Tim Walz 2028

One reason for hope for progressives.

If you’re reading this, you’re probably thoroughly depressed and terrified right now. I don’t really have a whole lot of hope for the immediate future. Trump is going to kill people, probably a lot of people, and make the lives of many (including many who voted for him) much, much worse.

There are a lot of post election analysis right now (here’s mine, fwiw) and a lot of discussions about what to do next (here’s my thoughts.). I don’t know that I have more to add to those.

Instead, I thought I’d point out a bright spot in this election, at least if you’re progressive—namely, the elevation of Minnesota Governor and Democratic VP candidate Tim Walz.

Right now, everything seems hopeless and it can feel like there’s no future for Democrats or for progressive politics. But Walz really suggests a path forward for a vigorous, progressive, and successful Democratic party—if we’re willing to fight for it, and him.

Walz past

Walz had a stellar record as governor, passing an amazing range of progressive policies with a one-vote majority. From the MinnPost summary:

Democrats [in MN] codified abortion rights, paid family and medical leave, sick leave, transgender rights protections, drivers licenses for undocumented residents, restoration of voting rights for people when they are released from prison or jail, wider voting access, one-time rebates, a tax credit aimed at low-income parents with kids, and a $1 billion investment in affordable housing including for rental assistance.

Also adopted were background checks for private gun transfers and a red-flag warning system to take guns from people deemed by a judge to be a threat to themselves or others. DFL lawmakers banned conversion therapy for LGBTQ people, legalized recreational marijuana, expanded education funding, required a carbon-free electric grid by 2040, adopted a new reading curricula based on phonics, passed a massive $2.58 billion capital construction package and, at the insistence of Republicans, a $300 million emergency infusion of money to nursing homes.

Cannabis legalization, trans rights, voting rights for the incarcerated, affordable housing, low-income tax credits, paid family and medical leave! It’s a veritable progressive bonanza!

Despite his success, few people knew about Walz until he became a leading VP contender. During his media hits, he labeled Trump and the MAGA movement “weird,” a quip that energized Democrats and rattled Trump. Throughout the campaign, his favorability remained the highest of all four nominees, and the only one that stayed in positive territory, ending at 41% favorable, 39.2 unfavorable according to 538’s average.

Walz future

Walz’s popularity, his way with an insult, and his progressive record weren’t enough to win this year. That will probably dim enthusiasm for him a bit; losers are always unpopular. But it’s a good sign that no one is really blaming Walz for the loss; even people who wanted Harris to choose (much more conservative) Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro mostly do so purely because they think he might have swung Pennsylvania, not because they think Walz did anything wrong.

Currently, progressives are spending most of their energy claiming (with little evidence) that Harris would have won if she’d only promised more left policies. Bernie Sanders has done his usual Bernie Sanders thing and issued an attack on Biden/Harris for not embracing progressive economic policies, most of which (with his input) they in fact did embrace, only to get beaten anyway. This has of course led many on social media to rally around and relitigate 2016 again for another round of “Bernie would have won”.

The thing about Sanders is that he is currently 83 years old, and got beaten solidly in two Democratic presidential primaries when he was substantially younger. He is not a credible future progressive presidential candidate. I like Sanders, but marinating in bitterness over his multiple primary losses and elevating him once again as the sole voice of the left is enormously counterproductive.

Walz doesn’t generate the same kind of enthusiasm on the left, in part because he doesn’t indulge in anti-establishment branding or attacks on the Democratic party. He’s not as strong on some important issues, notably Gaza. Nonetheless, there are areas where he’s been more consistent than Sanders (like immigration), and he’s centered LGBT rights in a way that Sanders generally hasn’t—an important point in an increasingly homophobic America.

During the VP nomination cycle, progressives put aside their Sanders nostalgia and their sometimes preference for anti-establishment boilerplate, and did in fact rally around Walz. Their support and enthusiasm helped solidify him as a broad unity choice. For once, progressives weren’t framing themselves, or framed by centrists, as opponents of the Democratic party. Instead, they were the Democratic party, advocating for a broadly popular unity candidate who embraced core progressive values, which were (at least sometimes) also core Democratic values.

Again, this all looks less shiny and happy now that we lost. But the loss wasn’t because of Walz, and it wasn’t because of progressives (though some centrists and some progressives claim it was for (poor) strategic reasons.) And progressive success in elevating Walz is a victory that progressives can build on, precisely because it was also a victory for Democrats (even if not an electoral one, ultimately.)

Sanders again likes anti-establishment rhetoric and branding; he hoped to win Democratic primaries by attacking Democrats and activating non-voters. This didn’t work in 2016, and didn’t work again in 2020. If Democrats want a progressive candidate, it seems like they need another strategy.

Walz is potentially that strategy—someone with a strong progressive record, who is great at explaining the virtues of progressive policies, but who is comfortable in Democratic politics, and does not provoke backlash among Democratic partisans. His good relationship with socialist congressional superstar Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez points towards a possible future progressive coalition which might serve as a focus of resistance under Trump, and as a platform for winning the 2028 nomination.

2028? Now?

I’m sure some people will feel like it’s too early to talk about the 2028 election now. There’s a lot of years to get to before then—a lot of misery, a lot of pain, and, I fear, a lot of dead bodies.

But thinking about 2028 is also, I think, a kind of hope. Trump won again, but he can also lose again. Democracy has been damaged, but it’s not quite dead yet. Thinking about how we can get a better Democratic party, and a better progressive movement, is also a way to think about how we can move towards a better America, even after a majority of our neighbors have opted so forcefully for a worse one.

Walz 2028 is an argument for Walz. But it’s also an argument for a new progressive approach to electoral politics, and an argument that future victories are possible.

Before you go

I’ve lost a bunch of paid subscribers this last week; not exactly sure why. I hope some of you will consider becoming paid members so I can keep writing, though. It’s $5/month, $50/year. Journalism is precarious now more than ever; you’re support means a lot. Thanks for reading!