933

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
[-] noxypaws@pawb.social 7 points 1 month ago

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)
[-] Geodad@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

Too safe? No, they were too center.

[-] cashsky@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

center

That's being generous

[-] Willy@sh.itjust.works 7 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?

[-] jecxjo@midwest.social 7 points 1 month ago

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)

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)
[-] faltryka@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

That prevent defense analogy works well here.

[-] JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago
[-] rosco385@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

I think the Harris-Walz campaign was just a touch too genocide-y rather than "safe"

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] 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.

[-] 5parky@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I was just thinking earlier today that I miss Tim Walz. Walz 2028!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] computerscientistII@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

I am convinced 'Murica generally is too racist to vote a black person into office. Obama was only voted into office because he is an extremely charismatic and charming person. So much so that he was voted into office in spite of being black. Kamala is neither charismatic nor charming. Also, there is sexism and she's a woman.

[-] vvilld@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Obama was only voted into office because he is an extremely charismatic and charming person.

I think it had more to do with the conditions at the time. He was one of the few politicians with a national following from either party who had always vocally opposed the Iraq War. His chief opponent in the Democratic Primary was Hilary Clinton, who had voted for the invasion in 2003 even though she was opposed to the war by 2008. On the Republican side, McCain was still saying in 2008 that his vote to invade was a good decision and that he'd do it again.

It's hard to remember now, but the Iraq War was a MASSIVE issue in the primaries and early general election in 2008. The country was almost unanimously opposed to it by that point, including Republican voters. W Bush was massively unpopular, and that was dragging down the entire GOP. Then the Great Recession hit and Bush/the GOP took the entire blame since they'd he'd been President for 8 years and they'd held the majority in both houses of Congress for most of the Bush presidency.

By that point, a corpse with a (D) next to their name could have defeated McCain. Obama is absolutely incredibly charismatic and a once-in-a-generation political mind. But 2008 was also a perfect storm of factors against the Republican Party. There was virtually no way a Democrat could lose that election.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
933 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23359 readers
2979 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