“One of the things that stood out to me about Tim is how his convictions on fighting for middle-class families run deep. It’s personal,” Harris wrote in an Instagram post announcing her choice of Walz.

Walz, 60, is a former high school teacher and football coach who served in the U.S. Army National Guard for 24 years. He also served as a congressman for six terms before running for governor in 2018. He is in his second term as governor after being reelected in 2022.

Doubling Down on ‘Weird’

Walz was the first to call the Republican candidates “weird”—a term that has taken off among Democrats in the campaign against former President Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, a U.S. senator.

Fordham experts agree that Walz should appeal to middle-class voters, and also say that popularizing “weird” probably helped his chances.

“Walz will add to the already increased excitement among the Democratic base, since he’s already been an effective spokesperson for the campaign introducing the ‘weird’ angle that Harris and other Democrats have doubled down on,” said Boris Heersink, Ph.D., associate professor of political science.

“Harris’s final list of vice-presidential options was a strong one and each of the candidates she was reportedly considering could have contributed something valuable to the ticket and in office. That being said, the selection of Walz to me seems like a smart choice,” Heersink added. “His record in Minnesota as governor includes a long list of policies that Democratic voters strongly support. And while Minnesota is not a swing state, he may appeal to middle and working-class voters in the Midwest.”

Jacob Smith, Ph.D., assistant professor of political science, said, ““He was not an initial favorite in the VP search, but got a lot of attention popularizing the line of Trump and the GOP being ‘weird.’ His ‘happy warrior’ style was likely appealing to Harris.”

Progressive Record

One group that was behind Walz early on was progressives, Smith said, despite him having a more moderate voting record in Congress that fit his moderate to right-leaning district. 

He has been more progressive during his governorship. For example, Minnesota passed laws supporting free school breakfast and lunch, universal background checks for guns, and legalized marijuana, Smith said.

Winning in Conservative Areas

Walz got his start in politics winning a seat in Congress in 2006. Smith said he was what is often known as a “wave baby”—he won in 2006 largely because of George W. Bush’s lack of popularity when a lot of Democrats without previous political experience won. The district he won was Republican-leaning. But Walz’s background as a teacher, football coach, National Guardsman, and rural Nebraska native may have held particular appeal to the small-town Midwest voters, he added.

“Walz survived a number of tough reelections in Congress and barely won reelection in 2016 as his seat shifted heavily towards Donald Trump. He has lots of experience winning tough reelections in conservative areas,” said Smith.

Walz would be the third Democratic vice president from Minnesota elected in relatively recent years after Hubert Humphrey in 1964 and Walter Mondale in 1976.

“This is a historic moment,” said Boris Heersink, associate professor of political science at Fordham. “There are no similar cases where an incumbent president in the modern era had every intention to run for reelection, won the delegates necessary to get nominated, but was effectively forced out.”

Pressure mounted for Biden, 81, to step aside after his June 27 debate performance, which many called “disastrous,” and raised doubts about his fitness for office only four months before the election. Since then, dozens of prominent Democrats have pressed him to withdraw so they could nominate a candidate who would fare better against former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee. But as late as Friday, Biden continued to insist that he would stay in the race.

Heersink said the campaign to oust Biden was “not just because of one bad debate but because that debate confirmed a lot of preexisting views of his age and fueled a growing frustration among many that this current generation of politicians refuses to step aside.”

Avoiding a ‘Free-for-All’

It remains to be seen, however, if the party leadership will back Harris for the nomination, and reports of division among Democrats are already surfacing.

“The delegates that were elected during the primaries this past spring will need to vote, and they theoretically are free to vote for whoever they want,” Heersink said. “However, it seems likely to me that Biden and other party leaders will want to avoid this becoming a free-for-all.

“While Biden stepping aside obviously adds considerable confusion to the race, it does also provide Democrats with the opportunity to put together a ticket that will excite people in their base and make not just the case that voters need to reject Trump, but that there also is a positive argument for voting for the Democrats in November,” said Heersink.

Christina Greer, associate professor of political science, said, “It’s historic, complicated, and not yet decided. Chicago will bring much to light, and luckily for Dems, Biden decided to make this decision before the convention.”

‘Sighing With Relief’

Jacob Smith, assistant professor of political science at Fordham, said, “I think a lot of Dems are sighing with relief today.” He added, “Also, the behind-the-scenes action once again shows nobody should bet against Nancy Pelosi.”

“I think enthusiasm among younger voters will be higher [for Harris],” said Smith. “While incumbents usually have an edge, the age issue was just going to dominate the fall campaign for Joe Biden. Harris won’t have that baggage.”

If Democrats choose another nominee, however, it would “ignore the crucial role of Black voters in the Democratic Party in addition to being pretty rude to Harris as the sitting VP,” Smith said. “Everyone will need to be vigilant against racism and sexism, but I do believe that Harris is the stronger candidate and that is why President Biden ultimately stepped aside.”

Heersink said, “A majority of voters has very consistently indicated that they do not want Trump to be president again. But a majority of voters also believed Biden was incapable of executing the job for another term. Trump is still the Republican nominee, but Democrats now have the space to overcome the major obstacles to a victory in November.”

“After lengthy deliberation and thought, and considering the tremendous talents of many others, I have decided that the person best suited to assume the position of Vice President of the United States is Senator J.D. Vance of the Great State of Ohio,” Trump said in a post on Monday on his Truth Social network.

Hours later, Vance and Trump—who had a large bandage on his right ear after Saturday’s shooting—shook hands and sat next to each other during the Republican National Convention’s opening night program in Milwaukee.

Vance, age 39, who rocketed to fame as the author of the book (and ensuing movie) Hillbilly Elegy (Harper, 2016), is the third-youngest person nominated for vice president by a major party. A former critic of Trump who once privately compared him to Hitler, Vance now aligns with the former president on several key issues. He echoed Trump’s calls to cut aid to Ukraine, deport migrants, and increase tariffs on all imported goods. 

Doubling Down on MAGA

Fordham experts said the pick is a bit unusual given Vance’s past criticism of Trump and the fact that he doesn’t bring “something different” to the ticket. Though it’s not surprising, they said, that Trump would aim to reinforce his brand of conservatism.

“Vance is very much a choice that underlines what Trump has been doing since the 2020 election, which is doubling down on the concept of MAGA as a replacement of traditional conservatism,” said Boris Heersink, Ph.D., associate professor of political science.

“Historically, it has been common for presidential candidates to try to balance the ticket in terms of intraparty disagreements. Clearly, this choice isn’t doing that.”

Jacob Smith, Ph.D., assistant professor of political science, agrees that in Vance, Trump has chosen someone similar to himself—both in experience and policy.

“Like Trump, Vance is famous for something outside of politics and has little experience in elective office,” he said. “Sometimes, campaigns try to choose someone who adds something different, although other times, such as the Clinton/Gore campaign of 1992, a campaign will double down on a particular strength or message,” he said.

Help in Ohio?

Heersink has done research on the effect vice-presidential candidates have on elections, specifically within their home states. He said that while Vance may deliver Ohio votes, that is unlikely to have a big impact.

“Ohio has drifted so far to the Republican side that it is basically a guaranteed win for Trump regardless of who his running mate is, and additionally, Vance underperformed in Ohio in 2022 in comparison to Trump in 2020.”

Smith said Vance could perhaps “help a little bit in the Midwest, if he ends up being a strong choice, but research shows VP effects are minimal even in home states, much less regions.” He noted that a one or two-point additional performance in Ohio “could be important down-ballot though” for Ohio’s upcoming Senate and House contests.

Rhetoric Could Ramp Up

One area where Vance is expected to play a significant role is in the tone of the campaign, and there, Smith is not hopeful that he will lower the temperature of national rhetoric, as many have called for since Saturday’s attempted assasination. Within hours of the shooting, Vance blamed President Joe Biden on Twitter for the attack.

“My guess is that Trump had already decided on Vance before the shooting, or it was down to Vance and one or two others by then,” Smith said. “However, the effect of the pick will be to rachet up the temperature more.”

“In our [2017 Policy Studies Journal] paper, we mostly looked at overall gun control policies and access to mental health rather than specific policies,” Smith said, explaining that most states which implement gun control laws do so more with more than one, making it difficult to assess which laws have caused what specific effect. Despite this challenge, Smith and his team still found a definite pattern in terms of how gun control laws impacted suicide rates.

“What we do find in our research is that states with more gun control laws have fewer gun deaths (including those who die by suicide from guns) and for non-suicides (homicides and accidental discharge together), a combination of more access to mental health services and an overall stricter climate for gun control laws correlates with a particularly lower rate of gun deaths,” Smith said. Specifically, the team found that more access to mental health care did not correlate with lower rates of suicide by gun; stricter gun control laws, however, had that desired impact.

“This relationship is perhaps due to the fact that many mental health treatments take time to have an effect, while the effect of removing a gun (or preventing one from having it in the first place) is immediate,” Smith said, adding that more access to mental health care is still good for other reasons. “It is also very difficult under existing law to remove a gun due to mental illness, but having stricter gun control laws generally can either prevent (assault weapons ban) or delay (through background checks) when one has access to a gun.”