this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
580 points (97.4% liked)

politics

21142 readers
3956 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
580
Tim Walz says he and Harris were too ‘safe’ during 2024 presidential campaign (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 19 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
168 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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."

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jecxjo@midwest.social 7 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

I agree that they and the dems in general are way too safe. But i wonder how accepting dem voters would be with a more aggressive candidate. I'm sure Millennials to Gen Alpha would probably be fine with it but i wonder if a good portion of the voters would poo poo a someone moving more towards the a more extreme (in presentation) candidate.

What if they made a hard line decision on a topic and held firm. The whole fracking thing is a good example. They should have just picked a side and stood their ground. instead it was 100% pandering to whoever was the loudest. Personally I would have voted for someone with conviction rather than someone who was waffling but I am not sure every other liberal voter would do the same.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

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

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

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

But i wonder how accepting dem voters would be with a more aggressive candidate.

We've been living through passive, fearful, reactive, business-led, "nothing will fundamentally change" dem leadership for decades. Theres no need to fear change at this point because we literally cant lose any harder than we are now. We have been teetering on the edge of dissolution for so long that people are starting to fear risking changing what shitty circumstanbes we have now. We couldnt be more pathetic as a party.

[–] jecxjo@midwest.social 3 points 11 hours ago

Agreed. I just have started to lose faith in the voters. Reps push hateful politicians and Dems don't seem to push hard for solid candidates.

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 41 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

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

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 14 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

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?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago

[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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

Safe for whom??

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JoshuaBrusque@lemmy.world 37 points 18 hours ago (9 children)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 10 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NotLemming@lemm.ee 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

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.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›