- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
Summary
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has criticized the Harris-Walz 2024 presidential campaign for playing it too “safe,” saying they should have held more in-person events and town halls.
In a Politico interview, Walz—known for labeling Trump and Vance as “weird”—blamed their cautious approach partly on the abbreviated 107-day campaign timeline after Harris became the nominee in August.
Using football terminology, he said Democrats were in a “prevent defense” when “we never had anything to lose, because I don’t think we were ever ahead.”
While acknowledging his share of responsibility for the loss, Walz is returning to the national spotlight and didn’t rule out a 2028 presidential run, saying, “I’m not saying no.”
You must log in or register to comment.
They should have stuck with the “they’re weird”. And they definitely shouldn’t have tried courting Republican voters. All that yielded was pushing away Dem voters and Republican voters aren’t going to vote for Dems, they will just not show up for Trump. They shouldn’t have constantly called them a danger and threat because we’ve been saying that for years, and at some point people stop listening. Instead, they should have leaned into the “they’re weird” and the weird things they want to do. Making them sound like an existential threat, even if they are, just sounds like someone yelling the sky is falling, and people ignore it. But we’ve already seen how they can’t handle being mocked. So mock them. Belittle them, make them out to be the buffoons they are.
If they had focused their campaign on helping the middle class, helping the poor, and acknowledged that Palestinians are people too, they would have a chance.
If they focused on environmental issues and the rights of individuals they would have had a chance.
If they had called Trump a criminal, because he is, at every stop, they would have had a chance.
If they did all of those things, and meant it, they would have won!
Instead they tried to appeal to business owners, Republicans who don’t like Trump, and people with money. That’s not what Democrats want. That’s not who Democrats are. That, is why they lost.
This and/or healthcare for all, and it wouldnt have even been close, they would have won easily
Harris did campaign on health care for all though, right?
Either way, I agree with everyone. I have a suspicion that Harris team started out the gate with very loud messaging around social economic programs they wanted to push.
Then they got reeled in by the donor class. There’s a distinct dampening on clear message a few weeks after the confusion was settled. This is just my little theory though. I think the messaging is vague on purpose to please the wealthy donors.
And you don’t even have to deliver on it, just say you will. It worked for Obama.
I’m going to shut down Gitmo! - Obama, 2006
And here we are almost 20 years later and GOP is sending Ausländers to expanding gitmo camps.
“the middle class” does not exist, they should focus on helping the homeless, jobless and working class.
Not only that, but they stuck to the corporate response on nearly every single question. They almost never went off script and it was just so fucking obvious and robotic. And for me, Tim’s complete lack of consideration for truth and evidence on its face and in a vacuum was nothing less than trumpian. In RL, I lie about being an OIF Veteran. At first it was shame, guilt, and self destructive tendencies but I’ve been to a LOT of therapy and I’m living better. But during that time I realized that there were others who would speak a bit more “freely” about things they may have done. If they assume you know nothing about the military then they can say whatever they want. Hearing someone mince words about their service is fairly common and IMHO - innocuous. It’s a nothing burger of exaggeration. Had Tim just admitted what was clearly on video and just said, “I was using more colorful language to affect the crowd, my bad.” I would have honestly commended him.
Instead, they lied. About the most mundane shit imaginable.
Oh man, I remember that lie, that was fucking cringe inducing. It’s always better to tell the truth, especially if you’re a bad liar, like Walz apparently is. The whole VP debate was pretty disappointing, because it felt like Walz spent the whole time pulling punches and playing softball, while Vance was his usual greasy self.
Lol, Vance. I swear his face reminds me of what a ken dolls face looks like when you try to fold it onto itself from the forehead.
How the fuck is this true? How did you even make this observation?! Outstanding.
I grew up with sisters. They were tricksters and knew that I would spend hours playing with their Barbie dolls on the empty promise to come into the woods and throw rocks at things. So their Barbie dolls always ended up marrying deformed ken. It was the only way I could cope with those dreadfully dull things. Folding his face over was my go-to move. My sisters hated that. Now he’s our VP. And I hate it. When I had enough I would put my thumb under kens chin and pop his head off like I was flipping a coin. Now I just flick my thumb at a screen when I see his dumb face on it. The mental imagery is euphoric enough to cope these days.
👍 Couch fucker
If they had focused their campaign on helping the middle class
I agree with most of that except this. They basically ONLY focused on the middle class. All the tax break incentives were great. But they never offered a damn thing for the working class. And that’s who they SHOULD have focused on.
They basically ONLY focused on the middle class.
Be fair. They also focused on moderate republicans.
Combined, the two constituencies are like 7 people.
That’s not who Democrats are.
unfortunately, yes, it is
Putting Liz Cheney on stage was a pretty risky move if you ask me.
It’s the safe move when you consider they want to be republicans
Harris initially said she was going to “prosecute” the case against Traitorapist Trump but then never did anything like that. All she had to do to win was use way more aggressive rhetoric. She never used the phrase “Convicted Criminal Trump” or “Treason Trump” She never used the phrase “legally certified rapist Trump”. She never pointed out that Trump hates the Free World and freedom and democracy. She never reminded voters that Trump had a 29% approval rating at the end of his term. She never pointed out that Trump is very disloyal to our longstanding core values. She never reminded people that Ted Cruz said that Trump “lies practically ever word that comes out of his mouth”.
Dems NEED much more aggressive candidates. No more of that business as usual shit.
I agree that they and the dems in general are way too safe. But i wonder how accepting dem voters would be with a more aggressive candidate. I’m sure Millennials to Gen Alpha would probably be fine with it but i wonder if a good portion of the voters would poo poo a someone moving more towards the a more extreme (in presentation) candidate.
What if they made a hard line decision on a topic and held firm. The whole fracking thing is a good example. They should have just picked a side and stood their ground. instead it was 100% pandering to whoever was the loudest. Personally I would have voted for someone with conviction rather than someone who was waffling but I am not sure every other liberal voter would do the same.
But i wonder how accepting dem voters would be with a more aggressive candidate.
We’ve been living through passive, fearful, reactive, business-led, “nothing will fundamentally change” dem leadership for decades. Theres no need to fear change at this point because we literally cant lose any harder than we are now. We have been teetering on the edge of dissolution for so long that people are starting to fear risking changing what shitty circumstanbes we have now. We couldnt be more pathetic as a party.
Agreed. I just have started to lose faith in the voters. Reps push hateful politicians and Dems don’t seem to push hard for solid candidates.
I think the Harris-Walz campaign was just a touch too genocide-y rather than “safe”
But Trump was even more genocide-y and he won. Americans just really like genocide.
Were there a lot of people who just wanted a little?
That’s quite literally what his side have wanted for decades and have basically openly said that, so of course he did well with that stance
Meanwhile the Democrats are the ones pretending to be the non-monstrous option while openly being monstrous
It should be clear why it hurts one side more than the other: one side literally doesn’t fucking have standards
I see you’re getting downvoted for criticiszing genocide. Looks like the hasbara are still getting paid to astroturf lemmy and reddit to make it look like the zionist cause is more than 1% of the voters. So at least we have some semblance of normalcy.
Interesting. I’d heard Walz led from a well of deep principle, then he says tone deaf stuff like this. Possibly just another centrist then.
IMO the problem is, they falsely assume everyone wants what the republicans are selling, and their biggest flaw is that they are pollarizing. That’s why they always start introducing as much republican lite things into their policies.
They don’t understand, that by doing that, they are effectively telling the american people that the republicans are right. IE say the republican party on immigration etc… is lock em up in the fastest way, forget about humanity and ship them out as fast as possible, fuck due process these people are dangerous and destroying everything.
Democrats: Well I can back you on making sure we get them out as soon as we can, but I think we can do it without human rights violations.
They don’t realize… that effectively to the outside observer going off of both of those policies they are hearing “both parties agree these people are dangerous and ruining everything, one wants to get rid of them as fast as possible, the other wants to prioritize us not hurting them over preventing them from harming us”.
Exactly this. The whole “both sides” thing is because they care so much about optics that they refuse to actually take a stand on anything. Nobody wants to vote for a wet dishrag. It sucks out here, and has for a while. We want actual change, and they think their shitty numbers cycle after cycle are because they didn’t push the Republican lite status quo agenda enough, when the real reason is that they pushed it at all.
What an absolute fucking champ-
While acknowledging his share of responsibility for the loss, Walz is returning to the national spotlight and didn’t rule out a 2028 presidential run, saying, “I’m not saying no.”
Both of those things are such music to my ears (although ofc we should all know that it was Harris’s brother-in-law Uber exec lawyer who muzzled Walz and deserves that blame that Walz is selflessly taking on here).
Sadly I’m not even sure the US will exist by 2028.
pritzker with a walz vp would be my ideal ticket.
Pritzker stands his ground, knows what to say, and won’t just bow down to the establishment of republicans OR the dem establishment. I think he’s the best pick. He’s also great with budget, lgbtq rights, and common sense policies
pritzker with a walz vp
Pritzker is a staunch pro war zionist. Same as Harris was. Thats your dream guy huh.
You still think dems can carry that sort of baggage to a win?
Jews are 2% of the US population, split ~70% dem. About 70-80% support Israels genocide. Thats a tiny, tiny minority of the partys voters. Why do we keep putting full throated zionist war supporters at the head of our party when it inevitably leads to election losses? Reform jewish candidates who dont support genocide, fine-- sure. But why do we back zionists? Do we need AIPAC money that badly? Or does no one care that it destroys our global economic and military soft power, the value of the USD, and loses us elections? (even discounting that it murders innocents)
Pritzker is a staunch pro war zionist. Same as Harris was. Thats your dream guy huh.
I care about economic policy. I care about lgbtq rights. I care about abortion rights.
I don’t care about stopping or not stopping a war that has been ongoing for nearly a century. Both those godforsaken countries have made their beds. They can lie in them. While I don’t believe genocide is right, and think this Israeli government is evil for it, it will never effect my voting, as nothing the usa does at this point in time will stop it.
It does not hurt our global economic or soft power either…
Your statement on his stance is also much stronger than his actual stance.
@fredthefishlord:
I don’t care about stopping or not stopping a war that has been ongoing for nearly a century
If you dont care about murdering innocents, whats your convincing argument for me to care about lgbtq rights?
have made their beds. They can lie in them.
Actually we made those beds too. Do you think we had no hand in whats been going on there? We’re just sitting idly by across the ocean with clean hands in all this?
Quite simply, I don’t believe human life has value. The only reason I fight oppression is because oppression leads to further destruction of the environment.
wow. Well, your logic is consistent, I cant fault you there Its such a foriegn viewpoint I’m a little stunned. Well. good luck to you.
Maybe they should have held primaries and let Americans choose who they wanted to be for the Democratic candidate. Harris was never going to win no matter how she campaigned.
Maybe they should have held primaries and let Americans choose who they wanted to be for the Democratic candidate.
“bUt YoU hAd OnE wItH bIdEn!! StOp MaKiNg ExCuSeS fOr YoU nOt VoTiNg!!”
The DNC is pretty much always playing it too safe…
People really need to accept that the Democratic Party is the conservative party in the US. The Republican Party is the nationalist, authoritarian party. The US does not have a major progressive party.
The democratic party is a coalition. It has wings that range from progressive to conservative. The reason they play it safe is because candidates need to be palatable to enough of the constituents to pass their primaries. This is also why local democratic parties are much more likely to have more cohesion.
I understand they need to have a broad appeal to different groups, moreso than republicans do, but they could easily achieve that same broad appeal by actually fighting for the working class and not doing things like steamrolling Bernie. The out of touch nature of current leadership is effectively neutering the party.
It would be a good thing long term for progressives to finally split from dems IMHO, though I wish we would have a ranked choice type system in place beforehand, but either way it needs to happen.
The reason they play it safe
Hows that working out?
When playing it safe is never safe…
The democratic party is a coalition. It has wings that range from progressive to conservative.
It has conservatives and hostages.
Democrats in charge despise the progressive wing. They wish they didn’t have to listen to silly little ideas like Medicare for All or building high speed rail. They’ve gotten fat off the idea that we all know what Republicans will do when they get elected and vote for them, anyway.
This was never going to be stable in the long run. Republicans only had to win a few times to entrench themselves. That’s because they don’t see their far right wing as nutjobs. They see them as opportunities for driving things further to the right. For example, it took 50 years of planning to get the right people in the Supreme Court to bury Roe v Wade, and it all happened because they won just enough at the right time and then used that power to get what their base wants. What their base wants is horrible and cruel, but they know how to implement the plan.
Where this leads us now is a situation where ditching establishment Democrats has little downside. We’re fucked if we keep hanging on to them. Drag them to the left or leave them out in the icy cold.
They represent who votes for them.
Wanna change? Vote in the primaries. Hell, run in the primaries.
Wanna change? Vote in the primaries. Hell, run in the primaries.
Oof, got some bad news about those primaries…
They represent who votes for them.
Oh? Dick Cheney votes for them? More reliably than progressives?
Wanna change? Vote in the primaries. Hell, run in the primaries.
This is gloating about how democrats don’t do fair primaries, if they do them at all.
They represent who votes for them.
Hence Bidens “nothing will fundamentally change” pledge to a room full of rich donors. And Biden pushing an extremely unpopular right wing war down a partys throat where many of the memebrs like to think of themselves as leftists. Clearly they are a party who “represents who votes for them”.
That is just one of many many reasons the Democrats lost, too many to count or even list in this post. You might want to also update the platform to not gobble the balls of the billionaires and corporate class. Abolish the electoral college, gerrymandering (though there were efforts on this front; poorly executed), lobbying, and Super PACs. Should’ve expanded the Supreme Court or instituted term limits.
Basically put in any effort whatsoever to show they wanted to prevent the loss of democracy and they didn’t do it. At least SAY things that would prevent genocide in Gaza, even if you don’t mean it. Start playing by the same rules as the Republicans and there could have been a chance.
It’s too late for any of that now.
Dems never had the super majority to abolish the electoral college, gerrymandering or the other things you mentioned.
Even if its not possible, campaign like its the goal. Tell us what you’d do with full approval from everyone and people might get motivated enough to vote to make that happen.
There was never the votes to give women the right to vote either, but it eventually got passed after a good solid fight.
Plenty of people were arguing back then that “there arent the votes to make this happen” and “we should only focus on very small incremental wins”.
Blaming dems for not doing something they can’t do is not the same as what you’re describing.
They cant fight? they cant play politics? No hard ball? No applying pressure? No speeches, lawsuits, threats? Those are all thing republicans seem to use, but the dems just…“cant”? Give me a break.
They can vote. If they do not have enough dems to vote they have to reach across the aisle to get votes from conservatives.
Conservatives will not help without getting something in return.
What you’re saying is dems should give conservatives concessions which will then be used as a talking point to blame dems more.
That’s what “fighting” means in this context.
only to the unimaginative. Or those that want excuses to do nothing. Consent can be steered and manufactured. If the centrists had any ideology at all they’d be pursuing the right things, not lounging about doing absolutely nothing.
What do the dems do lately that would make anyone vote for them? Do they profess to stand for… much of anything, besides Israels right to take land and exterminate the civilians on it? Tell me one thing they have made a strong stand on?
It’s a vote. You can’t win a vote with feelings or vibes or a “can do attitude”.
It requires votes.
The electoral college is not a problem, it’s a great system. Winner takes all is the actual problem.
They’re both problems.
No they’re not. Abolishing the Electoral college removes yet another barrier to populism and it could have unintended far reaching consequences down the line. I know MAGA is already a populist movement, but it can be so much worse. Just because the popular vote will get you what you want now doesn’t mean that it won’t hurt you in the future. Much like we’ve seen the damage that the reckless expansion of presidential power has done. The founding fathers created a good system and bipartisan politics have corrupted it, it’s restoration should be top priority.
The system works if used as intended. Winner takes all is not using it as intended, just like electors voting in the same way as the voters mindlessly is not using it as intended. Yes it’s elitist. Current state of affairs prove that the founding fathers were correct in their beliefs.
The system your beloved founders created wasn’t just “the person with the most votes gets the whole state” because there were no votes for president at all! It was entirely up to the political elites in each state to decide who to support between two nominees who were also not voted on because primaries were not a thing and were again picked by party elites in smoke-filled rooms based on corrupt deals with no democratic input. And even in the cases where people could vote, women and slaves were of course excluded from the process entirely.
Unless you’re either a billionaire or a high-ranking member of a major political party, your beliefs are directly opposed to your own interests. “Populism” guess what, you are part of that population, your voice and your interests are the ones being suppressed when “populism” is suppressed. You’re shooting yourself in the foot.
But really it just seems like “populism” is just a meme in your head. If you want proportional representation instead of winner-takes-all, you’re supporting “populism.” The alternative to “populism” is the suppression of democracy by a political elite. The “winner-takes-all” system is already considerably more “populist” and democratic than what the founders set up.
By the way, the “bipartisan politics” that “corrupted” the “good system” emerged immediately, before the ink was even dry on the constitution. It was an inevitable result of the system that the founders created and they didn’t understand that because they had nonsense ideas that politics could be “nonpartisan,” a process of people randomly coming up with different ideas through reason as opposed to competing socioeconomic groups asserting their material interests. But immediately one party emerged representing the southern slaveowners and another representing the northern capitalists, because that’s how politics works. You can even see this in the constitution itself, things like the Three-fifths Compromise which was blatantly a political compromise and not reflective of some transcendent truth.
Even if you were to argue that some of the founders had good ideas, it’s absolute nonsense to suggest that they all did, especially, you know, the ones who supported slavery as a precondition of signing off on the project and insisted on provisions to grant slavers more power and to bar congress from making any laws about it for a specified period and wanted to suppress “populism” out of fear that it could lead to the slaves being freed. Your reverence for them is both completely irrational and against your own interests.
I defend them because for all their moral failings they did design a system that is more resilient than any other to autocracy. We could have extended participation to all without destroying that system, and Trump would have never happened. Or if he had he would not have had the power to do the things he’s doing now. But every president takes a little bit more, and you don’t say anything if they belong to your party but cry bloody murder when the other one does it. And then when you’re back in power do you ask your lawmakers to stop the power grab? No, why would you, you like what’s being done. And that’s how we get here.
But I digress, you wrote all of that and never refuted the fact that the electoral college does in fact work. Land might not vote but states need equal say regardless of the population they have. If New York and California decide all elections, how soon until the other states start to secede because their votes count for nothing?
States have strong individual cultural and administrative identities and unless you erase that, there’s no way you can abolish the electoral college without also destroying such a thing as the United Staes of America.
Just do the following mental excercise: Texas and Florida are the two fastest growing states at the moment. Let’s say they remain red and manage to get a bigger population than all the blue cities combined (because of all the space they have) and now because of them every election a Republican president wins. Would you be ok with that? If not then you have to be in favor of the electoral college.
So you disagree with the idea of “one person, one vote,” then? Absolutely ridiculous. People living in densely populated areas have just as much ability to think and arrive at a diversity of opinion as rural people do, if anything, moreso because they’re more likely to encounter a range of views. This also doesn’t account for minority enclaves, the various Chinatowns and similar, that can exist in cities, or the more diverse populations in general. The electoral college disproportionately favors white people.
Just do the following mental excercise: Texas and Florida are the two fastest growing states at the moment. Let’s say they remain red and manage to get a bigger population than all the blue cities combined (because of all the space they have) and now because of them every election a Republican president wins. Would you be ok with that? If not then you have to be in favor of the electoral college.
That’s a terrible argument. If that happened, perhaps I would be in favor of the electoral college for purely pragmatic reasons, very reluctantly. If I’m operating on ruthless, unprincipled pragmatism (the only reason I would ever, even hypothetically, consider supporting the electoral college), then obviously, in the present situation where the electoral college is disadvantageous to me, then I should oppose it.
During the Civil War, Lincoln temporarily suspended certain civil liberties due to the existential threat the south posed - and it was probably necessary and the right call. But just because I might support suspending certain liberties in extreme situations, facing a true, existential threat, it doesn’t mean I “have to” be in favor of suspending them on some kind of principle.
Obviously, all else being equal, it’s better for everyone to get an equal say. You can conjure up a situation with a horrible population and a benevolent monarch keeping them in line and argue that in that hypothetical monarchy is superior to democracy, but that in no way proves it in the general case or as a principle. In the same way, when you conjure up a situation where the electoral college is keeping an evil population in line, that in no way proves that the electoral college is better than democracy.
In the context of presidential elections? I guess I do. The US is supposed to be a country of countries, so governors should be decided by popular vote as they are the ones who will have the most direct effect on the lives of people. The president was originally intended mostly to oversee big picture stuff that affected all of the states, and as such all the states needed to have equal say in the president. Which is why the states elect the presidents via the electoral college.
Of course the problem is, once more, that the executive branch and the federal government have expanded their power so much that their policies have more effect than original intended over the daily lives of people and understandably people would like to be able to influence that. So for me there’s really only two solutions: we walk back things to their original intent or we might as well start an entirely new system because ours is not designed to work with all this added power.
The reason I agree with the usually right wing idea of restoring the original power structures is that I have seen enough evidence to believe that strong state sovereignty is the best way to go. It’s a very good foil to authoritarianism because power is concentrated at the lower levels. Right now if Trump and Co. manage to completely take over, they will still have a hard time doing everything they want because States have tools to defend themselves against the federal government. But it’s also a “freer” system as it also allows people to move from state to state and choose the one that most aligns with their views instead of a singular vision being imposed from the top down.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Played it safe by not holding more in person events? What? They didn’t question the legitimacy of the winner when clearly there were outliers that needed to be investigated.
