A few random thoughts and musings on Kamala Harris’ selection of Tim Walz as her vice presidential running mate …
Why are Democrats and Republicans BOTH happy with Walz’ selection?
It’s rare that people on every end of the political spectrum can agree on something. But, in a strange way, that seems to what happened with Kamala Harris’ selection of Tim Walz as her vice presidential running mate.
“Vice President Harris made an excellent decision in Gov. Walz as her running mate,” said liberal Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
“Tim Walz will bring normality back to the most chaotic political environment that most of us have ever seen,” said conservative Senator Joe Manchin.
“People … want to vote for normal people they can relate to. Walz can sit at the kitchen table and make you feel like you have know him forever. That’s an incredible skill these days,” said businessman Mark Cuban.
Of course, with all these varied Democrats on board, Republicans must be upset, right? Actually, no. Check out the thoughts of some GOP insiders:
“We are cheering.”
“Republicans were in need of a lifeline this week and are so thrilled that Kamala Harris willing to give one to our side in our moment of need.”
What gives?
Obviously, the parties have different theories on how Walz will play with American voters.
The Democrats believe they have a candidate with appeal to both progressives and moderates, and who has a folksy style that will win over working class voters in swing states.
Republicans, meanwhile, think Walz has a liberal record as governor that will allow them to paint him as outside the mainstream. They quickly labeled the Harris-Walz ticket as “the most radical left-wing ticket in American history.”
A few other GOP attack lines that were uttered yesterday include:
“Tim Walz will unleash Hell on Earth!”
“Kamala Harris just doubled-down on her radical vision for America.”
Harris “caved to the pro-Hamas contingency within the Democratic Party.”
Geez, whatever happened to: “My opponents are good people, but I disagree profoundly with them on policy and I’m going to tell you why.”
Still, my favorite attack line has to be this one, from the Trump campaign itself, which blasted Walz for “embracing policies to allow convicted felons to vote.” Uh, they are aware, I assume, that their own presidential nominee is a convicted felon who can only vote now because of some of these policies?
Anyway …
Who is right? Was Walz a good pick?
Many Republicans are breathing a sigh of relief today because they believed putting Josh Shapiro on the ticket would have locked down Pennsylvania for the Democrats. And Pennsylvania just might be the single most important state in this election. A persuasive argument can be made that the route to 270 Electoral College votes goes directly through Pennsylvania for both parties.
“Shapiro was the choice you make if you wanted to win an election,” said one GOP strategist.
The Republicans aren’t alone. Many other smart analysts believed the same thing.
And if not Shapiro, a different argument was that Mark Kelly would have been a better choice as a running mate who’d win over moderate working class voters, while helping inoculate Harris against charges that she is weak on immigration. I personally thought Kelly was the best option.
In fact, if your main goal is winning over working class swing voters, I still think Kelly was the best bet. But most reports indicate the main factor dooming his candidacy was the belief he wasn’t a stirring enough speaker to rally voters nationally or to take on the attack dog/messenger role that is important for running mates.
I wasn’t quite as sold on Shapiro as a working class messenger. He’s very popular in Pennsylvania and that counts for a lot (if Dems lose that state and the election there will be much second guessing), but to me he still gives off a tinge of coastal elite vibes — not something that dooms him, by any means, but it doesn’t work as well when paired with Harris. Moreover, Shapiro may have reopened fissures in the Democratic Party over the Israel-Gaza war. And he was apparently harboring uncertainties himself over whether the vice presidential role fit him as well as being chief executive of Pennsylvania.
So in this sense, Walz may have simply been the safest pick. He brought none of the above risks, is broadly acceptable to all segments of the Democratic Party, and, crucially, he apparently meshed well with Harris on a personal level. He may not have a tremendous upside impact, but he’s not likely to be a drag on the ticket, and he might help just enough with the right voters across multiple states.
For one, there are signs that young voters seem excited about Walz, which could be important in boosting turnout. And, second, while Walz might not help attract a lot more working class voters, he shouldn’t lose them either. The thing is, Democrats don’t need to win back the entire working class vote, but they have to hold onto the Biden share. Hillary Clinton in 2016 saw her party’s vote collapse among rural and small town Americans. In 2020, Biden brought some of those voters back, which helped him win the crucial upper Midwestern states.
Those Biden voters are now on the fence. They’re not quite Trump supporters, but they’re unsure about Harris. Can Walz reassure them enough to help keep this vote at Biden levels? Vice presidents only help at the margins in attracting votes, but if Walz can do this then he’ll likely have been a success.
We’ll find out one way or the other in three months.
The case that can be made for Walz
I laid out the pros and cons for various veep candidates in my last post. As noted there, Walz’ upsides lie in his folksy and endearing communication style and in an intriguing biography. A former high school social studies teacher. An Army National Guard veteran. A former football coach who led his high school team to a state championship. And the faculty advisor of his school’s first gay-straight alliance back in the 1990s, a position he took because he thought having the football coach as the advisor would foster a more inclusive atmosphere and stop the bullying that he saw these students subjected to at the time.
As governor, he’s pushed such progressive policies as school lunches for all students, paid family leave, a child tax credit, and lower prescription drug costs. But he was also previously a six-term Congressman from a rural, Republican-leaning district who has shown at least some appeal to rural moderates. And he’s a gun owner and a hunter who, as governor, helped pass a law expanding background checks for gun purchases.
Ultimately, Walz is a bit hard to pigeonhole because he’s not an ideologue so much as he is a pragmatist. He’s a progressive, for sure, but he’s also a rural politician who exudes Midwestern sensibility. Which is why I sense that GOP attacks on him as a radical are likely to fall flat. It’s hard to imagine that many people who hear Walz speak will see him as a radical leftist. He comes across as the guy you talk politics with while having a hot dog at your kid’s Little League game. He brings everyman appeal to the ticket.
It reminds me of when Democrats in the 1980s tried to attack Ronald Reagan as a conservative radical. Once voters saw him speak they just wouldn’t believe it. He seemed more like your kindly grandfather than a radical out to destroy America. It’s the same with Walz. He seems like your next door neighbor and your kid’s teacher, not Fidel Castro.
Normalcy and Optimism
As I’ve noted several times, the biggest asset a running mate brings is an ability to set a narrative about the ticket. Which brings me to a few last thoughts on the Harris-Walz pairing and what might be (or should be) an emerging message for the fall.
First, look again at what Joe Manchin and Mark Cuban said about Walz yesterday. Manchin said that he “will bring normality back” to politics. Cuban said people “want to vote for normal people they can relate to.”
Don’t dismiss the potency of such a theme. People are exhausted by the nonstop vitriol that has taken over U.S. politics. They do long for a return to the days when politicians argued about policy but could then go have a drink together.
Obviously, Harris is the nominee and most voter perceptions of the Democratic ticket will be determined by how she’s defined as a candidate. Nonetheless, I do think Walz can make an impact even just as a sidekick by Harris’ side. He’s about as close as a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington character as is possible in American politics these days.
The other thing I’ve noticed is that Harris and Walz have each been striking notes of optimism in their speeches. In recent rallies, Harris has said things like:
“We love our country. And I believe it is the highest form of patriotism to fight for the ideals of our country.”
“Ours is a vision of a future in which we realize the promise of America.”
In her first appearance with Walz today, she said: “We both believe in lifting people up, not knocking them down. We both know that the vast majority of us have so much more in common than what separates us. And we see in our fellow Americans neighbors, never enemies.”
Walz, meanwhile, for his part, focused multiple times on the idea of joy in politics. “Thank you for bringing back the joy,” he said at the Philadelphia rally.
And later, speaking of Harris, he remarked: “This compassionate, careful, joyous leader believes in each and every one of you! … She believes in the promise of America.”
Loving your country. Joy. The promise of America. These phrases don’t roll off the tongue of all politicians. So when you have one candidate running on the promise of America and the joy of leadership, while the other one has spent eight years talking about American carnage and complaining that the U.S. is worse than a third world country, well, I’m pretty sure you don’t need me to tell you that the candidate who corners the market on optimism usually wins.
None of this means Harris-Walz will prevail in November. It doesn’t even mean that Walz was the best possible running mate for Harris. I don’t know that. But the more you look, the more you can at least see the upside of someone like Walz. And you can certainly see some themes evolving. Future and freedom. Optimism and joy. Normalcy. I can think of a lot worse things to run on in American politics today.