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.”
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.
It’s to the point that I might prefer either a direct democracy with no representatives at all or electing reps via a lottery system. Most of the people with the desire to run for office, and all but a handful of those with the characteristics necessary to wade through the muck of special interests and campaign finance to actually get in office, are the kind of people you want as far away from power as possible.
The Songs of Distant Earth by Arthur C. Clarke has government by lottery.
deleted by creator
Impossible. You can’t have tests like that for candidates or voters. You just end up reinventing literacy tests.
deleted by creator
i don’t love the implication here that politicians are corrupt due to mental illness. they can be perfectly average mentally and still be corrupt because corruption is an innate and ever-present exploit of human psychology. empathetic people can be mistaken of where to place their empathy. mentally ill people can be a better option for a public office than someone else who is neurotypical, it all comes down to their platform and record of reliability. disability should not be mutually exclusive with ability to govern.
deleted by creator
i think the second we open up the avenue for certain character traits to be banned from public office, it opens up a new avenue and mechanism for oppressive government bodies to prevent their opponents from gaining power against them. Who gets to decide what traits count as disqualifying? what measures do we use to identify who has met this threshold? where and how could someone be treated for these in order to gain back eligibility? how difficult would it be to change these rules if they were incorrect? how hard would it be for a bad actor to change these rules for their own gain? how much money would be spent on this and the lawsuits that return from it?
deleted by creator
i think it would be infinitely simpler to just ban the actions you don’t want people to do and a better mechanism to enforce it than to try and police the amorphous qualities of their character and behavior. Like, our problem here is that the executive branch has been granted too much power by congress, corporations are treated like people and can vote with their dollars, and congress + the supreme court have no mechanism to enforce laws against the executive branch. If the system was actually segregated enough in duties and insulated from capital, it would be immune to the effects of someone even as bad as trump. It would also prevent all of the false positives and the mechanisms for abuse that would open when we start calling people ineligible for innate and immeasurable qualities.
More and more this monty python sketch was spot on. With the DNC as Arthur only caring about the lord of the castle, centrists carrying the bags and clapping the cocnuts together, and progressives as the peasants: autonomous colletcive
We have the technology for direct democracy. The reason we dont do it is that it would take the rich out of power. With direct votes we’d have universal health care and Israel wouldnt have gotten its war support. We’d have action on climate control. We’d have signed onto the ICC. We’d have much stricter gun laws. We’d hold police to professional conduct standards. We’d have term limits and codes of ethics. We’d fund our teachers and firefighters better. Our military would be much smaller.
Yep. Every time I hear Jeffries talk I am thinking “shut the fuck up and go fetch AOC”.
If by safe you mean ignoring your constituents and only listening to your wealthy contemporaries. Then yes you were too safe.
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
Which makes the second time the Democrats lost to Trump by believing they were the default choice. Even after being roundly criticized for it the first time. I’m starting to think they may not be smarter than me.
Oh it gets worse, they thought they were teh “default choice” because they got the people behind Hillary’s campaign to “help”
Yeah. The corporate team. I swear middle America can smell it from am mile away now.
Plus the one time it didn’t abjectly fail, it took a worldwide pandemic and mass death to happen. Their hubris is at a legendary level.
Democrat politicians should level with you all. Politicians need a tremendous amount of money to stay viable. They only answer to their donors and they get donors only if they can accomplish their goals which they do with the support of their constituents. They don’t just support their constituents out of feel good stuff. Republicans give them a free pass to do whatever they want. So they get lots of donors. The left groups do not do what they want so they don’t get donors. We’re fucked.
Look into how many call centers are around Washington. They’re all call centers for the different politicians. They’re calling donors 24/7 trying to get more funding. All the time. The Reason leftist do not get anywhere, we don’t generate money
Democrat politicians should level with you all. Politicians need a tremendous amount of money to stay viable.
democrats massively outraised trump in 2024 and lost anyway. Turns out, you need votes too.
Leftists don’t generate money on the top line. The fact that actual leftist policy would create a utopian society where everyone is prosperous is completely an afterthought, and that’s because the economic system is run by a bunch of giant babies with zero impulse control or sense of delayed gratification.
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.
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
You mean touting the endorsement of war criminal Dick Cheney wasn’t a good thing?
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.
They get far more money being the foil of leftist movements by making themselves the only option for anything less far right than the conservatives and then paying lip service to the left while continuing to support moderate conservative policy.
Every time the Democrats lose, since Reagan won, they move right because they think they lost because they weren’t conservative enough.
That was true thru Obama but it stopped with Biden. Biden was the most progressive president since LBJ, even though Dem voters could have chosen even more progressive candidates.
Biden was the most progressive president since LBJ
Centrists’ big lie.
Harris’s husband and brother in law steered Harris right into defeat. She shouldnt have trusted a word those two idiots said.
See that’s funny because every single left leaning moderate I know (including myself) thinks they were/are way too left and they need to “come back towards center” so to speak.
For people even sorta in the middle both parties appear to be playing a game where they sprint as fast as they can towards extremism and most people aren’t down with that.
They don’t need to try and court moderate Republicans. They need to gain back the moderate lefties they lost over the last 10+ years.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/politics/democratic-party-left-liberal-q-poll/index.html
I know that Lemmy has very different views on the topic, but you guys are the extreme left. So of course you find the Democrats trying to go back towards getting moderate vote again as the “wrong move”. Unfortunately you guys (I am speaking broadly at the general political leanings of Lemmy I know you guys arent all far left) are the minority of the total political spectrum these days.
Hey I’m curious, what do you think about the Democrats is “too far left”? Like actual policies because the article you linked lists 4 positions that aren’t a part of the parties platform and never have been.
I was really curious. Hopefully they will come back.
They did and are refusing to answer. They’re just a conservative that’s larping as a Democrat for internet points.
If you’re a ‘left leaning moderate’ that thinks the democrats are too left, you’re right-wing. The democratic party in the US is a center-right party.
My political stances didn’t change. I was firmly left in ~2012 and now you guys call me right wing. Who moved?
You do know the American political compass is special among political compasses, right? Compared to Europe (or even Canada), our definition of “moderate” is their equivalent of “conservative”. Likewise, our “left” is “center”.
Wishing the already-not-left Democratic Party starts shifting even more right is wishing for a two-party system where the options are conservatism and fascism.
I’m not talking about a global scale. I’m just talking about the US and how those terms are used here.
I’m not touching that broader conversation about political scales globally.
Here in the US both parties have been running in opposite directions and in most people’s eyes the left has been running faster. Hence the article. One of many that found similar data when polling americans. Most Americans are somewhere in the middle and that is crux of the issue.
Yeah, no.
The only thing that has shifted left in the Democratic Party is the public’s perception of them. They intentionally fuck over actual leftists (aka progressives) within their party while offering up milquetoast policies that look progressive on paper but are either completely toothless or designed to benefit to their corporate lobbyists first and foremost.
They’re a conservative party who used rainbow capitalism to masquerade as the comparatively left-wing alternative to the Republican Party. The reality is that every election cycle in the past two decades, they’re promising more “liberal” ideas while acting more conservative. Do you know who had a record number of deportations under their administration? It’s not Trump. It’s not Obama. It’s Biden.
Anybody that thinks the Democratic Party is sliding any direction other than right is either right-wing and arguing in bad faith, an anti-“woke” moron like Elon Musk, or consuming too much Fox News.
Fucking moderates.
Yeah keep that up. I’m sure you guys are totally gonna win in 2028 by continuing to alienate anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100% across the board.
Fucking progressives.
Ironic, isn’t that exactly what you’re doing, dingus?
No. I’m pointing out how disconnected from reality the far left (Lemmy) is.
Of the two political parties of the US right now only one is going to kick you out immediately for disagreeing with them on certain things. The other one doesn’t really care if you have different opinions on certain topics.
The Ideological homogeneity required by today’s left/democrats pushes out so many people that I don’t think they will be able to win another election again.
I want the Democrats to have viable candidates and run on good policy again, but more than anything I want them to shed this inflexible and dogmatic voter base they have been fostering over the last 16 years.
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?
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.
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.
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.
If he was aligned with Bernie I think we would know by now. Problem is he doesn’t seem to share these opinions that make Bernie popular.
Walz has offered to do town halls in red states where Republicans have stopped doing them.
Offered to? Shouldn’t he just go ahead and do it?
He’s already done one in Iowa, with many more yet to come.
Looks to me like Sanders is in the recruitment phase for something. At least I hope he is.
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.
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.
No Dem has helped the Middle class the entire time I’ve been alive. There was no one on the ballot who was going to make my life better. I couldn’t even get Dem representatives to reply beyond a canned message about “hard times”. I’ve never seen such a disconnect from the Dem party. They’re not even trying. I bet they’re excited for fascism so they don’t have to pretend to care about us.
They basically ONLY focused on the middle class.
Be fair. They also focused on moderate republicans.
Combined, the two constituencies are like 7 people.
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
That’s not who Democrats are.
unfortunately, yes, it is
“the middle class” does not exist, they should focus on helping the homeless, jobless and working class.
It does exist and this is the exact mentality that lost the election. The Middle class isn’t going to vote for you if you’re campaigning on putting them into the wood chipper again.
This and/or healthcare for all, and it wouldnt have even been close, they would have won easily
And you don’t even have to deliver on it, just say you will. It worked for Obama.
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!”
And people in the republican-adjacent wing of the party told them to shut up.
Because they’re paid to be the opposition, and thats it. Anything more means trouble for them.
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.
They represent who votes for them.
Wanna change? Vote in the primaries. Hell, run in the 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”.
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.
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.
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.
DNC leadership genuinely hate Bernie more than Trump.
Yes, Sanders is progressive, while trump is more in line with dnc leadership’s positions.
The Democrats always take the high road or the decorum path every chance they get.
This theory that Dems don’t play dirty is such a bald faced lie. Its rooted in the mythos of the party as an organization of high minded intellectuals and squishy naive good-natured hippies. But anyone who has gone through the trenches of a Dem primary or even bothered to recall the fine details of a general election, know this to be utterly false.
Dems are more than happy to smear their opponents as anti-American, even to the point of accusing them of outright treason. Liberal media orgs and influencers regularly advance personal attacks on their opponents’ personal lives (Obama himself won his Illinois Senate seat on the back of the incumbent’s infidelity), parade around “body language experts” and other hockey pseudo-scientists to degrade the reputation of the opposition, and outright fabricate claims (the Steele Dossier “pee tape” being the liberal companion to the conservatives’ “Whitey Tape” from four years prior) for the entertainment of a gullible base.
The Democrats could have delayed ACB plbeing but on the supreme Court untill election time but they actively decided not to do so.
The Dems could have put a Senator at the head of the Judiciary Committee that wasn’t drooling her way through the hearing. But Feinstein’s cemented position as senior California Senator was the result of the exact kind of cut-throat politics that has entrenched horrifyingly corrupt and incompetent politicians from Henry Cueller to Joe Manchin.
The first link is about a pro Israel PAC spending money against the Dems, so I’m not sure how relevant that is?
Of the others, the newest article is from 2019.
This is pretty tame compared to what their opposing party does, I’m not sure this is supporting your argument to the extent you want. Even Watergate is tame compared to most of the shit republicans have pulled since Obama won. I suppose you could cherry pick metrics, but honestly none of this is even bad enough to be compared to what republicans have done this week. They’re not saints, sure, but if your waiting to vote for a saint you might want to get a job as a Cardinal.
Your second link talks about an anti-trump strategy from the Clinton campaign that literally tried to highlight how stupid and vulgar he was, which only backfired because that’s what his supporters like about him
The third link is attempting to conflate some random hoax videos with the rumors of a “kompromat” pee tape putin supposedly had/has an trump, which doesn’t really have much to do with the Dems that I can tell.
The fourth link is about two Hillary supporters in 2016 admitting they spread the birther rumor, which again has what to do with the Dem party?
Yeah, of all of these, I guess the Clinton one is relevant, and yeah, everyone has long since agreed that was a terrible strategy, but I’m not sure how any of this is a smoking gun that, what, Dems are as bad as Republicans? I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make.
The first link is about a pro Israel PAC spending money against the Dems
A Dem aligned group, in a Dem primary, to support AIPAC friendly candidates by running smears on progressive incumbents
an anti-trump strategy from the Clinton campaign that literally tried to highlight how stupid and vulgar he was
She used campaign resources to promote Trump during the GOP primary
attempting to conflate some random hoax videos
Propagated by Dem proxies to promote a liberally endorsed false claim
two Hillary supporters in 2016 admitting they spread the birther rumor
Two campaign staffers
They should have been doing that for 40 fucking years.
Shorter sentences, bolder statements, hell, they needed to say things that didn’t entirely make sense when you analyzed them, but sounded cool. Political campaigns clearly need to be more approachable, more relatable than what the Dems are doing. Look at AOC, Bernie, and JC, THAT is the messaging that resonates.
Also, way more calls to action. What are YOU doing and what should I do? And stop asking me for damn money - you can invoice me when the work is complete.
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!
I wonder how many republicans they picked up by that move.
Probably two.
Why would anyone on the right vote for the “right-lite” party when they have a full on fucking Nazi party?
The thing is I actually know some “conservatives” that did appreciate seeing Republicans coming over.
However, as far as I’ve seen, the only conservatives that appreciated that had already decided to be firmly anti-Trump without any help.
They still are being soft. Why would you think it would change?
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.
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.
Well, Trump and the GOP are working to make sure Palestinians aren’t going to be an issue any more. By helping Israel genocide them.
Trump and the GOP aren’t just helping, they’re investing in the Palestinian extinction and planning to build golf resorts on their graves.
Jared kushner, and trump already have real estate planned in the area.
Well they have a long way to go to eclipse Bidens support of racist genocide, but I’m sure they’ll try hard.
“A long way to go”??? Pretty sure removing Palestinians from Palestine is about as far as one can go.
Whereas I’m taking walz more literally. In my experience, they came out swinging, full of energy and novelty, getting that “weird” label stuck. I can even understand lack of policy or platform since apparently we no longer care about that.
… but then they started answering “no change”, the energy faded, they dropped out of the news. I don’t know if it’s just me, but they were invisible leading up to the election. Literally more concerned about not screwing up, playing it safe.
It’s not that Harris’ campaigne adhered too closely to a traditional campaign style, but that they let up on the gas approaching the finish line
They dialed it back to avoid upsetting their big corporate donors.
pretty much that, when they started courting right wingers it was over.
Well, good thing they did that, huh? This is so much better than that could have been. /s
You give him too much credit
No, that’s exactly what he meant. They stuffed Walz in a box and paraded around with the Cheneys the moment they got that endorsement. They played safe by playing to the center when they started strong by picking one of the most progressive governors for VP.
I enjoyed your comment for a few reasons, but have one question. Did you pick Dearborn Michigan at random off a mental map, or was there some specific reason for that city in particular?
Dearborn is frequently spoken about in conservative circles as “being taken over by Muslims.” Maybe that has something to do with it.
Dearborn was also the center of the pro-Palestine movement within the Democratic party.
That’s why, yes. Big Somali ex-pat community. Sort of like how Columbus, OH got dumped on with the “They’re eating the dogs and the cats” line because older white residents were panicking at the influx of Haitians working the gradually renewing manufacturing sector.
michigan has a large muslim population, and dearborn is one of thier strongholds. i dont think michigan went to trump though. i said on reddit before coming here, that the gaza/ issue isnt that big of impact because most americans arnt that concerned about foreign policy, as they are about INFLATION, and social issues in the usa.
I think it is the city in the US with the highest percentage of Arab Americans. But also maybe there’s a bit of oil there.
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.
I wish Al Green were 20 years younger and wanted to be POTUS. He is the real deal. Visit his web site. He is totally devoted to his district and his constituents. I tried to send him some money but there is no indication he’s at all interested in any money out side his district. Unlike so many other Dem candidates and pols, I could not even find a place to send a donation to Rep. Green because I’m not in his district.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
The founding fathers created a good system and bipartisan politics have corrupted itOnly when compared to monarchy, or the Soviet Union.
It was always going to be corrupted, and if you think the electoral college will ever prevent a demogoge from taking power, I have a bridge to sell you on Pluto.
They’ll never learn. It’s the same thing every election cycle.
That’s the safest take he could have on the situation.
Putting Liz Cheney on stage was a pretty risky move if you ask me.
