is going to be different than a NYC Democrat on a lot of issues. They'll share some overlap on economic policy an maybe a few social issues, but the similarities don't go much further than that.

I know for two of my family members in particular, the Democratic Party's shifts on LGBTQ issues (and the pace at which those shifts were occurring) was the wedge that flipped them. For a few of the others, they were bitter former-Bernie guys who still see it as a slap in the face from when the party backed Hillary instead of him.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So the "he's too liberal" is coming from the name of the party in his state? That's it? Something about a mat where one jumps to conclusions comes to mind.

The name of the party indicates a clear connection to the "left" of the blue collar (Farm/Labor). It sure makes them seem less "liberal elite" type Democrats. (Obvious not costal, as Lake Superior doesn't qualify as a "coast".)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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

Do you mean that as in, which ones I personally see as problematic for me as a voter? Or ones that I would see being a potential barrier to winning support from rural midwestern voters as a cohort in general?
(I was referring to the latter, but I'm happy to answer either question)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you mean that as in, which ones I personally see as problematic for me as a voter? Or ones that I would see being a potential barrier to winning support from rural midwestern voters as a cohort in general?
(I was referring to the latter, but I'm happy to answer either question)

Tim Walz *is* a rural midwesterner. (And so am I.) His home town is so small, even I would call it small.

 

[wing2000]

I have quite a few family here who are union workers (some at the Ford plant here in Northeast Ohio, a teamster, and one that's with the plumbers union. They were long time democratic voters... all but one voted for Trump in 2016 (despite still voting democratic in state and local stuff)

That's where people need to delve into the regional component of politics. An Ohio Democrat is going to be different than a NYC Democrat on a lot of issues. They'll share some overlap on economic policy an maybe a few social issues, but the similarities don't go much further than that.

I know for two of my family members in particular, the Democratic Party's shifts on LGBTQ issues (and the pace at which those shifts were occurring) was the wedge that flipped them. For a few of the others, they were bitter former-Bernie guys who still see it as a slap in the face from when the party backed Hillary instead of him.

...if your relatives are going to base their decision on cultural issues over economic concerns, then I doubt the VP pick will matter. Shapiro and Walz are both going to be "too liberal" on that front.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

...if your relatives are going to base their decision on cultural issues over economic concerns, then I doubt the VP pick will matter. Shapiro and Walz are both going to be "too liberal" on that front.

Especially if the Democratic position on those cultural issues in 2016 convinced then to vote for Trump. From the 2016 platform:

Democrats applaud last year’s decision by the Supreme Court that recognized that LGBT people—like other Americans—have the right to marry the person they love. But there is still much work to be done. LGBT kids continue to be bullied at school, restaurants can refuse to serve transgender people, and same-sex couples are at risk of being evicted from their homes. That is unacceptable and must change. Democrats will fight for the continued development of sex discrimination law to cover LGBT people. We will also fight for comprehensive federal non-discrimination protections for all LGBT Americans, to guarantee equal rights in areas such as housing, employment, public accommodations, credit, jury service, education, and federal funding. We will oppose all state efforts to discriminate against LGBT individuals, including legislation that restricts the right to access public spaces. We support a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate. We will combat LGBT youth homelessness and improve school climates. We will support LGBT elders, ensure access to necessary health care, and protect LGBT people from violence—including ending the crisis of violence against transgender Americans. We will also promote LGBT human rights and ensure America’s foreign policy is inclusive of LGBT people around the world.

Democrats believe that LGBT rights are human rights and that American foreign policy should advance the ability of all persons to live with dignity, security, and respect, regardless of who they are or who they love. We applaud President Obama’s historic Presidential Memorandum on International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons, which combats criminalization, protects refugees, and provides foreign assistance. We will continue to stand with LGBT people around the world, including fighting efforts by any nation to infringe on LGBT rights or ignore abuse

That's the sum total - out of 45 pages - of LGBT stuff that Democrats had in 2016.

 

[Yarddog]

Sorry. But if you have to ask, I guess you have not read many of the news threads here in the political forums.
(Maybe go thru and read some?)

If you looked at what he has done instead of looking at threads, you'd see that Walls is a moderate Democrat.

 

[mourningdove~]

If you looked at what he has done instead of looking at threads, you'd see that Walls is a moderate Democrat.

Wrong.

 

[BCP1928]

Wrong.

Be specific if you can.

 

[Yarddog]

Wrong.

Nope, correct.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Tim Walz *is* a rural midwesterner. (And so am I.) His home town is so small, even I would call it small.

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

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)

 

[Whyayeman]

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

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 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.​