Walz — Comer Opens Congressional Investigation of Walz trips to China

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.
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
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).
 
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
 
Paine said:
IIRC, Beshear has the highest approval rating of any Democratic governor.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Beshear would be a good addition to the ticket, too, no question about it. I just think that, because Kentucky is not even remotely in play for Democrats as Pennsylvania (Shapiro) and Arizona (Kelly) are, it doesn't make much sense IMO to choose Beshear over the other two. And even though Dems aren't in danger of losing Minnesota, Tim Walz can almost certainly make the Dems' chances of delivering Michigan and Wisconsin increase. So I just think it's got to be one of those three- nothing at all against Beshear, who I think is a fantastic governor.
 
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.

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).
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree here although I personally like Walz and he was the one who delivered the "weird" playbook that has the GOP reeling. There's just something super authentic about him and I think people around the country would really like him. Shapiro has more upside and I could see him actually being the president in his own right one day, but I think Walz is the right guy for right now.

But if it's Shapiro or Kelly or even Beshear I'm not going to be mad. The only one I would really disagree with would be Pete.
 
HeelInTheOzarks said:
I pretty much agree here although I personally like Walz and he was the one who delivered the "weird" playbook that has the GOP reeling. There's just something super authentic about him and I think people around the country would really like him. Shapiro has more upside and I could see him actually being the president in his own right one day, but I think Walz is the right guy for right now.

But if it's Shapiro or Kelly or even Beshear I'm not going to be mad. The only one I would really disagree with would be Pete.
Click to expand...


What do you have against Pete?
 
Paine said:
Agreed that Kentucky is not in play, but I’m of the mind that no VP choice delivers their state. I don’t think Cooper would’ve done it here either. Beshear is able to speak to a demographic that Harris is not as well equipped to.

Shapiro speaks to the same people as Harris, IMO. Look at Beshear’s appearance in Forsyth Co, GA, for example. Dems have to stop the bleeding in rural areas to win statewide in many of these states. I think Beshear helps win over more rural voters and even some conservative leaning independents.

That’s why I’d have:

1A: Beshear
1B: Walz
2: the rest
Click to expand...
I can't disagree with this. I also have a hard time believing one VP pick will flip any state.
 
HeelInTheOzarks said:
I pretty much agree here although I personally like Walz and he was the one who delivered the "weird" playbook that has the GOP reeling. There's just something super authentic about him and I think people around the country would really like him. Shapiro has more upside and I could see him actually being the president in his own right one day, but I think Walz is the right guy for right now.

But if it's Shapiro or Kelly or even Beshear I'm not going to be mad. The only one I would really disagree with would be Pete.
Click to expand...
Walz is definitely the real deal. My parents, like many people, didn't know much about him even a week or so ago, and now they are totally on board with him. Mehdi Hassan himself didn't know about him until recently, either, and now is a complete fan. It makes me wonder if Biden had stepped aside sooner, Walz's name would have also been out there sooner, and his support would be even greater. But Harris has to make her decision in the next few days, so that tends to favor the Shapiros and Kellys, who already had a bit higher name recognition.

Shapiro is third for me after Walz and Beshear, but I think all are good choices.
 
Paine said:
Agreed that Kentucky is not in play, but I’m of the mind that no VP choice delivers their state. I don’t think Cooper would’ve done it here either. Beshear is able to speak to a demographic that Harris is not as well equipped to.

Shapiro speaks to the same people as Harris, IMO. Look at Beshear’s appearance in Forsyth Co, GA, for example. Dems have to stop the bleeding in rural areas to win statewide in many of these states. I think Beshear helps win over more rural voters and even some conservative leaning independents.

That’s why I’d have:

1A: Beshear
1B: Walz
2: the rest
Click to expand...
Those are all very good points, for sure! Will be fascinating to see who Kamala chooses. I feel like I'm going to be pretty darn happy with any one of Shapiro, Kelly, Walz, Beshear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top