2024 US Presidential Election

[DJChameleon]

Tim Walz or GTFO!!!!

Hope I'm not wrong.

You weren't wrong

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vice-president-kamala-harris-names-minnesota-gov-tim-walz-her-running-mate

[Paul Smeenus]

YES!!!!!! I'm totally stoked!!!!

[SGR]

Don't know much about Tim Walz (am learning more about him now), but he looks like the Temu Dick Cheney

[Paul Smeenus]

He's very progressive, I'm very pleasantly surprised that Kamala picked him

[SGR]

He's very progressive, I'm very pleasantly surprised that Kamala picked him

That's kind of what my takeaway has been. I figured she would've picked a candidate that was more appealing to moderates, but is it possible she's made the same mistake that Trump did (choosing a VP that primarily appeals to their base)? I was thinking Mark Kelly made more sense. For Trump, I thought Tulsi or Glenn Youngkin made more sense. With Walz (instead of Shapiro), Kamala does get to avoid the constant division and discussion of Israel-Palestine, and avoids immediately playing defense.

That being said, I don't think the VP selection has that much impact on voters or their voting decision.

[Trollheart]

Um.


News Alert: Pakistani national with ties to Iran charged in connection to a foiled assassination plot potentially targeting Trump


The Justice Department has charged a Pakistani man who has alleged ties to the Iranian government with seeking to carry out political assassinations, a case that prompted the US government to increase security for former President Donald Trump and other officials, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday.

FBI investigators believe that Trump and other current and former US government officials were the intended targets of the plot, a US official briefed on the matter said.

Asif Merchant, 46, is accused of traveling to New York City and working with a hit man to carry out the assassinations in late August or early September, according to charges filed by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn, New York.

[Lisnaholic]

Tim Walz or GTFO!!!!

Hope I'm not wrong.

Never heard of this guy until I read your post, but he appears to be the kind of down-to-earth guy who will pull in more votes for the Dems.

Good choice, Paul (and Kamala)

[Paul Smeenus]

Tim Walz record in Minnesota

https://mn.gov/governor/accomplishments/accomplishments.jsp#:~:text=Governor%20Walz%20banned%20the%20use,centralized%20Minnesota%20State%20Patrol%20headquarters.

[Lucem Ferre]

I think Kamala is going to win.

[Shhon]

LOL @ the Drake line

[Shhon]

[Jwb]

That's kind of what my takeaway has been. I figured she would've picked a candidate that was more appealing to moderates, but is it possible she's made the same mistake that Trump did (choosing a VP that primarily appeals to their base)? I was thinking Mark Kelly made more sense. For Trump, I thought Tulsi or Glenn Youngkin made more sense. With Walz (instead of Shapiro), Kamala does get to avoid the constant division and discussion of Israel-Palestine, and avoids immediately playing defense.

That being said, I don't think the VP selection has that much impact on voters or their voting decision.

I don't think Republicans even seem to like JD Vance that much. I agree that the VP pick likely won't matter much but to call it the same mistake is not accurate IMO. One pick seems to be getting an overall positive reception while the other didn't and when he did make the news it was for being a liability to the ticket.

Also,  let's keep in mind that Kamala is not actually some kind of left wing ideologue, the way the right is portraying her. She's a complete political chameleon that is largely untethered from ideology and likely to reform her stances based on where she thinks the political wind is blowing. The 'radical' stances she's taken to task for largely come from the 2020 primaries when she was trying to compete for that particular niche. I expect her to try to play the role of the moderate herself rather than rely on her VP to do so. Maybe I'm wrong and they will try to go all in for once. But that just doesn't sound like the Democrats to me lol.

[SGR]

I don't think Republicans even seem to like JD Vance that much. I agree that the VP pick likely won't matter much but to call it the same mistake is not accurate IMO. One pick seems to be getting an overall positive reception while the other didn't and when he did make the news it was for being a liability to the ticket.

Also,  let's keep in mind that Kamala is not actually some kind of left wing ideologue, the way the right is portraying her. She's a complete political chameleon that is largely untethered from ideology and likely to reform her stances based on where she thinks the political wind is blowing. The 'radical' stances she's taken to task for largely come from the 2020 primaries when she was trying to compete for that particular niche. I expect her to try to play the role of the moderate herself rather than rely on her VP to do so. Maybe I'm wrong and they will try to go all in for once. But that just doesn't sound like the Democrats to me lol.

It's hard to say yet whether either Vance or Walz were a mistake (if I was in charge of either campaign, I wouldn't have chosen either of them) - we'd need some hindsight after things shake out to say for sure. One thing both Vance and Walz seemed to have accomplished is that they've redirected, at least temporarily, the majority of the criticism and ire from the top of the tickets.

I agree about Kamala being a political chameleon. Kamala is even trying to reposition herself into some kind of border hawk which is somewhat humorous and amusing, to say the least. Whether or not swing voters/independents will buy into this political repositioning remains to be seen. She doesn't yet have a policy platform on her site, so things are in flux and she has the flexibility to morph and bend to what she and her campaign believe to be the most auspicious political messaging.

I don't think they'll 'go all in' as you say, it would be honestly ill-advised if they did. I think you're right that the current play is to try and frame Kamala as a moderate and have Walz be the "Bernie-lite" to appease the progressives. Many voters still don't know who Walz or Vance are, and so far, it appears Dems have been more successful in defining Vance than Republicans have been in defining Walz.

It is quite crazy to think that only a month or more ago, even Dems would agree that picking Kamala to run would be highly questionable at best, due to concerns about her charisma, ability to answer questions in an unscripted format, and history as a prosecutor. And within only weeks, it seems most of the Democrats have rallied around her, if for nothing else than the fact that she's a breath of fresh air that provides a hope that the election can be won (unlike with Biden).

I think Trump actually misses Biden - he's been writing fanfics on Truth Social about the possibility that Biden will show up at the convention and reclaim his candidacy. I mean, come on, he can't argue his golf stripes with Kamala, can he? 

[Jwb]

Well I agree we can't say for sure that picking either was a mistake in the long run. I'm just saying subjectively the narratives surrounding these picks are very different so far. I think the discourse around Vance was a lot more negative and I really don't think Trump particularly appreciates his running mate drawing so much heat for him. That's supposed to be Trump's job. Yet when he's asked about JD's comments about the childless,  Trump actually sounds like the moderate,  crazily enough. Likewise with abortion. So it's not even like JD's edgelord tactics are picking the correct targets from Trump's pov. I sense a definite potential for a certain amount of tension there, and when Trump was asked if JD was ready to take over day 1 if something happened to Trump, Trump flatly answered that the VP pick was largely irrelevant.

The Kamala/Walz rollout is still a much more recent event so there hasn't been as  much time to see what if any lines of attack can potentially stick to Walz, but so far the Dems seem much more pleased with their choice than I can ever recall happening on the other side for Vance. And on a basic surface level I think Walz is more likable than the vast majority of politicians, and has a uniquely wholesome type of appeal. Vance certainly doesn't have that quality. As for the lines of attack I've heard,  I don't know what the deal is with the story about him not deploying to Iraq, but if anything that so far sounds like it might have the most legs to it. But I don't expect it to be a major factor because ultimately like you stated before, the VP race is going to be a minor side show.  Especially when the main race involves Trump vs a black woman*.

Which is going to be a real rhetorical mine field for the Trump campaign and the right more broadly, as we've seen in the last few weeks. They can't seem to avoid the DEI angle and Trump decides to throw in a wildcard by accusing her of being a secret Indian. Can't lie,  he almost won my vote back with that move

As for the 180 on Kamala's popular perception on the left,  honestly it's just like a release valve for all of the pent up energy on that side of the isle that had been stifled and suppressed by Biden being at the head of the ticket.  It was clearly the right move to force him out. 

I'm surprised it happened,  I was under the impression that there was nothing that would force them to drop the incumbent if he didn't want to leave.  But I didn't know he was going to shit the bed like that during the debates.  I knew perfectly well he was loopy sometimes but he has declined quite significantly over the last few years,  seemingly.

It's no surprise that Trump misses him.  He was on his way to an easy victory.  Since the replacement,  that momentum has reversed and Kamala and Trump are looking at a fairly tight race. 

But it's important to note that Kamala has yet to be tested. She was under the media spotlight as a potential front runner for the democratic nomination early on in the 2020 primaries,  after a debate performance where she took Biden to task over his legacy on segregated busses. She enjoyed a brief period of positive press and then ultimately folded under scrutiny during subsequent interviews and debates.

She seems to be a lot stronger in the role of pressing someone else for their record than answering tough questions about her own.  And that's what we have yet to see so far because they're coasting on the positive momentum and milking it for fundraising.  But very soon she will need to start taking some at least semi challenging interviews in the run up to next months debate.  The fact Biden had to avoid such outings was one of his biggest weaknesses, so it's absolutely essential that she proves herself in that way.

I'm very much on the fence about whether she can or not.  It's true that not too long ago the common perception was that she wasn't up to the task. But that common perception is largely just based on the 2020 primaries.  Most people don't know her beyond that.  So she definitely doesn't have an image that is set in stone at this point.

[SGR]

When it comes to defining the VPs, Democrats have come out strong and Republicans have been caught flat footed, so it doesn't surprise me that negative Democrat messaging about Vance has been more precise and more successful. After all, the Republicans were just in the process adjusting and trying to change their strategy to attack Kamala successfully after Biden withdrew from the race when the Democrats announced the VP pick. And per what you said, there is a perception, at least for now, of Tim Walz being that lovable uncle or grandpa who'll man the grill and will also ride with his grandkids on the rollercoaster. For some voters, that perception will likely stick. But I'm guessing there's an element of the 'Kasich effect' going on here (in 2016, many polls correctly showed Kasich would perform much better against Hillary than Trump would, but the theory goes that much of this was due to the fact that voters didn't know very much about Kasich) - once the Republican attack ads start rolling out, and Walz's record, warts and all, gets presented to voters, he might not seem as lovable as he once did.

To your point, I agree, Trump probably is fuming at the fact that Democrats are successfully managing to magnify Vance's mistakes and make him the topic of conversation - I'm guessing Trump would prefer a VP who makes no problems for him at all and just mindlessly agrees and reinforces whatever Trump's messaging is (like Pence mostly did) - but it's fair to say when you pick a guy for VP who once likened you to Hitler, you reap what you sow. From stories I've read, Trump was going to pick Doug Burgum but Don Jr and Eric convinced him in the final hours to select JD Vance - not sure how much truth there is to that story.

With the DEI thing, I don't think it's a particularly great strategy for the broader electorate to pursue that line of attack - I think it would be better to make the arguments against Kamala's ideas and her record (and policy proposals, once she and her team decided to publish them). That being said, Democrats often engage in identity politics for their benefit. Trump, in contradiction to what most Republicans of old would do, decides to wade into that field and try to use their own identity politics tactics against them. Kamala is not a 'secret Indian', she comes from a mixed and biracial background, and has magnified those different parts of her identity at different times to pander to different parts of the electorate. Trump was trying to sow doubt as to the authenticity and credibility of her identity, specifically among black voters (since he made these remarks at the NABJ). It's hinting at the idea of: "Did she really listen to Tupac in college like she said?" (she didn't, she graduated five years before Pac released his first record), similar to Hillary and the "hot sauce she always carries in her purse" (in terms of pandering that is, Hillary obviously isn't black). Whether or not it's advisable for Trump to pursue attacks or strategies like this is a different matter though.

Traditional thinking might lead you to believe that there's nothing that could force an incumbent to drop out of re-election against their wishes, but honestly, once the big donors decided to freeze future donations, the writing was on the wall. It basically gave Nancy Pelosi carte blanche to begin pursuing her "We can do this the easy way or the hard way (25th amendment)" strategy. Biden, to his credit, chose the right path eventually, but the forced comparisons from some Dem lawmakers and media pundits to George Washington are laughable.

You mention that Kamala will "need to start taking some at least semi challenging interviews in the run up to the next months debate", but will she, really? What would stop the Democrats from running the same "Biden basement" strategy of 2020? The strategy being, keep unscripted moments to an absolute minimum, pre-screen the journalists who will be called on in press conferences, and agree to interviews only with friendly media outlets (how many Fox News interviews did Biden do in the run-up to the 2020 election?). Trump recently proposed three debates, including the ABC one previously agreed upon with Biden (Trump's advantage in this case if Kamala agreed is that the Fox debate would happen first, and first impressions mean a lot). Kamala seems to have declined any other debates but the one previously agreed upon with ABC. If she does well in the debate, or at least, well enough that friendly media outlets can spin it as a resounding victory for her (they couldn't do that with Biden's performance), she'll most likely decline any other debates. If she does poorly enough that it can't be spun as a victory for her, she might agree to the NBC debate that Trump proposed. At that point, it might be Trump who declines to honor that debate. For better or worse, there are huge numbers of people that, after seeing glowing media coverage of her, will be happy to pull the lever for her in the voting booth, even if she is untested in challenging interviews, simply because she's not Donald Trump.

It's difficult to forecast exactly how it will go, but you're right, she's mostly untested right now. The only thing that would force her hand in doing more of these unscripted events is if the corporate media (other than Fox News) pressures her and her campaign (like they did with Biden after his debate performance) or if she starts severely trailing in the polls. I don't see real signs of that yet.

Certainly, she's being coached by people right now on how to perfect her speech patterns, limit her inappropriate laughter, and focus in on messaging. Whether it will be enough remains to be seen. In the past, she's come off as nervous in situations where she's challenged, as in her past as a prosecutor and senator, she was usually on the side of the people asking the questions. Depending on how Trump approaches and engages with her in the debate, it's just as likely that she'll make him look foolish as it is that Trump could make her look foolish.