- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
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.
Gee who would have thought that completely ignoring the anti-war/genocide crowd and courting the CHENEYS “moderate Republicans” while keeping absolutely silent about Medicare for all and touting a “keep America lethal” platform would have backfired for one of the least popular politicians ever who was just anointed as the presidential candidate without any sort of primary at all. I’m so confused!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
Not just Chuck but the whole leadership of the Democrat party needs to go.
The entire party needs to go. Let it burn and be replaced by a workers party that represents us.
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
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.
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.
I wish Al Green were 20 years younger and wanted to be POTUS. He is the real deal. Visit his web site. He is totally devoted to his district and his constituents. I tried to send him some money but there is no indication he’s at all interested in any money out side his district. Unlike so many other Dem candidates and pols, I could not even find a place to send a donation to Rep. Green because I’m not in his district.
Al Green is the representative we all need in this time of national crisis. If every democrat in office was an Al Green I’d be feeling better for my life as someone Trump targets with his vitriol.
I have nothing but respect for him at this moment.
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.
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.
Well they have a long way to go to eclipse Bidens support of racist genocide, but I’m sure they’ll try hard.
“A long way to go”??? Pretty sure removing Palestinians from Palestine is about as far as one can go.
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?
If by safe you mean ignoring your constituents and only listening to your wealthy contemporaries. Then yes you were too safe.
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
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.
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.
The DNC is pretty much always playing it too safe…
They represent who votes for them.
Wanna change? Vote in the primaries. Hell, run in the primaries.
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.
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 democratic party is a coalition. It has wings that range from progressive to conservative.
It has conservatives and hostages.
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.
The reason they play it safe
Hows that working out?
When playing it safe is never safe…
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.
That is just one of many many reasons the Democrats lost, too many to count or even list in this post. You might want to also update the platform to not gobble the balls of the billionaires and corporate class. Abolish the electoral college, gerrymandering (though there were efforts on this front; poorly executed), lobbying, and Super PACs. Should’ve expanded the Supreme Court or instituted term limits.
Basically put in any effort whatsoever to show they wanted to prevent the loss of democracy and they didn’t do it. At least SAY things that would prevent genocide in Gaza, even if you don’t mean it. Start playing by the same rules as the Republicans and there could have been a chance.
It’s too late for any of that now.
Dems never had the super majority to abolish the electoral college, gerrymandering or the other things you mentioned.
There was never the votes to give women the right to vote either, but it eventually got passed after a good solid fight.
Plenty of people were arguing back then that “there arent the votes to make this happen” and “we should only focus on very small incremental wins”.
Blaming dems for not doing something they can’t do is not the same as what you’re describing.
They cant fight? they cant play politics? No hard ball? No applying pressure? No speeches, lawsuits, threats? Those are all thing republicans seem to use, but the dems just…“cant”? Give me a break.
They can vote. If they do not have enough dems to vote they have to reach across the aisle to get votes from conservatives.
Conservatives will not help without getting something in return.
What you’re saying is dems should give conservatives concessions which will then be used as a talking point to blame dems more.
That’s what “fighting” means in this context.
only to the unimaginative. Or those that want excuses to do nothing. Consent can be steered and manufactured. If the centrists had any ideology at all they’d be pursuing the right things, not lounging about doing absolutely nothing.
What do the dems do lately that would make anyone vote for them? Do they profess to stand for… much of anything, besides Israels right to take land and exterminate the civilians on it? Tell me one thing they have made a strong stand on?
It’s a vote. You can’t win a vote with feelings or vibes or a “can do attitude”.
It requires votes.
