Harris VP watch (8 Viewers)

[Incumbent]

This topic is spread out across threads. Think it would be helpful to have some focused discussion while we await a decision.

I’m warming up to Shapiro and I like his message in this clip. It’s a fundamental contrast to what Trump offers.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It is weird. The man served, what’s there to attack?

It’s even weirder when those attacking him never served.

It is very weird that people who never served in the military are attacking Walz by lying about Walz. Trump is fair game, because it's true that Trump dodged the draft by lying. So it's not weird at all that people attack Trump over the truth of Trump's lying to avoid military service.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Speaking of attacking the military - he’s got the political instincts of a wet noodle. This will not look good to anybody but the cult.

Whelp, that's a wrap. Trump ain't winning back the military support he lost and he's going to lose a lot of what little he had left.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You seem so sure she will lose - meaning that Trump will win. IMO, this speaks to your bubble online. From what I am seeing - only MAGA thinks Trump will win at this point in time.

Most people think the momentum has shifted in a very significant way since Biden dropped out. The polls are tracking the movement - and I don’t necessarily believe the numbers, but the trends are all showing the same thing. Her grassroots fundraising has significantly outpaced Trump’s, which is an indication of broad support from lots of people.

What makes you so sure she will lose?

It's wishcasting that Harris will lose and since they know that a third party candidate has no chance of winning, they are wishcasting a Trump win, despite everything they say to the opposite. If someone feels like they have to hide who they support, then maybe they should reconsider their support of that person.

 

[LA - L.A.]

...Thomas Crooks’ “grass root” donation to ACTBLUE. Apparently he donated but he didn’t vote Democrat. I wonder how many others out there are like that.

About as many people who shoot at a presidential candidate, meaning very very very very few. Crooks made his donation on Inauguration Day. He probably lost a bet. When people make donations in the heat of a campaign race or right after a candidate declares, then they are voting for who they donated to. The throwaway donations, like for losing a bet, are made either when election results are announced or on Inauguration Day.

Historically, the second best indicator of who will win an election is who gets the highest number of small donors, not the most amount of small donor money. Usually most amount of money and highest number of donors go hand in hand. Harris is crushing Trump in that area. Trump relies mostly on big donations from the wealth class and Super PAC's.

Historically, the most accurate indicator of who will win an election is a formula that Professor Allan Lichtman uses. It's been accurate for all but one election since 1984. It got 2000 Gore Bush wrong.

History professor who has accurately predicted every election since 1984 says Trump will lose | CNN

History professor Allan Lichtman is used to being right.

www.cnn.com

Polls are showing Harris gaining votes while Trump flatlined quite some time ago. In, 2000 polls showed Bush with a very slight lead over Gore right up until election day. Bush's polling lead over Gore was less than the current lead Harris has over Trump.

There's never been an election where all 3 indicators were wrong. Harris is currently ahead in number of small donors, in the polls, and in Lichtman's 13 Keys.

 

[Optimus Prime]

……..But the far-right users of Telegram, Gab, 4chan and other adjacent social media sites frequently used to spread extremist propaganda have taken a different tack.

The nexus of many of the early attacks have focused on the conspiracy theory that he changed the state flag of Minnesota to mimic a Somali flag.

“Replaced Minnesota flag with Somali flag, loves loves loves Somalis moving into America by planeload,” said one anonymous post on the chatboard 4Chan, with an image of Walz at a press conference.

“Timmy Somali changed the state flag to look African, lmao,” said another post on the same site, which was published following the news of Walz as Harris’s pick. “Dude is a forking cuck. This is a worse VP pick than even Vance was.”

This rhetoric stems from Walz unveiling the new Minnesota flag in December last year. The 1957 version was criticized for overtly depicting a Native American man being driven away from the land by threat of a rifle.

The new design partly features a blue backdrop with a white star – an allusion to the official state motto “Star of the North” – something the Somali flag also happens to include.

“Tim Walz is the perfect pick to sell you out to the hordes,” wrote one pro-Proud Boys channel on Telegram with more than 15,000 followers, putting a video of Walz and the new flag in the post.

As the brutal civil war persisted into the 90s, Minnesota became a destination for many Somali immigrants, who established a rich and successful group of new Americans. Minnesota representative Ilhan Omar, who was born in Mogadishu, was part of that same wave of immigration fleeing the violence.

But, of course, the more than 85,000 Somali Americans in the state of close to 7 million has become the racist fodder of neo-Nazis, nativists and far-right commentators of all types in recent years.

“This is Minneapolis, Minnesota,” read one post with more than a thousand views on a neo-Nazi-sympathizing channel on Telegram, with photos of a vibrant Somali street festival in Minneapolis, not unlike annual Italian street festivals in every major US city. “This isn’t Mogadishu.”

Mainstream Republicans have started adopting this racist invocation of Somalia when it comes to Walz.

Stephen Miller, former senior adviser to Donald Trump, went on Fox News on Tuesday night to say the Democrat ticket will “turn the entire midwest into Mogadishu”……..

Far-right online attacks against Tim Walz focus on conspiracy theory

Users of online platforms spread conspiracy theory that he changed Minnesota flag to mimic Somalia’s

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

On Thursday, comedian Steve Martin announced that he wouldn’t be playing the Minnesota governor turned Democrat veep pick, Tim Walz, on Saturday Night Live, even after SNL big cheese Lorne Michaels offered him the job.

“I wanted to say no and, by the way, he wanted me to say no,” Martin told the Los Angeles Times. “I said, ‘Lorne, I’m not an impressionist. You need someone who can really nail the guy.’ I was picked because I have gray hair and glasses … They’re gonna find somebody really, really good. I’d be struggling.”

Another reason he refused is that playing politicians is never a one-time gig: Maya Rudolph has been playing Kamala Harris since 2019. It is a shame, because Martin has an affable suburban energy to match Walz, who somehow looks like everyone’s dad and also every Australian prime minister. But if your dad or Scott Morrison doesn’t need work right now, here are our picks for SNL’s Walz……

Steve Martin has turned down playing Tim Walz on Saturday Night Live. So who should?

SNL needs someone who can emulate the suburban, every-dad energy of Kamala Harris’s VP pick. Here’s who we think could fit

www.theguardian.com

 

[J-DONK]

2020 shows that Harris does not need to win over any previous Trump voters to win the election. They just have to get their voters out to vote. If Harris gets the same turnout of voters as Biden did in 2020, then Trump can't win. All indications are that there are a lot more Democratic voters motivated to go vote for Harris in this election than there was in 2024. The kicker is that all indications are that there are a lot more anti-Trump Republicans motivated to vote for Harris than there was who voted for Biden in 2020.

Harris-Walz are not the ones that have to try to make up ground. That's completely flipped on Trump in the last two weeks. Trump is the one that has to play catch up now. Unfortunately for Trump and fortunately for the rest of us, Trump's support has peaked and flat lined. Nobody who hasn't voted for Trump before is going to vote for him this time and he's lost a lot of the voters he had in 2016 and 2020 due to age and illness.

There is a pretty good theory that Trump is maxed out. He is so polarizing, very little undecided vote is left for him. Polling doesn't show Trump dropping support, only Kamala gaining. That supports this theory. That's really really bad for Republicans if it's true.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Tim Walz, tapped as Vice-President Kamala Harris’s running mate on Tuesday, may not be a household name, but the Minnesota governor is well known as a climate champion in green advocacy circles.

“Like Vice-President Harris, Governor Walz knows that climate change is the existential threat of our time,” the Sierra Club executive director, Ben Jealous, said in a statement. “The Harris-Walz ticket is one that understands the fight before us.”

Walz has forged a robust climate record during his two gubernatorial terms, most notably by signing one of the strongest green energy bills into law last year.………

“Voters will have a clear choice between a Harris-Walz ticket, who will fight for our clean energy future that lowers harmful pollution and creates safer communities, or a Trump-Vance administration whose pro-polluter, extreme Maga [Make America great again] agenda will give big oil a free pass to profiteer and pollute,” Lori Lodes, executive director of advocacy group Climate Power, said.

Walz’s climate record is, unsurprisingly, viewed far less favorably by Donald Trump’s campaign, which called him a “west coast wannabe” following the announcement of Harris’s pick.

“From proposing his own carbon-free agenda, to suggesting stricter emission standards for gas-powered cars, and embracing policies to allow convicted felons to vote, Walz is obsessed with spreading California’s dangerously liberal agenda far and wide,” said Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign press secretary.


But environmentalists say by choosing Walz – who this week said, “one person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness” – the Harris campaign could help energize progressive voters…….

Democrats’ VP pick Tim Walz welcomed as climate champion by green advocates

Kamala Harris’s running mate boasts a strong record on climate policy and green energy as Minnesota governor

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Everything else being equal do you think Walz is still the pick if he doesn’t start the “weird” thing?

 

[J-DONK]

Everything else being equal do you think Walz is still the pick if he doesn’t start the “weird” thing?

Maybe, I think people overlook charm in these situations. Apparently one of the major deciding factors was Kamala liked his affable demeanor.

 

[RobF]

And that means what?

Didn’t Biden run for president two or three times before 2020?

Just to underline this point, Harris withdrew from the race in 2020 before the primaries. Biden withdrew in 2008 after finishing fifth in Iowa with 1% of the vote. He also ran in 1988, and withdrew before the primaries.

Generally speaking, it makes no sense to say that people don't want someone now based on people preferring someone else in the past. Especially since there clearly is a lot of enthusiasm for Harris right now.

 

[samiam5211]

2024 General Election: Trump vs. Harris Polls | RealClearPolling

Explore poll data on the 2024 General Election between Trump and Harris with RealClearPolling. Uncover trends and gain insight into electoral dynamics for key races and decisive outcomes.

www.realclearpolling.com

The momentum is unreal.

Trump's campaign is a shirtshow. There aren't any competent people in charge. They keep preaching to the choir, and the choir isn't what is going to decide the election.

 

[Taurus]

Maybe, I think people overlook charm in these situations. Apparently one of the major deciding factors was Kamala liked his affable demeanor.

It is a popularity contest, after all.

 

[el caliente]

 

[coldseat]

Is the "STOLEN VALOR" supposed to be sarcasm? I honestly can't tell.

 

[Lapaz]

There's no indication that Harris hesitated to pick Shapiro because he was jewish in order to appease anti-Jewish bigots. If that was the case she'd probably be getting a divorce right now and Shapiro wouldn't have been in the final two picks. That's a bad take by Jones. One that you'd expect from Republicans and which they're no doubt going to say was the case.

Obviously Harris is not anti-Jewish, but she may have wanted to appease the anti-war crowd by not choosing Shapiro. There has been a lot of publicity about the anger in Democratic circles about Israel. Some of that circle is a dark anti-Semitic group, but I think a majority is a humanitarian group. I think Biden has been trying to balance his disdain for Israel’s war prosecution with continuing to supply the weapons and protection to Israel, so it’s been very unsatisfying to the humanitarians, while angering the dark anti-semite side. Democrats may want to lose that small contingent on the dark side, unlike Republicans that are composed of a large contingent on the dark side that they absolutely can’t lose, but Democrats can’t afford to disaffect their humanitarian contingent. Shapiro might’ve caused some challenges with the humanitarian crowd, but I think his position is comparable to Biden’s, so he could’ve assuaged that crowd. I like most of what I’ve learned about Walz, but I think Shapiro would’ve been a better choice to attract more centrist voters than we would’ve lost from the dark side. I think Walz may ultimately anger that dark side anyway, because I think he and Harris will not stray from the balancing Biden has been doing, so I think playing for that group is a losing proposition. Israel is like the family member that we disagree with, but still want to defend, and that’s how Biden and Harris are handling it, so that dark side will soon realize that Walz won’t change our policy towards Israel, and then they’ll get angry again.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I'd also like to take the media to task for the wild speculation before the pick was made:

"The rally is in Philadelphia it's definitely Shapiro!"

"There were 4 cars in Brashear's driveway when there is usually only two, it's definitely Brashear!"

"Mayor Pete has been giving a lot of TV interviews lately it's definitely him!"

"Mark Kelly went to dinner last night at Harris' Steakhouse it's definitely him!"

 

[coldseat]

Obviously Harris is not anti-Jewish, but she may have wanted to appease the anti-war crowd by not choosing Shapiro. There has been a lot of publicity about the anger in Democratic circles about Israel. Some of that circle is a dark anti-Semitic group, but I think a majority is a humanitarian group. I think Biden has been trying to balance his disdain for Israel’s war prosecution with continuing to supply the weapons and protection to Israel, so it’s been very unsatisfying to the humanitarians, while angering the dark anti-semite side. Democrats may want to lose that small contingent on the dark side, unlike Republicans that are composed of a large contingent on the dark side that they absolutely can’t lose, but Democrats can’t afford to disaffect their humanitarian contingent. Shapiro might’ve caused some challenges with the humanitarian crowd, but I think his position is comparable to Biden’s, so he could’ve assuaged that crowd. I like most of what I’ve learned about Walz, but I think Shapiro would’ve been a better choice to attract more centrist voters than we would’ve lost from the dark side. I think Walz may ultimately anger that dark side anyway, because I think he and Harris will not stray from the balancing Biden has been doing, so I think playing for that group is a losing proposition. Israel is like the family member that we disagree with, but still want to defend, and that’s how Biden and Harris are handling it, so that dark side will soon realize that Walz won’t change our policy towards Israel, and then they’ll get angry again.

You make some good points and I don't doubt that they had that conversation within the campaign. Maybe we won't ever truly know what affect it had on Harris's choice for VP, but I just don't think it was the deciding factor. Ultimately they may lose that anti-sematic vote anyway (if it's even there, they may be voting 3rd party or not voting at all), as you said. So the campaign surly had to take that into consideration as well, which means they weren't going to make a decision as big as VP solely to placate that contingent (the way Republicans do), when it even might not work. I tend to think electoral politics and winning Pennsylvania likely added to Shapiro's appeal within the campaign, thus why he was in the top 2. He's also a young, good politician. But I think in the end, Harris just felt more comfortable with Walz's affability and approach to campaigning/governing. I think she felt like he would be more of a partner and she wouldn't have to manage his ambitions (the way she might have had to with Shapiro).