Walz — Comer Opens Congressional Investigation of Walz trips to China

I’ve come around on Shapiro and Walz. Shapiro carries around the baggage of the sexual harassment NDA, though it was a staffer at fault. Maybe that becomes a liability, but in this shitshow of a political environment it probably gets lost in the noise.(?) His presence on the stump and the necessity of winning PA make him the most rational choice, IMO.

Walz, on the other hand, just SCREAMS witty, lovable, incisive, down-home, slaughter-you-with-a-smile midwestern dad. His appeal in WI and MI has to be unmatched amongst candidates. His history in the service, as a teacher, and dad of a couple of young adults give him a special mix of experiences to speak to an essential portion of the base that Democrats must mobilize. Walz seems centrally cast for working the diner and fair circuit of the Midwest.
 
Last edited:
Shapiro's schools stance is a non-starter for me, personally. I am personally against it, but more importantly for this election, believe that the AFT and NEA would be hard-pressed to voice full-throated support for a ticket that included him.
 
heelslegup said:
Click to expand...


mpaer said:
His "candance" is a lot like Obama I had never realized that
Click to expand...
I also had not noticed it until The Daily Show made mention of it. The clip should start playing at the appropriate part (5:21) but the whole video is worth a watch. I about fell over from laughing when Ronny did the joke about Harris climbing stairs.

 
I get the electoral college math reasons for Shapiro or Waltz, but I think Kelly draws away lots of Trump voters. His military record is vastly superior to Vance's so the right can't harp on that, and the MAGAs will try mightily to link a Jewish candidate to their favorite boogeyman, George Soros. Plus I think Arizona is a slam dunk with Kelly as opposed to Pa still being a maybe with Shapiro.
 
buzzosborne said:
I get the electoral college math reasons for Shapiro or Waltz, but I think Kelly draws away lots of Trump voters. His military record is vastly superior to Vance's so the right can't harp on that, and the MAGAs will try mightily to link a Jewish candidate to their favorite boogeyman, George Soros. Plus I think Arizona is a slam dunk with Kelly as opposed to Pa still being a maybe with Shapiro.
Click to expand...

I think that sums it up. Kelly is her strongest pick in my opinion.
 
While not career military like Kelly, Walz did have 24 years in the National Guard, and was an E-9 which is the top of the enlisted ranks.
 
I’m not at all sure that Shapiro’s upside in PA isn’t offset by his downside in MI. Kelly has a union problem and the blue wall states (MI/WI/PA) are heavily unionized.

It just seems to me that Walz or Beshear have lower risk factors while perhaps not offering the ceiling of Shapiro or Kelly. I will leave it to the political experts to decide which is the best path. I just think it’s important that the VP nominee does not become a liability in important states.
 
farce said:
I’m not at all sure that Shapiro’s upside in PA isn’t offset by his downside in MI. Kelly has a union problem and the blue wall states (MI/WI/PA) are heavily unionized.

It just seems to me that Walz or Beshear have lower risk factors while perhaps not offering the ceiling of Shapiro or Kelly. I will leave it to the political experts to decide which is the best path. I just think it’s important that the VP nominee does not become a liability in important states.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. If the rule is do no harm, Beshear and Walz are by far the best choices. Not sure Shapiro changes Pennsylvania as much as people think. Beshear can also speak to rural Pennsylvania.
 
Thought this was a phenomenal case statement for Josh Shapiro. It's behind the paywall on the Bulwark, so I won't copy and paste the whole thing, but thought that a part of the article would be great to add to this discussion thread.

"I’ve been somewhat surprised by the level of distrust and angst some people on the left feel towards Josh Shapiro. By my lights, Shapiro is the best-available pick for Harris for the following reasons: Pennsylvania (duh), Youth, Raw political talent, Post-Trump, post-Covid vintage, Centrist political identity.

But let me lay out the best arguments against Shapiro as I see them.

(1) There’s a better player on the board.

A lot of the anti-Shapiro folks seem to be pro-Tim Walz. The case for Walz goes something like this:

Walz is a blue-collar guy. Served in the Army. Was a teacher for many years. Is great on the stump. Super pro-labor. Should play well with the kind of Rust Belt, economy-first, Trump/Vance voters who aren’t in it for the culture wars. Also: He doesn’t antagonize progressives and might supercharge the populist left. You know those Bernie voters who eventually voted for Trump? Maybe Walz brings them home.

All of this is reasonable and if you deem Walz as a straight-up better pick then Shapiro, that’s fine. To me, it’s the equivalent of taking D-Wade over LeBron, but it’s a judgment call. Your mileage may vary.

(2) Concerns about what other people on the left will think about Shapiro.

This is the meta-argument. Just as there were people who liked Kamala Harris, but worried that voters writ large wouldn’t go for her, there are Dems who like Shapiro, but worry that he would shed some gettable votes on Harris’s left flank.

This is ultimately unknowable, but I’d ask you this:

Do you think that progressives in Michigan will sit out the election of the first black woman—who is running against the guy who attempted a coup in an election largely defined by Dobbs—because they don’t like her veep’s views on Gaza?

I do not. Anyone who would bail on an argument that thin is a single-issue voter who was going to find some reason to sit out this election.

(3) The Left sees Shapiro as further evidence that the Democratic party is moving toward the center and away from progressivism.

Eight years ago a Democratic-Socialist almost won a presidential nomination. The year 2016 looked like the beginning of a progressive evolution for the Democratic party. Today it looks like a high-water mark. If you prefer a more progressive Democratic party, then you may find this suboptimal. As a colleague told me on our Slack:

Shapiro being self-consciously centrist, putting a couple of Republicans in his cabinet, talking about welcoming the support of Republicans for Shapiro, joking around with Tim Miller—that’s just normal intelligent behavior for a Dem politician in a swing state. For the left, still smarting from Biden’s win in 2020, it signifies a future of the party that disappoints them. The Squad was supposed to be the future. Or at least orthodox progressives were. A Shapiro pick—and Spanberger, Sherrill, et al—signifies a lot to them.

And the left never trusted Harris either.
Click to expand...
This feels right. Over on The Bulwark subreddit, a progressive poster put it this way:

[T]he Ds have been constantly trying to expand their base to crowds like the Bulwark center Rs.

They're dangerously close to trying to become so much of something to everyone, that they will be nothing to nobody. They're too ill defined.

Kamala has that problem.
Click to expand...
I want to validate this concern: Since 2016 the Democratic party has been moving to the center and they do risk becoming ill defined.

But also: They have no choice. The fact is that the Electoral College currently makes it possible for Republicans to win the presidency with as little as 47 percent of the vote. The Democratic party does not have a good chance to win the presidency with a vote share under 51 percent. That’s reality. And until this reality changes, Democrats are going to have to keep moving to the center and progressives are going to have to keep compromising on policies that are important to them.

Is this fair to progressives? No. Not particularly.

If I were a progressive, I’d probably say:
Republicans can run on full-MAGA and still have a chance to win the White House but Democrats can’t even go as far as Elizabeth Warren without risking the whole shebang? I hate this.
Click to expand...
And yet . . . that’s the world we live in.

Pennsylvania is more conservative than the median blue state. Also: Pennsylvania is an absolute must-win for Democrats nationally. Therefore, a successful Democratic presidential ticket is likely to be more centrist than the median Democratic voter. The nature of coalitions in this political moment creates the following state of play:

  • Most Republicans are now MAGA, so they can get everything they want and still have a chance to win the presidency.
  • The rump class of Wall Street Journal Republicans has to compromise on most of its preferences.
  • In the Democratic party, nearly every part of the coalition has to compromise on some of its preferences:
    • Progressives have to make due with moderate leadership.
    • Moderates have to meet progressives on enough items to keep them on side.
    • Formerly-Republican voters in the suburbs have to give up on some of their priorities—and in return the Democrats move toward them in the middle on other issues.
To my mind, the progressive unhappiness about Josh Shapiro is actually a signal confirming that politicians like him are the future of the Democratic party. Because the only successful future for Democrats is one in which every part of the coalition is at least a little bit unhappy most of the time. Yeah, I get it. This is not a great recruiting slogan. But also: It’s the truth."

www.thebulwark.com

The Case for Josh Shapiro

And understanding why progressives don't like him.
www.thebulwark.com www.thebulwark.com
 
RockyMtnHoo said:
While not career military like Kelly, Walz did have 24 years in the National Guard, and was an E-9 which is the top of the enlisted ranks.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why I'm posting this but Under Siege is one of my favorite movies and I always get a laugh when Stephen Seagal is locked in the fridge and the lowly guard is put outside who is arguing with him and Seagal under his breath calls him a "little E-1 prick." Always makes me chuckle.
 
As a progressive, I do have issues with Shapiro. I would have issues with any VP choice, just as I have issues with Kamala.

In my mind, the main problem with Shapiro is not just that progressives have problems with him. He has other issues that are problems outside of Gaza.

I disagree heavily that he is the future of the party. He represents more of a harkening back to the Obama era than the future of the party. A future Democratic Party leader cannot be supportive of school vouchers. That’s not a progressive thing, that’s just a common sense thing that every Democrat should be against.

Beshear isn’t a darling of the left, but I would still prefer him to Shapiro.
 
There is a progressive group coming out to criticsize Shapiro for not being more aggressive in purging a staff person for allegations of sexual harrassment.

Will this derail his chances at becoming the VP choice...and keep in mind we are talking about the Dem VP choice, not a GQP VP choice ?
 
I hope so. There are too many better options for Harris to go with Shapiro. Like I said in an earlier post, I don’t think it’s clear that he delivers Pennsylvania.
 
Paine said:
I hope so. There are too many better options for Harris to go with Shapiro. Like I said in an earlier post, I don’t think it’s clear that he delivers Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...
The thing is, though, if Pennsylvania doesn't go Democratic, the election is over anyway. Kamala has no shot at without winning Pennsylvania. Shapiro, IMO, gives the Harris campaign the *best and most likely* opportunity to win PA (though, obviously nothing is a guarantee) because he is unbelievably popular in Pennsylvania, and not just among Democrats/liberals. His approval rating is jaw-dropping in this age of hyperpartisan politics.

To be clear, though, I'll be thrilled with any one of Shapiro, Walz, or Kelly in really no particular order. All three would be fantastic additions to the ticket. But I think that, as it pertains to Shapiro, if you can virtually guarantee that he can deliver PA, it's almost a no-brainer (to me).
 
CFordUNC said:
The thing is, though, if Pennsylvania doesn't go Democratic, the election is over anyway. Kamala has no shot at without winning Pennsylvania. Shapiro, IMO, gives the Harris campaign the *best and most likely* opportunity to win PA (though, obviously nothing is a guarantee) because he is unbelievably popular in Pennsylvania, and not just among Democrats/liberals. His approval rating is jaw-dropping in this age of hyperpartisan politics.
Click to expand...
IIRC, Beshear has the highest approval rating of any Democratic governor.
 
Paine said:
IIRC, Beshear has the highest approval rating of any Democratic governor.
Click to expand...
He does. It's in the high 60's. Walz is fairly high too at 56. For Shapiro, I've seen one recent poll having him at 61 percent, but another having him at only 49 percent (although with only 31 percent disapproving).
 


Happy Jim Carrey GIF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top