Opinion: Tim Walz is a bold, smart choice for Harris’s running mate. (Perry Bacon, Jr. WaPo. )

I agree.  Governor Tim Walz and Vice President Kamala Harris are excellent choices for the Democratic nominees in 2024.  They speak to issues we care about.  They're not the choice of oleaginous oligarchs: they're real people who care about real people.  From The Washington Post:

Opinion 

 Tim Walz is a bold, smart choice for Harris’s running mate

The Minnesota governor rightly argues that many progressive ideas are good and practical.

Gov. Tim Walz speaks during a news conference in Bloomington, Minn., on Aug. 1, 2024. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

By Perry Bacon Jr.

August 6, 2024 at 9:06 a.m. EDT

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is a great choice to be Vice President Harris’s running mate, bringing legislative and political acumen and a fresh perspective to the ticket. The only downside: It’s not clear that this move will help Harris that much electorally.

What’s exciting about Walz is his policy record and the way he talks about it. After the 2022 elections, Minnesota Democrats were in total control of state government. But just barely — they had only a one-seat margin in the state Senate and another narrow margin in the House. That didn’t stop them. The legislature passed and Walz signed a slew of major progressive bills, including provisions making breakfast and lunch free for all students, allowing undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses, creating a paid family leave program and providing state funds to help lower-income people buy homes. 

I don’t want to give the governor all the credit. The state legislature also played a huge role. But many Democratic governors in blue states (such as New York’s Kathy Hochul) seem to revel in blunting the initiatives of liberal state legislators.

By contrast, Walz was ecstatic about enacting a liberal agenda in a state nowhere near as Democratic-leaning as New York. And in his informal campaign over the past few weeks to become Harris’s running mate, Walz did not distance himself from his record or the party’s left wing. Instead, the Minnesota governor rightly argued that many progressive ideas, such as offering free meals to all students, are good and practical. As Walz puts it, “You don’t win elections to bank political capital — you win elections to burn political capital and improve lives.

Walz was as liberal as possible in the context he was governing in. And he was rewarded for that. That’s a good precedent for the Democratic Party to set. Too often, party activists and leaders label a politician a rising star and potential president or vice president because they are a great speaker, have high poll numbers or connect with donors. But the most important part of politics is policy. And although there is probably a limit on how much progressivism voters will accept, I don’t think the Democratic Party is anywhere near that limit, particularly in blue states.

Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky has also been as progressive as possible in the very red state he leads. I also would have been happy if he had been selected.

In contrast, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who was also under consideration, has often taken conservative actions that were not politically necessary. So has Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona. I’m not sure those policies alone are the reason Harris chose neither man. (There was controversy over sexual harassment accusations against a top aide who had served in Shapiro’s administration. Kelly didn’t excite Democrats as much as Walz in the informal vice-presidential auditions the past few weeks.)

Walz will also bring a fresh perspective, both during the campaign and in office if he and Harris are elected. In a party dominated by lawyers and urban-area residents, the Minnesota governor hails from small-town Nebraska and was a high school social studies teacher and football coach before entering politics.

But Harris and Walz have to get to the White House first. Is Walz electorally useful? Maybe. There are three ways to think about this question.

Many scholars and election analysts argue that there is little evidence that vice-presidential candidates make much difference, even in their home states. That’s a case against favoring Shapiro or Kelly over Walz because Arizona and Pennsylvania are true swing states, unlike Minnesota. That historical evidence also suggests that Walz won’t move many voters either and that the media overhypes the role of vice presidents in election results.

The electoral case for Walz is that he will help maintain and perhaps increase the unity and enthusiasm we’ve seen among Democrats since Harris replaced President Biden as the party’s candidate. I suspect the Zoom calls with thousands of people, $200 million in new campaign donations, packed ralliesand other signs of positive energy in the party since Harris’s ascent have helped boost her poll numbers, which are significantly better than the president’s had been.

Walz is well-liked by progressives and labor activists and also by many centrists. In contrast, choosing Shapiro threatened party unity

The electoral case against Walz is that Democrats really need to win Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, so they should have chosen someone from one of those states. Before Walz’s selection, data expert Nate Silver estimated that Harris would get 0.4 additional percentage points in Pennsylvania by running with someone from the state. Other analysts put that number a bit higher, at around 2 percent.

Those are very small effects. But Biden won Pennsylvania by only 1.2 percent in 2020. Wisconsin (0.6) and Michigan (2.8) were also very close.

Shapiro has some obvious downsides both on policy and electorally. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers is 72, not ideal for a party trying to move on from a presidential candidate voters felt was too old. But like Walz, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan has also enacted a lot of major legislation and is well-liked across the party. She is 52.

Whitmer said repeatedly that she did not want to be considered for the vice-presidency. But I wonder whether Harris was really open to her, because of the view among many Democratic strategists and left-leaning pundits that the country isn’t ready for an all-female ticket. If Harris refused to consider Whitmer because of her gender, that was a mistake.

If Whitmer wasn’t a real option (either because of her own decision or Harris’s), Walz is a great choice. And this selection portends good things for Harris’s campaign and her administration. Before the last few weeks, Walz hadn’t been at the top of the lists of up-and-coming Democratic governors and senators. It’s likely that Harris and her team watched the enthusiasm develop around Walz and pivoted to him over Kelly and Shapiro.

Kelly and Shapiro were the favorites of centrist Democrats — the same people who were strongly defending Biden’s political skills even as he became very unpopular. Harris needs to replace not just Biden but also the outdated political strategies of the president and much of the Democratic Party establishment. Hopefully, the Walz choice is the first of many decisions Harris will make that take the Democratic Party in a much-needed new direction.

Share

Opinion by Perry Bacon

Perry Bacon Jr. is a Washington Post columnist. Before joining The Post, Perry had stints as a government and elections writer for Time magazine, The Post's national desk, theGrio and FiveThirtyEight. He has also been an on-air analyst at MSNBC and a fellow at New America. He grew up in Louisville and lives there now. perry.bacon@washpost.com Twitter

POPULAR OPINIONS ARTICLES