this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
402 points (97.2% liked)

politics

21140 readers
5531 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
[–] VivianRixia@piefed.social 22 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I agree, Walz, start being unsafe. Show us what we want to see in a candidate.

[–] the_q@lemm.ee 12 points 6 hours ago

Or, ya know, actually BE what we what in a candidate.

[–] BillDaCatt@lemmy.world 35 points 8 hours ago (4 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.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

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.

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

"the middle class" does not exist, they should focus on helping the homeless, jobless and working class.

[–] ZMonster@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

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.

[–] MellowYellow13@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

This and/or healthcare for all, and it wouldnt have even been close, they would have won easily

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 47 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours 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.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago

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.

[–] Numinous_Ylem@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

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

[–] astro_plane@lemm.ee 3 points 5 hours ago

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.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 69 points 11 hours ago (6 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.

[–] arken@lemmy.world 15 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

I mean, I agree with you, but this is also a huge problem. This is why you have someone who pretended to be a successful businessman on TV as a president now. I really miss the days when boring but competent people could run a country.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago

Boring yet competent people don't get elected in a country with mass media. They just don't get coverage, so people don't know they're there.

As example, look at the first televised presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon. Kennedy was young and inexperienced, but let them put makeup on him for the debate. Nixon had more experience but looked like a sweaty mess on TV. This helped Kennedy a lot.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It's far easier to have a better candidate than change how 80 million people think.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 21 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Obama covered both lawyer and entertaining. He also had an appeal similar to Reagan, confident and comforting during uncertain times. The conservative media made politics entertaining, now we have entertainers as politicians and I can't get on board with that

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 7 points 9 hours ago

It's not something we are going to change anytime soon. Far too many people to change to counter that.

Instead, we need candidates like Walz, who have a brain on their shoulders, and have a way to excite outside of putting on a show.

Bernie Sanders was another example of it. AoC is as well.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 20 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Putting Liz Cheney on stage was a pretty risky move if you ask me.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 hours ago

It's the safe move when you consider they want to be republicans

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 14 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

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.

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 1 points 4 hours ago

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".

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 1 points 4 hours ago

They should have leaned left harder instead of engaging in a futile attempt to sway conservatives.

[–] RangerJosey@lemmy.ml 79 points 13 hours ago (11 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.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 46 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

That was what they thought the “safe” thing to do was. “Decorum” and “reaching across the isle”. All that “when they go low, we go high!” shit, in the face of actual Nazis.

More like “when they get votes, we go bye”

Democrats think they’re in a fairy tale, still asleep having the American dream. It’s all offices with rich histories and Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parades in their world. Their campaign donors are “good proud American businessmen (and WOMEN!) who show the world that evil communism isn’t the answer and only centrist cooperation can achieve freedom!”

It’s why they thought they’re could win by having a brat summer. They thought “we’re clearly the good guys, the ones who like civil rights, hell we’re running a half black, half Indian woman!”

And now that they fucking lost their answer is “wear pink and sing ‘We Shall Overcome’ on the house floor” when the ONLY ONE OF THEM to stand up to Trump, in the most minor of ways mind you, is censured - and fucking 10 OF THEM VOTED FOR IT! YOU WEAK, INEFFECTUAL ASSHOLES!

Decorum and traditional norms will not save you now. Get out and speak truth to power. Shit all over them on the news. EASY QUOTES THAT GO VIRAL. Vote as a bloc against everything they try to do. Filibuster, stall, use procedure against then whenever you can. BE FUCKING BULLIES for your cause, because they sure as shit have been doing it to you for 50 FUCKING YEARS. The SAME GODDAMN GUY WITH NIXON is running around dressed like a CARTOON VILLAIN who ties women to train tracks and is still RATFUCKING YOU

god DAMMIT if I’d have known that the majority of adults in this world were so goddamn stupid I’d have made much different decisions in my life

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 27 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You mean touting the endorsement of war criminal Dick Cheney wasn’t a good thing?

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 11 hours ago

Could have even been worse, they could have made his daughter the vp pick

[–] Davin@lemmy.world 15 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

No excuse for the DNC, but I think seeking the "moderate Republicans" is a condition of their big donors. Every time the Democrats lose, since Reagan won, they move right because they think they lost because they weren't conservative enough. And despite all polling that suggests otherwise, they keep doing it.

In general, they would get more money and power if they won, so why do they keep shooting themselves in the foot every fucking time? In my mind, even if you factor in that they don't give a shit about the common people and are motivated by money, it only makes sense if they are being manipulated by their big donors to do this stupid shit.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] gatohaus@eviltoast.org 137 points 14 hours ago (10 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 60 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 41 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Not just Chuck but the whole leadership of the Democrat party needs to go.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 18 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The entire party needs to go. Let it burn and be replaced by a workers party that represents us.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 1 points 6 hours ago

Step 2: pelosi needs to retire.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] jecxjo@midwest.social 6 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

The optimist in me wants to believe that the only reason they see "loudest responses" is because they announce that 2+2=4 and Empathy=Good, and everyone with common sense agrees, but doesn't bother saying anything. Meanwhile we've gotten thousands of screaming matches from sorely misled (and at worst brainwashed) voters who have been told by Trump that 2+2=8 and Empathy=Bad.

It doesn't absolve them for "tactically" shifting stances. But I've tried to do my part by calling my reps when they take a hard action that I agree with.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] jecxjo@midwest.social 3 points 6 hours ago

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.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 110 points 14 hours ago (8 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.

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 13 points 10 hours ago (1 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.

They sure as eff do!

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Pelosi hated the left long before the left hated her.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 10 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

Gee, it’s almost as if all that bribe money ehhem I mean campaign finance donations have corrupted and shackled the Dems into consistently losing strategies.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 38 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

What they did was court Republican voters instead of Democrat voters, and neither Republicans nor Democrats were amused.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] NotLemming@lemm.ee 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Too Zionist. After the trump riviera etc all sane people have to dump Israel entirely. They outed themselves. Zionists either stay there alone with no foreign aid or involvement, eject Netantyahu and all the assholes in government and pay reparations to Palestine and be welcomed back in the international community if they behave, or abandon Israel and the Zionists seek sanctuary in other countries.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago
[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Says a lot about how out of touch and relatively conservative they are that they think their behavior was "safe"

Safe for whom??

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›