Kamala Harris names Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her VP pick | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
Vice President Kamala Harris and her newly-announced running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz held their first joint rally in Philadelphia before going on a tour of battleground states this week.
  • Geek_King@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    Oh hot damn I’m so relieved. I was pretty worried she’d go with Shapiro, and then have a solid argument against her based on his service in the Israeli military. After seeing multiple people on lemmy say “They shouldn’t choose Tim Walz… we want to keep him for our selves”, that seemed like a solid endorsement by his constituents. Then Bernie endorsed the guy, so I feel pretty damn good about this selection if it proves to be true.

      • Geek_King@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        Nope, but serving in the IDF, and having some vocal opinions on the campus protests in favor of Palestine is just the thing Harris doesn’t need to be saddled with.

        • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          Walz is a low risk, medium reward pick. Shapiro is reverse. Can’t win the Presidency without Pennsylvania. I think the jabber that the far left came up with regarding Shapiro is shameful and embarrassing, but the choice is made and it’s time to move forward.

          • Count042@lemmy.ml
            01·
            3 months ago

            Yeah, but you celebrate the genocide. I know you post a lot so the arguments between us from months ago will be far back in the history, but there is nothing surprising about someone who justifies genocide siding with the candidate who served in the military that is currently committing genocide.

              • Count042@lemmy.ml
                01·
                3 months ago

                I don’t need to try again, but when you post seemingly innocuous opinions that tangentially touch on your support for genocide without referencing it, and I see it, I will post so that others will know that they are interacting with something posted by someone that supports genocide.

          • Count042@lemmy.ml
            01·
            3 months ago

            I’d spend more time on a response to someone that doesn’t make bad faith arguments and supports genocide.

            For you, though? No.

  • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    Wow! I can’t believe she didn’t intentionally make the obviously worse choice. Unironically. This is entirely new territory as a democratic voter!

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      I hoped that Biden dropping out heralded a tipping point away from the arrogant, conservative old guard that was stifling progress and toward a more progressive future.

      I’m more hopeful still. I missed hope.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      I see it as purposeful messaging that they’re willing to change and be more progressive, if that’s what we want. Now we need to prove them right and get out to the polls.

      • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
        0·
        3 months ago

        To be fair though, democrats don’t have a problem getting out to the polls, especially for national elections. No Republican has won the popular vote for 20 years; the only Republican wins in this time were based on technicalities.

        I think what we’ll see in November is the same high voting numbers, but a much different demographics pivoting the central block from old centrists to younger progressives.

          • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
            1·
            3 months ago

            That’s the last legit Republican National win. He only won the popular vote in 2004 due to 9/11. He lost the popular vote in 2000 and won by Supreme Court decision.

            These fuckers HAVE to cheat to win.

            • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
              1·
              3 months ago

              That was also a colossal violation of the Constitution, because of probability and statistics.

              I was too young to understand at the time, but I read that the conservative justices blocked the recount citing concern that the batch of uncounted votes might indicate an attempt by Democrats to steal the election.

              But we can easily show that the uncounted batch was too small to change anything. Consider that, even if every single uncounted vote went to Gore, the resulting variance would still reside well within a statistical margin of error for that sample.

              In other words, that election was the US’ first true tie in a presidential election since 1800. By the constitution it should have triggered a contingent election, which is the business of the legislative branch, NOT judicial.