this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
938 points (98.2% liked)

politics

21725 readers
7975 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Flummoxx@lemm.ee 66 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (7 children)

Maybe they should copy what Bernie Sanders is doing. He's not even running and packing out town hall meetings. Who knew being against oligarchs, authoritarians, corporate cronyism and for the middle class would appeal to people?

[–] MooseyMoose@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago

Middle class is a term devised by the rich to divide the working class. The one thing they fear more than anything is class consciousness.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago

Looks to me like Sanders is in the recruitment phase for something. At least I hope he is.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Tim Walz should theoretically be good at that. While most politicians are well to do, he's never made much money and has a reputation of being a regular person, for the regular people. But since he was running for VP he had to parrot Harris' stance on everything.

If he could go out and speak plainly with a clear message like Bernie does, be himself and tell us what he really thinks, at least we'd be able to make a judgement call on whether to support him. I don't know if he has that in him though. Unless he really did learn that "playing it safe" (i.e. acting like a Dem) does not work any more.

[–] Doctor_Satan@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Exactly. I would like to see what he has to offer on his own terms. Maybe I'll support him, maybe not. But it was obvious through the entire campaign that he was holding back. The one thing he did that got the most traction in the campaign was calling Republicans "weird", and he was told by Dem leadership to stop doing that.

It's really hard to decide if Dems are just that incredibly incompetent, or if they are actual controlled opposition. I think it might be a combination of the two.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MooseyMoose@lemmy.world 41 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Gee who would have thought that completely ignoring the anti-war/genocide crowd and courting the CHENEYS "moderate Republicans" while keeping absolutely silent about Medicare for all and touting a "keep America lethal" platform would have backfired for one of the least popular politicians ever who was just anointed as the presidential candidate without any sort of primary at all. I'm so confused!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] NovaOG@lemm.ee 52 points 3 days ago (3 children)

People on the left screamed this as soon as they took over from sleeping baby joe. We said "PLEASE put some OOMPH into it! Stop regurgitating Corporate Dems platitudes!"

[–] fishy@lemmy.today 23 points 3 days ago (5 children)

They just don't get it. The game has changed, people are used to high energy fast paced delivery from social media. A presidential candidate needs to be engaging and deliver a super condensed message that's shareable. I don't know anybody in my personal life that was excited Kamala was running and I'm from the bay area.

Granted Biden withdrawing so close to the election left them without much time to strategize, I don't see them really playing it too differently. The legacy Dems are old and corrupt, they don't understand that being cozy with corporations is gross and that we want fiery new blood. They'll probably continue doing the same shit, playing the same old games until it's too late.

[–] NovaOG@lemm.ee 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They THOUGHT they were doing all the things you listed, because they paid "top dollar" for "top democratic strategists". The whole system the Dems run on is rotten to the core. It all needs to be thrown out

[–] fishy@lemmy.today 13 points 3 days ago

Exactly, these clowns hired the same types of people who barely pull off wins despite being the majority party. They're really good at collecting money and paying themselves, but really shit at winning.

The right has been stacking the deck, blatantly, for thirty fucking years. I'm a big fan of awarding electrical college points based on congressional districts. All of a sudden those cities in deeply red states get a voice.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] philz@lemmy.world 34 points 3 days ago

They’ll never learn. It’s the same thing every election cycle.

[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Too safe? No, they were too center.

[–] cashsky@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago

center

That's being generous

[–] arotrios@lemmy.world 35 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Okay Walz, that's a start, but we've yet to see you go hard. Step it up or get out of Al Green's way and let him cane the fuck outta these Nazi shitheads.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 108@lemmy.world 39 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They still are being soft. Why would you think it would change?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago (7 children)

Its just white noise. If you went back two months and addressed the KHive / Bidenbro block that was fanatically endorsing this campaign, does anyone seriously think "soft" or "safe" would be a term they'd use to describe the media appearances or the ground game?

No, of course not! Harris was Girl Boss. Cheeto Mussolini was the weak one. JD Vance was too busy fucking couches to answer the hard questions like "Why do you enjoy sucking Putin's cock?" and "Why do you enjoy sucking Elon Musk's cock?" and "Why do you enjoy sucking Peter Thiel's cock?"

Meanwhile, Harris was out there punching illegal immigrants. She was making those effeminate cop-hating LGBTers eat Terf. She was out there dropping Facts And Logic on those stupid Iran-loving antisemetic ISIS students. She was bringing out the big guns with Liz Fucking Cheney and making sure every voter knew that America First A#1 City On A Hill sound of F-35s flying overhead we're going to Beat Russia and Obliterate China and Nuke Far-Right Islamic Hate.

Nobody thought the campaign was "soft" in October of 2024. They were priding themselves on their BlueMAGA credentials.

Its only after they lost that we got to retcon the campaign as too squishy and liberal and egalitarian. Maybe next time they'll bomb Dearborn Michigan or stage a full invasion of Tiajuana to prove they're serious about being the most reactionary party in America.

[–] TheresNodiee@lemm.ee 25 points 3 days ago (11 children)

I'm reading his "safe" comment in a bit of a different light. The Harris campaign was playing "safe" politics by ooh rah-ing about the military, guns, and the border. By throwing their full support behind Israel and shouting down and cutting out concerned for the Palestinian people. By running around with Liz Cheney.

Their campaign started off strong. Kamala was brat, Walz was calling Trump and his allies weird and joking about Vance fucking his couch. There was energy but they dropped the ball by switching to the "safe" Democrat campaign book. They didn't go out to speak to the people where they were at town halls like Walz said in the article, they didn't have firebrand Walz shining a flashlight on how bizarre Trump's people are, they didn't have a message that would excite the people and really shake up a statue quo that was slowly and inexorably draining Americans of their economic prospects. They just played the safe Democrat game of incrementalism and subservience to wealth and power rather than the people.

Obviously Walz didn't say all this, but I think the "safety" he refers to absolutely refers to Kamala's campaign adhering too closely to a traditional campaign style that was not going to win them much enthusiastic support.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] bradd@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago

Easy to say when it's all over, but I still think they're wrong.

They should try not being fake as fuck.

[–] Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 113 points 4 days ago (5 children)

If by safe you mean ignoring your constituents and only listening to your wealthy contemporaries. Then yes you were too safe.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 81 points 4 days ago (4 children)

If you read the article, that's EXACTLY what he means. They told him the reason for this is that they could avoid "Having any public gaffees"

The idea is that by just not being Trump they were "Ahead", and any public misstep would put Trump in the lead.

Walz now believes he and Harris were "never ahead" and it was arrogance that lead to them thinking they were the "Default Choice" for America

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] deadkennedy@lemm.ee 38 points 3 days ago (7 children)

yeah that’s one way to put it.

2024 was not an election to play it safe or take the high road, yet every chance the DNC collectively got, they did just that.

They should have slung mud and gotten nasty.

[–] Viskio_Neta_Kafo@lemm.ee 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

The Democrats always take the high road or the decorum path every chance they get. It's one of the reasons why they loose the power struggle so much.

Democrats and playing chess by the rules and Republicans are moving the pieces wherever they want as long as they can get away with it.

The Democrats could have delayed ACB being put on the supreme Court untill election time but they actively decided not to do so.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The Democrats always take the high road or the decorum path every chance they get.

Not every chance. They run against progressives in primaries sometimes. Then the gloves come off.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

DNC leadership genuinely hate Bernie more than Trump.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Surely the Democrats will stop moving to the center now that they understand that they weren't properly addressing the needs of the people... right? right?

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (4 children)

I’m sure the Dems will finally start supporting trans people, and will intervene as states like Texas make our existence illegal. I’m sure that there will be investigations into systemic issues with the police both being used against transgender people and the fact that our murders are often not investigated. I’m sure that the Dems will advocate for trans people to have protections in their employment and housing. We totally aren’t disposable minorities who’s support is wanted, but not enough to recognize us as human beings.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] spirinolas@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago

That's the safest take he could have on the situation.

[–] gatohaus@eviltoast.org 212 points 4 days ago (24 children)

And the Dems are, mostly, still too safe. They need to start fighting while they still have a chance of stopping the insanity.

Step 1: Schumer needs to step down.

[–] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 89 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

But they wore pink shirts and held up tiny auction bid signs!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
[–] RatzChatsubo@lemm.ee 20 points 3 days ago (13 children)

Fuck both of them. Only a progressive will go far in the party

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 152 points 4 days ago (20 children)

The old guard (both literal and figurative) need to get the fuck out of the way for the AOC's and Crockett's who will actually speak to power instead of cowering in the corners.

The other big problem is that politics have become such a negative impact on people's lives in the US that regular people don't want to run for office anymore, which is what we really need.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] RangerJosey@lemmy.ml 114 points 4 days ago (34 children)

They were too far right. They pursued the "moderate republican" vote and lost spectacularly.

It is a politically suicidal idea. But they just can't stop themselves. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is what they do best.

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 87 points 4 days ago (15 children)

One problem the DNC has is that they keep throwing boring ass lawyers into a game that isn't about law. It's about being a face the country knows to run the government.

You need charisma, you need to appeal to people, and you need to be human. Obama did this perfectly. Bill Clinton had it in him. Biden at least had such a long record in politics he could wing it his first term. I don't know how he managed to win, but he did.

Clinton, while being a lawyer, had already been the governor of Arkansas. Meaning he had the experience being that executive. He could convince people to work beyond their own interests. Al Gore, we all know, won the 2000 presidential election, but the supreme court let everything get fucked up.

Kerry? Never stood a chance. Hilary? No chance. Kamala? As much as we needed her to win, she was unappealing to stupid people.

Lawyers, by nature of their career, have to read and understand the most boring ass shit and then convince others that the boring ass text supports their side of the case. That means a lot of them are boring people.

You wanna know why Walz is popular? He fucking loves football. He can connect to highschool students. IDK about you, but if you've ever met high schoolers, they aren't the brightest, and bored easily. He's progressive, but he won't shove it in someone's face to be more righteous. Not many people can do that.

To win an election, you have to excite people. Trump, despite his rhetoric clearly being terrifying, was, unfortunately, exciting.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] computerscientistII@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I am convinced 'Murica generally is too racist to vote a black person into office. Obama was only voted into office because he is an extremely charismatic and charming person. So much so that he was voted into office in spite of being black. Kamala is neither charismatic nor charming. Also, there is sexism and she's a woman.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 65 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

if he'd stuck to calling them weird and attacking them, maybe it wouldn't have been useless. but they dropped that, tried to buddy up with the fascists, and brought on insane endorsements like fucking liz cheney.

if they'd run sanders/walz, even late after biden convinced even party leadership that he couldn't win, they would have crushed that shit with historic numbers.

if they had let a palestinian talk, or given the most mild 'please tone down the genocide shit' they might've had a chance.

it was like they were trying to lose at every step. truly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[–] Numinous_Ylem@lemmy.world 47 points 4 days ago (5 children)

The DNC is pretty much always playing it too safe....

[–] DAVENP0RT@lemmy.world 55 points 4 days ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BillDaCatt@lemmy.world 53 points 4 days ago (13 children)

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.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›