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
    171
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day 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.

      • EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        23 hours ago

        The entire party needs to go. Let it burn and be replaced by a workers party that represents us.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Let it burn and be replaced by a workers party that represents us.

          That went horribly wrong in Russia. It turned out Lenin and Stalin didn’t represent anybody besides themselves. And their main targets weren’t people on the right, it was the other 2 socialist parties, the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks.

          • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            27 minutes ago

            Communism was a mixed bag. For many east Europeans, the monarchy had observed the revolts of 1888 with horror and had concluded that technological progress would be the death of them, so they explicitly resisted industrialization. That means that while much of Western Europe was enjoying the fruit of industrialized agriculture and trains for transporting goods and people, East Europe were still living without trains; a sad experience that I can relate to as an American. In many cases, the arrival of the USSR was linked with rapid industrialization, as the soviets sought to modernize these countries that had been held back by their fearful monarchy and feudal lords. That doesn’t erase the bad stuff that happened, but there’s probably a lot more communist governments that you’ve never heard of from the global south that were actually just doing fine until the CIA said “not on my watch!” and set up violent right-wing movements to depose them. For more, see The Jakarta Method.

            • j_overgrens@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              35 minutes ago

              Please tell me how supportive Lenin was of the Workers’ Soviets as soon as the revolution got calmer.

      • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours 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.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          They need to lead, but they also need to not just be reactionary. They should absolutely listen to what us voters are saying. But they should also be looking at the overall situation, and trying to understand why voters are not super stoked about how things are going instead of insisting “the economy is fine”. And then, maybe, I dunno, do some real, honest root cause analysis, and come up with some fucking creative solutions.

          And by “they”, I mean the congresspersons themselves. Not an intern. Not a consultant. Not a lobbyist. The person who was elected. Do the work. Do your fucking job.

      • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        23 hours ago

        People vote for Republicans because if you think Democrats are never going to do anything to help you, you might as well vote for the party that will lower your taxes. There’s real problems with that logic, but it is true that Dems put serving corporations ahead of serving the people.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      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.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

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