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.”

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
20 points

Fuck both of them. Only a progressive will go far in the party

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Walz is pretty progressive, much more so than Harris.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Not enough though

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I’m sure this time it will work 🫠

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

By all means, don’t participate until your perfect candidate comes along.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

lol

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 21K

    Posts

  • 563K

    Comments