The left loves Tim Walz. Can he unite the Democrats?
Tim Walz is ideally suited to expand Kamala Harris’ appeal across the ideological spectrum.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
Shapiro has Israel baggage that I am so glad I don't have to hear about online for the next forever. Kelly had a messy divorce that I'm sure nobody wants to have dredged up. Walz seems relatable to a great number of people.
Plus, he drives a 1979 IH Scout.
Shapiro's Israel issue would have been a toss-up issue. Some independents wanted him to be very pro-Israel, others no so much. Probably wouldn't have made a huge difference.
On the other hand, might have made a difference in Michigan among the large muslim minority who may not have come out to vote.
I really just hope Walz is not going to be another Kaine.
Democrats aren't the biggest fans of Israel right now. It's not independents that matter in his case.
Democrats are very divided on Israel but lots are very pro-Israel. Most American Jews vote Democratic.
Doesn't mean they agree with Netanyahu's handling of Gaza, but pro-Israel nonetheless.
Okay, but lots of Democrats won't vote for a pro-genocide administration. Someone who volunteered to be a soldier for their regime would have been seen as proof to them that Kamala was just as bad as Biden on Israel.
Wouldn't have mattered much when the alternative is Trump, which would be a thousand times worse than any candidate the Democrats could come up with.
Not all Democrats will vote blue no matter who and Harris's pick seems to be an acknowledgement that she can't afford to piss off the uncommitted movement.
I remember listening to a podcast they would make, a lady and a guy and Nate Silver. I think it's that podcast that makes me not really like him or his ideas aside from the numbers and the team he surrounds himself with. I look at 538 and I trust it for the most part but if it has Silver attached to it, I think of it as editorial
538 no longer has Nate Silver or his model; Disney bought it and fired him like a year ago or so.
Still, I agree; I don't like his politics, but his analysis of polls and numbers is probably the best out there.
Haha that's funny, thanks for the update
He seems to have gotten more right-wing in recent years, although he doesn't talk about it too explicitly (maybe he was always like that and I just didn't know).
I remember him downplaying the J6 insurrection during one of the podcasts which was the point where I lost a lot of respect for him, and frankly him leaving isn't a big loss as he seemed to be just over election modelling in general by the end.
Lmao, Silver is equating a Walz pick to a TIM KAINE pick.
I’m sorry, I can’t read any further with sooo much cope.
Yeah, it doesn't get much better. Silver's great when it's just about numbers, but less so when it's slightly more intangible. This column might be the peak example.
Hes Theil funded at this point. Dont expect a neutral voice anymore.
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.
Silver's claim that Walz is a Tim Kaine pick is just dead on arrival. I'm sorry, I appreciate his actual model, but his argument here is just too speculative.
Yeah, I typically like Nate, but today's column seemed sloppy. I don't see how Walz is the "safe" choice - he's further left than Shapiro. I also didn't get what he was saying about Minnesota values not translating. I think Walz was a bold pick and I'm happy with the choice.
Seconded. Walz isn’t “safe” if you look at his policies. He’s pretty far left and is just fine implementing social policy, gun control, and using government money to fund social programs. That’s pretty radical if you’re a Republican. While he isn’t a policymaker as the VP, he’s a tie-breaker and he’s a future presidential candidate should Harris win.
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.
He should just predict basketball or what ever and leave politics to the adults that he hired.
In case you're not aware, 538 was acquired by Disney/ABC, and he's no longer involved with them.
So yeah, he's just a pundit now, and his punditry was never that great to begin with. The Model is what made him good
Dems in array!
'D', 'e', 'm', 's'
Sort()
[:]
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.
Just wondering how the heck Walz can be considered “not of the left.” Looking at his accomplishments with universal background checks, free school lunch etc it seems he’s accomplished more left leaning goals than 99% of his colleagues
Hasn't starved enough of his own citizens for the tankies unfortunately
Are you suggesting that the tankies are a big enough voting block to qualify Walz as “not of the left?” Big doubt.
I'm suggesting they're probably the ones screaming the loudest about people not being left enough
By global standards, the USA has almost zero politicians that would rate as "left".
The Overton window has been constantly shoved further to the right for decades.
We are not using global standards, this is a US paper about US politics.
There may be only one or two successful politicians in the entire US who meet the “global standards,” which would make calling him out for “not being of the left” really fucking stupid.
The author is making a distinction between progressive and leftist, and this interpretation may vary from reader to reader, considering in many ways the two views share many similarities. I personally have no issue with the classification, calling his accomplishments progressive or leftist makes little difference to me, but it could be viewed differently by others who may have drawn a line between the two labels. Manchin and AOC rallying behind Walz does appear to lend credence to the idea that he could be a unifying force.
Certainly from a mainstream political standpoint he appears to be fairly liberal with some progressive policies. However, the writer is using the term 'leftists' to mean socialists or left-wing "radicals" (whatever that means).
His stance of Israel is really what will be the clincher for leftists, as is the case with Harris. On the plus side, they are both taking a softer line in terms of how they discuss the genocide in public, but of course neither of them would ever utter the phrase with relation to the Palestinians -- that would be too radical.
Therefore, there's a lot of doubt as to whether either of them will break from Biden's policy of continuing to send bombs and military hardware to Israel, as both are apparently very much in the "Israel has the right to defend itself" camp.
My statement stands.
Good talk.
Edit: no follow ups.... guess they didn't read the article past the headline? :)
Edit 2: they clearly didn't lol
Headline suggests ...