Summary
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ 2024 running mate, has suggested he may run for president in 2028.
Reflecting on the Democrats’ loss to Donald Trump and JD Vance, he admitted: “A large number of people did not believe we were fighting for them in the last election – and that’s the big disconnect.”
Walz said his life experience, rather than ambition, would guide his decision.
Though his VP campaign was marred by gaffes, he remains open to running if he feels prepared.
Probably a mistake.
No democrats will win until they kick out all and made sure no corporate bribe.
Kamala as VP?
The Harris campaign had to cover the governor’s tracks when he tripped up during a California fundraiser by stating that the constitutionally-mandated system used to select the president, otherwise known as the electoral college, “needs to go”.
How the hell is that a gaffe? It’s both the truth and exactly what people want to hear. Any lib who thinks like that needs to kindly keep their mouths shut for the next four years. This country needs radical change, the only choice you get is which one you want.
deleted by creator
Just guessing, but it might be a gaffe because it could be skewed to sound like he doesn’t believe in democracy. Of course, this makes no sense because Trump has quite literally said that we might not need another election in four years.
A more careful statement might have been, “the electoral college needs to be replaced with a system where every citizen’s vote has the same magnitude.” If that’s not the mathematical ideal of democracy, I don’t know what is.
Edit: For you pedantic mathematicians, I’ll add that everyone’s vote should have the same magnitude, and that magnitude should be greater than zero.
If that’s not the mathematical ideal of democracy,
That is the mathematical ideal of populism.
Democracy is “government by consent of the governed”; There is no good way of democratically electing a singular individual. Which is why the presidency should be little more than a figurehead, with very little actual authority.
i’m not even sure what that text is supposed to be referencing?
I assume it’s not literally the message itself, because that would be kind of broad. I’m guessing he just said it weirdly, and that bothered people, because of course it did.
Here, let me grab a sharpie and fix that.
The Harris campaign made a cowardly attempt to walk back the governor’s statements when he said during a California fundraiser that the broken election systems used for gerrymandering and enabling the double elections of Donald Trump, “needs to go”.
The pearl-clutching Tone Police in the Democratic Party are nothing if not exhausting, that’s for sure.
The Republicans can and do say just about whatever the fuck they want, and that’s sanewashed, and overlooked, and brushed under the rug, sometimes even celebrated, but the tone police in the “liberal media” and the left, and the Democratic Party itself will be there, wagging-finger at the ready, if some Democrat misses a semicolon .
I guess so long as there is a democratic selection process wherein the people can choose their party leader, that’d be an improvement.
Please, do FUCKING NOT.
His debate performance was poor against Vance. We don’t need a kindly father-figure running against Republicans, we need an attack dog that knows police cold, who can articulate that tax cuts cost more in tax revenues than we make up in added jobs, economic growth, etc., someone that’s going to actively piss-off billionaires and then not kiss their asses once they have power… We need a leftist populist, someone that will get people fired up.
Walz is not that guy.
One lesson that I’ve seen in politics over and over again is Dems running the same candidate in a rematch, and the rematch always goes worse than the original election.
I don’t know, he might be able to do it with decent advisors.
He was the one who kicked off that “Republicans are weird” messaging campaign which was incredibly effective until establishment Democrats shut it down. If he brings that sort of energy again I’d support him.
Even if it’s not him that runs and takes up that mantra again, the DNC needs to stop standing on the air hose of their own candidates. The rest of the party needs to pick up that mantra, because the truth of the matter is the Republicans are VERY FUCKING WEIRD.
They are absolute freaks. Obsessed with getting everyone to follow the rules of their little book club. With controlling women. Losing sleep over where trans people poop. Obsessed with kissing the asses of freak billionaires like Musk.
More importantly, that narrative was working. People noticed. Because it is so very true and people were happy to have someone with a megaphone saying the truth like that.
I mean he can run for primary. A lot of people should. The DNC just needs to take their finger off the scale and let the actual people decide what candidate they want.
His debate performance was poor against Vance.
it was perfectly fine? He could most definitely run well after trump, due to the classic american flip flop phenomenon. Chances are he’d win, if the public is upset enough about how trump did, which right now, isn’t looking great. And probably will continue to be that way.
He’s literally obama, but white.
walz has also had a historically successful career in politics? Just look at what minnesota is doing.
Vance was polished, smooth, knew his talking points and bullshit claims cold. Walz, not so much. He didn’t have good counters to a lot of the shit that Vance was throwing out. The broad consensus is that Vance handily won the debate, much like the broad consensus was that Harris trounced Trump in the debate.
He’s literally obama, but white.
He is not even close to being a white Obama. Obama is a highly skilled orator, extremely skilled debater, and a scholar. Tim Walz connects well with people–perhaps especially well with midwestern people–but he is not a particularly strong orator, is fairly weak in debates, and is definitely not a scholarly type. They may be close on policy, although I would hope that Walz would be farther to the left than Obama was.
vance was a traditionally good debater in an academic fashion, sure.
But the population doesn’t like people like that. That’s why people like trump and biden get elected over people like vance. Same thing with bush.
He didn’t have good counters to a lot of the shit that Vance was throwing out.
he had good counters to the most important disinformation in that whole debate, including a lot of the more reasonable stuff that vance just parades about, walz actually has something to speak on in those moments. Vance was clearly just focusing on formality rather than actual debate skills. And to be fair, if he countered every factually incorrrect thing vance said, he wouldn’t be able to say anything at all, which is even more of a loss because then you haven’t gotten anywhere, and your opponent has spent the entire time yapping. It’s literally the neo-nazi meme.
not done specifically on the debate, but evidently i think it’s fair to claim it’s relevance here.
The broad consensus is that Vance handily won the debate
i disagree, i think you would find most people would argue that vance held a better debate, but walz was generally a better speaker. You can’t look at this strictly through a debate lens, the american public doesn’t care about them.
He is not even close to being a white Obama. Obama is a highly skilled orator, extremely skilled debater, and a scholar. Tim Walz connects well with people–perhaps especially well with midwestern people–but he is not a particularly strong orator,
i would argue that obama is a really strong speaker, like generationally so, anybody can be skilled in a debate, what really matters when it comes to debating is factual accuracy, and being able to quickly make your point. Which is historically something democrats have struggled with.
Walz i would argue is a good public speaker, maybe not in a formal sense, but again we’re talking about politics here, people like when their politicians are relatable and down to earth, and walz does really well at this. He’s not a scholarly type, but you’d be hard pressed finding anybody on either side of the isle that wants an academic in power. Walz also has significant policy experience through minnesota, which obama has through his presidency. Though it is more prestigious.
Walz is definitely more socially progressive than obama is, but obama is a bit of a weird case. He’s very center left.
Run Walz if you want 8 more years of Republican rule.
what kind of magical simulation must you be using to run these numbers my friend?
To be fair, the black Obama will also be running in the 2028 primary
Who is that guy?
Walz is a completely valid candidate. The only thing that held up Harris was that she was a black woman. I’m confident that any reasonable white man would have beat Trump, and that’s unfortunate, but it’s the reality of the American electorate
I don’t think that’s even remotely true. While it is true that the USA has it’s fair share of racists and sexists, Hillary won the popular vote, and Obama is one of America’s most popular presidents.
Harris lost because she ran a terrible campaign, on the coatails of another terrible campgaign, from a terrible president.
Honestly, he was OK as a candidate, but he didn’t wow me, and he shit the bed in the debate which imo makes him a poor choice. He wasn’t as bad as “they’re eating the dwawgs” but he really blew it when they asked him about his time in China. All he had to say was that he was there around that time and maybe he misspoke, but what matters was the sentiment. It’s a really easy question to answer instead he just fumbled his words like crazy.
He said he’s notoriously bad at debating, and imo that’s like saying I’m really bad at taking tests. So you are saying that you aren’t good at the part where we find out what you know? You can’t articulate your positions without a teleprompter? If you can’t debate, then you must not be that fervent about them imo, and the person that takes on trump, (assuming we have a real election) needs to be able to call him on his bullshit to his face. I think Walz had way too much of an aww shucks vibe. He’s too “Minnesota Nice”. We need AOC.
I’m the opposite. I know that snappy comebacks on live stages are not what make a presidency great. Even if someone can’t give immediate responses in a debate, I can respect them if they display anger and passion when appropriate, and reason and negotiation when that’s appropriate. You might be overestimating that a president needs to be an image of perfection all the time to every single person, when our current one survived conviction as a sex offender.
The ability to do behind the scenes work is super important. It’s half the requirement. But the other half is being able to do in the moment interactions. Look at Trump/VD with Zelenski. Being charismatic and able to handle in-person negotiations with foreign leaders is hugely important.
Look at Trump/VD with Zelenski. Being charismatic and able to handle in-person negotiations with foreign leaders is hugely important.
I’m curious how you’d view that interaction? I bet those with magafied brainz think that was peak charisma, on Bronzo and “JD” "Vance"s part, while normal Americans probably look at that and think they completely shit the bed and embarrassed America.
It was a shit show and an embarrassment.
He’s a better candidate than Harris was…
That bar is at the very center of the Earth’s inner core.
Walz was the main reason I voted for a right winger like Kamala anyway.
kamala isn’t right wing, at best she’s a centrist, realistically a left leaning lib.
She’s pro-capitalism which makes her right wing. But she’s not even a leftist in colloquial US terms, she’s very pro police and anti medicare for all.
capitalism is right wing if you’re schizophrenic.
You can be politically left and economically right, or some weird combination of the two.
There are three primary forms of political alignment, social, governmental, and economic. These are all roughly isolated, but tend to work together. You can be any combination of any political belief of any three of them, it’s a triangle chart if you want to think about it in the political compass style.
she’s very pro police and anti medicare for all.
and these are the only two things that define “left” leaning i guess.
She’s rainbow republican
rainbow republican is wild considering she doesn’t want to engage in any spending cuts, and the only thing that she supported, that aligns with the republican base was the israel palestine issue.
Please do it
He can run for the primary, like everyone else…
The dnc will make sure their pro business bribery centric candidate wins the primary.
No. Run AOC
That’s my first choice, personally, and if she wins the primaries, that’d be awesome.
Otherwise, I could still get pretty hyped about a Walz/AOC ticket, which would pave a more conventional path to a 2032 AOC presidential run.
Muricans won’t show up to elect a woman as president and y’all need to figure this out.
I love AOC but if she ran as president you’re gonna see exactly what happened the last two times a woman ran.
Gotta be realistic. It’s a shitty reality but it is the reality we live in.
Walz is a good candidate with a history of helping his citizens. AOC is a firecracker for sure, but the public isn’t going to elect a woman of color. They just aren’t.
Clinton was old guard. Harris was more or less trying to be a continuance of the same damn thing. I’d like AOC to at least be on the primary ballot.
I would too. I like her. A lot.
I just don’t think she would have as good a chance as we all wish she could.
Make no mistake, I would LOVE to be wrong here, I would love to think the Murican people have evolved enough to realize that a woman in charge would probably be in our best interest, I just don’t see it happening. At least not in 2028
I give exactly zero fucks that she’s a woman. I don’t think a woman in charge would be in our best interest. I don’t think a man in charge would be in our best interest.
We need a leader who has the actual ability to evaluate the system, figure out what’s broken with EVIDENCE, and can articulate it.
That’s you. You are not everyone
I don’t have a problem with it, either.
We are not the general public
I don’t think it will happen because
A) she’s a woman and they’ve tried that twice already
And more importantly B) she has said many times she doesn’t agree with a lot of the democratic party’s policies. She has beliefs that would undoubtedly vibe with a ton of voters but there’s been a very obvious pattern of both parties only primary-ing “fly right” candidates.
I think Bernie scared the crap out of them and they don’t want a repeat of that. Heaven forbid we get a candidate actually for the people!
Called this. “Harris lost because she’s a woman of color” was always a preemptive excuse for shutting out AOC.
The party is holding back women in order to hamstring one person, and it’s gross.
It wasn’t the singular reason she lost.
There were many.
But it IS a factor, an ugly one but one people seriously need to come to terms with.
But apparently I hate AOC for pointing this out
Harris and Clinton are both hardcore establishment neolibs. Clinton had Epstein murdered in his cell to cover the rampant sex trafficking crimes of the elites, and Harris campaigned with the Cheneys and thought it was smart politics. It’s not their gender that turned people off, voters just didn’t want to show up for another corporate robot. AOC could be remarkably different here.
If you think gender had nothing to do with it I’ve got some baaaaaad news for you, my friend.
Also, saying Hilary had Epstein murdered in his cell is a magnificent stretch, since there are literally hundreds of scenarios that could have led to his death. An unsubstantiated conspiracy theory didn’t hurt Hilary’s campaign, especially since Epstein was still alive at that point.
Are Americans tired of corporate shills? Certainly. Do we still have a severe misogyny problem? Most definitely. To say otherwise is just silly.
I honestly don’t think it’s gender bias, just that they didn’t represent a change from the status quo which is essential in almost every presidential election. Could be wrong though, certainly a lot of shitheels crawling out of the woodwork these days.
She’s smart, capable, (imo) gorgeous and aggressive in her outlooks. This is threatening to a LOT of men and women alike in our society.
As much as many hate to admit, misogyny is a problem in both left and right wing circles.
Let me make this clear, she would 100% be my optimal choice for a presidential pick. I honestly believe she would be the best person for the job.
I’m also unfortunately keenly aware of how far we have to go when it comes to overcoming the severely deep rooted hatred of women a lot of our citizens (on both spectrums) have.
It sucks. Hard. But it IS a very real hurdle.
Three of the seven swing states Harris lost elected female senators. This is just a bullshit excuse to excuse Harris’s shitty campaign, because “the Democratic party can never fail, it can only be failed”
Don’t put words in my mouth. Stand on your own, and don’t tell me what my motivations are concerning why I draw my conclusions unless you have evidence to back it up
Harris ran an extremely imperfect campaign, I fucking hate the fact that the Democrats are the only other option we have, and a senator is a LONG way off from the leader of the country.
Huge. Fucking. Difference.
and a senator is a LONG way off from the leader of the country.
I love how this insanity is always what y’all turn to when confronted with direct evidence that you’re wrong. The guy who determines who to vote for exclusively based on gender, but only with the presidency, and is perfectly fine with evaluating women fairly in all other top government positions.
It’s just a way to arbitrarily limit the dataset to like two points in order to draw whatever conclusion you want from it. It’s difficult to imagine any possible world in which we have stronger evidence that Harris did not lose because of sexism than the one we live in.
But I understand that, as I said, it’s not about reason but fulfilling a psychological and rhetorical need. You’re not fooling me with this, “Actually, I’m super critical of Harris” in one breath and “she’s 100% my ideal pick” in another, it’s just a motte and bailey.
Someone is definitely coming to conclusions they need in this conversation.
Enjoy that.
Clinton had Epstein murdered in his cell to cover
And how did she do that when his murder happened in a federal prison when trump was president, and the Department of Justice was run by William Barr?
I dunno, called Trump and asked? He was a regular client too after all.
Because she has such a wonderful relationship with him
I assure you Trump considers Hillary one of “his own” much more so than any maga hat wearing rube.
Anyway, this could all be cleared up if the radically transparent Trump admin would release the missing footage from inside the prison that night, and also all the remaining evidence on Epstein beyond flight logs we already knew of in ‘22. I’m sure they will do that approximately never.
We are living in some bonkers logic if you think Trump and Hilary have ever worked together on anything.
Then primary her.
I’m down.
That’s what they said about black men until one ran as a progressive and won twice by sizable margins. Perhaps it’s not the race / gender that’s the biggest hindrance but the policies.
That was a VERY different time. We didn’t have these little screens programming our social views.
I’ve said it in other replies that I hope I’m wrong, but we’ve been backsliding for some time, now.
Kinda like how we saw a lot of white civil rights supporters in the 60s go flying to the right.
We’ve been here before.
I don’t want to hear any of this nonsense until a progressive loses a general election. Until then, all you’re doing is repeating the talking points neoliberals need people to believe in order to keep trying the same bullshit over and over.
Sure thing.
This we need an actual progression
We don’t “run” candidates. If you want someone else to run you need to speak with them.
Sorry if this seems pedantic but I’m getting tired of the language that suggests there’s some sort of cabal deciding who does or does not run.
It’s not a cabal, just plain old corruption. Harris was anointed when instead we could have had a contested primary just before the DNC to excite voters. Hillary colluded with Debbie Wasserman Schultz to steal the nomination from Bernie.
-
When was the extra bonus primary supposed to happen? People demanded that Biden step down while the rest of us said, “what’s your plan for when the front runner steps down?” Everyone ignored us yet immediately pivoted to this anointment narrative which is bullshit. The best we had was the delegates we elected in the original primaries making the best decision they could. As a bonus, the only other people running were shit-shows in their own right. Williamson or Phillips? That’s who you preferred?
-
It’s not collusion for the DNC to work with Democrats by definition. The DNC felt like Clinton was the best representative for the coalition. Bernie is an independent and as such literally not part of the party. Why would the party do anything other than support the front runner from the party.
All of these organizations are a loose, messy, group of humans and their actions can easily be explained as such. Stop believing Russian propaganda about back room deals and cabals.
-
The reason a lot of people think that way, is that any truly progressive candidate isn’t backed by the DNC.
Also, very recently, AOC was denied a seat at the table for a dying, cancer ridden old white guy. Granted, it wasn’t a spot in an election, but her own party looked the other way for a leadership role.
What does committee seats have to do with running for office?
It’s a litmus test for bigger things.
It speaks to who party leadership wants wielding power.
Yeah, but committee seats are where the establishment has explicit power. It’s easy to connect establishment whims with that very same establishment electing their choice. It’s a huge stretch to extend that to them dictating the votes of millions of people.
Or it speaks to the “norms” that Democrats slavishly adhere to.
AOC is relatively a junior member of Congress. I disagree with the “norms” nonsense in this day and age but the point is that not every action has a deeper meaning and those who keep parroting this belief have clearly never worked with a large number of people before.
It’s worse than that, the DNC will pour millions into establishment campaigns to crush any progressive primary challengers.
Perfect example - we could have had a wonderful progressive win in Texas, Jessica Cisneros, a few years back. Instead Pelosi stepped in with millions to back Henry Cuellar, who went on to vote with republicans like 95% of the time.
Time after time this happens, and frankly it has completely turned me off to the idea that the democrat party can be “fixed.” The corruption is too endemic, we need to start fresh with a new leftist party to have any hope of meaningful representation in Washington.
you’re right, we didin’t want hillary, the cabal wanted her, we wanted bernie, the cabal wanted harris, we wanted dean, the cabal said his whoop was too much…don’t be this naive dan
We also didn’t want Hilary and got Obama. The cabal isn’t all powerful.
What’s the difference, besides the obvious skin color?
You think the only difference between Clinton and Obama is their “obvious” skin color? Wow.
Policy-wise, I don’t think there’s much difference there. We didn’t get to see with Hillary in office though, but I suspect things would have been run much the same way, by almost all the same people, had she won.
One difference, germane to the topic and not related to anyone’s skin color, is that the people actually wanted Obama.
Which makes it less of a cabal and more of a group of people who have different opinions than some of us.
They weren’t all powerful. I’d highly recommend reading up on how the Clintons captured the DNC after Obama. They very clearly did not want him, and made sure that something like him couldn’t happen again.
If the DNC was that powerful Bernie wouldn’t have won any states. And it’s not like we’re seeing polling (even progressively aligned polling) with 65% for Bernie and then somehow getting Biden. He was in the 30-40% range the whole time and then got 30-40% of the vote.
The DNC will tilt the scales in favor of the centrist establishment, but they don’t dictate the result and saying they do is just a recipe for progressives to give up and check out rather than stay in the fight.
if the DNC was the powerful Bernie wouldn’t have won any states.
Exactly. If you go back to my original comment, all I said is that AOC needs to run if she wants to run. There’s no one picking the people who are on the ballot. If that were the case, the DNC would have blocked Bernie and Williamson. But they didn’t.
People run for office, at all levels. No one is deciding to “run candidates” like we’re choosing race horses to field for the day.
they don’t dictate the result and saying they do is just a recipe for progressives to give up and check out rather than stay in the fight.
Something keeps telling me that this is the goal of all the DNC Boogeyman talk.
17 years is a long time.
I wanted Bernie, but the primary shows that, no, the US populace didn’t want him.
The primary was decided long before most voters get a chance to vote. Our bullshit staggered primaries disenfranchise most of the country.
While I understand your frustration, you could always try to get your state to primary as soon as Iowa. By canvassing and working within the local election system.
Oh, and fight for ranked choice voting, too.
There was a primary. Bernie didn’t win the primary. The numbers were not there in any supportable way. Bernie had a nice lead in the beginning with early states like, I dunno, Vermont, but he didn’t pull in the votes.
Stop spreading disinformation.
No fucking way.
Walz/Sanders ticket, please.
Pile of dust 2028
Walz won’t even be at retirement age by 2028. That’s practically an infant in terms of a presidential candidate.
and Sanders has an amazing ability to get Republican voters on his side.
Sanders is old and wants to retire. Walz/Cortez instead.
