USA Politics

This reminds me of 2016 when Trump won and a lot of the people who were more bullish on Trump reacted with some version of "of course Hillary lost, nobody trusted or liked her and everybody was tired of the establishment." We saw a sped up version of that with Biden on this where voters in focus groups repeatedly said they didn't like either candidate and felt Biden was too old to be president for four more years. If Biden had stayed in and we woke up the day after the election staring down a second Trump term, I don't think anyone would be surprised or question why that happened. I admit to being wrong and underestimating how potent that issue was, but the other half of that is that voters have said clearly they don't like Biden OR Trump. I also continue to believe that one-time election winner Trump is a historically bad candidate and America does not want to put a convicted felon in the white house (again going back to Hillary even though she never actually was convicted of anything). I can easily see a situation where Trump loses in November and we can go back to articles like the one above and think about how of course he was never going to win against real competition. The polls continue to point in the same direction and Trump's favorability is not getting any better.

I also want to wait until Labor Day, but like I said everything is going in the same direction. I am starting to get the feeling that it won't be long before we see multiple polls that shows Harris competitive in a lean R state (probably NC but maybe OH or FL). That doesn't mean she will actually win in those states, but it will be a strong indication that we're heading toward a 2020 environment where the question turns into margin of victory rather than who is actually going to win.

I saw a report today that Trump is buying ads in NC. Again not an indication that Harris will win there, but it is probably the most stark example of how the contour of the race has already changed. If NC or any state to the right of it is competitive this might be over.
 
Looks like VP announcement tomorrow morning. The VP coverage has been pretty interesting, I'm not sure I can think of another instance of members within the party being so vocally for or against certain candidates? There are clear contingencies pushing narratives about Walz and Shapiro in the media, and I imagine some of it is coming from the Harris team trying to test the waters for both of them. The conspiracy theory part of my brain thinks that the Harris team is hyping up Walz and Shapiro so that when they eventually pick Mark Kelly, he feels like a compromise/middle of the road pick. I am ultimately thinking though that they pick Shapiro and he's a good choice.

I have to say I really don't get the Walz thing. He's a great speaker and props for bringing in the "weird" thing, but I really don't understand why he is being so heavily pushed compared to other candidates. His platform is going to be whatever Harris' platform is, same with any other pick. I also think he is vulnerable to controversies around BLM protests. Not to mention he's about the same age as Harris and not sure if he would be a great president pick in 8 years, which I think matters to the extent that every Democratic VP has been a major nominee since at least the 70s. Not sure why you go with a lesser known kinda generic swing state governor when other candidates have clearer electoral advantages.

Edit: As I finished this post, Walz became the favorite to become VP in the betting markets, when it has consistently been Shapiro the whole time. Obviously pretty meaningless, but I do wonder what drove the sudden flip.
 
Last edited:
Great communicator who has a very relatable aura to many folks. He's the one who kicked off the whole "weird" attack campaign. Also, he has a background in education and teaching, so I'm pretty stoked about that. Very good pick in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
Ok, but what does our resident Minnesotan have to say @Jer ? If I remember correctly you aren't as stoked about him as others on the board. I mean, aside from the above "meh."
 
I know nothing of him but he seems like a Bernie type. Good for the left but not so good in winning over Republicans. My gut says she should have picked the astronaut but I'm not American so what do I know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jer
Vaenyr said:
Great communicator who has a very relatable aura to many folks. He's the one who kicked off the whole "weird" attack campaign. Also, he has a background in education and teaching, so I'm pretty stoked about that. Very good pick in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Has that Midwestern suburban dad appeal. Great speaker. Solid pick.

I still would have preferred Kelly, but this was the best alternative.
 
It's just a tweet that tries to hype him up, so take with a grain of salt, but here's some of Walz's accomplishments:

bafkreia3uy55iq7b3am4enmagw2uxst6dnliulabxpfdo3p2b2xypvunhy@jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
I don't know anything about him, but he seems like a great choice on paper. Likable, progressive, former teacher, former National Guard...also he's an old white guy who can hopefully convince some other old white guys to vote blue.
 
It’s pretty amazing that Walz managed to dark horse his way into the VP slot against a really impressive group of contenders. He wasn’t my choice obviously and I still don’t entirely get the logic behind choosing him, but he must have really impressed the Harris campaign so I’m open minded about the choice. Good to be making a move to appeal to progressives while also picking someone with a background that will (hopefully) appeal to older working class voters who appear to be among Harris’ weaker demographic. There’s kind of a Joe Biden 2008 dynamic I think, although the roles are reversed where Harris is perceived as more moderate compared to Walz.
 
Perun said:
What should the uninitiated know about Walz?
Click to expand...
Onhell said:
Ok, but what does our resident Minnesotan have to say @Jer ? If I remember correctly you aren't as stoked about him as others on the board. I mean, aside from the above "meh."
Click to expand...
Here’s what I said about him before, and I stand by it:

As a Minnesotan, let me say that Tim Walz is boring as fuck. He’s a paper-thin party shill who will say whatever’s put on his talking points memo. Yes, he’s pushed a lot of progressive legislation through here, some of it quite popular, but I don’t see that he brings much to the ticket other than “old but not decrepit” boring white man vibes with a bit of folksiness. Does that buy you anything meaningful in the rust belt? I kind of doubt it. Is MN actually in play in this election? No way, not with Biden out. So what’s the advantage?

He obviously has gubernatorial experience, plus 12 years in the U.S. House, and he consistently won a lean-red district in MN as a Democrat. He also served in the National Guard and has a teaching background, so he checks a few boxes there, but I find this pick puzzling. Kelly or Shapiro would have made a lot more sense, IMO.
 
Mosh said:
Good to be making a move to appeal to progressives while also picking someone with a background that will (hopefully) appeal to older working class voters who appear to be among Harris’ weaker demographic.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure this actually achieves that, though. The right has always tried to paint Harris as a radical, so having her pick someone with a progressive legislative record plays into that bogeywoman profile rather than moderating the ticket. And the progressives will come out and vote for Harris regardless of whom she picks, so going for someone more moderate would have made more sense, IMO.

Also, assuming a Minnesotan is “close enough” to a Cheesehead or a Michigander or a Pennsylvanian to appeal to all three constituencies reeks of the ill-informed opinion of some coastal politico who sees it all as flyover country anyway, which isn’t a great sign.
 
The right paints Biden as a radical as is. It's their only line of attack. Attacking Walz's accomplishment as governor as some radical agenda when in fact such accomplishments are quite popular at the national level is expected, but won't connect.

Then again, the Trump-Vance ticket and their party as a whole are still flailing trying to find a line of attack.
 
JD Vance this morning was trying to paint Walz as a "San Francisco style" progressive. I understand that he is on the more progressive end of things for a midwest governor, but I really don't think that attack is going to land. The splitscreen between Walz and someone like Vance speaks for itself.

I guess my question is whether Shapiro was passed over because they feared a backlash from the left or whether Harris sees something in Walz that isn't yet apparent. In other words, is Walz a "safe" pick or is there something more electorally advantageous? As I've said throughout this process, there really isn't a bad pick here, but given the dynamic of this campaign I was expecting someone who they expect would give them a boost in a specific swing state, whether it's Shapiro in PA or Kelly in AZ.*

I'm guessing the calculation is that Walz will keep the older working class white Biden coalition together (which had already come home to Biden 2024 in polls) while Harris can continue to make inroads with younger voters and POC. I think you could make the case that Harris was expecting these voters to come home regardless of the VP candidate, and Walz rocks the boat the least.

*Although I want to be clear here, the "they just lost PA" takes or the takes that were going around earlier this week about how Shapiro would cost them MI are just ridiculous. Harris' candidacy isn't going to live or die by this VP pick.
 
Walz is the one who originated the (hilariously effective) line of attack that Trump/Vance and the Republicans are just plain 'weird' that the DNC as a whole has adopted. In a sense, I kind of think it was inevitable.

Moving past Shapiro was a smart idea in an election this consequential as there's plenty to attack him with with his past history as attorney general and for certain actions as governor. Why derail all the positive momentum to have to go back on defense again? It was a rather myopic point of view to think "Well, duh, just pick the Pennsylvania guy and you'll win Pennsylvania." Bear in mind that the Republicans put up ridiculously unpopular candidates in 2022 for the Governor/Senator races in Doug Mastriano and Dr. Oz.
 
Fair with the "weird" thing. Kamala HQ has also been really troll-ish (in a good way) against Trump and the Republicans. It seems like Walz and Harris are very aligned on their messaging and we are finally going to get a campaign that is laser focused on how ridiculous and unelectable of a person Trump is.

I think the idea with Shapiro was to deliver PA in a close race. Maybe there’s some controversy out of the gate and maybe it even costs them MI, but if he gives them PA and Harris is able to get the sunbelt states and/or WI they win. I think there's a bit of confidence in the Walz pick that indicates they don't need to go for a specific state because they think Harris can win on her own merits in a race that won't be as close as it is being portrayed. I agree with the idea that picking Shapiro just to win PA is shortsighted, but I will be curious to see if Walz brings in electoral advantages of his own. There is a lot of online excitement about the pick, and he has gotten praise from everyone from AOC to Larry Hogan (!). He checks the unifying pick box, which is a huge deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top