Headline suggests that the Democrats - who are currently more united than they’ve been since probably Kennedy - aren’t united.
Removed by mod
Not at all.
I think they should be all thrown into an island with rudimentary weapons and no clothes to fight it out via a hunger games type atmosphere.
The winner gets trebucheted into the grand canyon.
Reverse Hunger Games
Gluttony Games? Wait, that’s just what is happening already.
I read your comment after the person you were replying to had deleted their comment. So I don’t even know what you’re talking about. But imma upvote you anyway because your comment is still awesome.
Damn, upvoting their comment is how you volunteer for the island
I’m all for an annual 100% wealth tax for the richest person in the country.
Removed by mod
That’s why we also ban people with over $10,000,000 from leaving the country without handing their assets over as a surety for their return.
Might encourage a few of them to donate a little more. Actually no, they will just create a new business entity and funnel the funds there under another name
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Yeah, people on social media, including Lemmy and Reddit, think that Democrats are definitely not pro-Israel. Many are. The party includes a wide range of opinions on Israel.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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 …
Removed by mod
Walzris
Goo goo g’joob
Removed by mod
Defiantly definitely works too ;)
Removed by mod
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
Thanks, that was amusing.
local58 is amazing; check out their other stuff :)
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 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 :) )
Removed by mod
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.
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
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.
I see the logic of it. He’s the governor of arguably the most important state of the election. If you think he could help win in Pennsylvania without costing too many votes from the only other 6 states that matter it would be a good pick
I was reading that he would probably hurt the surrounding 6 more than many other options and wasn’t that much of a lock for PA itself. Probably not worth the tradeoff. Make several virtual locks and maybe swing PA vs make some of the 6 less sure and still be shaky in PA anyways. PA is important but potentially so much of a tossup that too many eggs in one basket may cost several surprise other places.
Obama and other establishment dems
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!
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.
