Post-election realtalk: Was Tim Walz an awful pick?

[iceman]

1 month post election, was Tim Walz an terrible or underwhelming pick for VP? Was he an asset or a liability or just an empty suit?

[Redban]

"Terrible" seems too strong, but I believe he was a weak selection. He didn't do well during the debate ("I've made friends with school shooters"), and the 'Tampon Tim' monicker stuck with some groups. He didn't offer much boost even in his home state; the Walz/Harris ticket actually lost Walz's home county.

He might've been an alright pick in a D-favorable environment

[wbrocks67]

He was a good pick. In the end, he was the best pick if shew as gonna lose since he had the least ambition of any of the theoretical VP selections, so at least it didn't stain someone else's career who was hoping to do something. I think he was a good pick in that he didn't rattle any of the Dem base really and people were excited for him and connected with him- for most of the campaign, he had the best favorability ratings of all 4 of them.

[He's turned to dust now, one of the chosen few]

I think he was a good pick who didn't live up to his potential. If he had focused more on his policy record in Minnesota than trying to milk the "Republicans are weird" bit and ~Midwestern folksiness~ constantly, he could've been a real boon to the ticket.

[Skill and Chance]

He might've been an alright pick in a D-favorable environment

This is a good point.  The entire logic of picking Walz seemed to be that Dems already had every advantage and just needed to rally the base enough in a couple Midwest states.  In retrospect, that was either a severe misread of the fundamentals or a conscious effort to will a media narrative of Dem momentum into existence if you believe Plouffe's comments that Harris never once led in her internals.  

[VALibertarian]

Walz was a safe milquetoast pick - from a campaign who believed they could hold onto the blue wall he makes sense. Cajoling Shapiro to try and grab PA potentially at the loss of MI would have been a tad more risky in retrospect.

I think his issues were:

1. Being kept on a leash by the campaign - all the generic "I'm a dude who goes hunting!" came off about as authentic as when Dr. Oz pulled it, and to not at least have Walz go on Rogan is a tremendous misstep.

2. Going for the high ground and keeping the debate civil - allowing Vance to eek out a win in public opinion and get sanewashed/normalized.

Walz was no awful pick, but his strengths weren't utilized correctly.

[VALibertarian]

He might've been an alright pick in a D-favorable environment

This is a good point.  The entire logic of picking Walz seemed to be that Dems already had every advantage and just needed to rally the base enough in a couple Midwest states.  In retrospect, that was either a severe misread of the fundamentals or a conscious effort to will a media narrative of Dem momentum into existence if you believe Plouffe's comments that Harris never once led in her internals.  

I'd like to point out - if the Harris campaign thought they were down in the polls/destined to lose - picking Walz doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're down you go for the riskier/stronger plays - Beshear/Shapiro/Kelly

[wbrocks67]

He might've been an alright pick in a D-favorable environment

This is a good point.  The entire logic of picking Walz seemed to be that Dems already had every advantage and just needed to rally the base enough in a couple Midwest states.  In retrospect, that was either a severe misread of the fundamentals or a conscious effort to will a media narrative of Dem momentum into existence if you believe Plouffe's comments that Harris never once led in her internals.  

I'd like to point out - if the Harris campaign thought they were down in the polls/destined to lose - picking Walz doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're down you go for the riskier/stronger plays - Beshear/Shapiro/Kelly

I mean to be fair, the VP pick came like 2.5 weeks into the whole thing, so I doubt anyone had a good read of the polls and whether they were "real" or not at that point too. Like even if their polls had Harris up, it was way too early at that stage to wonder if it was just a honeymoon, if it was real, etc.

[wbrocks67]

He might've been an alright pick in a D-favorable environment

This is a good point.  The entire logic of picking Walz seemed to be that Dems already had every advantage and just needed to rally the base enough in a couple Midwest states.  In retrospect, that was either a severe misread of the fundamentals or a conscious effort to will a media narrative of Dem momentum into existence if you believe Plouffe's comments that Harris never once led in her internals.  

I'd have to go back and listen but I don't remember him saying this? I recall him saying they consistently had a margin of error race throughout but I don't remember him saying she never led.

[VALibertarian]

He might've been an alright pick in a D-favorable environment

This is a good point.  The entire logic of picking Walz seemed to be that Dems already had every advantage and just needed to rally the base enough in a couple Midwest states.  In retrospect, that was either a severe misread of the fundamentals or a conscious effort to will a media narrative of Dem momentum into existence if you believe Plouffe's comments that Harris never once led in her internals.  

I'd like to point out - if the Harris campaign thought they were down in the polls/destined to lose - picking Walz doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're down you go for the riskier/stronger plays - Beshear/Shapiro/Kelly

I mean to be fair, the VP pick came like 2.5 weeks into the whole thing, so I doubt anyone had a good read of the polls and whether they were "real" or not at that point too. Like even if their polls had Harris up, it was way too early at that stage to wonder if it was just a honeymoon, if it was real, etc.

That's fair enough.

God I really want the campaign tell all books to come out already haha - I'm so curious. Was Harris disappointed with the VP debate? What was the mood going into October like? etc.

[wbrocks67]

He might've been an alright pick in a D-favorable environment

This is a good point.  The entire logic of picking Walz seemed to be that Dems already had every advantage and just needed to rally the base enough in a couple Midwest states.  In retrospect, that was either a severe misread of the fundamentals or a conscious effort to will a media narrative of Dem momentum into existence if you believe Plouffe's comments that Harris never once led in her internals.  

I'd like to point out - if the Harris campaign thought they were down in the polls/destined to lose - picking Walz doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're down you go for the riskier/stronger plays - Beshear/Shapiro/Kelly

I mean to be fair, the VP pick came like 2.5 weeks into the whole thing, so I doubt anyone had a good read of the polls and whether they were "real" or not at that point too. Like even if their polls had Harris up, it was way too early at that stage to wonder if it was just a honeymoon, if it was real, etc.

That's fair enough.

God I really want the campaign tell all books to come out already haha - I'm so curious. Was Harris disappointed with the VP debate? What was the mood going into October like? etc.

I kind of wish Harris was done with politics in the sense that I'd love for her to do a memoir/book where she can be brutally honest and just tell us everything. I'm sure we'll get a ton from other campaign tell all books though and I'm very interested to read them. Just to be a fly on the wall during this 3-month campaign at every turn. I also genuinely wonder if Harris thought she would win, i.e. what her campaign (Plouffe, JOD, etc.) were telling her about the numbers and trajectory, or if she thought things were different.

[Redban]

I'd like to point out - if the Harris campaign thought they were down in the polls/destined to lose - picking Walz doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're down you go for the riskier/stronger plays - Beshear/Shapiro/Kelly

What I had read is that she picked Walz mostly because she just liked him.  She didn't want to factor in strategy or polls. Shapiro allegedly didn't interview as well as Walz did.

[wbrocks67]

I'd like to point out - if the Harris campaign thought they were down in the polls/destined to lose - picking Walz doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're down you go for the riskier/stronger plays - Beshear/Shapiro/Kelly

What I had read is that she picked Walz mostly because she just liked him.  She didn't want to factor in strategy or polls. Shapiro allegedly didn't interview as well as Walz did.

Yeah I think at the end of the day this was it. She gelled the most with Walz

[NYDem]

He wasn't good, but "awful" is too strong a word. At the end of the day the VP pick isn't winning or losing you an election unless it's a Bush-Gore 2000 kind of margin.

[SInNYC]

Veeps normally dont affect things much except when they are truly horrid (eg, Palin) or have a favorite son effect (eg, when southern democrats were a thing).

Walz did not have a favorite son effect (though thats more in less educated states), but one of the few places where the polling arrows showed a D shift were in the plains states, esp KS and NE.  And WI/MI were lost by less than PA. This is where you would expect Walz to do best, so I dont think you can claim he was a drag on the ticket. 

That said, I do think the Harris campaign didnt deploy him well, though it still likely wouldnt have made much difference.

[Skill and Chance]

Veeps normally dont affect things much except when they are truly horrid (eg, Palin) or have a favorite son effect (eg, when southern democrats were a thing).

Walz did not have a favorite son effect (though thats more in less educated states), but one of the few places where the polling arrows showed a D shift were in the plains states, esp KS and NE.  And WI/MI were lost by less than PA. This is where you would expect Walz to do best, so I dont think you can claim he was a drag on the ticket. 

That said, I do think the Harris campaign didnt deploy him well, though it still likely wouldnt have made much difference.

It strikes me how much more important the "favorite son" effect was in the distant past when certain state/county machines rather openly rigged elections.  Maybe it was mostly fake votes anyway?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Nah.

Maybe he was misused but I think he falls into a similar situation to Tim Kaine, people criticized that pick heavily but he wasn't even in the top 10 reasons Hillary lost.

[Progressive Pessimist]

No. He was completely irrelevant, and so was Vance.

Although maybe there is a Tim curse...

[Samof94]

He'd be a good 2028 pick.

[Fuzzy Bear Stands With S019 And Israel]

I thought he was an awful pick during the campaign, for the most part.  He acted silly at times, and he had the kind of Woke Baggage that hurt the campaign.  And there were things you could say about him that hurt him that were true (if trivial).  "Tampon Tim".  The story of his wife keeping the windows open to smell the smoke of the Mostly Peaceful Protests BLM/Antifa Riots in Minneapolis because they were a "Touchstone Moment".  The "One man's socialism is another man's neighborliness!" comment (an unforced error). 

Walz couldn't attack Vance because he had the good sense to know he was vulnerable and Vance would eat him alive with his own quotes.  The "normalizing Vance" aspect of the debate actually helped me like Walz more, and it actually softened some effective responses of Vance.  After he lost, I listened to his own concession speech and I was wondering where this Walz was during the campaign.  THAT Walz was actually authentic and reasonable. 

I found Walz stiff and nervous and overcompensating as a default position.  I suspect that was because he's actually pretty exuberant, but he had to constrain himself because he was the VICE Presidential candidate and he couldn't get ahead of Harris, who had remarkably littof of substance to say the entire campaign.  Vance's virtue was that he could defend Trump's ideas articulately and wonkishly.  Walz, believe it or not, could do that for Harris, but Harris put so little public policy out that him dong so would be getting ahead of the candidate herself.  He wasn't impressive, but I doubt he ever expected to be on the national ticket, and he was in an awkward position.

[Don't Tread on Me]

Not at all and it's likely that having him on there cancelled out the regional appeal that Vance had at least int he Upper Midwest. Although at least in theory having Tammy Baldwin & Grethchen Whitmer on her ticket might've flipped their respective states given how close it was, considering that Casey lost I'm not going to claim that Shapiro being on there would've flipped it although it could've been enough to save Casey. At the end of the day I don't think that there was a single running mate who could've brought her across the finish line.

[Eidolon]

This is a hill I'm willing to die on.

Shapiro or any other person would've performed just as much or even worse than Walz.

[Skill and Chance]

I think an underrated issue with Walz is that he gave off “too weak/goofy to adequately protect you” vibes to many Southern and Southwestern (especially Latina) women.  Part of this is a cultural divide.  Minnesota Nice probably doesn’t play as well in those areas.  This undercut Harris’ goal of ramping up the gender gap beyond 2016 levels.

[EastOfEden]

Didn't significantly hurt the campaign, but didn't significantly help either.

I think. I do wonder if the "goofy" vibe hurt him.

[Casino Democrat]

To be clear, Tim Walz definitely had some weaknesses and he sure as hell wouldn't have been my pick as VP (tbf that's only because I don't break bread with rats).  At the same time though, as BRTD just said, his selection as VP might've been a mistake, but on the list of mistakes Kamala Harris made as a nominee choosing him as her VP is definitely one of the least bad mistakes she made.  That doesn't make it a good decision mind you, but I would hesitate to call it awful.  After all, while there's about 900,000 cases that could have been made for having Beshear or Kelly as the VP pick, this really only becomes clear with the benefit of hindsight.  I also have to consider that from what it sounds like the DNC was basically telling Walz to play a character from Friday Night Lights, which would explain a lot.

So ehh. . . . . . . . I mean he's definitely not the Sarah Palin of Democratic VP picks but I'm not going to act like he was the Richard Nixon of Democratic VP picks either (I mean in terms of electability, not whether or not he took from the till once or twice or if a local car salesman gave him a car and an allowance or well whatever the hell that freaking dog speech was about oh and I guess that Watergate thing too but I digress).  

Honestly if you took Walz out and kept everything else that Harris did wrong in place . . . . . . . she still loses.  I'm saying this as someone who is not a fan of the man.  I'm not sure Shapiro would have done better either. . . . . he had significant baggage with the Gaza activists and while he might have had appeal to more independents he probably would have depressed base turnout.  Maybe I'm wrong here. . . . . . the guy does have a certain charisma and that might have been enough to win the Upper Midwest states and Pennsylvania.  But, idk, things come out in a presidential race and the fact that Harris (even if she does suck as a politician) got "bad vibes" from him isn't good.  To be completely frank Shapiro's act isn't convincing me, and I bet there's millions of people who would feel the same way if he was the VP pick.  Walz may not have had high energy, he might have had a fascist Covid-19 record, he may have done a terrible Coach Taylor bit. . . . . .but idk at least he seemed real?

Beshear?  I'm more sympathetic than anyone to the idea of a red state Governor being on the ticket. . . . . . . but as we saw this year people clearly can differentiate between state and federal races.  I have a feeling that just because a guy is Governor of a state nowdays that doesn't necessarily guarantee momentum shifts in that direction.  To be completely frank (again), I believe Beshear didn't even want the VP pick and his actions and statements from the time he was being considered to now suggests he believes that being the VP pick is beneath him.  He's going for the Big One.  But hypothetically if he did get the VP pick. . . . . . . . let's just say it would have been almost unpredictable what would have happened: he could have picked up enough "WWC" and retained enough "LWC" to help the party win re-election. . . . . or he could have ended up just like Tim Walz except playing a idfk a small town attorney or some bullsh*t like that?

Mark Kelly?  I don't even f***in know.  He has a good biography. . . . . but I'm not even sure being incumbent Senator would have been enough for Dems to win Arizona again give the COL factors at play there and in Nevada.  He probably wouldn't have helped much in the Upper Midwest or Pennsylvania either (unfortunately).

Long story short. . . . . there's only so much damage or benefit a VP pick can give a presidential nominee if said presidential nominee is already a freaking terrible pick.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't make James Cox a stronger candidate.  William Miller didn't make Barry Goldwater a weaker candidate.  If this makes sense.