this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
704 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19145 readers
3226 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
704
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by MicroWave to c/politics
 

The GOP is scrambling to find a line of attack against Kamala Harris's VP pick — and it's not going well

Tim Walz has made his debut as Kamala Harris’ running mate, and Republicans are struggling to apply their standard villainization playbook to the Minnesota governor. 

Walz has been making waves for weeks now as a good-natured, relatable politician with a particular aptitude for dressing down the Republican agenda in terms that any voter can understand — and the GOP hates it

Republicans are scrambling to paint the governor-turned-VP candidate as a devilish Marxist hellbent on running the country into the ground — their usual stuff — while leveling a bunch of other really weird attacks. Here are some of their most pathetic attempts to turn voters against Walz.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FuglyDuck 28 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Just had a conversation with someone about it… apparently he thinks that the reason she went with walz over Shapiro is that Shapiro tried to negotiate roles/responsibilities where Walz was like “what can I do?”

Don’t know if that’s just a rumor or fairly accurate, so don’t quote me on that.

In the paper world that is the DC circuit, Shapiro might have been the “smart” choice of political wonks.

In the real where people actually live… Walz makes more sense.

Really, the thing is that Shapiro might have helped deliver PA, where the effect Walz is having is immediate and obvious- he’s bringing a certain kind of optimism, joy, and grit.

[–] taiyang 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

NYT says that an insider told them the Shapiro thing. To summarize, Shapiro wanted to know his responsibilities and how they'd share the leadership, etc. Walz by contrast asked how he can help and told Harris not to pick him if he won't strengthen her chance of winning.

Ultimately, Harris told the source after the Walz interview that she liked him a lot. And to be fair, her team told her after multiple focus groups and everything that all three final choices would have a path to winning so she went with her gut. Plus, research they had suggested that Kelly nor Shapiro would guarantee their states, anyway.

The article does suggest that this won't be the last we hear of Shapiro as he does have higher ambitions.

[–] FuglyDuck 8 points 3 months ago

The article does suggest that this won’t be the last we hear of Shapiro as he does have higher ambitions.

given what he said in Philly, I wouldn't be surprised to find he's not on the cabinet or something.

[–] Tom_Hanx_the_Actor 2 points 3 months ago

I love the perspective you have on this. Choosing Walz definitely increases my confidence in Kamalas decision making.

[–] bitchkat 1 points 3 months ago

That is what was reported in the articles I read.