Fuck both of them. Only a progressive will go far in the party
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.
That's the safest take he could have on the situation.
They still are being soft. Why would you think it would change?
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.
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.
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?
Dearborn is frequently spoken about in conservative circles as “being taken over by Muslims.” Maybe that has something to do with it.
Dearborn was also the center of the pro-Palestine movement within the Democratic party.
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.
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.
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.
The Democrats always take the high road or the decorum path every chance they get.
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.
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.
They should have been doing that for 40 fucking years.
My opinion on this matter is going to be unpopular one but here goes: I firmly believe that Left wing and Democrats failed in these elections because of Transgender push in Social Media / Movies / Series / Ads and basically everywhere it was forced down the throat of people that just got fed up. Republicans and MAGA capitalized on this HEAVILY and successfuly leveraged this issue to the extreme for their benefit.
If your defining reason you didn't vote for them was their position that trans people have rights, then you need to re-examine your values.
Not american, I would for democrats though
I disagree. One, because it isn't forced down anyone's throats as long as you don't live in a fucking Fox News bubble. Two, because Democrats did extremely little to actually protect trans children during the election. And three, Republicans didn't gain votes; Democrats just lost them.
It's a lot easier to argue that people thought that the Democrats weren't doing enough to address problems that existed now or that they didn't push issues that mattered to people, like abortion. Because they took very few real stances except the ones that seemed popular to everyone, but they also failed to get that message out a lot of the time because of very dumb actions on their part.
You're right about the unpopular.
The left and centrist dgaf, the right really care, but they were already voting.
Yeah bcz identity politics is all they have to protect their deep pocket donors. They need to be doing what Bernie is doing right now.
The DNC is pretty much always playing it too safe....
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.
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.
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.
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.
No shit. I didn't feel like I was voting for progressives. It left like I was voting for "not Trump." You could have put a piece of corn-bread at the podium and I would have voted for it instead of Trump. But still. I didn't vote for them because I just loved what they had to say... Because they weren't for changing anything. They wanted to keep the status quo where it was. They were only listening to their wealthy donors. It was sad to watch.
What an absolute fucking champ-
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."
Both of those things are such music to my ears (although ofc we should all know that it was Harris’s brother-in-law Uber exec lawyer who muzzled Walz and deserves that blame that Walz is selflessly taking on here).
Sadly I’m not even sure the US will exist by 2028.
pritzker with a walz vp would be my ideal ticket.
Pritzker stands his ground, knows what to say, and won't just bow down to the establishment of republicans OR the dem establishment. I think he's the best pick. He's also great with budget, lgbtq rights, and common sense policies
Maybe they should have held primaries and let Americans choose who they wanted to be for the Democratic candidate. Harris was never going to win no matter how she campaigned.
Maybe they should have held primaries and let Americans choose who they wanted to be for the Democratic candidate.
"bUt YoU hAd OnE wItH bIdEn!! StOp MaKiNg ExCuSeS fOr YoU nOt VoTiNg!!"
I agree, Walz, start being unsafe. Show us what we want to see in a candidate.
IMO the problem is, they falsely assume everyone wants what the republicans are selling, and their biggest flaw is that they are pollarizing. That's why they always start introducing as much republican lite things into their policies.
They don't understand, that by doing that, they are effectively telling the american people that the republicans are right. IE say the republican party on immigration etc... is lock em up in the fastest way, forget about humanity and ship them out as fast as possible, fuck due process these people are dangerous and destroying everything.
Democrats: Well I can back you on making sure we get them out as soon as we can, but I think we can do it without human rights violations.
They don't realize... that effectively to the outside observer going off of both of those policies they are hearing "both parties agree these people are dangerous and ruining everything, one wants to get rid of them as fast as possible, the other wants to prioritize us not hurting them over preventing them from harming us".
Exactly this. The whole "both sides" thing is because they care so much about optics that they refuse to actually take a stand on anything. Nobody wants to vote for a wet dishrag. It sucks out here, and has for a while. We want actual change, and they think their shitty numbers cycle after cycle are because they didn't push the Republican lite status quo agenda enough, when the real reason is that they pushed it at all.
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.
if he'd stuck to calling them weird and attacking them, maybe it wouldn't have been useless. but they dropped that, tried to buddy up with the fascists, and brought on insane endorsements like fucking liz cheney.
if they'd run sanders/walz, even late after biden convinced even party leadership that he couldn't win, they would have crushed that shit with historic numbers.
if they had let a palestinian talk, or given the most mild 'please tone down the genocide shit' they might've had a chance.
it was like they were trying to lose at every step. truly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
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.
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.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News