Tim Walz Tapped to be VP Kamala Harris Running Mate

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

76 Responses

  1. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    I want to hear North’s thoughts on this. He lives there, if I recall correctly, and has insight to how Walz did over the last few years.Report

    • North in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Walz is, in some ways, a mini-Biden. He got a narrow trifecta in MN and then enacted a truck load of policy changes using it. He’s overseen legalizing pot which is a significant win not just on policy but also on politics- MN has had two sock puppet Pot legalization parties propped up by the right to split the left vote on pot grounds which have long been a drag and now, with pot legalized, are basically defunct.
      Walz has vulnerabilities- his policies are kryptonite for libertarians and some brands of Trumpist populists and he was Governor during the 2020 summer of Floyd.

      Personally I’m a fan. Picking Walz was the safer bet compared to Shapiro who is less vetted, less tested and carries more risk (both upside and downside risk). Walz is a party man, a folksy mid westerner and also seems to have some good political instincts. He’s a formidable pick but not an inspired one.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        Okay. That’s insightful.

        Future attacks that I see sticking to Walz involve his response to the 2020 mostly peaceful protests. I don’t see attacks like “he was governor when Floyd was murdered!” getting off the ground, but I do see attacks like “his cities burned and he supported the burners” moving the needle.

        Do you see any truth to that observation?Report

        • North in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          The summer of Floyd happened. Two things can be true at once:
          -The massive daytime protests were overwhelmingly peaceful.
          -Then when it got dark bad actors, both among the protestors; among the cops supporters and especially the opportunistic dirtbags who sensed that the Law was on hiatus; caused no small amount of damage and trouble.

          Walz was in charge when the initial troubles cropped up and the right will, no doubt, try to rag on him for it to varying effect. It will be complicated slightly by the fact that the police unions and worst police actors are/were unabashed right wing Trumpists.

          Walz also was in charge when everyone got sick of it and the National guard and police got sent back in to put paid to the disorder. The left could rag on him for that but, thankfully, in the intervening times the idiocy of the “property violence is the righteous cry of the oppressed” minority got thoroughly shellacked so I suspect there won’t be much heart behind it. Note that Walz and Mayor Frey ultimately squashed the misbehavior in the cities very firmly and both got easily re-elected.

          But absolutely I’d expect that the right will go after Walz for 2020. I’m not sure it’s a good idea for them because Kamala is a Kop and the sting on the left has mostly been excised from that so they’d be basically lobbing a slow pitch over the plate for her to repeat Bidens position on the whole matter.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            Eh, they’ll have plenty of the mostly peaceful summer stuff to throw at Kamala too.

            We’ll see.

            But that’s where I see the stuff sticking.Report

            • North in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              I don’t think Kamala was actually in charge of any jurisdictions when the summer of Floyd happened. She said plenty of dumb stuff while running for the 2020 nod but, in theory, if she says different-opposing things now that should mostly ameliorate it. It helps that I get the distinct vibe that the further left is quietly chastened by the worst excesses of 2020’s events- not enough to actually vocally renounce it, mind, but enough to not want to talk about it and, thus, not get exercised if Kamala defects in a centrist direction on most of those subjects.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                Eh, the whole “bail fund” thing will manage to ding her consistently, I imagine. Repudiation of the stuff she said in 2020 is fine and the more of it there is, the better it is.

                Hell, I think it may even be the case that it’s better for *HER* if she does a good enough job repudiating it.

                But the attacks that I think will require the most repudiation is the mostly peaceful summer attacks.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You need to stop basing your predictions on what you see in the Mirror of Erised.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Unless someone can dig up a video of Harris leading a night time mob into a target with a burning torch or something I think the 2020’s less peaceful minority events will have limited salience- so long as she, de minimis, sticks to Bidens lines on this.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                But just to be clear, I love love LOVE the idea of Trump and Vance talking nonstop about George Floyd from now until Election Day.Report

              • North in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I go back and forth. What Trump and Vance will say is entirely predictable. What team Harris says in return is the big question mark.Report

            • InMD in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              Maybe I’m wrong about this but the longer I follow politics the more I think there never is a satisfactory reckoning. Things just happen and eventually people move on. A not exactly apples to apples might be the GWOT that dominated politics for about 8 years. It was all anyone talked about and debated. Yet as far as I can tell there has never been a ‘lessons learned’ commission or official repudiation of all kinds of crazy things that were said and done. The subject was just changed, and new issues arose to be at each other’s throats over. None of which is to say there won’t be attacks on both Harris and Walz on their records. I’m just not sure it’s a knock out blow, or at least not one that’s available to Trump.Report

              • North in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah there’s not often a formal repudiation, just a kind of awkward reluctance to talk about it, a refusal to step up to defend what used to be passionate and now are defunct positions and a general eagerness to change the subject.Report

              • InMD in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                I get the sense that we are in a strange in between moment. All of the big blows related to the issues that animated roughly 2015 to 2022 have been exchanged. I assume the election will influence what materializes next.Report

              • North in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I think so as well with at least some (mostly internet twitter) subjects.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                The switch that flipped for me in 2015-2016 was, during the debate, when Trump spoke out against Iraq.

                I’m trying to find the comment thread but, jeez, I can’t. But it was back then and I remember commenting something like “holy crap, Trump condemned the Iraq War”.

                He Sista Soulja’ed it.

                Kamala has a shot at a Sista Soulja moment.

                But she has to take the shot at it.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yea, Trump having no stake, role, or authorship of the most unpopular and embarrassing aspects of GOP policy prior to his nomination made the pivot easy. There will always be that interesting question of whether he saw something the Republican establishment was too bought off or blinkered to get or if he just stumbled into it by willingness to say anything and embrace what stuck.

                Harris has a bit if a tougher road in that regard due to some of the things she said. However voters seem almost comically forgiving of flip flopping. What she said in the past I think is less important than what she is willing to say now. But to your point she needs to get out there and actually say some stuff on these topics, and have answers when inevitably questioned about it.Report

        • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          I think that nothing Harris or Walz did in 2020 will matter unless it’s found that they directly donated to the bail fund for a wife-beater whose first act on release was to knife her and the kids.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        This is the story I think they’re going to tell with Walz. “Give us power, and we’ll make sure your kids are fed at school so they can learn, we’ll make you safer on the road when you drive, we’ll help you go to college,” and so on. The best Walz quote I’ve seen so far is that you don’t win elections to accumulate political capital, you win elections to use it. Dems will call Minnesota a Democratic policy success story and take whatever hits come along with that for things that haven’t worked out as well as Walz and his slim governing majority there had hoped.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        He’s a formidable pick but not an inspired one.

        Opportunities for inspired picks are rather few and far between. Name, say, three political picks that turned out to be inspired.Report

        • Burt Likko in reply to Michael Cain
          Ignored
          says:

          Lyndon Johnson is one. Unfortunately we got to learn how inspired it was when he acceeded to the Presidency.

          Al Gore was… not inspired, maybe, but a bolder choice than it seems now (a second southern Democrat?), because now we think of him as the very personification of “dull and boring.”

          Before that… McKinley picking Teddy Roosevelt, maybe? Jefferson picking Madison?Report

          • CJColucci in reply to Burt Likko
            Ignored
            says:

            Madison wasn’t Jefferson’s VP. They were both Virginia’s, so the 12th Amendment got in the way. He was, rather, Secretary of State, which, in those days, was also a stepping stone to the Presidency.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Michael Cain
          Ignored
          says:

          Dick Cheney.

          The charisma of a slug and brought zero electoral votes with him.

          Picked because W was weak on how Washington worked and he figured he’d need help governing.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        Sometimes formidable is better than inspired and he is good at the digs.Report

        • North in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          Indeed, don’t mistake my analysis for disapproval. I am not confident enough to say that Walz is a mistake. I think he’s more like an assured 12 on a d20 roll whereas Shapiro is an unmodified raw roll. Shapiro could be the better choice but he could EASILY be the worse one. Walz is solid.Report

          • pillsy in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            Yeah the thing that gave me pause about Shapiro is that he has a couple potential scandals brewing.

            Could be and probably are nothingburgers, but the downside risk is he’s Andrew Cuomo 2.0.Report

            • InMD in reply to pillsy
              Ignored
              says:

              I am curious to hear what comes of that. I thought Shapiro was the right move but would certainly re evaluate if evidence of something serious comes to light.Report

              • North in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                We may never know now. Without Shapiro being Veep there’s not a lot of incentive for the GOP or anyone else to put those whispered rumors on full court roar. Instead, the DUI deafness thing from twenty some years ago and the Summer of Floyd troubles may be what we will hear about endlessly.

                I’ve also heard that Shapiro, himself, was unenthused about taking the gig after such a short stint in PA (though of course he’d say that now). Politics is obfuscating as well as revealing.Report

              • InMD in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re probably right. And if the guy has liabilities that would have bitten the campaign in the ass or if he just wasn’t enthused for whatever reason so be it. It’s entirely possible they did the right thing. However it still stings. There’s probably no realistic path to victory without PA. I would want every edge no matter how tiny.Report

              • North in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                You and I both, and if Harris goes down to defeat after losing PA then you can be sure we both will chew this decision over with great rue.

                But it bears noting that things have broken our way the last few weeks in a manner that can scarcely be believed. If I had phoned back to my self of July 4th 2024 fame and told him everything that had happened he’d think I was flying high on the devil’s lettuce (and he’d want some!).Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                The Ellen Greenberg murder was the thing to look at if Shapiro was the VP choice. Wait, not murder, it was officially deemed a “suicide”.

                She suffered 20 stab wounds including one that seemed to have taken place after she expired.Report

              • Brent F in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                My thought on that is that Shapiro’s baggage was sufficiently known that you’d start off playing defense the next week to get through them.

                Walz bought you a week when Team Blue was entirely on offense, with him not just not vulnerable to any early attacks, but leading the charge on the other guys.Report

  2. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Did she announce it in 3/4 time?Report

  3. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Okay. Apparently some of the dirt on Walz will be that he was pretending to be deaf when he got his DUI in 1995. This is not true. He *WAS* deaf, his hearing has since been surgically corrected.

    The argument, as I understand it, is that Walz was *NOT* drunk, it’s just that since he was deaf he didn’t understand what the state trooper was saying and his deafness contributed to his balance issues that caused him to fail a field sobriety test.

    So he wasn’t drinking and driving, he was just deaf and driving 96 in a 55.

    I’m not sure how much fun it’ll be defending Walz against this… but, of course, there remains the question: What about Trump?Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      And here’s a story that claims that the court transcript says that Walz’s BAC was .128:

      Court transcript sheds new light on Walz’s DUI arrest

      From the article:

      The results of the blood test were later suppressed, seemingly as a result of the trooper’s failure to realize Walz was deaf, according to the Post Bulletin article. This means the results wouldn’t have been used as evidence against Walz had the case gone to trial, but they were still referenced during a March 13, 1996 hearing on the plea agreement.

      During that hearing, former Dawes County Attorney Rex Nowlan said that Walz had a blood alcohol concentration of .128 at the time of the incident.

      Harford further admitted that Walz had “a .128” but described this as a “relatively low test.” At the time, the legal limit in Nebraska was .10 but, like all states, has since been lowered to .08.

      Assuming that this article isn’t lying, I suppose we can be pleased that drunk driving isn’t a big deal anymore.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Let us provide some more context. The DUI happened in the vicinity of Alliance, NE. Ever been to Alliance? I have. Nobody drives the speed limit. DUIs are routinely waived unless someone is hurt. Hell, DUIs are often nearly waived even if someone is killed. Box Butte County’s population density is 10.1 people per square mile, just a bit below the overall average for the half-million square miles of the rural Great Plains. The most notable thing about Alliance is that the long coal trains headed east out of the Powder River basin in Wyoming (on the order of 40% of all coal used to generate electricity in the country) have to get up the hill. Extra locomotive engines push trains up the hill, then coast back down to push the next train. From Alliance east, it’s basically downhill for the next 400 miles.Report

  4. Burt Likko
    Ignored
    says:

    Heard an interesting observation. Don’t remember from who. Not my idea. But I kind of like it.

    Campaign moves are often about opening up “permission gates,” so voters can come to you. For instance, Trump seems to have thought that by going to speak at the National Association of Black Journalists, he was opening up a “permission gate” to allow black voters to consider voting for him. (Not sure that worked if that truly was the goal and I’m not sure it was.) The J.D. Vance pick was a bad one because it didn’t open up any new permission gates for different people to join the Trump coalition.

    Picking a normie-looking, normie-talking, white guy from a middle America state who isn’t a lawyer, served in the Army, doesn’t have a fancy college degree, has guns, is from a rural area, etc. opens up a “permission gate” for voters who identify with some of those traits to say they would consider voting for Kamala. On the one hand, it’s safe because we’re talking about majority sorts of traits, but maybe that’s a necessary serving of white bread under the barbeque, after so much effort has gone in to portraying Kamala Harris as “other” in one way or another.

    Again, I’m not sure that I buy this idea, but I certainly see it and get what … whoever it was … on whatever channel it was on … was trying to get at, particularly with the idea of a “permission gate.”

    If this idea of “permission gates” is right, then it seems like it might be possible to close them, too, either your own by a misstep or your opponent’s by a clever maneuver. And although I’ve cited bad gate moves by Trump here, that doesn’t mean he’s always had bad moves; the man did get elected in 2016 and came close again in 2020. These are just the recent ones that come to mind as signals to voters of this nature.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko
      Ignored
      says:

      Maybe. I generally think of veep picks as being usually on the neutral to bad scale for electoral decisions. But you can squint and see how Pence could certainly have been a permission gate in 2016. Vance is more of a disaster as a pick it seems and has mainly resulted in Democrats having mocking fun which only upsets the right, the self-appointed underwear twisted contingent, and self-important pundits like the moustache of understandingReport

      • pillsy in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        I think Walz is a pretty good pick in that he seems unlikely to particularly hurt the ticket with anybody, and Dem partisans are pretty excited about him. Grassroots enthusiasm does not directly translate to votes, but it does get you more money and more volunteers for GOTV efforts.

        Given the way the election is probably going to play out (decided by a handful of battleground states with vote margins in the 4 or low 5 digits), that last seems pretty valuable.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Burt Likko
      Ignored
      says:

      From what I’ve heard talking to people over the weekend, nobody who was a likely Harris voter felt they needed “permission” to do it, and anybody who was a likely not-Harris voter wasn’t going to have their minds changed by a VP pick.Report

  5. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    As Walz said, these people are extremely weird. Also every accusation is a confession.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c3aeb8ca12fa592b6ebbf1d0097feea42f90b3360a3cd012a893f6c2bf6c73fa.jpgReport

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *