If you had told me in 2008 that electing the first black man President would create racial issues in the US, I would have said, that’s fine, we need to get passed this. If you had told me that electing Obama would have lead to President Trump, I may have voted for McCain. (Assuming I believed the foretelling)
So instead of giving Obama eight years to try to patch things up before another Republican continued the USA’s march to fascism you’d have voted to put another Republican in right away and speed-run the whole process?
Looked at pragmatically, I feel like the more varied viewpoints and ideas you can get about an issue the better solution you can find. It makes sense to surround yourself with advisers who aren’t carbon copies of you. People who’ve had different experiences and can bring additional skills to the table. Advisers that can say “consider it from this angle” or “if we do this thing, the consequences could be…”
I think AOC would have been a safer pick for VP than Walz, what with Walz’ record of deploying the national guard. He’s just a little bit too controversial.
AOC wouldn’t win Harris the swing vote. I love AOC, don’t get me wrong, but with two women on the ticket, it’s too easy for conservatives to paint the duo as “crazy” or “radical.” Sexism remains alive and well here. People still believe the stereotypes and are easily influenced by dog whistles, especially here in the Midwest.
I hope that we get to the point where this isn’t a concern, but as it stands now, we have never had a woman in charge, and a lot of people are afraid of the unknown, so they wouldn’t like the idea of something new on both the presidential front as well as the VP front.
That’s on top of the fact that AOC is from NY and Harris is from CA. We are already irritated that a majority of people in office (and the country) ignore the “flyover” states even though we do a lot for the country (and have really cool cultural and fun places to visit, but this addendum is clearly biased). It really does matter a lot that Walz is one of us. He gets us in a way that people from the coast states don’t. That will influence a lot of votes, and two midwestern states are considered swing states - i.e. states that Harris absolutely NEEDS on her side.
Swing voters here don’t care as much about deploying the national guard. In fact, it’s lauded by a lot of people, including liberals/democrats. Midwesterners are okay with civil disobedience, but only if it’s not unnecessarily destructive or if there isn’t an attempt to gain simply for yourself (ex: looting). I’m not saying that that is what happened when the guard was deployed or that it’s a realistic or correct belief, but in reality, the media painted it that way, so people believe what they were told. So, very few here are holding something like that against him.
I don’t know of anyone in my region who would consider Walz to be truly controversial, and certainly, they think of him as way less controversial than AOC. They might disagree with Walz’s policies or opinions, but they don’t think he’s controversial. Here, AOC’s painted as a pot stirrer and a crazy lady. To reiterate, I don’t agree with this view of AOC, and I respect her immensely, but it would be foolish to ignore the fact that a lot of other people do agree with it. Walz, because of his race, age, cultural background, and experience, is a thousand times more electable than AOC when you’re looking at it from a national perspective.
When does it get better though? If we’re always tempering the appearance of marginalized people in leadership roles, i fear generations will keep growing up with a prejudice against it
are we though? i’m not sure we are, i literally do not care about the race/ethnicity of either candidate, i only care about how likeable/relatable they are, and how good of a record they have.
Does it help to me as a white Midwesterner that tim walz is also a white Midwesterner, yeah probably, but my state is literally 80% white. And that’s pretty similar across most of the midwest.
You could pick any number of equally good candidates, but a white Midwesterner garnering for the broad Midwesterner population? You’re gonna be hard pressed to find someone like tim walz who’s not white. Even just statistically, not including the likely long standing systemic racism in the government itself.
Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 2 months ago
There’s a difference in saying something sexist and racist to be sexist and racist vs being practical due to other people’s sexism and racism.
dariusj18@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If you had told me in 2008 that electing the first black man President would create racial issues in the US, I would have said, that’s fine, we need to get passed this. If you had told me that electing Obama would have lead to President Trump, I may have voted for McCain. (Assuming I believed the foretelling)
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 2 months ago
So instead of giving Obama eight years to try to patch things up before another Republican continued the USA’s march to fascism you’d have voted to put another Republican in right away and speed-run the whole process?
nomous@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Looked at pragmatically, I feel like the more varied viewpoints and ideas you can get about an issue the better solution you can find. It makes sense to surround yourself with advisers who aren’t carbon copies of you. People who’ve had different experiences and can bring additional skills to the table. Advisers that can say “consider it from this angle” or “if we do this thing, the consequences could be…”
MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
I think AOC would have been a safer pick for VP than Walz, what with Walz’ record of deploying the national guard. He’s just a little bit too controversial.
Ilovemyirishtemper@lemmy.world 2 months ago
AOC wouldn’t win Harris the swing vote. I love AOC, don’t get me wrong, but with two women on the ticket, it’s too easy for conservatives to paint the duo as “crazy” or “radical.” Sexism remains alive and well here. People still believe the stereotypes and are easily influenced by dog whistles, especially here in the Midwest.
I hope that we get to the point where this isn’t a concern, but as it stands now, we have never had a woman in charge, and a lot of people are afraid of the unknown, so they wouldn’t like the idea of something new on both the presidential front as well as the VP front.
That’s on top of the fact that AOC is from NY and Harris is from CA. We are already irritated that a majority of people in office (and the country) ignore the “flyover” states even though we do a lot for the country (and have really cool cultural and fun places to visit, but this addendum is clearly biased). It really does matter a lot that Walz is one of us. He gets us in a way that people from the coast states don’t. That will influence a lot of votes, and two midwestern states are considered swing states - i.e. states that Harris absolutely NEEDS on her side.
Swing voters here don’t care as much about deploying the national guard. In fact, it’s lauded by a lot of people, including liberals/democrats. Midwesterners are okay with civil disobedience, but only if it’s not unnecessarily destructive or if there isn’t an attempt to gain simply for yourself (ex: looting). I’m not saying that that is what happened when the guard was deployed or that it’s a realistic or correct belief, but in reality, the media painted it that way, so people believe what they were told. So, very few here are holding something like that against him.
I don’t know of anyone in my region who would consider Walz to be truly controversial, and certainly, they think of him as way less controversial than AOC. They might disagree with Walz’s policies or opinions, but they don’t think he’s controversial. Here, AOC’s painted as a pot stirrer and a crazy lady. To reiterate, I don’t agree with this view of AOC, and I respect her immensely, but it would be foolish to ignore the fact that a lot of other people do agree with it. Walz, because of his race, age, cultural background, and experience, is a thousand times more electable than AOC when you’re looking at it from a national perspective.
bestagon@lemmy.world 2 months ago
When does it get better though? If we’re always tempering the appearance of marginalized people in leadership roles, i fear generations will keep growing up with a prejudice against it
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
are we though? i’m not sure we are, i literally do not care about the race/ethnicity of either candidate, i only care about how likeable/relatable they are, and how good of a record they have.
Does it help to me as a white Midwesterner that tim walz is also a white Midwesterner, yeah probably, but my state is literally 80% white. And that’s pretty similar across most of the midwest.
You could pick any number of equally good candidates, but a white Midwesterner garnering for the broad Midwesterner population? You’re gonna be hard pressed to find someone like tim walz who’s not white. Even just statistically, not including the likely long standing systemic racism in the government itself.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 months ago
It gets better when children grow up being taught that bigotry is unacceptable. Ignoring the effects of bigotry isn’t how you do that.