I totally disagree with you about Tim Waltz -he was a necessary contrast to Harris. His mid-western style was necessary -and Shapiro comes across as an elitist. Trumpers didn’t pay any attention at all to the Vice President’s position-because if they had there was no way they would have voted for Vance.
I agree. Walz was a perfect VP candidate. People liked his common touch and he’s smart, well traveled and related well to people. Also he’s not afraid to speak his mind. He’s lived a life similar to many others in the USA and gets it—what the middle class has been going through.
The real reason Democrats lost is 2 fold: 1. The vast right wing echo chamber that grew bc of media consolidation. 2. The Democratic party and most mainstream news focused most of their coverage on Trump, not Biden and that coverage was slanted in a way that downplayed Trumps outrageous behaviors and magnified anything Biden did that could be construed negatively-and there wasn’t even a lot of that. It is said that “what you think about grows” and I have found this to be true. Trump got most of the coverage and so he’s been top of mind for a huge swath of Americans.
Case in point: It looks like Biden has been heavily involved in brokering the deal wit Hezbollah, and yet the media is fawning over anything Trump says or does. That had to stop NOW.
Thanks for expanding on my comment and spelling Tim’s name correctly. I was angry and in a hurry when I wrote it -and your comment is much more articulate,
I loved that Kamala Harris picked Tim Walz as her running mate. Walz is an authentic down to earth guy and in an election where people wanted someone who didn’t come across as a “politician”, he was perfect. I think that the decision to choose Walz, had more to it than just the interview where he called the Republicans “weird”. I was really looking forward to having a public school teacher as a vice president, to help a sadly lacking public education system, with a unique perspective. I am equally as heartbroken by the loss of Kamala Harris, as I am about the loss of Tim Walz.
Agree. Harris did not lose because of Tim Walz. Shapiro would have made no difference in this race. Voters did not let Trump win because of the Dem VP pick. Shapiro may have helped win PA, but Harris would have still lost the other blue belt states.
I agree, although Chris makes some good points that I need to think on a bit.
I'm not American, but Tim Walz was my favourite thing about this past election, and "Elon Musk skipping around like a dip***t" is the quote that stuck with me (although I suspect I got the wording not 100% correct).
When can we admit that JD Vance was an awful pick? At least Walz had some executive management experience? And the bad part here is, Vance is going to be the actual VP. One heart beat (of an old obese man) away from the presidency. it makes my blood run cold.
Well, in fairness, Biden isn't obese and the necessary guardrails were, and still are, in place and would have been honored and adhered to had Harris needed to step in for Biden during his term. They barely held in Trump's first term and will disappear completely on 01-20-2025. So to me, that's a false equivalence to concerns for the past 4 years. But certainly not disagreeing with you feeling that way, just if we're being honest, they're incomparable.
Well, it's not just my opinion, but that of his closest advisers and people in his admin, 40 of 44 of whom would not endorse him for a second term. And from his own words about shooting legal protesters in the legs (just one of many examples that he was thankfully talked out of by the "adults in the room") and suspending parts of the Constitution. His words, not mine, so not an opinion. There is absolutely nothing that can be pointed to that is comparable from the Biden Harris administration. That doesn't mean to imply you'd feel comfortable from your perspective with her stepping in had the need arisen. Your comfort level is your opinion and I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm stating what was said and the lived experience of his first term and the statements he and other advisers in the upcoming administration have already said. Citing that is not an opinion.
Thanks and a safe and Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.
Well, I’m glad those 40 people were not responsible for electing the next president and the American people were allowed to speak very loudly and very clearly!
He won and I'm not disputing that. Hopefully you're being glad continues into the next term and you don't have buyer's remorse. Yet to be determined. So, perhaps those 40 people were or were not responsible. Depending on their state, their vote may have been compromised by the electoral college, not what they said. And that's okay as it's the system we have in place and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. But you're again stating something as fact when it's really just another opinion. I think there is merit to what someone who saw him in action every day more than a campaign ad that is full of lies, but whatever works.
It's certainly going to be entertaining by some definition and my concern (note, this is an opinion) is there will be a lot of collateral damage.
I only come here to read Dutch's comments. When I first saw the subject line I thought somehow Dutch had hacked Chris' newsletter. Keep up the good work, brother!
"Tim Walz did not lose Harris the race (or even close to it)
Picking Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who I clearly stated was the choice I thought made the most sense, would not have won Harris the presidency — or even Pennsylvania."
The rest of your post is meaningless and rather self-serving and not in a good way.
How do you mean? Chris is saying that Walz wasn't the best choice, but acknowledging that VP's don't make much difference. I don't agree with him about Walz, but there's nothing self-serving or wrong on it that I can see.
I think it's weird (deliberate choice) to make the case the most popular person on either ticket was a bad pick. The campaign essentially fumbled Walz, I don't think it was the other way around. He should have been doing sports shows, including Barstool, I think there were opportunities after the strange stuff involving the reaction to his son.
And please, please, stay 1,000 miles away from Rahm, who is way past his sell by date.
I disagree, I think it would have won her Pennsylvania. Other than that, I completely agree; Walz was totally useless. He brought nothing to the table whatsoever. He even lost ground in his home state!
I always thought the "weird" thing was weird. They should have used terms that were more accurate: hateful, crazy, misogynistic, mendacious. Many roll their eyes at comparisons to Nazis and fascists; they're just too common. But "weird" was too soft. We needed something harsher but not getting into Godwin's Law territory.
I seem to recall that Democrats have used all of those terms to describe Trump over the years, and they haven’t worked either. They were looking for something new, and found one, but it was a total flop.
I don't know if it flopped, but it lost traction. I think that the harsher labels have lost their impact, but the "weird" one actually sunk in a bit. "Hunh...yeah, they ARE weird," hits you even after you tune out the fascist stuff. In my opinion, what they needed were more moments like that, chipping away at Trump's personality. The problem is that they come best from unscripted, off the cuff moments, which the campaign hated.
Exactly. Some people can't help themselves. There was no constructive purpose to this post; it was merely gratuitous. A classic example of spraying out some thought just because you can. Verbal diarrhea and yet another reason I can't bring myself to being a paid subscriber. I'm much happier paying for Bulwark+ where I don't always agree but they at least don't post pile-on garbage like this.
He leaves these posts open to comments and others as well. I should add that I subscribe but am not a paid subscriber. Paying to find out what songs he likes or what family stories he wants to share doesn't turn me on. I'm anti-Trump and never-Trump, and I like some of what Chris does, but I'll never pay for it unless he becomes anti-Trump rather than posturing as a weather vane. He didn't help normalize Trump, but he did help create a permission structure to not vote for Biden and later Harris because of his love of "horse race politics."
Has anyone figured out why Chris needed to do this post? The election was three weeks ago and he just now gets around to a rip on the VP nominee? The GOPers gave us another serial liar and the Dems gave us an honest and decent guy from Minnesota. And yet, 22 days later, Chris seems to need to tell us once again how much smarter he thinks he is compared to the Democratic Party's ticket. Perhaps we should all meet again in four years and see just who seems smartest. Well, OK, we'll probably have a mid-term verdict in two years. We can meet then.
Walz was a safe pick, perfectly fitting for KH and her zero risk campaign. A younger, smooth talking, performative pick like Whitmer, Shapiro or even Mark Cuban would have been better.
Line 1: "The 2024 election ended three weeks ago today"... jeez, it seems more like 3 months ago. Regarding Walz, no, he wasn't a great pick -- but he was far from a disaster, and am saying this as a Republican. His debate performance was indeed panned, but again, no disaster -- but I also believe anyone going up against the extremely underrated (at the time) smooth-talking performer, JD Vance, would have come up short 90% of the time... Vance was THAT good (in my opinion) not that Walz was THAT bad. It should also be said Walz was BADLY served by his Harris superiors -- his scheduling was weak, there was little strategic imperative to his general activities, and he, too, was operating on the "stay away media interview" strategy adopted by Harris. This all made for an ineffective VP candidacy pretty much imposed on him from the top.
It’s a waste of time to blame anything that Harris did when the elephant in the room is: we have a nation of people willing to elect a liar, sexual abuser and criminal to do a job that takes the ultimate public servant.
The Germans showed far more wisdom choosing Hitler; he made some sense until he didn’t. Trump, declared a major danger by so many people of character ahead of this election, who regularly stiffed people, is a moronic choice.
Why would people who think critically support him unless they were criminal-minded opportunists wanting to get in on the grift? There are plenty of them but not enough of those types to elect him. There was a set of fools, unable to think critically who voted for him, who are soon going to be furious. Fox easily manipulated undereducated people. And they told us their plan with their name!
If Walz was a mistake, it’s because he was a teacher and we have a whole nation disrespecting teachers due to the fact that our schools have been taken over by mobsters who’ve stayed in power by blaming everything on teachers when it’s these power mongers’ sinister removal of great teachers that took this country down.
It’s all explained at WhiteChalkCrime.com and EndTeacherAbuse.org. But you’ll probably not bother to report it. Reporters have blown this off for years because they bought into the lies and don’t respect teachers. So the liars running many of our schools keep thriving while our country becomes dumber and dumber.
That’s why Trump was elected.
If you intend to report with integrity, you cannot ignore irrational thinking that wanted a person like him, with Project 2025 ready to turn us into an autocracy, to run a democracy. It was as wise as choosing to fly in a plane with Stevie Wonder piloting it because he’s cool and a great singer.
He’s our next president due to our corrupt schools, not Tim Walz, and not our teachers who are now mostly puppets, not real teachers. He’s our next president since reporters left dysfunctional and unlawful, schools - with their school shootings signaling loudly that something is terribly wrong - as not worthy of an investigation.
And here you go again missing the elephant in the room - so many stupid people - and going after Walz. That’s what’s weird!
I’d say what’s with journalism, but I know. Our schools have been corrupt for at least four decades; our current journalists attended these schools.
For the sake of this once great nation, I won’t stop reporting education’s intellectual version of Harvey Weinstein, freely using their power because they can, until a reporter finally investigates this issue. I have the receipts and hundreds of teachers who’ll testify, but no reporter.
I said 12 years ago. Hillary would never be president because they want Bill
The same could be said here. No one wanted the Democrats anywhere even though the last two years of the Republican controlled house was atrocious. Nothing got done
The bottom line is there are a large group of people who feel totally left behind by the system and they are right
Trump is their solution because he is definitely not Washington. It will be curious to see in four years if there is anyone who can be who he is.
Finally remember. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Not everyone is entitled to their own facts
I just can’t seem to recall what rank I retired at? I just can’t recall whether I was in Iraq or Afghanistan. I love how the inteligencia seemingly “omits” that nobody voted for Harris or Walz. The irony that Walz is against the electoral college but became the VP candidate from the votes of delegates not the people.
He was a little bit (just a little bit) like Sarah Palin, in the sense of being a somewhat little-known governor who did not have any national-level experience or exposure prior to being selected and then had to learn on the job. Like any human being in that position, there would be truly minor errors or flaws that could swiftly be blown up and exaggerated in a presidential campaign. The issue was that he did not have the skills to quickly reply, recast, and address those issues as they arose, in the way that an experienced national politician would do almost instinctively and on top of that, the campaign did not supply him with a rapid-response operation or better support to deal with this.
Great insight! The Sarah Palin comparison is apt in that they were not ready for the big leagues. However, Palin was like 43 when she was the VP candidate. Like an episode of the Brady Bunch, Walz had told lies dating back to his first run for Congress. Unnecessary lies. He lied about his rank, his wartime service and was never candid about his ties to China. Who the heck gets intentionally married on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square? Weird! He simply wasn’t vetted. IMHO, picking a VP candidate has one criteria…help win the election. Palin was never going to win over women and wasn’t reassuring to assume the Presidency. Gore picking Lieberman gave him CT…lol. I think Vance compensated for Trump’s weaknesses and persona. Vance calling out Walz for lying about his military record was powerful.
Shapiro would have been better, in your mind, Chris? So add to the MAGA complaint that Harris was a “San Francisco liberal” that we would have had a “liberal elite Jew bought and owned by Israel”? The depth of racism and antisemitism on the right would have killed that ticket as well.
So IF, as you admit, neither Walz nor Shapiro made a difference and would still have lost to Trump, what’s your point in even writing this column? Making yourself feel better or smarter? Stop and ask yourself *why* you wrote this, Chris. It adds virtually NOTHING to the conversation and seems a bit petty, in my view.
I know that you think of the world in small little thoughts, so this might be hard for you to understand, but I was making a point about YOU MAGA CULTISTS and *your* group’s blatant racism and antisemitism. If a black woman was too hard a call for “non-college educated white men”, the largest part of your Cult, you think a Jew on the ticket would have been easier for them?
And add to what Shapiro’s hard stance on Israel might have done to *further* alienate young voters that were quite empathetic towards Palestinians in Gaza, and I don’t see how Shapiro would have been a better choice. I get subtle nuance and I would have been perfectly fine with Shapiro as VP, but it might have been a bit too far for the racists of this country. And if there’s one thing that Obama’s 8 years in office made abundantly clear is there are *still* one hell of a lot of them out there. And Trump has given them permission to admit their racism and antisemitism in public. And they voted that way.
Hey man. Please stay away from attacking other commenters. You are of course welcome to voice your opinion but please do not engage in bullying behavior. I cannot stand that sort of stuff. Our community is better than that.
I can’t see everything. But like just because someone doesn’t see the world the same way you do — and you have a very clear partisan perspective — that doesn’t make them terrible or stupid.
Calling a cult a cult didn't strike me as bullying. Maybe it was the ALL CAPS? But, I haven't been around Chris's Substack enough to know the backstory.
Without merit, you justified Harris’ decision not choose Shapiro because of his faith by assigning blame to Trump supporters. Yet, we know Shapiro won by 56% in 2022, so he had to win over Trump supporters. I rightly called out that overlooking someone for being Jewish as antisemitism. That is not bullying, but a cogent argument.
What a "weird" posture to go after someone who objects to your position and has made a sound pushback against it while seeming to defend someone who comes across as a troll.
If we accept the common definition that trolls stir up trouble then I can see that any fact, opinion or statement that doesn’t blame Trump would appear as trolling to many on this forum. Assigning counter-factual blame to Trump supporters for Harris’ choice to not pick Shapiro because of his faith is antisemitism on Harris’ part.
I would also be very careful in how you throw around the teem “uneducated whites.” That is not how the census refers to educational attainment. Not attending college does not mean that one is non-educated.
Sure, “non-college educated” does not mean “uneducated” and you’re right about that, Leva.
The better choice of words would be “uninformed”. Having been thoroughly immersed in politics for over 50 years now, it’s hard for me to wrap my head around people that simply don’t pay attention or do at least the bare minimum of “discovery” (the word “research” has been SO misused I simple cannot use it anymore…). As a Vote Clerk here in California, it amazed me how many people walked in and asked for the information booklet that is sent to EVERY VOTER in order to look at the arguments for/against the propositions (CA always has a lot of them). They were complicated and required *way* more attention than that.
While the level of education achieved *does* have a significant effect on your ability to research and formulate critical responses (term papers and “projects” in college require a LOT more thought than ANYTHING in our K-12 system), I think the lack of good information sources is probably more the culprit.
And I’m not talking *just* the obvious Fox News, WSJ, Newsmax, etc., but your “local” TV station owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group (owned by a right-wing billionaire) or your “local” radio station owned by iHeart Media (owned by right-wing billionaires). Between the 2 of them, they own over 1000 “local” media sources.
Leva, please take the time to read this excellent analysis from Michael Tomasky, the editor-in-chief of The New Republic. I am confident that *this* is the reason SO many Americans voted against their own true best interests:
I think you’re missing the point, Leva. Tomasky makes it VERY clear that it’s a much broader issue than just Fox, but a larger ecosystem.
And having sold high-technology equipment and enterprise-class software systems to the television, film, broadcast, and streaming industries for over 40 years, the media groups that own local stations are a HUGE part of that ecosystem. Sinclair and iHeart were my clients, along with Beasley, Audacy, Cumulus, Nexstar, and more (along with the largest of global media firms, like Globo, BBC, Televisa, Azteca, etc) and I have decades of real world experience with them.
They have a consistent message that you do NOT see on the center-left side. Editorial decisions are made EVERY SINGLE DAY as to WHAT to report, HOW to report it, and how PROMINENT it will be (teased in promos, etc). When these are dictated by “corporate”, and corporate is owned by right-wing billionaires, the effect across the nation is substantial.
I have an informed opinion about this, Leva, based upon literally decades of actual experience, and Tomasky rings true to me. Low-information voters are NOt being well-served and the death of the Fairness Doctrine at the FCC has led to this “ghettoization” of news sources has led to a *very* ill-informed public. Add to that the rise of unsubstantiated “opinions” on social media (like the right-wing “influencers” that were being secretively support by RT, ie Russian state propaganda), and here we are….
I think you really need to reflect on what you wrote. First, something doesn’t sit right with me in how you use repeatedly the word Jew rather than describing Shapiro as Jewish. Second, you make my point when you correctly surmise that Shapiro’s faith would alienate younger Democrats. Third, it is ridiculous to blame Trump supporters for Harris not choosing Shapiro. In 2022, Shapiro won the PA governor race by 56% meaning many Republicans voted
An incumbent who has an election platform of instituting “price controls” isn’t running on a great economy. #FACT! Instead of recognizing “facts” this guy blames the right wing media. Really?
Either respond to what Tomasky said in the article or stop bothering to reply about the same old tired points: the value in his article is not that he covers 1000% of the possible reasons that Harris-Walz lost, but that he makes an incredibly valuable point about WHY low-information voters re-elected the most corrupt President of the modern era, possibly in US history. They simply NEVER heard what the rest of us that have been paying attention heard and were both disgusted and frightened by: that Trump is *massively* unqualified to be President. His choices of Cabinet nominees make that as clear as can be, though I’m sure you’re perfectly fine with them.
I don’t understand why this simple point is lost on you, though I’ve mentioned it at least 5 times now. I’m done with this (likely) purposeful ignoring of the point.
Tomasky cites a single “economist” article that the economy is good then gets angry at anyone who disagrees. I will restate that if the incumbent’s economic plan is to institute price controls then maybe Tomasky in the uninformed person.
I totally disagree with you about Tim Waltz -he was a necessary contrast to Harris. His mid-western style was necessary -and Shapiro comes across as an elitist. Trumpers didn’t pay any attention at all to the Vice President’s position-because if they had there was no way they would have voted for Vance.
I agree. Walz was a perfect VP candidate. People liked his common touch and he’s smart, well traveled and related well to people. Also he’s not afraid to speak his mind. He’s lived a life similar to many others in the USA and gets it—what the middle class has been going through.
The real reason Democrats lost is 2 fold: 1. The vast right wing echo chamber that grew bc of media consolidation. 2. The Democratic party and most mainstream news focused most of their coverage on Trump, not Biden and that coverage was slanted in a way that downplayed Trumps outrageous behaviors and magnified anything Biden did that could be construed negatively-and there wasn’t even a lot of that. It is said that “what you think about grows” and I have found this to be true. Trump got most of the coverage and so he’s been top of mind for a huge swath of Americans.
Case in point: It looks like Biden has been heavily involved in brokering the deal wit Hezbollah, and yet the media is fawning over anything Trump says or does. That had to stop NOW.
Thanks for expanding on my comment and spelling Tim’s name correctly. I was angry and in a hurry when I wrote it -and your comment is much more articulate,
I loved that Kamala Harris picked Tim Walz as her running mate. Walz is an authentic down to earth guy and in an election where people wanted someone who didn’t come across as a “politician”, he was perfect. I think that the decision to choose Walz, had more to it than just the interview where he called the Republicans “weird”. I was really looking forward to having a public school teacher as a vice president, to help a sadly lacking public education system, with a unique perspective. I am equally as heartbroken by the loss of Kamala Harris, as I am about the loss of Tim Walz.
Agree. Harris did not lose because of Tim Walz. Shapiro would have made no difference in this race. Voters did not let Trump win because of the Dem VP pick. Shapiro may have helped win PA, but Harris would have still lost the other blue belt states.
I agree, although Chris makes some good points that I need to think on a bit.
I'm not American, but Tim Walz was my favourite thing about this past election, and "Elon Musk skipping around like a dip***t" is the quote that stuck with me (although I suspect I got the wording not 100% correct).
When can we admit that JD Vance was an awful pick? At least Walz had some executive management experience? And the bad part here is, Vance is going to be the actual VP. One heart beat (of an old obese man) away from the presidency. it makes my blood run cold.
So you know exactly how I’ve felt these past 4 years! 😅
Well, in fairness, Biden isn't obese and the necessary guardrails were, and still are, in place and would have been honored and adhered to had Harris needed to step in for Biden during his term. They barely held in Trump's first term and will disappear completely on 01-20-2025. So to me, that's a false equivalence to concerns for the past 4 years. But certainly not disagreeing with you feeling that way, just if we're being honest, they're incomparable.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
Have a great Thanksgiving
Well, it's not just my opinion, but that of his closest advisers and people in his admin, 40 of 44 of whom would not endorse him for a second term. And from his own words about shooting legal protesters in the legs (just one of many examples that he was thankfully talked out of by the "adults in the room") and suspending parts of the Constitution. His words, not mine, so not an opinion. There is absolutely nothing that can be pointed to that is comparable from the Biden Harris administration. That doesn't mean to imply you'd feel comfortable from your perspective with her stepping in had the need arisen. Your comfort level is your opinion and I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm stating what was said and the lived experience of his first term and the statements he and other advisers in the upcoming administration have already said. Citing that is not an opinion.
Thanks and a safe and Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.
Well, I’m glad those 40 people were not responsible for electing the next president and the American people were allowed to speak very loudly and very clearly!
What a great country we live in!
He won and I'm not disputing that. Hopefully you're being glad continues into the next term and you don't have buyer's remorse. Yet to be determined. So, perhaps those 40 people were or were not responsible. Depending on their state, their vote may have been compromised by the electoral college, not what they said. And that's okay as it's the system we have in place and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. But you're again stating something as fact when it's really just another opinion. I think there is merit to what someone who saw him in action every day more than a campaign ad that is full of lies, but whatever works.
It's certainly going to be entertaining by some definition and my concern (note, this is an opinion) is there will be a lot of collateral damage.
I only come here to read Dutch's comments. When I first saw the subject line I thought somehow Dutch had hacked Chris' newsletter. Keep up the good work, brother!
As a proud Minnesotan, Walz was a great choice and is a great governor. Walz 2028!
Best of luck!
Chris....Chris...Chris....
Once you write...
"Tim Walz did not lose Harris the race (or even close to it)
Picking Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who I clearly stated was the choice I thought made the most sense, would not have won Harris the presidency — or even Pennsylvania."
The rest of your post is meaningless and rather self-serving and not in a good way.
Give it up.
At least it wasn't yet another emo post about being laid off by CNN!
Ouch...but good burn.
How do you mean? Chris is saying that Walz wasn't the best choice, but acknowledging that VP's don't make much difference. I don't agree with him about Walz, but there's nothing self-serving or wrong on it that I can see.
I agree 100%. Harris may, I repeat MAY have won PA with Shapiro, but nothing else.
Tim Waltz calling anyone weird was so strange. He was an odd duck and there were certainly better choices - Shapiro for instance.
Exactly.
we here in PA are happy he wasn't picked to be VP. He would have lost, and we'd be without a terrific Governor. His time will come.
1) I agree that he is a terrific Governor;
2) I'm not so sure that he would have lost;
3) However, that is one "what if" that will never be answered.
I think it's weird (deliberate choice) to make the case the most popular person on either ticket was a bad pick. The campaign essentially fumbled Walz, I don't think it was the other way around. He should have been doing sports shows, including Barstool, I think there were opportunities after the strange stuff involving the reaction to his son.
And please, please, stay 1,000 miles away from Rahm, who is way past his sell by date.
Amen. Shipping him out of Chitown was the best thing that ever happened. He’s a walking trigger warning at this point.
I disagree, I think it would have won her Pennsylvania. Other than that, I completely agree; Walz was totally useless. He brought nothing to the table whatsoever. He even lost ground in his home state!
For the record, I did a column a while ago for the Portland Press Herald on how I thought the ‘weird’ label wouldn’t work: https://www.pressherald.com/2024/08/11/jim-fossel-weird-isnt-a-pejorative-term/
I always thought the "weird" thing was weird. They should have used terms that were more accurate: hateful, crazy, misogynistic, mendacious. Many roll their eyes at comparisons to Nazis and fascists; they're just too common. But "weird" was too soft. We needed something harsher but not getting into Godwin's Law territory.
I seem to recall that Democrats have used all of those terms to describe Trump over the years, and they haven’t worked either. They were looking for something new, and found one, but it was a total flop.
I don't know if it flopped, but it lost traction. I think that the harsher labels have lost their impact, but the "weird" one actually sunk in a bit. "Hunh...yeah, they ARE weird," hits you even after you tune out the fascist stuff. In my opinion, what they needed were more moments like that, chipping away at Trump's personality. The problem is that they come best from unscripted, off the cuff moments, which the campaign hated.
It's been three weeks. Can we please stop looking in the rear-view mirror? We get it, we lost.
Why don't you write columns on the terrible, abominable Cabinet picks instead.
It didn’t matter. So why bother castigating the pick, and the man. At least no SINGLE thing was really the difference maker. It was ALL the things.
Exactly. Some people can't help themselves. There was no constructive purpose to this post; it was merely gratuitous. A classic example of spraying out some thought just because you can. Verbal diarrhea and yet another reason I can't bring myself to being a paid subscriber. I'm much happier paying for Bulwark+ where I don't always agree but they at least don't post pile-on garbage like this.
how can you comment when you don't subscribe?
He leaves these posts open to comments and others as well. I should add that I subscribe but am not a paid subscriber. Paying to find out what songs he likes or what family stories he wants to share doesn't turn me on. I'm anti-Trump and never-Trump, and I like some of what Chris does, but I'll never pay for it unless he becomes anti-Trump rather than posturing as a weather vane. He didn't help normalize Trump, but he did help create a permission structure to not vote for Biden and later Harris because of his love of "horse race politics."
Like Robert, I subscribe/ follow Chris, but this is not one of my many paid subscriptions. Can’t fund every single sub stacker.
Has anyone figured out why Chris needed to do this post? The election was three weeks ago and he just now gets around to a rip on the VP nominee? The GOPers gave us another serial liar and the Dems gave us an honest and decent guy from Minnesota. And yet, 22 days later, Chris seems to need to tell us once again how much smarter he thinks he is compared to the Democratic Party's ticket. Perhaps we should all meet again in four years and see just who seems smartest. Well, OK, we'll probably have a mid-term verdict in two years. We can meet then.
Walz was a safe pick, perfectly fitting for KH and her zero risk campaign. A younger, smooth talking, performative pick like Whitmer, Shapiro or even Mark Cuban would have been better.
Maybe the campaign was worried that a smooth talker as VP would have been an unflattering contrast with the top of the ticket?
Line 1: "The 2024 election ended three weeks ago today"... jeez, it seems more like 3 months ago. Regarding Walz, no, he wasn't a great pick -- but he was far from a disaster, and am saying this as a Republican. His debate performance was indeed panned, but again, no disaster -- but I also believe anyone going up against the extremely underrated (at the time) smooth-talking performer, JD Vance, would have come up short 90% of the time... Vance was THAT good (in my opinion) not that Walz was THAT bad. It should also be said Walz was BADLY served by his Harris superiors -- his scheduling was weak, there was little strategic imperative to his general activities, and he, too, was operating on the "stay away media interview" strategy adopted by Harris. This all made for an ineffective VP candidacy pretty much imposed on him from the top.
It’s a waste of time to blame anything that Harris did when the elephant in the room is: we have a nation of people willing to elect a liar, sexual abuser and criminal to do a job that takes the ultimate public servant.
The Germans showed far more wisdom choosing Hitler; he made some sense until he didn’t. Trump, declared a major danger by so many people of character ahead of this election, who regularly stiffed people, is a moronic choice.
Why would people who think critically support him unless they were criminal-minded opportunists wanting to get in on the grift? There are plenty of them but not enough of those types to elect him. There was a set of fools, unable to think critically who voted for him, who are soon going to be furious. Fox easily manipulated undereducated people. And they told us their plan with their name!
If Walz was a mistake, it’s because he was a teacher and we have a whole nation disrespecting teachers due to the fact that our schools have been taken over by mobsters who’ve stayed in power by blaming everything on teachers when it’s these power mongers’ sinister removal of great teachers that took this country down.
It’s all explained at WhiteChalkCrime.com and EndTeacherAbuse.org. But you’ll probably not bother to report it. Reporters have blown this off for years because they bought into the lies and don’t respect teachers. So the liars running many of our schools keep thriving while our country becomes dumber and dumber.
That’s why Trump was elected.
If you intend to report with integrity, you cannot ignore irrational thinking that wanted a person like him, with Project 2025 ready to turn us into an autocracy, to run a democracy. It was as wise as choosing to fly in a plane with Stevie Wonder piloting it because he’s cool and a great singer.
He’s our next president due to our corrupt schools, not Tim Walz, and not our teachers who are now mostly puppets, not real teachers. He’s our next president since reporters left dysfunctional and unlawful, schools - with their school shootings signaling loudly that something is terribly wrong - as not worthy of an investigation.
And here you go again missing the elephant in the room - so many stupid people - and going after Walz. That’s what’s weird!
I’d say what’s with journalism, but I know. Our schools have been corrupt for at least four decades; our current journalists attended these schools.
For the sake of this once great nation, I won’t stop reporting education’s intellectual version of Harvey Weinstein, freely using their power because they can, until a reporter finally investigates this issue. I have the receipts and hundreds of teachers who’ll testify, but no reporter.
I liked Waltz. He was a breath of fresh air
I said 12 years ago. Hillary would never be president because they want Bill
The same could be said here. No one wanted the Democrats anywhere even though the last two years of the Republican controlled house was atrocious. Nothing got done
The bottom line is there are a large group of people who feel totally left behind by the system and they are right
Trump is their solution because he is definitely not Washington. It will be curious to see in four years if there is anyone who can be who he is.
Finally remember. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Not everyone is entitled to their own facts
Walz had trouble recalling the past or did he lie about his record?
Totally lied! Cmon man, thought he was actually in Tiananmen Square?!? Nope
I just can’t seem to recall what rank I retired at? I just can’t recall whether I was in Iraq or Afghanistan. I love how the inteligencia seemingly “omits” that nobody voted for Harris or Walz. The irony that Walz is against the electoral college but became the VP candidate from the votes of delegates not the people.
What?
How did Harris-Walz win the DNC? Not from a vote of the party members, but by the delegates. Then Walz rallies against the electoral college.
He was a little bit (just a little bit) like Sarah Palin, in the sense of being a somewhat little-known governor who did not have any national-level experience or exposure prior to being selected and then had to learn on the job. Like any human being in that position, there would be truly minor errors or flaws that could swiftly be blown up and exaggerated in a presidential campaign. The issue was that he did not have the skills to quickly reply, recast, and address those issues as they arose, in the way that an experienced national politician would do almost instinctively and on top of that, the campaign did not supply him with a rapid-response operation or better support to deal with this.
Great insight! The Sarah Palin comparison is apt in that they were not ready for the big leagues. However, Palin was like 43 when she was the VP candidate. Like an episode of the Brady Bunch, Walz had told lies dating back to his first run for Congress. Unnecessary lies. He lied about his rank, his wartime service and was never candid about his ties to China. Who the heck gets intentionally married on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square? Weird! He simply wasn’t vetted. IMHO, picking a VP candidate has one criteria…help win the election. Palin was never going to win over women and wasn’t reassuring to assume the Presidency. Gore picking Lieberman gave him CT…lol. I think Vance compensated for Trump’s weaknesses and persona. Vance calling out Walz for lying about his military record was powerful.
Shapiro would have been better, in your mind, Chris? So add to the MAGA complaint that Harris was a “San Francisco liberal” that we would have had a “liberal elite Jew bought and owned by Israel”? The depth of racism and antisemitism on the right would have killed that ticket as well.
So IF, as you admit, neither Walz nor Shapiro made a difference and would still have lost to Trump, what’s your point in even writing this column? Making yourself feel better or smarter? Stop and ask yourself *why* you wrote this, Chris. It adds virtually NOTHING to the conversation and seems a bit petty, in my view.
Not picking Shapiro because he is Jewish might be antisemitism
I know that you think of the world in small little thoughts, so this might be hard for you to understand, but I was making a point about YOU MAGA CULTISTS and *your* group’s blatant racism and antisemitism. If a black woman was too hard a call for “non-college educated white men”, the largest part of your Cult, you think a Jew on the ticket would have been easier for them?
And add to what Shapiro’s hard stance on Israel might have done to *further* alienate young voters that were quite empathetic towards Palestinians in Gaza, and I don’t see how Shapiro would have been a better choice. I get subtle nuance and I would have been perfectly fine with Shapiro as VP, but it might have been a bit too far for the racists of this country. And if there’s one thing that Obama’s 8 years in office made abundantly clear is there are *still* one hell of a lot of them out there. And Trump has given them permission to admit their racism and antisemitism in public. And they voted that way.
Hey man. Please stay away from attacking other commenters. You are of course welcome to voice your opinion but please do not engage in bullying behavior. I cannot stand that sort of stuff. Our community is better than that.
Interesting that you’ve never made those comments about Leva or Dutch, who have clearly engaged in bullying behavior, but sure, Chris.
I can’t see everything. But like just because someone doesn’t see the world the same way you do — and you have a very clear partisan perspective — that doesn’t make them terrible or stupid.
Chris you are on the mark
Calling a cult a cult didn't strike me as bullying. Maybe it was the ALL CAPS? But, I haven't been around Chris's Substack enough to know the backstory.
Without merit, you justified Harris’ decision not choose Shapiro because of his faith by assigning blame to Trump supporters. Yet, we know Shapiro won by 56% in 2022, so he had to win over Trump supporters. I rightly called out that overlooking someone for being Jewish as antisemitism. That is not bullying, but a cogent argument.
What a "weird" posture to go after someone who objects to your position and has made a sound pushback against it while seeming to defend someone who comes across as a troll.
If we accept the common definition that trolls stir up trouble then I can see that any fact, opinion or statement that doesn’t blame Trump would appear as trolling to many on this forum. Assigning counter-factual blame to Trump supporters for Harris’ choice to not pick Shapiro because of his faith is antisemitism on Harris’ part.
I would also be very careful in how you throw around the teem “uneducated whites.” That is not how the census refers to educational attainment. Not attending college does not mean that one is non-educated.
Sure, “non-college educated” does not mean “uneducated” and you’re right about that, Leva.
The better choice of words would be “uninformed”. Having been thoroughly immersed in politics for over 50 years now, it’s hard for me to wrap my head around people that simply don’t pay attention or do at least the bare minimum of “discovery” (the word “research” has been SO misused I simple cannot use it anymore…). As a Vote Clerk here in California, it amazed me how many people walked in and asked for the information booklet that is sent to EVERY VOTER in order to look at the arguments for/against the propositions (CA always has a lot of them). They were complicated and required *way* more attention than that.
While the level of education achieved *does* have a significant effect on your ability to research and formulate critical responses (term papers and “projects” in college require a LOT more thought than ANYTHING in our K-12 system), I think the lack of good information sources is probably more the culprit.
And I’m not talking *just* the obvious Fox News, WSJ, Newsmax, etc., but your “local” TV station owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group (owned by a right-wing billionaire) or your “local” radio station owned by iHeart Media (owned by right-wing billionaires). Between the 2 of them, they own over 1000 “local” media sources.
Leva, please take the time to read this excellent analysis from Michael Tomasky, the editor-in-chief of The New Republic. I am confident that *this* is the reason SO many Americans voted against their own true best interests:
https://newrepublic.com/post/188197/trump-media-information-landscape-fox
I think the article is just an angry rant against Fox News.
I think you’re missing the point, Leva. Tomasky makes it VERY clear that it’s a much broader issue than just Fox, but a larger ecosystem.
And having sold high-technology equipment and enterprise-class software systems to the television, film, broadcast, and streaming industries for over 40 years, the media groups that own local stations are a HUGE part of that ecosystem. Sinclair and iHeart were my clients, along with Beasley, Audacy, Cumulus, Nexstar, and more (along with the largest of global media firms, like Globo, BBC, Televisa, Azteca, etc) and I have decades of real world experience with them.
They have a consistent message that you do NOT see on the center-left side. Editorial decisions are made EVERY SINGLE DAY as to WHAT to report, HOW to report it, and how PROMINENT it will be (teased in promos, etc). When these are dictated by “corporate”, and corporate is owned by right-wing billionaires, the effect across the nation is substantial.
I have an informed opinion about this, Leva, based upon literally decades of actual experience, and Tomasky rings true to me. Low-information voters are NOt being well-served and the death of the Fairness Doctrine at the FCC has led to this “ghettoization” of news sources has led to a *very* ill-informed public. Add to that the rise of unsubstantiated “opinions” on social media (like the right-wing “influencers” that were being secretively support by RT, ie Russian state propaganda), and here we are….
I think you really need to reflect on what you wrote. First, something doesn’t sit right with me in how you use repeatedly the word Jew rather than describing Shapiro as Jewish. Second, you make my point when you correctly surmise that Shapiro’s faith would alienate younger Democrats. Third, it is ridiculous to blame Trump supporters for Harris not choosing Shapiro. In 2022, Shapiro won the PA governor race by 56% meaning many Republicans voted
An incumbent who has an election platform of instituting “price controls” isn’t running on a great economy. #FACT! Instead of recognizing “facts” this guy blames the right wing media. Really?
Either respond to what Tomasky said in the article or stop bothering to reply about the same old tired points: the value in his article is not that he covers 1000% of the possible reasons that Harris-Walz lost, but that he makes an incredibly valuable point about WHY low-information voters re-elected the most corrupt President of the modern era, possibly in US history. They simply NEVER heard what the rest of us that have been paying attention heard and were both disgusted and frightened by: that Trump is *massively* unqualified to be President. His choices of Cabinet nominees make that as clear as can be, though I’m sure you’re perfectly fine with them.
I don’t understand why this simple point is lost on you, though I’ve mentioned it at least 5 times now. I’m done with this (likely) purposeful ignoring of the point.
Tomasky cites a single “economist” article that the economy is good then gets angry at anyone who disagrees. I will restate that if the incumbent’s economic plan is to institute price controls then maybe Tomasky in the uninformed person.