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.”

  • Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    If by safe you mean ignoring your constituents and only listening to your wealthy contemporaries. Then yes you were too safe.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Democrat politicians should level with you all. Politicians need a tremendous amount of money to stay viable. They can only answer you 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 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

      • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

    • DAVENP0RT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours 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
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 hours 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
          9
          ·
          8 hours 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.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

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

        Oof, got some bad news about those primaries…

  • Xanza@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    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.

  • skittle07crusher@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

  • TheFogan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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”.

  • astro_plane@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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.

    • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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!!”

  • TylerBourbon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 hours 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.

  • BillDaCatt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours 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.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 hours ago

      If they had focused their campaign on helping the middle class

      I agree with most of that except this. They basically ONLY focused on the middle class. All the tax break incentives were great. But they never offered a damn thing for the working class. And that’s who they SHOULD have focused on.

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

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

    • ZMonster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours 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.

  • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    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.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 hours ago

    They should have leaned left harder instead of engaging in a futile attempt to sway conservatives.

  • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours 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.

    • kronisk @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I mean, I agree with you, but this is also a huge problem. This is why you have someone who pretended to be a successful businessman on TV as a president now. I really miss the days when boring but competent people could run a country.

        • Match!!@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Is this a problem of how people think, or is it a problem of what sells views in newspapers (and that media companies are too rich)?

      • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Boring yet competent people don’t get elected in a country with mass media. They just don’t get coverage, so people don’t know they’re there.

        As example, look at the first televised presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon. Kennedy was young and inexperienced, but let them put makeup on him for the debate. Nixon had more experience but looked like a sweaty mess on TV. This helped Kennedy a lot.

    • Hikermick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      15 hours 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
        9
        ·
        14 hours 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.

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours 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
        5
        ·
        14 hours 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
          3
          ·
          13 hours 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.

  • aceshigh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Played it safe by not holding more in person events? What? They didn’t question the legitimacy of the winner when clearly there were outliers that needed to be investigated.