Kamala Harris gives a good report on his background:
First elected to Congress in 2006 I believe. Not that much of a newcomer.
I think there is a âvibesâ based way to understand why he has come to be considered to attractive.
Since the 60s the Dems base has been with non-whites, young voters, and working class people outside of the old confederacy, the demo you would expect of an economically left leaning party who have pushed for civil rights. Over the past 20 years or so though there has been a big vibe shift in terms of who voters think the respective parties care about. Thatâs partly a response to the effects of the neolib agenda and what it did to American working class communities, but itâs partly an attitudinal thing of a party being seen as becoming more elitist focused. One way people will experience this is in the language used by people in the party that has increasingly felt exclusionary, like it is part of a conversation that isnât meant to be understood by the little people. That was the context in which Trumpâs populist message landed.
Walz is a bit of a throw back in that he not necessarily any further to the left on policy than any of the other candidates, but more that he speaks in a way that the old Dem base feel is being directed to them. You see a lot of people attempt to do this, but they cannot throw off their baggage of their elite law school education and it feels hollow. Walz in contrast just is that person and cannot be any other way. A great marker for this is he is the first person on a Dem ticket since 1980 who didnt graduate from law school. He is a man of the upper midwest, where even their biggest towns are what lots of the country consider rural and so when he speaks of the same social safety net like policies that AOC speaks of, people hear what he is saying in a different way.
If there is one way to understand him it is his belief that the Dems have long advocated policies that are favoured by the voters who have walked away from them. To him the issue is not with the voters, or even the policies, but with the way the party has spoken to the voters.
Question for US folks. The main attack line against Harris/Walz from the Reps seems to be that they are left wing extremists. This is so clearly absurd from this side of the Atlantic, itâs impossible to imagine anyone taking it seriously.
How do people react over there? Is it accepted as campaign rhetoric? Is it seen as ridiculous? How do people process this kind of hyperbole?
https://x.com/TeamTrump/status/1820825907839586651
Ps I feel dirty whenever I share something from twitter
I have friends here who claim to be moderates and think Momala is to the left of Bernie, which makes me think my friends are fake moderates.
Iâm growing tired of these labels.
I do think there are some winnable voters who can be turned off by someone feeling too lefty liberal. What that mean to that person isnt universal, but itâs definitely a viable attack in US politics and so from that perspective I think you have to see it as partly a reflex that would be directed to any Democratic ticket. There are of course racist connotations because there are a lot of implications when that sort of thing is said about a black politician, but other than making it more crass I donât think it changes the calculations much. There are some winnable people it might appeal to, but it is probably more a base turn out thing.
I think for this election though they are running to the same problem they had in 2020. Then they could not decide if they should run against Joe as a tired old ineffective man too frail to be president, or as the head of a crime family who was using international connections to set Trump up in a russia hoax. They couldnt decide and so did both (or maybe just couldnt stop Rudy running the Ukraine thing that he was personally invested in) and it meant most voters believed neither. I think they are now doing the same with Harris - âKamala the copâ who locked up a bunch of black men is a lefty liberal? Whatever capacity they have to persuade anyone with either argument is surely undercut by their constant contradiction meaning they are just not defining the opponent in a coherent way and voters feel that. Far more than any substance.
Donât do it, then.
So you should.
Theyâre idiots.
I had to in order to illustrate my point in this case, but will avoid in the future.
Iâve showered.
I donât live in the USA, so more of an opinion for me. This will not be the main attack main attack, itâs a setup that will be used through the campaign. The real attack will be linking Harris to the âBidenâ policyâs, like illegal immigration, crime, economy as these are, in the opinion of the polls, the areaâs in which the republicans trump (haha) the democrats. The democrats on the other hand trump (haha) the republicans on other issues like abortion, etc.
Yeah, it wont be ALL be that they are San Francisco liberals, it will also be that they are anti semitic for not picking the jew
The party who has never had anyone but Christian white men on the ticket, is headed by a man who dines with self-avowed anti-Semites and doesnât understand the concept of multi racial people, says the party of the black Indian women with a jewish husband is too racist.
Heâs speaking to an audience whose main complaint about racism is âWhy do black people get to say the N word and I donât?â So I think it makes perfect sense to them.
Theyâd best not push the argument too far as they may confuse some of their voters into voting for the Dems
âJimbo, isnt being anti-semitic good? Does this mean weâre supposed to vote for the Dems now?â
Watching an interview with Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General, and long time friend of Tim Walz. He had a great comment. Said that Walz is not a guy to win you ONE state, heâs a guy to win you EVERY state.
Now, yes, thatâs not possible, but I think it speaks to his Everyman likeability. Hoping he can keep the energy of their campaign going strong, and be the relatable guy that can help push the Dem ticket to the finish line.