- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.”
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
if only they’d bragged about walking in on teenage beauty pageant changing rooms! why oh why didn’t they cheat on all their spouses! Why oh why didnt they own casinos and bankrupt them!
stupid dnc! always running crummy candidates
If by safe you mean ignoring your constituents and only listening to your wealthy contemporaries. Then yes you were too safe.
If you read the article, that’s EXACTLY what he means. They told him the reason for this is that they could avoid “Having any public gaffees”
The idea is that by just not being Trump they were “Ahead”, and any public misstep would put Trump in the lead.
Walz now believes he and Harris were “never ahead” and it was arrogance that lead to them thinking they were the “Default Choice” for America
Which makes the second time the Democrats lost to Trump by believing they were the default choice. Even after being roundly criticized for it the first time. I’m starting to think they may not be smarter than me.
Oh it gets worse, they thought they were teh “default choice” because they got the people behind Hillary’s campaign to “help”
Yeah. The corporate team. I swear middle America can smell it from am mile away now.
Plus the one time it didn’t abjectly fail, it took a worldwide pandemic and mass death to happen. Their hubris is at a legendary level.
Democrat politicians should level with you all. Politicians need a tremendous amount of money to stay viable. They only answer to their donors and they get donors only if they can accomplish their goals which they do with the support of their constituents. They don’t just support their constituents out of feel good stuff. Republicans give them a free pass to do whatever they want. So they get lots of donors. The left groups do not do what they want so they don’t get donors. We’re fucked.
Look into how many call centers are around Washington. They’re all call centers for the different politicians. They’re calling donors 24/7 trying to get more funding. All the time. The Reason leftist do not get anywhere, we don’t generate money
Leftists don’t generate money on the top line. The fact that actual leftist policy would create a utopian society where everyone is prosperous is completely an afterthought, and that’s because the economic system is run by a bunch of giant babies with zero impulse control or sense of delayed gratification.
Democrat politicians should level with you all. Politicians need a tremendous amount of money to stay viable.
democrats massively outraised trump in 2024 and lost anyway. Turns out, you need votes too.
Look into how many call centers are around Washington. They’re all call centers for the different politicians. They’re calling donors 24/7 trying to get more funding. All the time. The Reason leftist do not get anywhere, we don’t generate money
Well yeah, most of them refuse to take corporate money and SuperPAC donations. They don’t do insider trading when in office because they have consistent morals and ethics.
Also helps when they corporations who own the media refuse to cover you and your wins, and then pay for the milquetoast candidates who won’t tax them to win more.
Putting Liz Cheney on stage was a pretty risky move if you ask me.
It’s the safe move when you consider they want to be republicans
What they did was court Republican voters instead of Democrat voters, and neither Republicans nor Democrats were amused.
You mean you didn’t appreciate Harris campaigning with Republicans and throwing more support behind fracking than universal healthcare? Damn, what are you, some kind of socialist?
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.
Politics is not about having white papers on your website.
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 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.
It’s to the point that I might prefer either a direct democracy with no representatives at all or electing reps via a lottery system. Most of the people with the desire to run for office, and all but a handful of those with the characteristics necessary to wade through the muck of special interests and campaign finance to actually get in office, are the kind of people you want as far away from power as possible.
The Songs of Distant Earth by Arthur C. Clarke has government by lottery.
Test potential politicians for mental illnesses and make sure they have empathy etc. Make them do mandatory counselling. I mean, counsellors and mental health workers have to do this because they’re working with vulnerable people, but politicians don’t??? Their decisions affect everyone, including vulnerable people.
Impossible. You can’t have tests like that for candidates or voters. You just end up reinventing literacy tests.
Not to mention the eugenicism this would ignite.
How so? Bad eggs would be simply rejected.
The eugenicism is because of the tests; not the politicians.
You think this would work because you assume we could write such tests with such accuracy as to evade bias (or that such requirement for testing wouldn’t be exploited by opportunists to place metrics much more aligned with whom said opportunists would like to eradicate).
I’d point out that you say the tests should test for empathy but Empathy Deficit Disorder exists and, as EDD people often point out, the lack of being able to feel empathy doesn’t stop them from wanting to help people and making choices based off that desire. They just don’t feel empathy when they do it.
Of course, you’re not using that word to mean literally understanding and relating to others’ feelings; sympathy would certainly qualify.
But how do you ensure that? Who gets to implement these tests? And what stops it from being someone who just sees Empathy Deficit Disorder and goes, “Eew…keeping them away from this….”
I always feel to like I sound like I’m being condescending but (and I mean this as genuinely as possible) you should try selling out writing and theory by disabled authors. Because of the way disabled people are erased from both culture and society as practically a matter of function, it can be really hard to even realize the ways in which our assumptions don’t factor them in. Stuff covering ability and autonomy are incredibly interesting in the ways they think about concepts due different lived experiences.
We already assess people for mental health issues. I’m saying that politicians should be under massive scrutiny to make sure that we’re not allowing people with deficits in the areas which would make them callous, self-serving and so on, to rule over people, particularly vulnerable people. Pathological liars and manipulators shouldn’t be given a platform or the respectability of office to brainwash people on a global scale. Its almost so basic and obvious as to be unspeakable, but we know now that we must structure our societies & create standards to keep these people out of power.
We in fact should select for the traits that we want/don’t want in leaders and only allow people into politics who have those traits. This testing is already happening in many professions, maybe even most. Even shitty customer service jobs use these tests - well, all I’m saying is that we need politicians to be tested as much as astronauts are. How can that possibly be a bad idea?
I don’t think the metrics and so on should be any different than what already exists. Respected people in the psychology field have already said that trump is mentally ill in such a way that he’s unfit to rule.
The problem is that now he’s manoeuvred himself into a position where he can’t be removed, and soon even us talking like this will be illegal.
I’m all for disability rights, just not to the detriment of public safety - which exists in every sensitive field. Politics is a sensitive field. Politicians should be strong in emotional, compassionate and cognitive empathy, as well as sympathy. They should also have a good track record of being moral and decent people. Stealing from cancer kids charities would be a no, no matter what disability that person had.
This could be summed up as ‘no tolerance for intolerance’ or ‘no kindness towards cruelty’.
People working in psychiatry are judged in this way, but not politicians? Politicians have way more responsibility over people’s lives. They should be under maximum scrutiny and we should be as sure as we can be that they’re the best of us, including morally. We already make them have health checks.
i don’t love the implication here that politicians are corrupt due to mental illness. they can be perfectly average mentally and still be corrupt because corruption is an innate and ever-present exploit of human psychology. empathetic people can be mistaken of where to place their empathy. mentally ill people can be a better option for a public office than someone else who is neurotypical, it all comes down to their platform and record of reliability. disability should not be mutually exclusive with ability to govern.
Power corrupts, yes, but you must see it in your life, and certainly if you’ve ever had dealings with the police or been mistreated by a teacher at school… Not all but some people in those roles are doing it precisely because they get a kick out of misusing their power, often when people are vulnerable and so can’t defend themselves.
This is a character flaw at a minimum but can be part of a mental illness. I don’t think the line is so definite between mental illness or health. People can have traits of illness without enough dysfunction to be diagnosed with the illness.
Disability which is incompatible with kindness, understanding, decency etc should not be allowed power over people, especially vulnerable people. Most people who were ill and were decent would not want to be in a position where they could harm people. Cluster B’s and such wouldn’t care. If they don’t care (consistently), then they shouldn’t be in a position of power over people. There are plenty of other jobs.
Looking at trump in particular the reliance on voters being good judges of character has to end, which means there must be a mechanism in place to prevent people like trump ever getting near power.
i think the second we open up the avenue for certain character traits to be banned from public office, it opens up a new avenue and mechanism for oppressive government bodies to prevent their opponents from gaining power against them. Who gets to decide what traits count as disqualifying? what measures do we use to identify who has met this threshold? where and how could someone be treated for these in order to gain back eligibility? how difficult would it be to change these rules if they were incorrect? how hard would it be for a bad actor to change these rules for their own gain? how much money would be spent on this and the lawsuits that return from it?
I’d guess a council of psychologists would administer their own tests under lie detector, perhaps a yearly lottery from an eligible pool of reputable and experienced specialists, maybe also other renowned experts. No positions being permanent could eliminate some problems. The difficult part would be deciding where the lines are drawn. Someone like trump should be easy to disqualify without any testing, just from his widely reported past record of scams, fraud etc.
Imagine a young Putin, whose service record is largely secret, not much other history to go off, who doesn’t give away much, surely has information about past testing and is very smart.
So it’s not going to be 100% reliable, just a tool to hopefully improve the situation. It could begin with disqualification being reserved for only the worst, and then record how candidates perform vs predictions and readjust as necessary.
As to treatment, its impossible to say, it really depends on the individual to know if it’s even possible. Also whether its a good idea to let candidates repeat what are essentially aptitude tests which they could cheat.
If anyone is subject to oppressive government scrutiny it should be politicians.
i think it would be infinitely simpler to just ban the actions you don’t want people to do and a better mechanism to enforce it than to try and police the amorphous qualities of their character and behavior. Like, our problem here is that the executive branch has been granted too much power by congress, corporations are treated like people and can vote with their dollars, and congress + the supreme court have no mechanism to enforce laws against the executive branch. If the system was actually segregated enough in duties and insulated from capital, it would be immune to the effects of someone even as bad as trump. It would also prevent all of the false positives and the mechanisms for abuse that would open when we start calling people ineligible for innate and immeasurable qualities.
More and more this monty python sketch was spot on. With the DNC as Arthur only caring about the lord of the castle, centrists carrying the bags and clapping the cocnuts together, and progressives as the peasants: autonomous colletcive
We have the technology for direct democracy. The reason we dont do it is that it would take the rich out of power. With direct votes we’d have universal health care and Israel wouldnt have gotten its war support. We’d have action on climate control. We’d have signed onto the ICC. We’d have much stricter gun laws. We’d hold police to professional conduct standards. We’d have term limits and codes of ethics. We’d fund our teachers and firefighters better. Our military would be much smaller.
Yep. Every time I hear Jeffries talk I am thinking “shut the fuck up and go fetch AOC”.
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!
Pelosi hated the left long before the left hated her.
I think the Harris-Walz campaign was just a touch too genocide-y rather than “safe”
But Trump was even more genocide-y and he won. Americans just really like genocide.
Were there a lot of people who just wanted a little?
That’s quite literally what his side have wanted for decades and have basically openly said that, so of course he did well with that stance
Meanwhile the Democrats are the ones pretending to be the non-monstrous option while openly being monstrous
It should be clear why it hurts one side more than the other: one side literally doesn’t fucking have standards
I see you’re getting downvoted for criticiszing genocide. Looks like the hasbara are still getting paid to astroturf lemmy and reddit to make it look like the zionist cause is more than 1% of the voters. So at least we have some semblance of normalcy.
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.
The reason they play it safe
Hows that working out?
When playing it safe is never safe…
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.
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.
The democratic party is a coalition. It has wings that range from progressive to conservative.
It has conservatives and hostages.
They represent who votes for them.
Wanna change? Vote in the primaries. Hell, run in the primaries.
Wanna change? Vote in the primaries. Hell, run in the primaries.
Oof, got some bad news about those primaries…
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”.
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.
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.
Small correction: The DNC isn’t employing technocrats and experts; they’re employing neoliberals concerned first and foremost with extracting money from the poor and putting it in the hands of the rich. If they were concerned with improving people’s lives they’d have implemented progressive economic policy like everyone with two braincells to rub together has been telling them to.
Neoliberalism started taking over as the dominant paradigm in the 1970s, and had become firmly entrenched in academia and the political technocratic state by the 1980s. That has changed, and is continuing to change, but there was a time when the majority of experts and technocrats were neoliberals. Many still are, unfortunately, though, I think the influence of neoliberalism is declining, albeit slowly (at least too slow for my preference).
If they were concerned with improving people’s lives they’d have implemented progressive economic policy
The DNC has no power to implement any policies. The House Democratic Caucus (HDC) and Senate Democratic Caucus (SDC) are the organizations with that power. The HDC/SDC are way more powerful than the DNC.
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.
You should want them to be against the established paradigm if you want anything to change.
But simply being against the established paradigm isn’t enough to change things. You need to build a new paradigm, and that takes time, and it can’t be accomplished by just ignoring the existing experts and technocrats.
You need to build a new paradigm,
No need for that; there’s already a perfectly fine paradigm that can be used. It’s the leftist-progressive economic policy exemplified by FDR’s New Deal.
You’d have to ask the experts why they abandoned that paradigm in the 1970s, in favor of neoliberalism.
But ultimately I think you and I agree that the moderates shouldn’t be so adverse to left populism.
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.
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
pritzker with a walz vp
Pritzker is a staunch pro war zionist. Same as Harris was. Thats your dream guy huh.
You still think dems can carry that sort of baggage to a win?
Jews are 2% of the US population, split ~70% dem. About 70-80% support Israels genocide. Thats a tiny, tiny minority of the partys voters. Why do we keep putting full throated zionist war supporters at the head of our party when it inevitably leads to election losses? Reform jewish candidates who dont support genocide, fine-- sure. But why do we back zionists? Do we need AIPAC money that badly? Or does no one care that it destroys our global economic and military soft power, the value of the USD, and loses us elections? (even discounting that it murders innocents)
Pritzker is a staunch pro war zionist. Same as Harris was. Thats your dream guy huh.
I care about economic policy. I care about lgbtq rights. I care about abortion rights.
I don’t care about stopping or not stopping a war that has been ongoing for nearly a century. Both those godforsaken countries have made their beds. They can lie in them. While I don’t believe genocide is right, and think this Israeli government is evil for it, it will never effect my voting, as nothing the usa does at this point in time will stop it.
It does not hurt our global economic or soft power either…
Your statement on his stance is also much stronger than his actual stance.
@fredthefishlord:
I don’t care about stopping or not stopping a war that has been ongoing for nearly a century
If you dont care about murdering innocents, whats your convincing argument for me to care about lgbtq rights?
have made their beds. They can lie in them.
Actually we made those beds too. Do you think we had no hand in whats been going on there? We’re just sitting idly by across the ocean with clean hands in all this?
Quite simply, I don’t believe human life has value. The only reason I fight oppression is because oppression leads to further destruction of the environment.
wow. Well, your logic is consistent, I cant fault you there Its such a foriegn viewpoint I’m a little stunned. Well. good luck to you.
I had high hopes for Walz. Then he gave his pussyshit performance.
My tinhat theory is the DNC told him “not to say anything stupid,” like feeding school kids or anything progressive. That left him up there only playing fact checker and regurgitating that he is, in fact, not trump.
Walz is great, just not what the Democratic Party was actually willing to put in play.
Too Zionist. After the trump riviera etc all sane people have to dump Israel entirely. They outed themselves. Zionists either stay there alone with no foreign aid or involvement, eject Netantyahu and all the assholes in government and pay reparations to Palestine and be welcomed back in the international community if they behave, or abandon Israel and the Zionists seek sanctuary in other countries.
The crazy part of it is that jewish people are only ~2% of the US population, spread across both parties. And about 80% of American jews are zionists. So this country destroyed itself to promote the special interests of an infintesimal minority of voters pursuing a far right pet cause that included war crimes. Its absolutely insanity, so of course we lost.
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.
But they wore pink shirts and held up tiny auction bid signs!
Not all of them.
True! Just the wild and crazy ones!
The “radical left,” per FOX “News,” ladies and gentlemen.
Not just Chuck but the whole leadership of the Democrat party needs to go.
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.
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.
The entire party needs to go. Let it burn and be replaced by a workers party that represents us.
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.
Liberals know as much about communism, and workers rights as Republicans. None
Please tell me how supportive Lenin was of the Workers’ Soviets as soon as the revolution got calmer.
Quite supportive! Though it isn’t accurate to ever say the Revolution calmed down, IMO, the USSR was under constant siege.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And whos stopping Republicans from going full steam ahead on gassing the Mexicans and trans people in the meantime?
It sure as fuck isn’t Democrats. Their ratchet effect enables Republicans
Step 2: ditto Jeffries
Step 3: AOC and Bernie need to take their place.
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.
The dem leadership is absolutely too safe. The only ones saying what should be said are the ones that have no power.
Reducing Democrats in Congress is the opposite of progress. We should be recalling Republican congresspeople that don’t represent their constituents, or we’ll be waiting until November 2026 for our next chance to flip seats.
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/recall-of-state-officials
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.
Trump and the GOP raised taxes on most middle class income groups in 2017, according to the official congressional JCT analysis.
We’re talking politics, not objective reality.
Step 2: pelosi needs to retire.
prison for her would be much better for everyone.
Harris initially said she was going to “prosecute” the case against Traitorapist Trump but then never did anything like that. All she had to do to win was use way more aggressive rhetoric. She never used the phrase “Convicted Criminal Trump” or “Treason Trump” She never used the phrase “legally certified rapist Trump”. She never pointed out that Trump hates the Free World and freedom and democracy. She never reminded voters that Trump had a 29% approval rating at the end of his term. She never pointed out that Trump is very disloyal to our longstanding core values. She never reminded people that Ted Cruz said that Trump “lies practically ever word that comes out of his mouth”.
Dems NEED much more aggressive candidates. No more of that business as usual shit.
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”
it’s everything. the democratic party since Obama was elected has been unwilling to grapple with that our populace is split between people who think racism is an ongoing aspect of the fight for liberation, people who think racism ended some time in the past like in 1864, 1920, 1950, 1970, or 1989, and people who outright engage with racist ideologies. democrats try to engage with an idyllic populace who generally means well when the actual populace is a bunch of colonizers.
our best bet for a president who can address all the problems of this political environment is basically the wokest white dude we can find. and the way tim walz is acting and behaving, he might be operating with the understanding that given bernie sanders’ age, it might have to be him.
i ask everyone to do the following: pay attention to what tim walz does, but don’t treat him as your savior. every liberation movement has required three figures: the violent revolutionary (think Malcolm X), the pacifist the respectability politics people are willing to engage with (think dr martin luther king jr), and the emotional/spiritual leader that soothes people who are hurting’s souls (this leader usually goes unnamed because they are not looking for a position of power). you need to choose your role in our liberation movement as soon as possible and start agitating. and understand tim walz will never exit his lane of pacifist the respectability politics people are willing to engage with.
tim walz, also, for how much we love him, has blind spots and will say some ignorant shit in tho years to come. have grace and patience with him for as long as he will listen. america has a long legacy of politicians who entrench themselves in something dumb because when you have as many critics as someone in office has, the legitimate criticism tends to get buried under a mountain of unreasonable criticism.
Tim Walz wouldn’t win an election even if he ran unopposed.
The DNC needs a socially conservative but economically progressive candidate if they want to reclaim the narrative that they are the party of the working class. Tim Walz is already Tampon Tim to them. Like it or not, middle America wants to keep trans people in the margins. I know it’s awful to say, but they will need to keep fighting to win acceptance in society. The government simply cannot forc, coerce or even nudge people to accept them.
The DNC needs a socially conservative but economically progressive candidate
Well they are 100% dependent on the voters for that.
I disagree a lot that Dems need a “socially conservative” candidate. What they do need is a candidate who does NOT focus on identity politics and does focus on wealth inequality and all directly and indirectly related issues.
It’s kind of the same thing right? I mean when I mean socially conservative, I mean a candidate that when asked about trans right will say what Newsom said not too long ago. The fact of the matter is that the republicans rely on democrats staying mum about trans issues. They will spend hundreds of millions to stir up grievances that don’t really affect most of the voters but it stirs their emotions. If dems don’t address it directly, the voters think (rightfully), is because they agree with this agenda, so I won’t vote for the dem candidate because I do not want men in women’s bathroom.
You need a dem candidate that says he is not for that. The progressive wing might not like it, but the progressive wing is not gonna win the elections alone.
It’s genuinely insane how many people keep thinking and saying this nonsense. Identity politics are a reason Republicans won but they are NOT the reason Democrats lost.
If anything they lose every battle on identity politics because they keep ceding ground to the right wing. If they bit BACK - if they called a spade a spade, if they called out bigotry and actually supported and amplified minority voices - they would get more support. Not less.
It’s becoming mainstream again to be outright homophobic and that’s only possible because democrats insist on civility, “focusing elsewhere” and allowing right-wing assholes to run the conversation.
Don’t get me wrong - economics is ultimately the true make-or-break for the country and the world - but abandoning allies and friends is a losing strategy. The less empathetic and open-minded the populace, the less likely they are to support any meaningful economic progress.
Yeah, I don’t think those racist misogynists were going to vote for anything less than mass deportations.
I’m talking specifically about the millions of people who voted for Biden in 2020 but sat out Harris 2024.
Are these the same voters who support the Palestinian genocide? At some point we have to have the courage to stand for the right thing instead of pandering to our most cynical neighbors.
Not voting for Harris when you voted for Biden cannot be explained by anything that has to do with Palestinians.
If I believed what you were saying, then I wouldn’t even bother voting.
In a democracy you always vote for the least bad option. There will never be a perfect party for every single person.
Not voting for Harris after having voted for Biden means choosing Trump as a better choice than Harris.
How’s that working out for the Palestinians?
I voted for Harris, so I reckon my vote worked as well as yours for the Palestinians.
My point is that if I were so cynical to think we can only win by appealing to the worse in our party, then I wouldn’t bother defending democracy. At that point it is not simply a matter of voting for the lesser evil, but telling your neighbors that is is okay to be a racist misogynist.
I do believe in democracy, which is why I ask for more, not less.
Liberals love to blame racism and misogyny for their own failings.
The Democrats seem to think misogyny played a part, yes, but I’m not convinced that this was the case. It’s an easy excuse. But it glosses over a problem that Democrats have not been willing to face for almost 20+ years.
They are convinced that if they become the center, they’ll win the majority.
The Harris campaign ran the same play as the Clinton campaign: I’m not Trump.
The only case of misogyny that I can see is that Biden ran the same campaign. But the problem with this argument is that we were in a Trump presidency. The effects of it were clear to voters. If you carry over this logic to Biden, Harris lost not because she was a woman but the effects of the Biden presidency was clear to voters.
Harris had the opportunity to come out as progressive. To go further than Biden. To guarantee colleges loan forgiveness for everyone. To come out against healthcare companies. To come out against the alt right.
But she didn’t.
She played the same plays as Hilary: I’m not Trump. I’ll save democracy. Israel is cool.
The sad thing is she could be leading the charge right now to help organize people against fascism. If she really learned any lessons from her campaign, she’d be with Bernie and doing tours to help people protest.
The DNC would rather eat crumbs that fall off the table than risk biting the hands that feed it (corporations). They have lost legitimacy in my book and will only support them as opposition to the fascists because there isn’t another option. If a true progressive party gains momentum, you can bet that the DNC and GOP will work together to push progressives out.
She played the same plays as Hilary: I’m not Trump. I’ll save democracy. Israel is cool.
Even though Hilary always had a bunch of Muslim women in the background of all her crowds and identity politics helped sink her campaign.
The only case of misogyny that I can see is that Biden ran the same campaign.
Biden didn’t, though. Biden ran a centrist-ish campaign, to be clear, but he also coopted many of Bernie’s popular promises and generally ran on making things better for the average American. He promised a move left, while Harris promised a move right. They were not running the same campaign.
They have lost legitimacy in my book and will only support them as opposition to the fascists because there isn’t another option.
Here’s my perspective as a non-American watching this shitshow unfold: Y’all will need to create another option before it’s too late. The DNC isn’t an option; it’s losing by default.
We’re trying! There’s only so much we can do. I’m in a deeply red district and trying to coalesce enough people to do anything liberal has been like pulling teeth
He promised a move left, while Harris promised a move right. They were not running the same campaign.
Nope. The Harris platform was more to the left than Biden. She was going to impose additional taxes on corporations and billionaires that went beyond Biden.
