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."
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 can only answer you 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 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
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.
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.
Wanna change? Vote in the primaries. Hell, run in the primaries.
Oof, got some bad news about those primaries.....
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.
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.
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".
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.
Part of the problem was not saying the word Fascist enough
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.
They should have leaned left harder instead of engaging in a futile attempt to sway conservatives.
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.
That’s not who Democrats are.
unfortunately, yes, it is
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.
"the middle class" does not exist, they should focus on helping the homeless, jobless and working class.
Not only that, but they stuck to the corporate response on nearly every single question. They almost never went off script and it was just so fucking obvious and robotic. And for me, Tim's complete lack of consideration for truth and evidence on its face and in a vacuum was nothing less than trumpian. In RL, I lie about being an OIF Veteran. At first it was shame, guilt, and self destructive tendencies but I've been to a LOT of therapy and I'm living better. But during that time I realized that there were others who would speak a bit more "freely" about things they may have done. If they assume you know nothing about the military then they can say whatever they want. Hearing someone mince words about their service is fairly common and IMHO - innocuous. It's a nothing burger of exaggeration. Had Tim just admitted what was clearly on video and just said, "I was using more colorful language to affect the crowd, my bad." I would have honestly commended him.
Instead, they lied. About the most mundane shit imaginable.
This and/or healthcare for all, and it wouldnt have even been close, they would have won easily
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
It's not something we are going to change anytime soon. Far too many people to change to counter that.
Instead, we need candidates like Walz, who have a brain on their shoulders, and have a way to excite outside of putting on a show.
Bernie Sanders was another example of it. AoC is as well.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Step 2: pelosi needs to retire.
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
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Says a lot about how out of touch and relatively conservative they are that they think their behavior was "safe"
Safe for whom??
Neocons.
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.
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\u2019 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:
Politics is not about having white papers on your website.
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.
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.
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.
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.
107 days to campaign and they spent it hiding—sounds less like strategy, more like surrender. Thorough and clear article.
🐱🐱🐱🐱
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.
I think the Harris-Walz campaign was just a touch too genocide-y rather than "safe"
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.
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?
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.
That prevent defense analogy works well here.
100% agree
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.
Definitely