Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What makes you think that?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.
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.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.
The reason I'm asking is the assertion is common in those threads but the evidence there, like in this post, is severely lacking.Sorry. But if you have to ask, I guess you have not read many of the news threads here in the political forums.
Kinda like Biden's handlers did in 2020 so AOC could run this time around, if I remember the threads from back then correctly.Or did her handlers set her up to lose so they can save the best candidates for 2028?
Well that's possible. They kind of got stuck with TrumpKinda 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.
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)
Actually, by that party's own mission statements, their platform would indicate that they're more progressive than the national Democratic Party.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.
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)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 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".)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.
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?Which particular policies from this platform do you view as problematic for his run?
Tim Walz *is* a rural midwesterner. (And so am I.) His home town is so small, even I would call it small.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)
...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.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.
Especially if the Democratic position on those cultural issues in 2016 convinced then to vote for Trump. From the 2016 platform:...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.
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.
That's the sum total - out of 45 pages - of LGBT stuff that Democrats had in 2016.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
If you looked at what he has done instead of looking at threads, you'd see that Walls is a moderate Democrat.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?)
Wrong.If you looked at what he has done instead of looking at threads, you'd see that Walls is a moderate Democrat.
Nope, correct.Wrong.
But are his stances reflective of a large enough percentage of rural Midwesterners, though?Tim Walz *is* a rural midwesterner. (And so am I.) His home town is so small, even I would call it small.
I think there is a degree of whistling in the wind about the Democrat choice.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)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?