Tim Walz says he and Harris were too ‘safe’ during 2024 presidential campaign
Tim Walz says he and Harris were too ‘safe’ during 2024 presidential campaign
Former vice-presidential candidate claims pair should have held more in-person events around the US
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."
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.
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.
Looks to me like Sanders is in the recruitment phase for something. At least I hope he is.
Except if they copied what Bernie is doing, it would include not making a presidential run. Part of the reason Bernie is able to do what he does is he only needs to keep his relatively smaller electorate happy instead of having to appeal to a whole nation, including people somewhat philosophically opposed to him.
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.
Too safe? No, they were too center.
center
That's being generous
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.
Obama was only voted into office because he is an extremely charismatic and charming person.
I think it had more to do with the conditions at the time. He was one of the few politicians with a national following from either party who had always vocally opposed the Iraq War. His chief opponent in the Democratic Primary was Hilary Clinton, who had voted for the invasion in 2003 even though she was opposed to the war by 2008. On the Republican side, McCain was still saying in 2008 that his vote to invade was a good decision and that he'd do it again.
It's hard to remember now, but the Iraq War was a MASSIVE issue in the primaries and early general election in 2008. The country was almost unanimously opposed to it by that point, including Republican voters. W Bush was massively unpopular, and that was dragging down the entire GOP. Then the Great Recession hit and Bush/the GOP took the entire blame since they'd he'd been President for 8 years and they'd held the majority in both houses of Congress for most of the Bush presidency.
By that point, a corpse with a (D) next to their name could have defeated McCain. Obama is absolutely incredibly charismatic and a once-in-a-generation political mind. But 2008 was also a perfect storm of factors against the Republican Party. There was virtually no way a Democrat could lose that election.
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!"
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.
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 understand perfectly well. It's just that being corporate hacks and cronies is more profitable.
Well, they tried social media with calling Harris a "brat" because some popstar did. Well turns out having millionaire and billionaire capitalist artists embrace you does not rally people. Turns out people are more sensible than thinking "hey this musician i like said i should vote for this one. Guess that is all i need". Also i found this kind of endorsement seeking quite insulting as it shows how little intelligence they expect of their voters.
No wonder Showman, TV show host won elections, even Krasnov Trump's FBI director is conspiracy theorist with a radio host and commentator as deputy director.
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.
They’ll never learn. It’s the same thing every election cycle.
Easy to say when it's all over, but I still think they're wrong.
They should try not being fake as fuck.
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?
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.
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.
Al Green is the representative we all need in this time of national crisis. If every democrat in office was an Al Green I'd be feeling better for my life as someone Trump targets with his vitriol.
I have nothing but respect for him at this moment.
I was just thinking earlier today that I miss Tim Walz. Walz 2028!
someone younger maybe?
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.
That's the safest take he could have on the situation.
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.
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.
Not even nasty, just play ads of Fatputin spewing his idiotic/fascist nonsense non-stop, that would do it. There's practically a never ending well of content from the last decade they could have used to make some truly devastating ad (grab 'em by the pussy, on a loop??), and how about going back and talking about his 1st term that ended in a year so bad it was a running joke? Nah, let's talk about joy and leave it at some vague notion of this guy sucks, but not going into why. A coup attempt? Meh, we'll show a clip of J6, but not bother mentioning it was a fucking coup attempt. Twice impeached convicted felon? Meh, let's just leave it at some vague "not going back" slogan. Fucking malpractice. Again. Dems are either breathtakingly incompetent, or in cahoots.
And beyond that, democrats should have blast ads every 5 minutes about how George bush and trump both left us with the greatest recessions since the Great Depression. Bust the weird, non factual myth that republicans are good for the economy. Flip the script, the facts are there, they just suck ass at messaging and propaganda.
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.
Fuck both of them. Only a progressive will go far in the party
Walz is pretty progressive, much more so than Harris.
Not enough though
I like progressive politics as well, but the fact of the matter is that we need centrist Dems/independents that will caucus with Democrats, ones that can win in swing states and districts, and while they may not entirely align with our goals it's at least a step in the right direction. It's going to take decades to undo the damage done by Republicans, and the unfortunate truth is that Americans saw Kamala as more extreme left than Trump extreme right (education seems to be a major issue) Democrats need a majority before any realistic change can happen. People are dumb, but that's where we're at, I don't want to sound resigned or accepting of this situation, just realistic.
I like progressive politics as well, but
but the paragraph of centrist apologia that followed this indicates that this is less than truthful.
the fact of the matter is that we need centrist Dems/independents that will caucus with Democrats, ones that can win in swing states and districts, and while they may not entirely align with our goals it’s at least a step in the right direction.
"Vote blue no matter who" has always meant "vote republican-lite and shut up." The last time centrists didn't get 100% of everything they wanted, they formed a PAC to get McCain elected.
Americans saw Kamala as more extreme left than Trump extreme right
No, trumpists who were never going to vote for a democrat saw her that way. centrists loved how far to the right she was.
Democrats need a majority before any realistic change can happen.
We gave them a majority and as always they found enough no votes. No more excuses. They can gum up the works right now. They won't.
Honestly though, where's the economic populism at???
I think the only good messaging strategy they had the entire campaign was calling Republicans "weird", and that got shutdown after like 2 weeks. Whoever killed that should be driven out of politics forever.
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
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.
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
Well yeah, most of them refuse to take corporate money and SuperPAC donations. They don't do insider trading when in office because they have consistent morals and ethics.
Also helps when they corporations who own the media refuse to cover you and your wins, and then pay for the milquetoast candidates who won't tax them to win more.
I am hopeful that this next cycle the progressives that actually want to do something will break free from institutionalized/leadership of the party of democrats.
Not hopeful they will receive that opportunity again though.
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.
Not just Chuck but the whole leadership of the Democrat party needs to go.
While I agree, here’s what I worry about. Even if the leadership is replaced, the culture of the Democrats is to listen to consultants, voter panels etc. It’s commendable to take voters wishes into account, but what most voters want is a leader, not a listener.
Example: during the campaign voter panels talked about inflation and immigration whereas healthcare was ranked at the bottom. Therefore Democrats did not talk about healthcare.
But this is really a chicken and egg story. If nobody talks about healthcare, voters feel that healthcare is not on the ballot, and so they won’t mention the topic in voter panels. Luigi showed (once again) that healthcare in the US is fucked and that many people in fact care deeply about the topic. I am almost sure that Harris would have done better had she made healthcare the central issue of her campaign. The moral is that as long as Democrats are following, rather than leading, they will continue to lose elections.
Reducing Democrats in Congress is the opposite of progress. We should be recalling Republican congresspeople that don’t represent their constituents, or we’ll be waiting until November 2026 for our next chance to flip seats.
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/recall-of-state-officials
Step 2: pelosi needs to retire.
prison for her would be much better for everyone.
Still playing safe? They're playing it even safer than before, and they have even less to lose. I don't understand what they don't get. They need to go on offense. Now is the time for it if ever. They literally have no power, so just make noise and make sure everything happening is loud and people know who's doing it.
The dem leadership is absolutely too safe. The only ones saying what should be said are the ones that have no power.
Step 2: ditto Jeffries
Step 3: AOC and Bernie need to take their place.
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.
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!
Pelosi hated the left long before the left hated her.
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.
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.
The Songs of Distant Earth by Arthur C. Clarke has government by lottery.
Test potential politicians for mental illnesses and make sure they have empathy etc. Make them do mandatory counselling. I mean, counsellors and mental health workers have to do this because they're working with vulnerable people, but politicians don't??? Their decisions affect everyone, including vulnerable people.
Yep. Every time I hear Jeffries talk I am thinking "shut the fuck up and go fetch AOC".
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
Could have even been worse, they could have made his daughter the vp pick
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
That ship sailed with the first TV debates, tbh. I watched the Carter-Reagan debate and it wasn't a contest. I hate Reagan's dumb fucking face, that bastard fucked America up for forty plus years and set us on the track we're on, but he ate Jimmy Carter alive and went back for seconds. They weren't even playing the same sport. Carter, a Nuclear Engineer, was up there delivering a university lecture about why he should be the president, and Reagan went up there, turned on the actor, and gave America the best cigarette ad it had ever seen.
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.
Biden won because he wasn't trump. Simple as that.
its way more simple than this, america is not ready to elect a woman--let alone a brown woman, to lead the country.
she was up against a felon, who vowed to ban an entire religion his first go. it should have been a layup but our citizenry is full of sexists. the amount of failures trump has is insurmountable. but no. cant have a woman leading. 'too emotional.'
its way more simple than this, america is not ready to elect a woman--let alone a brown woman, to lead the country.
This is a cope from DNC since Hillary. Americans are more accepting than they are actually given credit for. Many Republican voters actually even appreciate Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's anti-oligarchy run she is doing at the moment.
As an outsider looking at American politics, Harris and the DNC just isn't willing to actually get to the bones of what actually matters more for Americans. Harris' election promises aren't appealing in the face of growing inequality as people can't afford medical bills, student loans, and are living pay check to pay check. The DNC and its centrist/blue MAGA supporters still read 2000s pre-recession surveys when Medicare for all, affordable housing and abolition of student fees and debts were unpopular. Fact of the matter is, those policies are now accepted and popular for years as the middle class has shrunk by the years since the 2009 recession. The DNC and its supporters simply deliberately ignore it.
This is pretty much all true. Except for...
One problem the DNC has is that they keep throwing boring ass lawyers into a game that isn’t about law
The DNC wasn't making the decisions. The Harris campaign was.
Kerry? Never stood a chance. Hilary? No chance. Kamala? As much as we needed her to win, she was unappealing to stupid people.
Somewhat true. But Hillary could have won if she had simply mixed in a few bearded Biker types in the background crowd as prominently as all the Muslim women. But these candidates were the mistakes of the voters, not the DNC.
To win an election, you have to excite people. Trump, despite his rhetoric clearly being terrifying, was, unfortunately, exciting.
I change the channel whenever Traitorapist Trump talks so that he never gets a full sentence out. Still do. I don't want to hear one more lie.
But you and I aren't the person Trump is trying to excite.
It's the 25% of Americans that equate critical thought with torture. That is the chunk of people you can't reason with. So you have to have a way for them to care at all. Unloading garbage nonsense that has the occasional inflammatory rhetoric is exciting.
Talking about football? Not exciting to me, but these 25% of Americans? You better bet your ass they like it. They like beer and they like the idea of not having to worry about finances as well.
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.
if only they'd bragged about walking in on teenage beauty pageant changing rooms! why oh why didn't they cheat on all their spouses! Why oh why didnt they own casinos and bankrupt them!
stupid dnc! always running crummy candidates
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.
They basically ONLY focused on the middle class.
Be fair. They also focused on moderate republicans.
Combined, the two constituencies are like 7 people.
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.
"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.
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.
That’s not who Democrats are.
unfortunately, yes, it is
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.
I agree, Walz, start being unsafe. Show us what we want to see in a candidate.
Or, ya know, actually BE what we what in a candidate.
No shit. I didn't feel like I was voting for progressives. It left like I was voting for "not Trump." You could have put a piece of corn-bread at the podium and I would have voted for it instead of Trump. But still. I didn't vote for them because I just loved what they had to say... Because they weren't for changing anything. They wanted to keep the status quo where it was. They were only listening to their wealthy donors. It was sad to watch.
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)
What they did was court Republican voters instead of Democrat voters, and neither Republicans nor Democrats were amused.
You mean you didn't appreciate Harris campaigning with Republicans and throwing more support behind fracking than universal healthcare? Damn, what are you, some kind of socialist?
What they did was court Republican voters instead of Democrat voters
She "courted Republicans" with the most liberal platform since LBJ? Taking a picture with Liz Cheney, WITHOUT CHANGING ANY POLICIES, was a good thing not a bad thing. Because far right republicans supporting Democrats is objective confirmation of the threat of Fascism. It proves that Dems weren't making exaggerating the threat to democracy.
Politics is not about having white papers on your website.
I'm hardly breaking new ground in my assertion here, even if you personally don't agree.
If you somehow don't realize how progressive and working class interests were kicked to the curb in favor of courting those (still) elusive republican votes there are many, many opinion pieces out that that can detail it more eloquently than I.
Here's but one paragraph from but one such article:
The Democrats' sharp turn to the right can be mapped through their party platforms and political programs. In 2020, they offered a "new social and economic contract" of "shared prosperity" and racial justice. By 2024, Harris and running mate Tim Walz failed to directly or meaningfully mention the impacts of racism, police brutality, inequality or diversity in their 82-page policy platform.
https://inthesetimes.com/article/progressives-left-kamala-harris-election-2024-democrats-resistance
And look at all the good it did them:
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!!"
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
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.
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.
Part of the problem was not saying the word Fascist enough
Well I do declare, that would just be uncouth and rude, let's instead keep saying we want to work across the aisle with the fascists, people love that shit! Right? RIGHT?? Oh....
They should have leaned left harder instead of engaging in a futile attempt to sway conservatives.
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.
The Democrats need to embrace populism to get into office, like they did with Obama in 2008. Remember, Obama wasn't the Democratic establishment's first choice, but as Obama's movement grew, they recognized that they could ride his wave back into power. Something similar happened in 2016 with Bernie Sanders, but in that case the Democratic establishment turned away from the candidate with the rapidly growing populist movement, because his language was much too explicitly and aggressively left populist for their comfort. This was a mistake. Had the Democratic establishment embraced Bernie's movement, I don't think Trump would have been elected in 2016.
I hope by now moderate Democrats realize a Bernie Sanders presidency would have been better than the Trump presidency. Many Democrats, apparently, didn't think Bernie was a better option than Trump, that they were both equally bad options. Again, I hope moderate Democrats recognize now that that thinking was wrong. Bernie would have become more moderate once in office, just like Obama. Because Bernie, like Obama, would have listened to the experts.
That's what the Democrats need to do: wait for a populist movement to form around a candidate, ride that populist wave into office, then the experts and technocrats can take over.
That all being said, Democrats also need to ensure that the experts and the technocrats are doing their jobs properly. Part of the reason these populist movements exist is because of the failures of technocrats and experts, failure to recognize the limitations or contradictions within their ideology. The technocrats must ensure that once they are back in power they are managing the country and the economy properly, so that the largest possible number of people can thrive, otherwise they will not be able to hold on to power.
Do Republicans become more moderate once they get in office? No, and their voters punish the ones that do. So why are you talking about Democrats doing that like it's a good thing? That strategy is a big part of our current problem. We keep trying to elect more progressive candidates but a bunch of them get into office then almost immediately say "jk, all that progressive business was a ruse, I'm actually here to lower corporate taxes". If I wanted a moderate I'd fucking vote for one.
So why are you talking about Democrats doing that like it's a good thing?
One of the characteristics of populism is being anti-establishment, even against the established academic and technocratic paradigm. So, when a populist candidate moderates once in office, they become less populist and come more inline with the established academic and technocratic paradigm when they seek the advice and guidance of experts. Not all populists moderate once in office, because they don't all listen to experts. Trump is a great example, and I think right wing politicians who get elected by building a populist movement are less likely to moderate once in office because they are less likely to listen to experts.
Small correction: The DNC isn't employing technocrats and experts; they're employing neoliberals concerned first and foremost with extracting money from the poor and putting it in the hands of the rich. If they were concerned with improving people's lives they'd have implemented progressive economic policy like everyone with two braincells to rub together has been telling them to.
Neoliberalism started taking over as the dominant paradigm in the 1970s, and had become firmly entrenched in academia and the political technocratic state by the 1980s. That has changed, and is continuing to change, but there was a time when the majority of experts and technocrats were neoliberals. Many still are, unfortunately, though, I think the influence of neoliberalism is declining, albeit slowly (at least too slow for my preference).
If they were concerned with improving people’s lives they’d have implemented progressive economic policy
The DNC has no power to implement any policies. The House Democratic Caucus (HDC) and Senate Democratic Caucus (SDC) are the organizations with that power. The HDC/SDC are way more powerful than the DNC.
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.
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.
They would be getting 3x more money if they had consistently winning strategies.
If I may abuse a metaphor, the money they are getting now is the bird in the hand, and the money they could be getting from a enthusiastically supportive base is the two birds in the bush. Why chase what they might get, when they can hold on to what they have? Especially when they consider that letting go of the bird in the hand will cause it to fly straight over to join the birds already in their opponent's hand.
Now, we might say the bird in the hand is poisonous, and should be discarded regardless, but a look at longtime party leadership makes me think they know, and they don't care. Those people haven't cared for a long time, if they ever did. As long as the likes of Pelosi can keep their own seat, it doesn't matter how much damage is done to the country, they can keep enriching themselves while claiming to care.
Or, at least that's what it looks like from where I'm standing.
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.
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.
The crazy part of it is that jewish people are only ~2% of the US population, spread across both parties. And about 80% of American jews are zionists. So this country destroyed itself to promote the special interests of an infintesimal minority of voters pursuing a far right pet cause that included war crimes. Its absolutely insanity, so of course we lost.
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.
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.
Milquetoast, it's a characters name!
Says a lot about how out of touch and relatively conservative they are that they think their behavior was "safe"
Safe for whom??
Neocons.
saying they should have held more in-person events and town halls.
That’s what you mean by too safe? Do these events matter at all? Aren’t they just supporter circle jerks?
That prevent defense analogy works well here.
I thought it was that americans were to misogynistic and racist. Incl. a whole lot of Democrats that had no problems voting for Biden but couldn't be bothered to vote Harris.
"Thank you"
The Democrats seem to think misogyny played a part, yes, but I'm not convinced that this was the case. It's an easy excuse. But it glosses over a problem that Democrats have not been willing to face for almost 20+ years.
They are convinced that if they become the center, they'll win the majority.
The Harris campaign ran the same play as the Clinton campaign: I'm not Trump.
The only case of misogyny that I can see is that Biden ran the same campaign. But the problem with this argument is that we were in a Trump presidency. The effects of it were clear to voters. If you carry over this logic to Biden, Harris lost not because she was a woman but the effects of the Biden presidency was clear to voters.
Harris had the opportunity to come out as progressive. To go further than Biden. To guarantee colleges loan forgiveness for everyone. To come out against healthcare companies. To come out against the alt right.
But she didn't.
She played the same plays as Hilary: I'm not Trump. I'll save democracy. Israel is cool.
The sad thing is she could be leading the charge right now to help organize people against fascism. If she really learned any lessons from her campaign, she'd be with Bernie and doing tours to help people protest.
The DNC would rather eat crumbs that fall off the table than risk biting the hands that feed it (corporations). They have lost legitimacy in my book and will only support them as opposition to the fascists because there isn't another option. If a true progressive party gains momentum, you can bet that the DNC and GOP will work together to push progressives out.
The only case of misogyny that I can see is that Biden ran the same campaign.
Biden didn't, though. Biden ran a centrist-ish campaign, to be clear, but he also coopted many of Bernie's popular promises and generally ran on making things better for the average American. He promised a move left, while Harris promised a move right. They were not running the same campaign.
She played the same plays as Hilary: I’m not Trump. I’ll save democracy. Israel is cool.
Even though Hilary always had a bunch of Muslim women in the background of all her crowds and identity politics helped sink her campaign.
it's everything. the democratic party since Obama was elected has been unwilling to grapple with that our populace is split between people who think racism is an ongoing aspect of the fight for liberation, people who think racism ended some time in the past like in 1864, 1920, 1950, 1970, or 1989, and people who outright engage with racist ideologies. democrats try to engage with an idyllic populace who generally means well when the actual populace is a bunch of colonizers.
our best bet for a president who can address all the problems of this political environment is basically the wokest white dude we can find. and the way tim walz is acting and behaving, he might be operating with the understanding that given bernie sanders' age, it might have to be him.
i ask everyone to do the following: pay attention to what tim walz does, but don't treat him as your savior. every liberation movement has required three figures: the violent revolutionary (think Malcolm X), the pacifist the respectability politics people are willing to engage with (think dr martin luther king jr), and the emotional/spiritual leader that soothes people who are hurting's souls (this leader usually goes unnamed because they are not looking for a position of power). you need to choose your role in our liberation movement as soon as possible and start agitating. and understand tim walz will never exit his lane of pacifist the respectability politics people are willing to engage with.
tim walz, also, for how much we love him, has blind spots and will say some ignorant shit in tho years to come. have grace and patience with him for as long as he will listen. america has a long legacy of politicians who entrench themselves in something dumb because when you have as many critics as someone in office has, the legitimate criticism tends to get buried under a mountain of unreasonable criticism.
Tim Walz wouldn’t win an election even if he ran unopposed.
The DNC needs a socially conservative but economically progressive candidate if they want to reclaim the narrative that they are the party of the working class. Tim Walz is already Tampon Tim to them. Like it or not, middle America wants to keep trans people in the margins. I know it’s awful to say, but they will need to keep fighting to win acceptance in society. The government simply cannot forc, coerce or even nudge people to accept them.
Liberals love to blame racism and misogyny for their own failings.
True, they needed to expose themselves to more assassination attempts.
I had high hopes for Walz. Then he gave his pussyshit performance.
My tinhat theory is the DNC told him “not to say anything stupid,” like feeding school kids or anything progressive. That left him up there only playing fact checker and regurgitating that he is, in fact, not trump.
Walz is great, just not what the Democratic Party was actually willing to put in play.
Walz 2028?
Depends on what he does between now and election day. Its not currently a good sign that he's running with the fascist lite crowd instead of progressives.
Is he? He's said that we need to seriously change our strategy and be more aggressive against the republicans, which would put him in conflict with most of the democratic leadership
107 days to campaign and they spent it hiding—sounds less like strategy, more like surrender. Thorough and clear article.
🐱🐱🐱🐱
Should have held a primary and not primarily run on abortion issues. Also, Harris changing her accent was ridiculous. DNC definitely set her up for failure. They'd have a better chance with Tulsi Gabbard, who lasted longer than Harris in the 2020 primaries.
And Master Sgt Walz still amazes me that he never saw combat even though he was artillery when he served through the Gulf and the OEF/OIF wars. That says a lot.
Should have held a primary and not primarily run on abortion issues.
Should have had a primary and had some credibility on abortion.
Tulsi Gabbard went hard right. And 2/3rds of the military didn't deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan. There's nothing abnormal about that at all.
Also, in the military we generally refer to people as the rank they served at, not the rank they were retired at for paperwork reasons.
tulsi gabbard never wouldve worked for the DNC, shes always been a right winger, she only became a D as a way to stay in politics in hawaii, and additionally her father was soley responsible for preventing same sex marriage in hawaii for a long time.
100% agree
Definitely
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.
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
Were there a lot of people who just wanted a little?
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.