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
    210
    ·
    2 months 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
        34
        ·
        2 months 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
          6
          ·
          2 months 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
            5
            ·
            2 months 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.

            • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              There’s never been a fully communist or capitalism government. The issue is we don’t hold those power to a higher standard. Under no situation should one politician or politics party should have this much power. The power needs to stay with the people more directly. The old system worked because information traveled slowly. We know what the American people want. And it’s not capitalism, nor communism.

              • comfy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                What does ‘fully communist’ or ‘fully capitalist’ even mean? These are modes of production and schools of thought, not scales where something can be more capitalist or less capitalist.

                • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  China and even North Korea has carved out areas for capitalistic pursuits. The USSR still had “business” private industries. America has Social security and other social “businesses” For the longest time the post office turned a profit. Reagan ruined that. I’m saying there’s no way either system can work entirely by itself. Our whole idea of work, economics, and relationships with society needs a more radical approach than the apparent binary systems.

            • j_overgrens@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

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

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Quite supportive! Though it isn’t accurate to ever say the Revolution calmed down, IMO, the USSR was under constant siege.

      • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months 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
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months 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
        19
        ·
        2 months 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
      6
      ·
      2 months 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.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    150
    ·
    2 months ago

    The old guard (both literal and figurative) need to get the fuck out of the way for the AOC’s and Crockett’s who will actually speak to power instead of cowering in the corners.

    The other big problem is that politics have become such a negative impact on people’s lives in the US that regular people don’t want to run for office anymore, which is what we really need.

    • octopus_ink@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      2 months ago

      The old guard (both literal and figurative) need to get the fuck out of the way for the AOC’s and Crockett’s who will actually speak to power instead of cowering in the corners.

      They sure as eff do!

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yep. Every time I hear Jeffries talk I am thinking “shut the fuck up and go fetch AOC”.

  • RangerJosey@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    ·
    2 months ago

    They were too far right. They pursued the “moderate republican” vote and lost spectacularly.

    It is a politically suicidal idea. But they just can’t stop themselves. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is what they do best.

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That was what they thought the “safe” thing to do was. “Decorum” and “reaching across the isle”. All that “when they go low, we go high!” shit, in the face of actual Nazis.

      More like “when they get votes, we go bye”

      Democrats think they’re in a fairy tale, still asleep having the American dream. It’s all offices with rich histories and Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parades in their world. Their campaign donors are “good proud American businessmen (and WOMEN!) who show the world that evil communism isn’t the answer and only centrist cooperation can achieve freedom!”

      It’s why they thought they’re could win by having a brat summer. They thought “we’re clearly the good guys, the ones who like civil rights, hell we’re running a half black, half Indian woman!”

      And now that they fucking lost their answer is “wear pink and sing ‘We Shall Overcome’ on the house floor” when the ONLY ONE OF THEM to stand up to Trump, in the most minor of ways mind you, is censured - and fucking 10 OF THEM VOTED FOR IT! YOU WEAK, INEFFECTUAL ASSHOLES!

      Decorum and traditional norms will not save you now. Get out and speak truth to power. Shit all over them on the news. EASY QUOTES THAT GO VIRAL. Vote as a bloc against everything they try to do. Filibuster, stall, use procedure against then whenever you can. BE FUCKING BULLIES for your cause, because they sure as shit have been doing it to you for 50 FUCKING YEARS. The SAME GODDAMN GUY WITH NIXON is running around dressed like a CARTOON VILLAIN who ties women to train tracks and is still RATFUCKING YOU

      god DAMMIT if I’d have known that the majority of adults in this world were so goddamn stupid I’d have made much different decisions in my life

    • Davin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      No excuse for the DNC, but I think seeking the “moderate Republicans” is a condition of their big donors. Every time the Democrats lose, since Reagan won, they move right because they think they lost because they weren’t conservative enough. And despite all polling that suggests otherwise, they keep doing it.

      In general, they would get more money and power if they won, so why do they keep shooting themselves in the foot every fucking time? In my mind, even if you factor in that they don’t give a shit about the common people and are motivated by money, it only makes sense if they are being manipulated by their big donors to do this stupid shit.

      • btaf45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Every time the Democrats lose, since Reagan won, they move right because they think they lost because they weren’t conservative enough.

        That was true thru Obama but it stopped with Biden. Biden was the most progressive president since LBJ, even though Dem voters could have chosen even more progressive candidates.

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Harris’s husband and brother in law steered Harris right into defeat. She shouldnt have trusted a word those two idiots said.

  • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    2 months ago

    One problem the DNC has is that they keep throwing boring ass lawyers into a game that isn’t about law. It’s about being a face the country knows to run the government.

    You need charisma, you need to appeal to people, and you need to be human. Obama did this perfectly. Bill Clinton had it in him. Biden at least had such a long record in politics he could wing it his first term. I don’t know how he managed to win, but he did.

    Clinton, while being a lawyer, had already been the governor of Arkansas. Meaning he had the experience being that executive. He could convince people to work beyond their own interests. Al Gore, we all know, won the 2000 presidential election, but the supreme court let everything get fucked up.

    Kerry? Never stood a chance. Hilary? No chance. Kamala? As much as we needed her to win, she was unappealing to stupid people.

    Lawyers, by nature of their career, have to read and understand the most boring ass shit and then convince others that the boring ass text supports their side of the case. That means a lot of them are boring people.

    You wanna know why Walz is popular? He fucking loves football. He can connect to highschool students. IDK about you, but if you’ve ever met high schoolers, they aren’t the brightest, and bored easily. He’s progressive, but he won’t shove it in someone’s face to be more righteous. Not many people can do that.

    To win an election, you have to excite people. Trump, despite his rhetoric clearly being terrifying, was, unfortunately, exciting.

    • Hikermick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 months ago

      Obama covered both lawyer and entertaining. He also had an appeal similar to Reagan, confident and comforting during uncertain times. The conservative media made politics entertaining, now we have entertainers as politicians and I can’t get on board with that

      • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s not something we are going to change anytime soon. Far too many people to change to counter that.

        Instead, we need candidates like Walz, who have a brain on their shoulders, and have a way to excite outside of putting on a show.

        Bernie Sanders was another example of it. AoC is as well.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            And thus we see that “no matter who” always and only ever meant “shut up and vote republican-lite.”

            • WagyuSneakers@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              That AOC. Lol. She’s a Neolib. You all are absolutely delusional of you think Neolibs are going to support progressive causes. You’ll elect another mini Republican, she’ll make some TikToks and you’ll have another fascist in four years.

              Dems are traitors.

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      This is pretty much all true. Except for…

      One problem the DNC has is that they keep throwing boring ass lawyers into a game that isn’t about law

      The DNC wasn’t making the decisions. The Harris campaign was.

      Kerry? Never stood a chance. Hilary? No chance. Kamala? As much as we needed her to win, she was unappealing to stupid people.

      Somewhat true. But Hillary could have won if she had simply mixed in a few bearded Biker types in the background crowd as prominently as all the Muslim women. But these candidates were the mistakes of the voters, not the DNC.

      To win an election, you have to excite people. Trump, despite his rhetoric clearly being terrifying, was, unfortunately, exciting.

      I change the channel whenever Traitorapist Trump talks so that he never gets a full sentence out. Still do. I don’t want to hear one more lie.

      • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        But you and I aren’t the person Trump is trying to excite.

        It’s the 25% of Americans that equate critical thought with torture. That is the chunk of people you can’t reason with. So you have to have a way for them to care at all. Unloading garbage nonsense that has the occasional inflammatory rhetoric is exciting.

        Talking about football? Not exciting to me, but these 25% of Americans? You better bet your ass they like it. They like beer and they like the idea of not having to worry about finances as well.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Unloading garbage nonsense that has the occasional inflammatory rhetoric is exciting.

          Oh I agree that the #1 problem is that Harris needed to use way more aggressive rhetoric against Traitorapist Trump.

  • Flummoxx@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Maybe they should copy what Bernie Sanders is doing. He’s not even running and packing out town hall meetings. Who knew being against oligarchs, authoritarians, corporate cronyism and for the middle class would appeal to people?

    • MooseyMoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      Middle class is a term devised by the rich to divide the working class. The one thing they fear more than anything is class consciousness.

    • leadore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Tim Walz should theoretically be good at that. While most politicians are well to do, he’s never made much money and has a reputation of being a regular person, for the regular people. But since he was running for VP he had to parrot Harris’ stance on everything.

      If he could go out and speak plainly with a clear message like Bernie does, be himself and tell us what he really thinks, at least we’d be able to make a judgement call on whether to support him. I don’t know if he has that in him though. Unless he really did learn that “playing it safe” (i.e. acting like a Dem) does not work any more.

      • Doctor_Satan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Exactly. I would like to see what he has to offer on his own terms. Maybe I’ll support him, maybe not. But it was obvious through the entire campaign that he was holding back. The one thing he did that got the most traction in the campaign was calling Republicans “weird”, and he was told by Dem leadership to stop doing that.

        It’s really hard to decide if Dems are just that incredibly incompetent, or if they are actual controlled opposition. I think it might be a combination of the two.

      • Ougie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        If he was aligned with Bernie I think we would know by now. Problem is he doesn’t seem to share these opinions that make Bernie popular.

    • yarr@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Except if they copied what Bernie is doing, it would include not making a presidential run. Part of the reason Bernie is able to do what he does is he only needs to keep his relatively smaller electorate happy instead of having to appeal to a whole nation, including people somewhat philosophically opposed to him.

  • BillDaCatt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      “the middle class” does not exist, they should focus on helping the homeless, jobless and working class.

      • WagyuSneakers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It does exist and this is the exact mentality that lost the election. The Middle class isn’t going to vote for you if you’re campaigning on putting them into the wood chipper again.

    • ZMonster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • ZMonster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

            • ZMonster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              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

        • tischbier@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

      • tischbier@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

  • NovaOG@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    2 months ago

    People on the left screamed this as soon as they took over from sleeping baby joe. We said “PLEASE put some OOMPH into it! Stop regurgitating Corporate Dems platitudes!”

      • NovaOG@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Because they’re paid to be the opposition, and thats it. Anything more means trouble for them.

  • MooseyMoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    2 months ago

    Gee who would have thought that completely ignoring the anti-war/genocide crowd and courting the CHENEYS “moderate Republicans” while keeping absolutely silent about Medicare for all and touting a “keep America lethal” platform would have backfired for one of the least popular politicians ever who was just anointed as the presidential candidate without any sort of primary at all. I’m so confused!

      • cashsky@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Why would anyone on the right vote for the “right-lite” party when they have a full on fucking Nazi party?

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The thing is I actually know some “conservatives” that did appreciate seeing Republicans coming over.

          However, as far as I’ve seen, the only conservatives that appreciated that had already decided to be firmly anti-Trump without any help.

  • Brusque@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      Dems never had the super majority to abolish the electoral college, gerrymandering or the other things you mentioned.

      • VivianRixia@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Even if its not possible, campaign like its the goal. Tell us what you’d do with full approval from everyone and people might get motivated enough to vote to make that happen.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        There was never the votes to give women the right to vote either, but it eventually got passed after a good solid fight.

        Plenty of people were arguing back then that “there arent the votes to make this happen” and “we should only focus on very small incremental wins”.

          • kreskin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            They cant fight? they cant play politics? No hard ball? No applying pressure? No speeches, lawsuits, threats? Those are all thing republicans seem to use, but the dems just…“cant”? Give me a break.

            • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              They can vote. If they do not have enough dems to vote they have to reach across the aisle to get votes from conservatives.

              Conservatives will not help without getting something in return.

              What you’re saying is dems should give conservatives concessions which will then be used as a talking point to blame dems more.

              That’s what “fighting” means in this context.

              • kreskin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                only to the unimaginative. Or those that want excuses to do nothing. Consent can be steered and manufactured. If the centrists had any ideology at all they’d be pursuing the right things, not lounging about doing absolutely nothing.

                What do the dems do lately that would make anyone vote for them? Do they profess to stand for… much of anything, besides Israels right to take land and exterminate the civilians on it? Tell me one thing they have made a strong stand on?

    • DAVENP0RT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      2 months ago

      People really need to accept that the Democratic Party is the conservative party in the US. The Republican Party is the nationalist, authoritarian party. The US does not have a major progressive party.

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        The democratic party is a coalition. It has wings that range from progressive to conservative. The reason they play it safe is because candidates need to be palatable to enough of the constituents to pass their primaries. This is also why local democratic parties are much more likely to have more cohesion.

        • Numinous_Ylem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          2 months ago

          I understand they need to have a broad appeal to different groups, moreso than republicans do, but they could easily achieve that same broad appeal by actually fighting for the working class and not doing things like steamrolling Bernie. The out of touch nature of current leadership is effectively neutering the party.

          It would be a good thing long term for progressives to finally split from dems IMHO, though I wish we would have a ranked choice type system in place beforehand, but either way it needs to happen.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          2 months ago

          Democrats in charge despise the progressive wing. They wish they didn’t have to listen to silly little ideas like Medicare for All or building high speed rail. They’ve gotten fat off the idea that we all know what Republicans will do when they get elected and vote for them, anyway.

          This was never going to be stable in the long run. Republicans only had to win a few times to entrench themselves. That’s because they don’t see their far right wing as nutjobs. They see them as opportunities for driving things further to the right. For example, it took 50 years of planning to get the right people in the Supreme Court to bury Roe v Wade, and it all happened because they won just enough at the right time and then used that power to get what their base wants. What their base wants is horrible and cruel, but they know how to implement the plan.

          Where this leads us now is a situation where ditching establishment Democrats has little downside. We’re fucked if we keep hanging on to them. Drag them to the left or leave them out in the icy cold.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 months ago

          The democratic party is a coalition. It has wings that range from progressive to conservative.

          It has conservatives and hostages.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        Wanna change? Vote in the primaries. Hell, run in the primaries.

        Oof, got some bad news about those primaries…

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        They represent who votes for them.

        Oh? Dick Cheney votes for them? More reliably than progressives?

        Wanna change? Vote in the primaries. Hell, run in the primaries.

        This is gloating about how democrats don’t do fair primaries, if they do them at all.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        They represent who votes for them.

        Hence Bidens “nothing will fundamentally change” pledge to a room full of rich donors. And Biden pushing an extremely unpopular right wing war down a partys throat where many of the memebrs like to think of themselves as leftists. Clearly they are a party who “represents who votes for them”.

  • octopus_ink@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    2 months ago

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

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • octopus_ink@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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:

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • octopus_ink@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      2 months ago

      Its just white noise. If you went back two months and addressed the KHive / Bidenbro block that was fanatically endorsing this campaign, does anyone seriously think “soft” or “safe” would be a term they’d use to describe the media appearances or the ground game?

      No, of course not! Harris was Girl Boss. Cheeto Mussolini was the weak one. JD Vance was too busy fucking couches to answer the hard questions like “Why do you enjoy sucking Putin’s cock?” and “Why do you enjoy sucking Elon Musk’s cock?” and “Why do you enjoy sucking Peter Thiel’s cock?”

      Meanwhile, Harris was out there punching illegal immigrants. She was making those effeminate cop-hating LGBTers eat Terf. She was out there dropping Facts And Logic on those stupid Iran-loving antisemetic ISIS students. She was bringing out the big guns with Liz Fucking Cheney and making sure every voter knew that America First A#1 City On A Hill sound of F-35s flying overhead we’re going to Beat Russia and Obliterate China and Nuke Far-Right Islamic Hate.

      Nobody thought the campaign was “soft” in October of 2024. They were priding themselves on their BlueMAGA credentials.

      Its only after they lost that we got to retcon the campaign as too squishy and liberal and egalitarian. Maybe next time they’ll bomb Dearborn Michigan or stage a full invasion of Tiajuana to prove they’re serious about being the most reactionary party in America.

      • TheresNodiee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m reading his “safe” comment in a bit of a different light. The Harris campaign was playing “safe” politics by ooh rah-ing about the military, guns, and the border. By throwing their full support behind Israel and shouting down and cutting out concerned for the Palestinian people. By running around with Liz Cheney.

        Their campaign started off strong. Kamala was brat, Walz was calling Trump and his allies weird and joking about Vance fucking his couch. There was energy but they dropped the ball by switching to the “safe” Democrat campaign book. They didn’t go out to speak to the people where they were at town halls like Walz said in the article, they didn’t have firebrand Walz shining a flashlight on how bizarre Trump’s people are, they didn’t have a message that would excite the people and really shake up a statue quo that was slowly and inexorably draining Americans of their economic prospects. They just played the safe Democrat game of incrementalism and subservience to wealth and power rather than the people.

        Obviously Walz didn’t say all this, but I think the “safety” he refers to absolutely refers to Kamala’s campaign adhering too closely to a traditional campaign style that was not going to win them much enthusiastic support.

        • Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Well, Trump and the GOP are working to make sure Palestinians aren’t going to be an issue any more. By helping Israel genocide them.

          • _stranger_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            Trump and the GOP aren’t just helping, they’re investing in the Palestinian extinction and planning to build golf resorts on their graves.

          • kreskin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            Well they have a long way to go to eclipse Bidens support of racist genocide, but I’m sure they’ll try hard.

          • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            2 months ago

            No, that’s exactly what he meant. They stuffed Walz in a box and paraded around with the Cheneys the moment they got that endorsement. They played safe by playing to the center when they started strong by picking one of the most progressive governors for VP.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Whereas I’m taking walz more literally. In my experience, they came out swinging, full of energy and novelty, getting that “weird” label stuck. I can even understand lack of policy or platform since apparently we no longer care about that.

          … but then they started answering “no change”, the energy faded, they dropped out of the news. I don’t know if it’s just me, but they were invisible leading up to the election. Literally more concerned about not screwing up, playing it safe.

          It’s not that Harris’ campaigne adhered too closely to a traditional campaign style, but that they let up on the gas approaching the finish line

      • AugustWest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I enjoyed your comment for a few reasons, but have one question. Did you pick Dearborn Michigan at random off a mental map, or was there some specific reason for that city in particular?

        • ravinggerbil@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          Dearborn is frequently spoken about in conservative circles as “being taken over by Muslims.” Maybe that has something to do with it.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            re: @AugustWest@lemmy.world

            That’s why, yes. Big Somali ex-pat community. Sort of like how Columbus, OH got dumped on with the “They’re eating the dogs and the cats” line because older white residents were panicking at the influx of Haitians working the gradually renewing manufacturing sector.

          • Ledericas@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            michigan has a large muslim population, and dearborn is one of thier strongholds. i dont think michigan went to trump though. i said on reddit before coming here, that the gaza/ issue isnt that big of impact because most americans arnt that concerned about foreign policy, as they are about INFLATION, and social issues in the usa.

        • pachrist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think it is the city in the US with the highest percentage of Arab Americans. But also maybe there’s a bit of oil there.

  • deadkennedy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 months ago

    yeah that’s one way to put it.

    2024 was not an election to play it safe or take the high road, yet every chance the DNC collectively got, they did just that.

    They should have slung mud and gotten nasty.

    • Viskio_Neta_Kafo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The Democrats always take the high road or the decorum path every chance they get. It’s one of the reasons why they loose the power struggle so much.

      Democrats and playing chess by the rules and Republicans are moving the pieces wherever they want as long as they can get away with it.

      The Democrats could have delayed ACB being put on the supreme Court untill election time but they actively decided not to do so.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 months ago

        The Democrats always take the high road or the decorum path every chance they get.

        Not every chance. They run against progressives in primaries sometimes. Then the gloves come off.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        The Democrats always take the high road or the decorum path every chance they get.

        They do not

        They really do not

        They truly do not

        They absolutely do not

        This theory that Dems don’t play dirty is such a bald faced lie. Its rooted in the mythos of the party as an organization of high minded intellectuals and squishy naive good-natured hippies. But anyone who has gone through the trenches of a Dem primary or even bothered to recall the fine details of a general election, know this to be utterly false.

        Dems are more than happy to smear their opponents as anti-American, even to the point of accusing them of outright treason. Liberal media orgs and influencers regularly advance personal attacks on their opponents’ personal lives (Obama himself won his Illinois Senate seat on the back of the incumbent’s infidelity), parade around “body language experts” and other hockey pseudo-scientists to degrade the reputation of the opposition, and outright fabricate claims (the Steele Dossier “pee tape” being the liberal companion to the conservatives’ “Whitey Tape” from four years prior) for the entertainment of a gullible base.

        The Democrats could have delayed ACB plbeing but on the supreme Court untill election time but they actively decided not to do so.

        The Dems could have put a Senator at the head of the Judiciary Committee that wasn’t drooling her way through the hearing. But Feinstein’s cemented position as senior California Senator was the result of the exact kind of cut-throat politics that has entrenched horrifyingly corrupt and incompetent politicians from Henry Cueller to Joe Manchin.

        • _stranger_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The first link is about a pro Israel PAC spending money against the Dems, so I’m not sure how relevant that is?

          Of the others, the newest article is from 2019.

          This is pretty tame compared to what their opposing party does, I’m not sure this is supporting your argument to the extent you want. Even Watergate is tame compared to most of the shit republicans have pulled since Obama won. I suppose you could cherry pick metrics, but honestly none of this is even bad enough to be compared to what republicans have done this week. They’re not saints, sure, but if your waiting to vote for a saint you might want to get a job as a Cardinal.

          Your second link talks about an anti-trump strategy from the Clinton campaign that literally tried to highlight how stupid and vulgar he was, which only backfired because that’s what his supporters like about him

          The third link is attempting to conflate some random hoax videos with the rumors of a “kompromat” pee tape putin supposedly had/has an trump, which doesn’t really have much to do with the Dems that I can tell.

          The fourth link is about two Hillary supporters in 2016 admitting they spread the birther rumor, which again has what to do with the Dem party?

          Yeah, of all of these, I guess the Clinton one is relevant, and yeah, everyone has long since agreed that was a terrible strategy, but I’m not sure how any of this is a smoking gun that, what, Dems are as bad as Republicans? I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            The first link is about a pro Israel PAC spending money against the Dems

            A Dem aligned group, in a Dem primary, to support AIPAC friendly candidates by running smears on progressive incumbents

            an anti-trump strategy from the Clinton campaign that literally tried to highlight how stupid and vulgar he was

            She used campaign resources to promote Trump during the GOP primary

            attempting to conflate some random hoax videos

            Propagated by Dem proxies to promote a liberally endorsed false claim

            two Hillary supporters in 2016 admitting they spread the birther rumor

            Two campaign staffers

    • Lenny@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Shorter sentences, bolder statements, hell, they needed to say things that didn’t entirely make sense when you analyzed them, but sounded cool. Political campaigns clearly need to be more approachable, more relatable than what the Dems are doing. Look at AOC, Bernie, and JC, THAT is the messaging that resonates.

      Also, way more calls to action. What are YOU doing and what should I do? And stop asking me for damn money - you can invoice me when the work is complete.

  • arotrios@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 months ago

    Okay Walz, that’s a start, but we’ve yet to see you go hard. Step it up or get out of Al Green’s way and let him cane the fuck outta these Nazi shitheads.

    • Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      I wish Al Green were 20 years younger and wanted to be POTUS. He is the real deal. Visit his web site. He is totally devoted to his district and his constituents. I tried to send him some money but there is no indication he’s at all interested in any money out side his district. Unlike so many other Dem candidates and pols, I could not even find a place to send a donation to Rep. Green because I’m not in his district.

      • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Al Green is the representative we all need in this time of national crisis. If every democrat in office was an Al Green I’d be feeling better for my life as someone Trump targets with his vitriol.

        I have nothing but respect for him at this moment.