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

politics

31081 readers
2511 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has criticized the Harris-Walz 2024 presidential campaign for playing it too "safe," saying they should have held more in-person events and town halls.

In a Politico interview, Walz—known for labeling Trump and Vance as "weird"—blamed their cautious approach partly on the abbreviated 107-day campaign timeline after Harris became the nominee in August.

Using football terminology, he said Democrats were in a "prevent defense" when "we never had anything to lose, because I don't think we were ever ahead."

While acknowledging his share of responsibility for the loss, Walz is returning to the national spotlight and didn't rule out a 2028 presidential run, saying, "I'm not saying no."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheresNodiee@lemm.ee 26 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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.

[–] lorty@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years 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 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

They dialed it back to avoid upsetting their big corporate donors.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

pretty much that, when they started courting right wingers it was over.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Well, good thing they did that, huh? This is so much better than that could have been. /s

[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

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 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

Jared kushner, and trump already have real estate planned in the area.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

“A long way to go”????? Pretty sure removing Palestinians from Palestine is about as far as one can go.