this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
946 points (98.2% liked)

politics

23154 readers
3293 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
 

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 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Willy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

saying they should have held more in-person events and town halls.

That’s what you mean by too safe? Do these events matter at all? Aren’t they just supporter circle jerks?

[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Too safe? No, they were too center.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Etterra@discuss.online 8 points 1 month ago

They should have leaned left harder instead of engaging in a futile attempt to sway conservatives.

[–] jecxjo@midwest.social 7 points 1 month 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.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 7 points 1 month 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)
[–] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Part of the problem was not saying the word Fascist enough

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] troed@fedia.io 7 points 1 month ago (22 children)

I thought it was that americans were to misogynistic and racist. Incl. a whole lot of Democrats that had no problems voting for Biden but couldn't be bothered to vote Harris.

"Thank you"

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] faltryka@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

That prevent defense analogy works well here.

[–] TylerBourbon@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

They should have stuck with the "they're weird". And they definitely shouldn't have tried courting Republican voters. All that yielded was pushing away Dem voters and Republican voters aren't going to vote for Dems, they will just not show up for Trump. They shouldn't have constantly called them a danger and threat because we've been saying that for years, and at some point people stop listening. Instead, they should have leaned into the "they're weird" and the weird things they want to do. Making them sound like an existential threat, even if they are, just sounds like someone yelling the sky is falling, and people ignore it. But we've already seen how they can't handle being mocked. So mock them. Belittle them, make them out to be the buffoons they are.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›