What a difference a couple of weeks makes. Just a month ago, the Democratic Party was in total crisis, saddled with a candidate clearly unfit for a second term who was refusing to step aside. Donald Trump was riding high, with polls showing a clear lead for him in all the necessary states.
Times have changed. The Democrats have a new candidate, Vice-president Kamala Harris, and now a running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz. Once Biden stepped aside, her coronation was swift, painless and unanimous, sparking a wave of fundraising enthusiasm, a reversal of the party’s polling woes, and a wave of relief that tipped into near giddiness among the many Americans ardently hoping that Donald Trump does not win another term.
Picking a running mate as a presidential candidate is a fraught business. It’s very difficult to get right, and extremely easy to get wrong. A good vice-president pick can occasionally win you a crucial state, or change the narrative of a faltering campaign. A bad one can tank the entire thing.
The classics are well-worn fables: George McGovern’s disastrous handling of the controversy over his running mate Thomas Eagleton was a serious factor in his landslide loss. Picking Joe Lieberman in 2000 convinced many left-wing Democrats that there was little difference between Al Gore and George W Bush. Sarah Palin’s selection was actually perceived as something of a masterstroke initially, giving the ailing McCain campaign a shot in the arm and a genuine polling boost. The rest of the story hardly needs repeating.
The old cliche is that a VP should “balance the ticket”, geographically, politically or demographically. A younger nominee like Obama picked an old hand like Biden. Reagan, from the radical right Californian wing of the party, picked George H W Bush, from the more moderate wing. Tim Kaine – a bland white centrist senator – was considered something of a missed opportunity for Hillary Clinton, being simply too similar and offering little in the way of excitement.
Harris’s selection process was accelerated, adding to the excitement among political anoraks. Many names were bandied about, virtually all of them white men. In the end it came down to Walz and Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, who many considered a shoo-in as late as a few days ago.
Shapiro offered strong electoral performance in the most crucial of swing states. He was opposed, however, by the left wing of the party, for, among other things, his notable hostility to pro-Palestine protesters, whom he compared to Ku Klux Klan members. His clear ambition for the presidency, and a number of potentially damaging skeletons in his closet, likely also worked against him.
Walz can be considered a genuine dark horse candidate, little known outside his own state a few months ago. His electoral record is decent but unspectacular, and he comes from a state that should be comfortably in the Democratic column if the party has any hope of victory.
He is a mid-westerner, however, which could conceivably help the party in important neighbouring states like Michigan and Wisconsin. He boasts something of an impressive governing record, passing progressive legislation with narrow state house majorities and maintaining decent relations with major unions and left-wing members of his state party.
More than anything, Walz offers a compelling image to present to the American public. He has a reputation for affability, a consensus builder who goes out of his way to say how happy he is that the party is a big tent, a welcome change from the reflexive left punching that has characterised so much of the party establishment for years.
He projects personal humanity and sincerity, rare qualities among the political class. His previous career as a teacher, complete with feel-good stories, lends him a human touch that sets him apart from the legions of Ivy League law school graduates that populate both parties.
Walz went some way to securing the nomination through a series of impactful media hits, creating compelling soundbites on talkshows that became easily clipped viral content. He struck a nerve by branding the Trump campaign, and especially its new vice presidential candidate, as creepy, unnerving zealots, bent on imposing their extreme social conservatism on the nation. His attack word of “weird” was quickly taken up, and exhausted, by Democrats everywhere.
Walz looks like a particularly smart pick by comparison to his counterpart on the Trump ticket. The roll-out of Ohio senator J JD Vance’s nomination has been nothing short of a catastrophe, with the candidate forced to deny lurid, sometimes false stories about his past, and defend extreme and controversial opinions. Spending a week doubling down on comments attacking childless women is just one reason that Vance now boasts a disapproval rating in the double digits.
With an opponent like this, it’s small wonder that the Democratic Party is full of optimism. It’s easy to forget that after a series of provocative Israeli assassinations, including one on Iranian soil, the Middle East stands on the brink of a major regional war. This war has been enabled in no small part by the Biden administration of which, it bears repeating, Harris is an important member.
Should war break out, whether the US takes a major role or not, Vance’s stumbles and the extremism of the Republicans may be quickly forgotten. Walz will likely be an asset to the Harris campaign, but much more will depend on her ability and willingness to extricate herself, and the country, from the foreign policy disaster in which they have found themselves.
Jack Sheehan is a writer based in New York
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date