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.”
What they did was court Republican voters instead of Democrat voters, and neither Republicans nor Democrats were amused.
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’ 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:
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.
That is a very good thing for 2 reasons. (1) It would have sunk them in the election, and (2) Dems already so way too much identity politics which is what always sinks them in the elections.
It would have sunk them in the election
Oh would it have? Well it’s a good thing that didn’t happen, just think where we’d be.
I also think it’s now exceptionally clear that the right has always wanted to do exactly what it looked like they wanted to do to everyone not white male and cisgendered, proving those to have been important issues.
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.
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.
FDR challenged the establishment at the time, even the academic and technocratic paradigm at the time, which is exactly what I said.
One of the characteristics of populism is being anti-establishment, even against the established academic and technocratic paradigm.
Yeah that’s a good thing, because as you said in your other reply the established academic and technocratic paradigm is fucking stupid. You should want them to be against the established paradigm if you want anything to change.
the established academic and technocratic paradigm is fucking stupid.
Its insane to be against science and intelligence and knowledge.
[You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science]
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/
You can be against the established paradigm when you know what you want and how to get there.
We want to take the money from the few, and give it to the many.
Its insane to be against science and intelligence and knowledge.
The “science” behind neoliberalism is supply-side economics, which I hope I don’t need to say doesn’t work.
Science has nothing at all to do with voodoo economics and nobody thinks that it does.
Its insane to be against science and intelligence and knowledge.
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.
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.
Oh man, I remember that lie, that was fucking cringe inducing. It’s always better to tell the truth, especially if you’re a bad liar, like Walz apparently is. The whole VP debate was pretty disappointing, because it felt like Walz spent the whole time pulling punches and playing softball, while Vance was his usual greasy self.
Lol, Vance. I swear his face reminds me of what a ken dolls face looks like when you try to fold it onto itself from the forehead.
How the fuck is this true? How did you even make this observation?! Outstanding.
I grew up with sisters. They were tricksters and knew that I would spend hours playing with their Barbie dolls on the empty promise to come into the woods and throw rocks at things. So their Barbie dolls always ended up marrying deformed ken. It was the only way I could cope with those dreadfully dull things. Folding his face over was my go-to move. My sisters hated that. Now he’s our VP. And I hate it. When I had enough I would put my thumb under kens chin and pop his head off like I was flipping a coin. Now I just flick my thumb at a screen when I see his dumb face on it. The mental imagery is euphoric enough to cope these days.
👍 Couch fucker
That’s not who Democrats are.
unfortunately, yes, it is
This and/or healthcare for all, and it wouldnt have even been close, they would have won easily
Harris did campaign on health care for all though, right?
Either way, I agree with everyone. I have a suspicion that Harris team started out the gate with very loud messaging around social economic programs they wanted to push.
Then they got reeled in by the donor class. There’s a distinct dampening on clear message a few weeks after the confusion was settled. This is just my little theory though. I think the messaging is vague on purpose to please the wealthy donors.
And you don’t even have to deliver on it, just say you will. It worked for Obama.
I’m going to shut down Gitmo! - Obama, 2006
And here we are almost 20 years later and GOP is sending Ausländers to expanding gitmo camps.
“the middle class” does not exist, they should focus on helping the homeless, jobless and working class.
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.
They basically ONLY focused on the middle class.
Be fair. They also focused on moderate republicans.
Combined, the two constituencies are like 7 people.
