Harris and Walz: The Populist Wave

Is the American political landscape ready for a seismic shift? Join us as we examine how Kamala Harris's decision to bring Tim Walz onboard as her vice-presidential candidate has transformed the 2024 election into a clash of populist titans against Trump and Vance. Harris, once seen as an institutionalist, now embraces a populist strategy, with Walz's relatable and vibrant personality adding a unique charm to the ticket. We’ll dissect the implications of this unexpected move and what it means for the policy debates ahead, advocating for a focus on substantive discussions over partisan bickering.

We explore the critical elements shaping this election, from the expiration of Trump-era tax cuts to the significance of military service in winning over voters in the industrial Midwest. Discover how the candidates' backgrounds and experiences could play pivotal roles in influencing voter sentiment and how the composition of Congress might affect future administrations. Journey with us through key Midwestern battlegrounds, where engaging independent voters and understanding regional dynamics are paramount to securing victory. Whether you are a political junkie or a casual observer, this episode promises a deep understanding of the strategies and stakes that will define the 2024 election.

Straight Talk for All - Nonsense for None


Please check out our other podcasts:

https://skepticsguidetoinvesting.buzzsprout.com

Chapters

• 0:00 The Populist Shift in American Politics
• 11:01 Political Landscape and Presidential Candidates
• 21:59 Election Strategy and Electoral College

Transcript

Clem Miller: 0:24

But shr

Steve Davenport: 0:24

I gue

Clem Miller: 0:27

Hello everybody, and welcome to Skeptic's Guide to Investing. I'm Clem Miller. I'm here with my partner, stev Davenport, tim waltz, who by kamala harris as the vp candidate for the democrats for the november election. So this all happened yesterday, steve, and I think we're all sort of digesting the implications of this. I would, uh, I would, make a few early comments about this and I'm really wondering what you think about this. So, you know, going back to when Biden was the candidate, you know everybody sort of focused on his age and I know where you know he was coming at it. If you put yourself inside Biden's brain, he was coming at this from the perspective of being the ultimate institutionalist. He had been in DC for decades. He had a Rolodex that was overflowing, maybe even three or four or five Rolodexes of names and um, and and. Since he was, you know, of a certain age, he was, I'm sure, still using Rolodexes, uh, and and, and he was having difficulty with an electorate that preferred populism, and so you had this electorate that was increasingly glued to the idea of populist candidates like Trump and, I guess, to a certain extent, vance, and even, on the Republican side, some of the real old-time Republican conservatives who are also institutionalists. They're not big fans of mega-populism either, so sort of the institutionalism versus the populism.

Clem Miller: 2:44

So then, when Biden dropped out, you had Harris replace him as the candidate for president, and I guess my expectation and I think a lot of people's expectation was that Harris, like Biden, would be an institutionalist as well. Harris, like Biden, would be an institutionalist as well. So I think she surprised everybody by becoming an overnight populist and appealing to a very broad swath of Democrats, including many Democrats who Biden had lost or Biden was losing support from or losing enthusiasm from, at least. So then she, you know, approached the question of what vice presidential candidate she should choose, and you know, going through all of that, she could have picked some folks who were probably more institutional in nature, but instead she chose a person whom I view as another populist, and that's Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, who is a populist in terms of having a very energetic outgoing personality, who speaks extremely well out on the stump.

Clem Miller: 4:22

In fact, I understand he had to learn how to use a teleprompter yesterday. Can you imagine that being a politician these days and not not knowing how to use a teleprompter yesterday? Can you imagine that being a politician these days and not not knowing how to use a teleprompter. Next thing you know, you'll tell me he doesn't have a Twitter account.

Clem Miller: 4:36

Uh, I don't know about that one, right, but he, uh, you know, imagine this, okay, he's a guy who, uh, was a high school teacher for many years, coached, taught social studies, coached football games, was in the National Guard.

Clem Miller: 5:01

He was also in the House for a while and, of course, he was governor, but he's a populist in that he, uh he implemented in Minnesota, which is kind of an unusual state, sure, I'm sure the conservatives or the MAGA folks are labeling to be, you know, extreme liberal, but the Democrats are calling well, you know, there's nothing liberal about marijuana reform, or or you know, some school lunches, and I mean, these are things that a lot of people like, right, they don't seem particularly extreme to folks, but in any case, he's a populist. So now what we have is we have a populist ticket Trump, vance versus a populist ticket Harris Waltz and we don't have any institutionalists per se in the mix. We have a populist ticket versus a populist ticket. It's going to be very interesting. They have different perspectives, different views on politics, but you know they're not giving us a lot of detailed policy issues or policy perspectives. That's the one thing I thought of yesterday's.

Steve Davenport: 6:31

I mean, I understand we have to start with a lot of energy and a lot of and a lot of enthusiasm in our initial you kno but when, when the talk about waltz is all about and he used the term to describe both Vance and Trump as creepy and weird, and I didn't think we would start using high school names for each other at this point in the campaign. I thought you might try to be at just a little bit higher level before we start the name column.

Clem Miller: 7:08

But I think what comes across to, I think Tim Waltz, I think Waltz and Harris would say well, who star the name calling?

Steve Davenport: 7:17

I think that I guess I would say as a high school teacher, he wouldn't let kids in the hallway do that, so he probably, you kno, shouldn't do it on the stump.

Steve Davenport: 7:28

I hope we get into a real discussion about what is good for the country, good for middle America, because we've obviously seen some of the programs from COVID were really good for people who own stocks, right, and they weren't good for mainstream America. Higher rates really weren't great for mainstream America. Higher rates really weren't great for mainstream America I know that we'll say that hey, look at how it lowered inflation. But I would say that the policies they should have started sooner. They might not have had to go as high if they started sooner. The stimulus payments were definitely inflationary. There's a lot of things that have happened in the last four years and I think that it's going to be interesting. I think Waltz is a regular guy and I think it's interesting for Kamala to say look, I'm not this far out liberal from California, I am somebody who wants to help everyone in America. I think her move to the center is trying to say I realize that in order to win this election, I can't win it with my Democratic base. I need to get some of that independent in the middle and I think he is that person who will try to deliver that. I'm just not sure Minnesota is enough. Like the rest of the Midwest, I almost think of Minnesota as a little bit more for to the overall views of American capitalism and I'm not sure that Minnesota necessarily represents the future of the Democratic Party. I think that it's a coastal party but it's trying to get into the middle. Waltz is a great candidate to do that with. I think of him as somebody who everybody would feel good about. You know his T-shirt and his hat. I was going to wear a hat and a T-shirt today in honor of him and say that we'd do a picture. You know to say this is the new garb for America. It's no longer the blue blazer with the blue tie, it's going to be t-shirts and hats that look like they've been through the washer about a hundred times. I think of that as good for America because if the politicians can focus on the core of America, I think the core of America needs help. I think the core of America needs help battling inflation. I think the core of America needs help understanding what reshoring is going to do, what reeducating the workforce for a more higher skillskilled, semiconductor-based, ai-based environment. I think we're in a position now where it's a critical time. And how will America move from where they are to where they need to be so that they continue to be the leader around the world? China is not giving up. China's got a long-term plan on how they're going to deliver and how they're going to beat America.

Steve Davenport: 10:53

I think we know there are countries who do not like America, like Russia, like Iran. There's plenty of reasons why we should reform and try to become better. The question is what's the definition of better? Is it advanced definition or is it a waltz definition? And I think, as we go forward, I would love to see a description of what things you think are most in need, how we're going to fix them and then how we're going to enhance what we do. I think first we need to stabilize and then I think we need to enhance, as a government, what we're. I think first we need to stabilize and then I think we need to enhance, as a government, what we're doing for everyone.

Steve Davenport: 11:33

I think that the decisions that are going to be made in the next four years the expiration of the tax cuts from Trump put in place, somebody is going to have to deal with that. And if you increase taxes for a lot of people with that, and if you increase taxes for a lot of people, it might not need something to do with oil for this economy to turn around to go negative. I'm worried about what's the decision making around the expiration of tax cuts. I'm worried about what's the plan in terms of how does the Fed lowering rates not become inflationary. I think that these are things that we want to ask these candidates and I want an answer.

Steve Davenport: 12:18

But I'm kind of excited to hear the debate between JD Vance and Walt I'm excited to listen to a debate between Trump and Harris. I think it's an opposition of ideas and I think that we're already seeing some people going towards the middle. I call it the messy middle, but that's really where things get decided and how do people feel about this person and what they promise to do for us? Do you think that either of them will be able to deliver on their promises?

Clem Miller: 12:54

I'm still grappling with the extent to which we're actually going to have policy discussions. I'm not sure we're going to have much in the way of in-depth policy discussions. I think it's all going to descend into a lot of name calling. Unfortunately, I'm skeptical about whether you know a lot of policies are going to be discussed and you know what. There are policy dangers with respect to both sets of candidates.

Clem Miller: 13:30

You talked about taxes, which are certainly a policy danger, but on the other hand, higher tariffs are, we know, which are a form of tax, are also a policy danger.

Clem Miller: 13:46

So you know, I think you know you, you mention, you know concern about, or you know, will Waltz really appeal to folks in the, you know, in the Great Lakes area besides Minnesota? You know, in the Great Lakes area besides Minnesota, and I think that the fact that he's going to get union support or has already gotten union support is going to be a key in uh obtaining the support of many folks in the industrial Midwest. Um, even those who are not members of unions are going to take a cue from those folks because they indicate union leaders are dedicated to looking out after the worker right and so workers, even those not unionizedized, are going to look out for that. Now I will say that, in addition to that, that, uh, I think there's only so far that a candidate can go a democratic candidate can go with respect to Ohio and and Pennsylvania, they're going to do their best. But you know, large swaths of Ohio and law and the central area of Pennsylvania, you know, have a more of a resemblance to, like Kentucky and Tennessee and West Virginia than they do to the more urban Midwest.

Steve Davenport: 15:28

So I One thing I mean, I've sat at the kitchen table with my father, who was deeply involved in politics and his first thing with a candidate was did he serve? And I think that Walt', you know, in his having served in the military and having done time with protecting our country, is going to send a great message that I feel like Democrats sometimes come across as we don't support the military. In reality, I think it's more likely that it's a little more nuanced and they support the military families and they try to support, in general, a lot of the population that could be military. But I don't think there's this same kind of association with the military and I think that it's not a small fact, that I think that Harris had a weakness there and I think now that you add Waltz, I think you, you know, you balance her a bit. So I think his experience in the military, his experience in Congress, are two things that I think some of these governors bless their heart are , yo wonderful people. But I think that you need to.

Steve Davenport: 16:41

having havin in Washington, I think, is crucial to not be viewed as an outsider. Coming when Jimmy Carter went to Washington with Bert Vance and a lot of the other Southerners that came with him. The establishment in Washington wasn't exactly what I would call loving and kind. So I think of you know what you look for in an administration and when you have someone who's been vice president for four years and you have someone who's been in Congress for 10 years, I think you come to the table ready to deal and ready to work. I think that, like you mentioned, biden was an institutionalist. Biden has been there for 40 plus years. Biden was not going to do something that was going to be particularly unique or particularly different than the standard Washington fare of trying to get a cost of living increase for 3.5 versus 3 for the federal employees. I think that when you look at what needs to be done in government, I think that somebody who comes from a state and has had to make decisions like Walt's will potentially bring you some new ideas, some new ways to think about things and ultimately, I think that will make them stronger Do. I believe he is the difference maker?

Steve Davenport: 18:06

I still believe, and this is you know, there's two things I think that people are missing from the whole discussion about President and VP and that is we don't know how the House and Senate are going to end up, and that is going to determine whether that President and V have any power or any ability to get things done. I could see there being, you know, a split, and that split would make almost getting anything done, you know, very hard. So I think that that's one part of this that we're missing, and the second part of this is people have to believe. After you look at, the trust level in America is very low for politicians. People on the left don't trust Trump, people on the right don't trust Harris, people on the left don't trust Harris, people on the right don't trust Trump. There is, in general, just a whole lot of uncertainty and a lack of trust on politicians doing anything to make people's lives better.

Steve Davenport: 19:14

And I think that while we've gone through COVID and we got through COVID better than a lot of countries we certainly got through it in a way that was, you kno questioning each other and not really believing anything. Anyone was telling us whether it was Fauci or whether it was Trump or whether it was Biden, and I think that that lack of trust is going to make it hard for us to ever get to our full realization of potential. And so the two things I'd ask people to think about is okay. I understand. You know I need to vote for the president and I need to vote in a way that's aligned to my values, but I also need to think about how the House and the Senate are going to go, because in reality, it's a package, it's not a. You know, it's the three legs bof government, it isn't just one. So what do you think are the things that we need to think about when we look at Waltz and we look at Vance and we look at Harris and Trump?

Clem Miller: 20:33

Well, you know mentioning, you kno you mentioned the Senate and the House. I don't know what's going to happen with the House, the Senate and the House. I don't know what's going to happen with the House, but if you have a really big surge with Harris and Waltz, the House might go Democratic. I think the Senate will definitely go Republican, and the reason I say that is because there are so many Democratic senators who are up or either leaving or who are up for, you know, their six year terms expiring and where there's Republican opposition. So, and you don't have the same in terms of Republicans who are up. So I think we will have a Senate that's Republican House may well go Democratic and I think at this point, from what I'm seeing, I think it's more likely that Harrison Waltz will be our next president and vice president and not Trump and Vance More likely than not, although we'll see.

Clem Miller: 22:00

I do want to come back to just elaborate a little bit on the point I was trying to make earlier, which is that parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania kind of resemble Kentucky and Tennessee and West Virginia, whereas parts of Michigan and Wisconsin more Wisconsin. But parts of Michigan and Wisconsin actually resemble more of Minnesota. You know there are pockets in those places like Madison and Milwaukee, wisconsin, in Michigan, you've got places, like you know, obviously, in addition to the Detroit metro area. You know you've got places like Grand Rapids and Lansing and Flint and Saginaw that are, you know, that are more democratic. I think, to the extent that they can bring out people to vote, I think that it's much more likely now that Wisconsin and Michigan will go Democratic. Ohio, I think, was always a lost cause for the Democrats. I think that will go Republican. I think Pennsylvania depends on Shapiro helping out and depends on how much Harris can do in terms of being able to, you know, being able to get out the vote in Pittsburgh and the Philadelphia area.

Steve Davenport: 23:15

So I'm kind of yeah, I was reading one article that said that basically people have been moving. And so when you look at the people leaving Pennsylvania, 56,000 people have moved out of Philadelphia and 25,000 or 6, you know, 80% Democrat in the two major cities and the rural areas of Pennsylvania are where the you know. The rural areas have seen population come in. The cities have seen people leave. The cities are mostly Democratic and that state was won by I forget what the number was.

Clem Miller: 23:58

Those people who are leaving the cities. Are they moving to the suburbs or are they moving out of state? They're leaving the state, Okay.

Steve Davenport: 24:06

So I look at that and say that's not a good sign. If you just take those 80,000 votes and you say that 70% of them are Democratic, that's 60,000 people who are not going to be there on the rolls to vote. I think Pennsylvania was gone and she didn't want to take Shapiro because I don't think she thought taking Shapiro would ultimately lead to taking Pennsylvania. I think she feels a little bit like Waltz is a candidate because he clicks a lot of the boxes. He's going to be a good running mate. He is somebody who has a great track record in terms of the American story of serving in the military, coming back, making a difference in their community and making a difference as a politician, both in Congress and as governor. I think his story of adding Washington, whereas Shapiro is strictly a state of Pennsylvania guy, might have given him the edge. I think the military might have given him the edge, but my bottom line is I think that it wasn't the best decision in terms of electoral college, because I'm not sure that Minnesota was already going to go for Harris. So maybe the decision is, as you said, has to do with Wisconsin and Michigan and that he might be the difference maker to bring those two states in, and that could be.

Steve Davenport: 25:42

I'm sure there was polling done. I'm sure they looked at this in all the different angles and they came up with Walt. He looks to be a strong candidate and my big thing with this election is it's so unusual, we don't have any other things to compare it to, and so if at the end of 90 days she is not elected president, I'm not sure people are going to go back and say, oh, it should have been Shapiro, we would Shapiro, we would have done it. I think it's more complicated and I think that when you look at these decisions and you try to make them a digital yes or no answer as to why she wins or doesn't win, I think the first thing will be shortened time to run was if she has more energy than a Biden and you only use that energy for 90 days versus 120 days or 150 days. They knew there was a problem. The last cabinet meeting was November of 23. So people knew there was a problem before July debate or June debate with Trump, and I think that that will go down as the reason why she doesn't succeed. If she does win, I think it will be related to the fact that he has brought more of a mainstream populist view to the ticket and shifted her from what I would call is a coastal leanings towards what's important, which is, in my mind, the independence of this country.

Steve Davenport: 27:20

The independents are the people who have to make the tough decisions. They're not sitting up every day saying I know how I'm going to vote. They're saying I want to try to find who's going to how to vote so that I can benefit me, my family and my overall community, and I think that really that should be 100% of the electorate and I think that really that should be 100 percent of the electorate. But that's not the way it works. We have diehards and we have people who are very fixed in their positions and they're not going to change. That's what we call the extremes. But as we go towards that middle, I think that that's where we find success. We can align our values and the values of the middle of the country.

Clem Miller: 28:03

Yeah, the question is going to be, as we progress through the next 90-ish days is either side going to move towards the middle and, if so, which side is going to be the one moving to the middle?

Steve Davenport: 28:19

Which side is going to be the one moving to the middle? Which side is going to get the trust? That's my point is that I think we know they have to win. You know whether it's the Catholics, whether it's the, you know people between 60,000 and 100,000. There's a, there's a group there that doesn't feel served. They don't feel like this. You know what we do to help the stock market. You know 50 percent of the population doesn't feel served. They don't feel like this. You know what we do to help the stock market. No, 50% of the population doesn't own stocks. So we've got to figure out how do we make the middle of the country stronger, and if we do, then the parties will obviously gravitate towards whatever is going to get them elected.

Clem Miller: 29:06

So, Steve, I got a question for you. No-transcript.

Steve Davenport: 29:12

I think she already is. I mean, I kind of got the feeling when she was on the tarmac welcoming back the hostages not and it wasn't just the president. It was kind of like why is she there I mean the president's there and the vice president like do we need both of them to welcome back hostages?

Clem Miller: 29:31

Yeah, Doesn't it work better for her to create some degree of distance between her and Biden?

Steve Davenport: 29:39

Sure, I think that overall she can, you know. The question is, is she better off in these Well sa, you know contested states, or is she better off back in DC looking presidential? I think that she's going to have a. I think the convention will tell us what she really wants to be, because I think she can go back and say here's what we did as part of the Biden-Harris, you know, and she can try to run on a record. She can try to run as the you know the right person to be in the position in Washington. Or she could try to say I'm out here trying to find out what I can do to help you when I go back to Washington, and that's a very different message than I'm staying in Washington helping you with all these things. You know, steve, I got one last question for you.

Steve Davenport: 30:37

She's been in office for four years helping everyone, and I'm not sure immigration has been necessarily solved. I'm not sure we have solved the inflation problems. I'm not sure we've, you know. But it's really about how does she come across in the next 90 days? I think you're right. I think that she needs to dabble in a little bit of. I'm really helping everything keep running here and I'm basically the incumbent and I think that that will work. The problem is that Waltz doesn't really fit in that right. So maybe Waltz spends all his time in that eight contested states and she spends her time in Washington and then flies in occasionally for big events.

Steve Davenport: 31:29

So, Steve, I got you. It's going to be unbelievably. I think the other thing that I hate to say this because it's self-aggrandizing. I think the other thing that I hate to say this because it's self-aggrandizing I think the podcasts matter. I've listened to a couple of different podcasts about this person saying this and this person saying this and this person's opinion, and guess what? It's not on mainstream media, it's on people having podcasts with different people and those quotes and those ideas are being shared as news, which I think is completely different than it was four years ago, eight years ago, right, and I think it's exciting. I mean, I like to think we're a part of the news. Are we a part of the news?

Clem Miller: 32:26

part of the news. Well, you know we don't get as much traction as as right, um, but but, steve, I got one last question for you before we close off today. Do you think that the criminal trials and actions and however you want to call them against Trump are going to be the sentencing on september 18th, I believe, in new york, and the uh? The fact that tanya chutkin in dc has her case back from uh, back from the supreme court, and is going to have a hearing on the 16th of this month? Do you think those two things, and if anything happens in Georgia, are going to have any impact at all on this election?

Steve Davenport: 33:24

Yes, I think you know, my original prediction was that it won't be those two in the election in November. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say I still believe that something will happen between now and the election that will cause it to not be about Biden and Trump. So I still believe that Georgia will have something to do with it and I think that, you know, some of these other instances also could have something to do with it. You know some of these other instances also could have something to do with it. I think the Supreme Court ruling was very tightly worded, which is he is not. You know, he is only immune to situations where it was related to the, you know, to the execution of government activities, not the personal activities. And people keep talking about Trump having immunity, immunity, immunity. And yes, we've all known that the president has immunity in regards to how he's operating as president. That's always been the case. If a terrorist gets shot in Egypt, it's not like he's going to have a criminal trial for the murder of that terrorist. We know that he's executing or approving orders that are related to the safety of the overall country. So I believe that something will happen with one of these things that will make it much more likely that Trump isn't available on November 5th for the election.

Steve Davenport: 35:00

And that's why I thought the selection of JD Vance was particularly unusual, because, if he isn't available, vance would be the guy and he really is a guy who is not experienced and not, you know, very widely viewed as having all the skills to run the country. So I think he should have gone with somebody who had, you know, more skills, and he went with a guy from a state that he was already going to win, which, you know again, the Democrats did the same thing. So they must have really loved these personalities. So they must have really loved these personalities and I think it's, like most things, I like to see someone who I feel I can relate to, and I think that JD Vance is related to venture capital people, which I don't think is. Trump has positioned himself well and I think he is still has a something hanging over him. What do you think?

Clem Miller: 36:02

I agree with everything you just said.

Steve Davenport: 36:07

Oh, that's not being skeptical.

Clem Miller: 36:10

I don't know if it's going to result in something like him withdrawing, result in something like him, uh, uh, withdrawing. Okay, I can't see trump ever withdrawing, but it could. It could have a very significant impact on whether he wins or not. Okay, so all right. So, steve, I think we should conclude the broadcast. Um, I want to. I want to thank everybody for tuning in to listen to us today. I hope you appreciate our opining on politics, as well as our opining on economic policy and on investments. This was a little heavier on the politics, but I think that's appropriate, given that we're in the electoral season that we're in, and and let me just ask Steve one more time if there's anything else that you'd like to add, and then we'll close off.

Steve Davenport: 37:07

No, it's been a great discussion. I really appreciate the insights and the interaction.

Steve Davenport: 37:13

I think, that for all of our listeners. I would ask you to please, you know, use your own mind and your own situation to find the right way to react and make a decision for the selection. I think that it's an individual choice and I think that everybody needs to look and listen as much as they can to make an educated decision. So I would ask everybody to keep following the Skeptics' Guide's motto straight talk for all, nonsense for none. Don't let nonsense about the markets or nonsense about the election influence you, just to go with the straight talk. And thanks everybody for listening and I appreciate all of our support. Thanks, steve.