The left loves Tim Walz. Can he unite the Democrats?
The left loves Tim Walz. Can he unite the Democrats?
Tim Walz is ideally suited to expand Kamala Harris’ appeal across the ideological spectrum.
Headline suggests that the Democrats - who are currently more united than they've been since probably Kennedy - aren't united.
If you think that's baffling, take a look at Nate Silver's column:
https://www.natesilver.net/p/tim-walz-is-a-minnesota-nice-choice
I'm not sure if Nate is talking about the same Walz and Shapiro as the rest of us.
You should read through the comments on that post.
Almost NONE of Silvers subscribers are having it.
This just a way off base miss of Silvers.
Believe the numbers, doubt the pundit.
He doesn't even understand that "Minnesota Nice" is not a compliment. It refers to when people who have lived here their whole lives and have close often going back to high school. When someone from out of state moves to Minnesota, their co-workers, neighbors etc will be friendly, act interested in the newbs lives, and even offer things like "we should get together sometime". That is in no way an invitation to actually do anything. If the newb proposes a date "to get the kids together", the Minnesotan will hem, haw and make up excuses.
Minnesota Nice is a special kind of nice.
I think that's a pretty simplistic take considering we just swapped our candidate less than 6 months before the election. I agree with the article's take that Walz has potential to unify the differing democratic coalitions, and don't see any evidence of your claim.
Walz’s elevation earns the left a big victory. Yet because Walz himself isn’t of the left, the pick seems intended to serve a unifying purpose: a candidate who appeals to all different stripes of Democrats for different reasons. The fact that Democrats across the political spectrum seem thrilled by the pick — with effusive support coming from people ranging from Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) — seems to validate the theory.
It’s important to be clear: The VP selection matters way less for elections than people think. It’s much more important to select a potential president than an optimal running mate.
But you can see why Harris sees picking Walz as smart politics. It allows her to simultaneously hand the left a win without necessarily tacking left — potentially keeping her coalition united even as she works to win over the general election’s decisive centrists.
I think its important to recognize the value this VP pick can bring, and I've not known vox to try to suggest something like that without reason.
Edit: I'm also going to add that your reply is a disingenuous attempt to falsely turn this into a binary unified or not unified condition, not that the article is making such a claim. I entirely reject your statement.
I drew a pic.
Walzris
Goo goo g'joob
He can defiantly crush Vance and speak to the Midwest. I think that is what matters.
Defiantly definitely works too ;)
While still being a genuinely good person.
Also, he isn’t shy about cutting through the bullshit to the issues. Like this clip. “Oh what a monster!”…
Dude got nominated like an hour ago. How are they putting out articles like this?
Like the average person ain't even got home from work on the east coast.
People had a week to draft one for each VP candidate being vetted.
Like Carter’s obituary - write it now so you can publish it early.
They are preloaded and ready to go. They probably have other articles in the can for the other names that were being considered as well.
It might also surprise you to know that major news networks pre-tape celebrity obituaries just in case that person dies.
And then there's the video for the end of civilization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzhPzHhnFl0
The best one I found is this opening from cnn:
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz hadn’t been in the top tier of potential running mates for Kamala Harris until the past few weeks.
No shit!
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/06/politics/math-behind-harris-walz-vp-pick/index.html
Walz has been known to be on the shortlist for at least a week, probably longer. They probably had articles like this in the pipeline for all the likely candidates.
The campaign worked with news outlets and let them write the articles, under what's often called an embargo. Basically, in exchange for holding the story until it's announced, the journalists can write the story ahead of time.
Source: dated a girl who worked in PR and a girl who was in media relations for a large company
Can confirm.
Source: married to journalist who counts down the hours and triple checks the time zone math to avoid this.
Presumably various media outlets had articles prepared ahead of time for each of the possible outcomes.
Big news sites will do things like write up a story announcing a presidential win for each of the candidates, then only publish the one that matters after the election. This way they can have a story on the front page within minutes (seconds these days) of having official results.
I wouldn't be surprised if Vox had 1 of these lined up for each of the likely VP picks. If not that, it certainly wouldn't be unusual for a journalist to do their homework on all of the candidates and to have the rough outline and some key facts ready to go for each. If you've already done most of the research, assembling the final story shouldn't take more than a couple of hours.
Its like how obituaries are written well in advance of notable people dying. They had this article written up for each person on Harris's list.
Well, he didn't just crawl out of a hole, he has a record. The article is making the claim that he has the potential to bring together different elements of the democratic party, which ultimately is the party of everyone else that isn't voting Trump. This is a big tent with a lot of perspectives, and while democrats are largely united against Trump, that doesn't inherently mean they're just as united behind the candidate (as we just saw), and those kind of things are ripe for Republicans to pick at and promote infighting.
Because it’s Zach Beauchamp and he essentially hates the left.
I know everyone is giving you tidy, case-solving “it’s-always-like-this” responses, but indeed you are on to something.
Let the anti-anti corporate work begin (Walz and Harris being the [somewhat] anti-corporate).
Hmm... are you talking about Zack Beauchamp? Or someone else with publications that represent what you're saying?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/6/20754828/el-paso-shooting-white-supremacy-rise
https://www.vox.com/politics/357963/republicans-white-identity-politics-newsletter
https://www.vox.com/politics/356824/liberalism-way-of-life-lefebvre
https://www.vox.com/politics/361136/far-right-authoritarianism-germany-reactionary-spirit
But whatever, facts don't matter here, considering how many comments want to trash this article (without reading past the title :) )
Donald Trump is ideally suited to expand Kamala Harris' appeal across the ideological spectrum.
I legit forgot what it feels like to have HOPE
Yep.
Harris has an edge to her, she’s quick-smart (imo this is good for presidential material) and that may be off putting to some (because women aren’t supposed to be like that , right?), however, Walz is straight up good guy and he can balance out the ticket as far as presentation.
My only concern about Walz is that he presents so strongly as a good guy/dad figure that, should Harris be elected, the typical behavior is to put the VP up for election upon the incumbent’s term(s) expiring. Does he have the presence to be the potential presidential candidate in the future?
Why is that even a concern? Frankly, they should be pushing for legislation that disqualifies senior citizens anyway and he'll be almost 70 when his turn comes around. Just retire, guys. You've earned it.
It’s a concern because that’s how things generally work.
Sure, you can wish we don’t have ancient, out of touch older people running for office, but you’ll have just as much success with that by banging your head on the keyboard. So you should be concerned until things turn out otherwise.
Well now that depends: Would being in the VP chair help mould him into someone who can rise to the challenge?
Who knows!
For now let's not worry about that. Seriously. Trump bad. Beat first. Big unga bunga, big stick, big smack. Don't let go of that question, just file it away for a bit.
All true, though keeping the fascists at bay in four or eight years will never not be a concern IMO.
People really do think that quick-smart is not a good thing in women???!
If so, I bet it's just the ones who take it really badly when they're outsmarted.
Misogynists think that, and there are a lot of them out there.
What samus12345 said, and people don’t like a woman who behaves the same way a man would in a professional environment - and I mean someone who is demanding, disciplines, is decisive, and holds people to expectations. A good boss does those things, tempered with understanding and leeway as needed. People expect women to hide all that behind some sort of female softness, or they call her a hard-nosed bitch or worse and they don’t respect her the way they would a male in the same position.
I like to think there will be a time in the near future when Americans will want there president to be laid back and somewhat boring
We should be so luck to ever see a time where the president doesn’t need to make a hard decision. Don’t think that’ll ever happen.
Yes.
He was the best choice. They can win and we can finally force trump to account.
Tim Walz for America's Dad
Gooood morning USA, I got a feeling like it's gonna be a wonderful day.
That’s absurd. He is left of center in the USA by a wide margin. Saying he’s not of the left or not a leftist is quite the goalpost, especially considering his achievements such as getting statewide free lunch programs at schools.
Socialist does not mean the same thing as leftist, and isn’t the criteria to be considered “of the left.”
Maybe I'm wrong, but I consider "leftist" to mean something like "a collection of positions rooted in criticism of capitalism." Socialism would be one such worldview (a subset or example of leftism), but so would communism, some forms of anarchism, and more. "Free school lunches for everyone" should probably be considered a leftist position as it undermines the profit incentive of recouping the cost of that lunch, whether he presents that as a leftist thing (which I can see causing some political blowback that he may try to avoid in the name of progressing this kind of legislation) or not. I haven't had time to do any other research on this guy or his other positions. If he supports a lot of legislation in this vein, then maybe it's okay to call him a leftist.
Regarding the profit incentive: providing free school lunches or medical/ hygiene supplies does not hurt profits. As the meals/supplies will still have to be sourced from the market, it probably will now be a few big contacts with big suppliers that will cover entire school districts.
The costs of these contracts will be a public burden unless they implemented a specific focus tax to pay for it, so it will come out of various broad tax pools. This means everyone pays a little bit so every kid has something to eat. Even if you don't have any kids or if your kid gets homemade lunch packs. This is where the "social" aspect comes in.
Other countries, many of them European, actually go a step in the other direction: if you do not have kids, you actually pay a premium on your income tax. And that is generally accepted, because for society to live on, obviously kids are necessary. And if you don't support society by raising kids, you at least help cover some of the associated costs. These premiums are explicitly used to fund kindergartens, schools etc..
An often valid capitalist criticism of public large contracts on infrastructure such as this is that the public offices tend to be notoriously bad negotiators, accepting worse deals than private companies would. This is because there's little to no incentive for them to reach good terms. It also makes the process more vulnerable to corruption and politicking on a grander scale. These are not guaranteed to happen, good governance can definitely avoid this. But public governance simply isn't that great to begin with in many areas.
Leftism isn’t about being anti-capitalist, though the two can and do overlap quite a bit. Left wing politics is more about what they support as opposed to being against something: pro-human rights. Pro-equality and equity. Pro-education. Pro-healthcare. Pro-environment. Walz is pro all of those things, and his track record exemplifies it.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but the distinction is important. It’s the right wing that only exists in opposition. Their only platform is what they are against.
Compared to many of his Democratic colleagues, he leans much farther left than most. That’s why it’s odd to say he’s not of the left. He is a capitalist who owns not a single stock, bond, real estate, and he doesn’t take money for speaking or have book deals. He’s a lefty capitalist, which is pretty much a diamond in the rough.
Nobody can doubt your bona fides to make this critique since this comment is peak leftism.
But I’m not a pure socialist, so I don’t pass the purity test to be of the left. Be consistent!
Those who wanted Shapiro or another VP pick are just crybabies who are mad they arent getting everything they wanted.
Honest question, who outside of PA wanted Shapiro? I've heard even PA people say it wasn't a good choice. Not sure if I'm just out of the loop though.
Vox - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Vox:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.vox.com/politics/365416/tim-walz-kamala-harris-vp-vice-president-democrats-left
They forgot quotes; by "left" and "progressive" they mean republican-lites.
The left’s romance with Walz is deeply entwined with hostility to his chief rival for a spot on the ticket: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. Harris’s decision on Shapiro, who has a history of hostility with the party’s pro-Palestinian faction, had become seen as a bellwether for whether she’d be meaningfully different from Biden on Gaza. Walz looked like the most progressive available anti-Shapiro, and so emerged as the left’s preferred alternative.
The Minnesota Miracle reforms, enacted in a single legislative session, read like a progressive wishlist. They include paid family leave, free school meals, marijuana legalization, a 100 percent clean energy mandate by 2040, and a slew of protections for organized labor.
But I use the word “progressive” and not its cousin “leftist” deliberately. The Minnesota Miracle policies are all squarely within the Democratic mainstream: none betray an ideological commitment to the party’s socialist or otherwise radical wings.
But Walz’s position on Israel-Palestine is hardly left-wing. The Atlantic’s Yair Rosenberg has put together a list of Walz’s positions and actions that basically reflect the traditional pro-Israel consensus. Walz’s position on how to end the current Gaza war is virtually identical to Shapiro’s. The most important difference is less Middle East policy than domestic: Shapiro has been far harsher on pro-Palestine campus protests than Walz has.
The strongest Trump attack on Harris, at least to date, is that she’s too far to the left. Scored by one (dubious) metric as the most liberal member of the Senate in 2019, she has drawn Republican flak for previous positions ranging from Medicare-for-all to banning fracking to decriminalizing border crossing.
Moreover, his celebrity status on the left gives Harris crucial running room to keep up the strategic centrism. By handing her left flank a victory, she’s theoretically built major credibility that she can spend to defray a left-wing revolt over some of her more centrist stances.