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.”

  • gatohaus@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    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.

      • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        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.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 days ago

      The dem leadership is absolutely too safe. The only ones saying what should be said are the ones that have no power.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    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.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      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.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        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.

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      Yep. Every time I hear Jeffries talk I am thinking “shut the fuck up and go fetch AOC”.

  • Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

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

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      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

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 days ago

        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.

      • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 days ago

        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.

  • BillDaCatt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    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.

    • ZMonster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 days ago

      Not only that, but they stuck to the corporate response on nearly every single question. They almost never went off script and it was just so fucking obvious and robotic. And for me, Tim’s complete lack of consideration for truth and evidence on its face and in a vacuum was nothing less than trumpian. In RL, I lie about being an OIF Veteran. At first it was shame, guilt, and self destructive tendencies but I’ve been to a LOT of therapy and I’m living better. But during that time I realized that there were others who would speak a bit more “freely” about things they may have done. If they assume you know nothing about the military then they can say whatever they want. Hearing someone mince words about their service is fairly common and IMHO - innocuous. It’s a nothing burger of exaggeration. Had Tim just admitted what was clearly on video and just said, “I was using more colorful language to affect the crowd, my bad.” I would have honestly commended him.

      Instead, they lied. About the most mundane shit imaginable.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      If they had focused their campaign on helping the middle class

      I agree with most of that except this. They basically ONLY focused on the middle class. All the tax break incentives were great. But they never offered a damn thing for the working class. And that’s who they SHOULD have focused on.

      • WagyuSneakers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 days ago

        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.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        They basically ONLY focused on the middle class.

        Be fair. They also focused on moderate republicans.

        Combined, the two constituencies are like 7 people.

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

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

      • WagyuSneakers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        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.

    • DAVENP0RT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      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.

  • MooseyMoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

    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!

  • Brusque@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 days ago

    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.

    • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 days ago

      Dems never had the super majority to abolish the electoral college, gerrymandering or the other things you mentioned.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        There was never the votes to give women the right to vote either, but it eventually got passed after a good solid fight.

        Plenty of people were arguing back then that “there arent the votes to make this happen” and “we should only focus on very small incremental wins”.

          • kreskin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            They cant fight? they cant play politics? No hard ball? No applying pressure? No speeches, lawsuits, threats? Those are all thing republicans seem to use, but the dems just…“cant”? Give me a break.

            • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 days ago

              They can vote. If they do not have enough dems to vote they have to reach across the aisle to get votes from conservatives.

              Conservatives will not help without getting something in return.

              What you’re saying is dems should give conservatives concessions which will then be used as a talking point to blame dems more.

              That’s what “fighting” means in this context.

              • kreskin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 days ago

                only to the unimaginative. Or those that want excuses to do nothing. Consent can be steered and manufactured. If the centrists had any ideology at all they’d be pursuing the right things, not lounging about doing absolutely nothing.

                What do the dems do lately that would make anyone vote for them? Do they profess to stand for… much of anything, besides Israels right to take land and exterminate the civilians on it? Tell me one thing they have made a strong stand on?

                • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 days ago

                  It’s a vote. You can’t win a vote with feelings or vibes or a “can do attitude”.

                  It requires votes.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 days ago

      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.

      • AugustWest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        I enjoyed your comment for a few reasons, but have one question. Did you pick Dearborn Michigan at random off a mental map, or was there some specific reason for that city in particular?

        • pachrist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 days ago

          I think it is the city in the US with the highest percentage of Arab Americans. But also maybe there’s a bit of oil there.

  • arotrios@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    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.

    • Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

  • bradd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 days ago

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

    They should try not being fake as fuck.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 days ago

    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.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 days ago

      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.

      • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        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.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 days ago

          One of the characteristics of populism is being anti-establishment, even against the established academic and technocratic paradigm.

          Hell no. FDR was a populist. You do NOT need to be against expertise and intelligence to oppose the billionaire elites. Rather the opposite. We need smart and competent people to beat the billionaires.

          • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 days ago

            FDR challenged the establishment at the time, even the academic and technocratic paradigm at the time, which is exactly what I said.

  • btaf45@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    Harris initially said she was going to “prosecute” the case against Traitorapist Trump but then never did anything like that. All she had to do to win was use way more aggressive rhetoric. She never used the phrase “Convicted Criminal Trump” or “Treason Trump” She never used the phrase “legally certified rapist Trump”. She never pointed out that Trump hates the Free World and freedom and democracy. She never reminded voters that Trump had a 29% approval rating at the end of his term. She never pointed out that Trump is very disloyal to our longstanding core values. She never reminded people that Ted Cruz said that Trump “lies practically ever word that comes out of his mouth”.

    Dems NEED much more aggressive candidates. No more of that business as usual shit.