Summary
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ 2024 running mate, has suggested he may run for president in 2028.
Reflecting on the Democrats’ loss to Donald Trump and JD Vance, he admitted: “A large number of people did not believe we were fighting for them in the last election – and that’s the big disconnect.”
Walz said his life experience, rather than ambition, would guide his decision.
Though his VP campaign was marred by gaffes, he remains open to running if he feels prepared.
How about someone good?
Tim Walz unleashed would have won this.
He was hamstrug by Harris. He’s likely the dem’s best choice for 2028.
So of course they’ll run Newsome or Shapiro or Hillary Clinton again because they’re a bunch of idiots.
Pretty much any reasonable person unleashed by the Democratic party would have won.
And Harris was hamstrung by Biden.
She could have been better.
She is a cop. She dropped out in 15th place in the 2020 primary before she was embarrassed in her home state of California. They should have never ran her and that’s why they didn’t do a primary.
Or she could have not played this game, that she willfully engaged in. Harris is the epitome of a career politician that rose through the ranks by doing what the party elites wanted her to do.
Once she was announced candidate, she had all the options to go for her own platform and grow a spine, if she has one. Also that is a quality that is crucial in a president, who wants to lead the supposedly most powerful country on earth.
And this shows, what the DNC wants. They dont want a strong leader. They want a puppet they can control. This is also why they were more than happy to have Biden go for another 4 years, not despite, but because of his declining mental state making him a great puppet.
Imagine the timeline where Joe got assassinated before the primaries. We wouldn’t have this bullshit timeline.
Yeah, they would have blamed all the inflation on our first woman president and used it to denounce women for another half a century. If she helped Israel she would have been called out for Genocide just the same. If she didn’t she would have been called weak and emotional, unfit to be president.
Really it was a no win situation for her.
Yep. I remember a time when the Beltway insiders were acting like Amy Klobuchar was a rising star or some such, LOL.
Walz was great in 2024. He had enthusiasm and actually answered the interviewers’ questions. I would have preferred the symbolic victory of a black woman president, but I like Walz better as an individual person. I think he could have won if he’d been the presidential candidate. Well, Harris won too, but I mean he could have won even with the voter suppression stealing all those democratic votes.
President Walz and Vice President Cortez is the future we need. But probably not the future we’ll get.
I would have preferred the symbolic victory of a black woman
Really? Electing president by the color of the skin and/or sex? You totally deserve the current president then. He perfectly symbolizes your values: racism, sexism and degeneratism.
Okay.
I love this response.
Just for shits and giggles, I’ll try giving an actual argument.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton was right. It was her turn. She won the popular vote. I hate everything about that woman. I hate that she’s part of a dynasty, I hate that she rigged the primaries, I hate that her campaign donated money to Trump because they thought radicalising the right would lead to an easy win.
But she was right. The people did want a woman president, and that’s what they voted for. Walz is a really nice, genial guy. I like him. If he were a woman, I think he’d be a different person, or he’d not be a politician. Because to be a woman in the heart of the patriarchy, you need to be strong. You have to have unbreakable armour with no cracks. If the sexist system is challenged, then maybe the next woman president can be a nice person like Walz. But if we keep on having this system where women have to fight to be taken seriously and then aren’t liked for being fighters, then we’re never gonna have equality.
I don’t really care all that much about how good Harris is with a spreadsheet. Her debate and interview performance is important to me in a primary, not in a presidential election. At that point, I’m thinking about the future. About the girls who are going to become women in government. I want them to have more role models. I care way more about that than if Harris is nice, or if her budget plan is perfect.
I think Harris can be what America needs better than Walz can. Personality is only important in an election, symbolism is important in the white house.
I also love this response.
Thank you!
Thinking there is going to be a real election in 2028 is the most optimistic thing I’ve heard in a while.
There’s going to be an election, or we’re going to learn the meaning of “All enemies, foreign and domestic”.
More like a Russian/Chinese election.
Anyone who failed to beat Trump has to go away. No exceptions.
If only Bernie wasn’t so fucking old. AOC is your time to shine!
Idk who needs to hear this, but Tim Walz is pretty moderate and centrist. You’re not going to unite the splintered left with Tim Walz.
The biggest barrier Democrats have is that left leaning voters are not going out and voting for them.
I really do think Tim Walz has a real chance. A very likeable guy.
Doesn’t hurt that he’s white and male, too.
Walz / Kelly, Kelly / Walz, Kelly / Kelly, or Kelly / AOC.
Kelly / Kelly?
Scott/Mark. Or Mark/Scott.
The Harris campaign had to cover the governor’s tracks when he tripped up during a California fundraiser by stating that the constitutionally-mandated system used to select the president, otherwise known as the electoral college, “needs to go”.
How the hell is that a gaffe? It’s both the truth and exactly what people want to hear. Any lib who thinks like that needs to kindly keep their mouths shut for the next four years. This country needs radical change, the only choice you get is which one you want.
The pearl-clutching Tone Police in the Democratic Party are nothing if not exhausting, that’s for sure.
The Republicans can and do say just about whatever the fuck they want, and that’s sanewashed, and overlooked, and brushed under the rug, sometimes even celebrated, but the tone police in the “liberal media” and the left, and the Democratic Party itself will be there, wagging-finger at the ready, if some Democrat misses a semicolon .
Here, let me grab a sharpie and fix that.
The Harris campaign made a cowardly attempt to walk back the governor’s statements when he said during a California fundraiser that the broken election systems used for gerrymandering and enabling the double elections of Donald Trump, “needs to go”.
and exactly what people want to hear
It’s what people who care about democracy want to hear. That certainly isn’t everyone.
Just guessing, but it might be a gaffe because it could be skewed to sound like he doesn’t believe in democracy. Of course, this makes no sense because Trump has quite literally said that we might not need another election in four years.
A more careful statement might have been, “the electoral college needs to be replaced with a system where every citizen’s vote has the same magnitude.” If that’s not the mathematical ideal of democracy, I don’t know what is.
Edit: For you pedantic mathematicians, I’ll add that everyone’s vote should have the same magnitude, and that magnitude should be greater than zero.
If that’s not the mathematical ideal of democracy,
That is the mathematical ideal of populism.
Democracy is “government by consent of the governed”; There is no good way of democratically electing a singular individual. Which is why the presidency should be little more than a figurehead, with very little actual authority.
i’m not even sure what that text is supposed to be referencing?
I assume it’s not literally the message itself, because that would be kind of broad. I’m guessing he just said it weirdly, and that bothered people, because of course it did.
Honestly, he was OK as a candidate, but he didn’t wow me, and he shit the bed in the debate which imo makes him a poor choice. He wasn’t as bad as “they’re eating the dwawgs” but he really blew it when they asked him about his time in China. All he had to say was that he was there around that time and maybe he misspoke, but what matters was the sentiment. It’s a really easy question to answer instead he just fumbled his words like crazy.
He said he’s notoriously bad at debating, and imo that’s like saying I’m really bad at taking tests. So you are saying that you aren’t good at the part where we find out what you know? You can’t articulate your positions without a teleprompter? If you can’t debate, then you must not be that fervent about them imo, and the person that takes on trump, (assuming we have a real election) needs to be able to call him on his bullshit to his face. I think Walz had way too much of an aww shucks vibe. He’s too “Minnesota Nice”. We need AOC.
I’m the opposite. I know that snappy comebacks on live stages are not what make a presidency great. Even if someone can’t give immediate responses in a debate, I can respect them if they display anger and passion when appropriate, and reason and negotiation when that’s appropriate. You might be overestimating that a president needs to be an image of perfection all the time to every single person, when our current one survived conviction as a sex offender.
The ability to do behind the scenes work is super important. It’s half the requirement. But the other half is being able to do in the moment interactions. Look at Trump/VD with Zelenski. Being charismatic and able to handle in-person negotiations with foreign leaders is hugely important.
He can run for the primary, like everyone else…
Walz/Sanders ticket, please.
Sanders is old and wants to retire. Walz/Cortez instead.
Pile of dust 2028
Walz won’t even be at retirement age by 2028. That’s practically an infant in terms of a presidential candidate.
and Sanders has an amazing ability to get Republican voters on his side.
Is he going to play a centrists or actually move the needle?
Don’t need another “capitalist Harris”
Seemed like a genuine awesome dude, love what he’s done in Minnesota but I lack faith that in the democratic party he’ll do any good. That and he needs to work on debating…
Rather have AOC
That said better than most of the geriatric pandering democratic ineffective options. Even though he’ll be close to 70…
For wast majority of Americans capitalist Harris is actually rapid communist comrade Harris. For significant majority of registered voters her existence is a rampant leftist propane and seven steps too far.
USians are firmly on the rigth, and unless you fix that, all your exciting candidates will achieve jack shit.For wast majority of Americans capitalist Harris is actually rapid communist comrade Harris.
You don’t seem like you really have a grasp on US politics.
Please, do FUCKING NOT.
His debate performance was poor against Vance. We don’t need a kindly father-figure running against Republicans, we need an attack dog that knows police cold, who can articulate that tax cuts cost more in tax revenues than we make up in added jobs, economic growth, etc., someone that’s going to actively piss-off billionaires and then not kiss their asses once they have power… We need a leftist populist, someone that will get people fired up.
Walz is not that guy.
One lesson that I’ve seen in politics over and over again is Dems running the same candidate in a rematch, and the rematch always goes worse than the original election.
I mean he can run for primary. A lot of people should. The DNC just needs to take their finger off the scale and let the actual people decide what candidate they want.
I don’t know, he might be able to do it with decent advisors.
He was the one who kicked off that “Republicans are weird” messaging campaign which was incredibly effective until establishment Democrats shut it down. If he brings that sort of energy again I’d support him.
Even if it’s not him that runs and takes up that mantra again, the DNC needs to stop standing on the air hose of their own candidates. The rest of the party needs to pick up that mantra, because the truth of the matter is the Republicans are VERY FUCKING WEIRD.
They are absolute freaks. Obsessed with getting everyone to follow the rules of their little book club. With controlling women. Losing sleep over where trans people poop. Obsessed with kissing the asses of freak billionaires like Musk.
More importantly, that narrative was working. People noticed. Because it is so very true and people were happy to have someone with a megaphone saying the truth like that.
His debate performance was poor against Vance.
it was perfectly fine? He could most definitely run well after trump, due to the classic american flip flop phenomenon. Chances are he’d win, if the public is upset enough about how trump did, which right now, isn’t looking great. And probably will continue to be that way.
He’s literally obama, but white.
walz has also had a historically successful career in politics? Just look at what minnesota is doing.
Run Walz if you want 8 more years of Republican rule.
what kind of magical simulation must you be using to run these numbers my friend?
Vance was polished, smooth, knew his talking points and bullshit claims cold. Walz, not so much. He didn’t have good counters to a lot of the shit that Vance was throwing out. The broad consensus is that Vance handily won the debate, much like the broad consensus was that Harris trounced Trump in the debate.
He’s literally obama, but white.
He is not even close to being a white Obama. Obama is a highly skilled orator, extremely skilled debater, and a scholar. Tim Walz connects well with people–perhaps especially well with midwestern people–but he is not a particularly strong orator, is fairly weak in debates, and is definitely not a scholarly type. They may be close on policy, although I would hope that Walz would be farther to the left than Obama was.
vance was a traditionally good debater in an academic fashion, sure.
But the population doesn’t like people like that. That’s why people like trump and biden get elected over people like vance. Same thing with bush.
He didn’t have good counters to a lot of the shit that Vance was throwing out.
he had good counters to the most important disinformation in that whole debate, including a lot of the more reasonable stuff that vance just parades about, walz actually has something to speak on in those moments. Vance was clearly just focusing on formality rather than actual debate skills. And to be fair, if he countered every factually incorrrect thing vance said, he wouldn’t be able to say anything at all, which is even more of a loss because then you haven’t gotten anywhere, and your opponent has spent the entire time yapping. It’s literally the neo-nazi meme.
not done specifically on the debate, but evidently i think it’s fair to claim it’s relevance here.
The broad consensus is that Vance handily won the debate
i disagree, i think you would find most people would argue that vance held a better debate, but walz was generally a better speaker. You can’t look at this strictly through a debate lens, the american public doesn’t care about them.
He is not even close to being a white Obama. Obama is a highly skilled orator, extremely skilled debater, and a scholar. Tim Walz connects well with people–perhaps especially well with midwestern people–but he is not a particularly strong orator,
i would argue that obama is a really strong speaker, like generationally so, anybody can be skilled in a debate, what really matters when it comes to debating is factual accuracy, and being able to quickly make your point. Which is historically something democrats have struggled with.
Walz i would argue is a good public speaker, maybe not in a formal sense, but again we’re talking about politics here, people like when their politicians are relatable and down to earth, and walz does really well at this. He’s not a scholarly type, but you’d be hard pressed finding anybody on either side of the isle that wants an academic in power. Walz also has significant policy experience through minnesota, which obama has through his presidency. Though it is more prestigious.
Walz is definitely more socially progressive than obama is, but obama is a bit of a weird case. He’s very center left.
Fuckin should have been the nominee in the first place - him or Sanders.
Not sure of moderates are ok with Sanders. The center and right will keep calling Sanders a socialist and communist.
They called Kamala a communist too. It doesn’t fucking matter, they’ll say it about anyone, you can’t be afraid of it.
Who fucking cares? The moderates who were supposed to swoop in and save Kamala pointedly didn’t. Catering towards a fictional segment of the electorate is (demonstrably) a recipe for failure.
The moderates who were supposed to swoop in and save Kamala pointedly didn’t.
kamala had 75 million votes, to the 77 million that trump got.
If anybody fucked up the election it was the hardline commies or super aggressive left leaning people that refused to vote for kamala because of whatever silly reason they had.
IDK why people on the internet are willingly this fucking stupid. Evidently looking at the biden results, there were about 7-8 million more votes than kamala received, which is considerably more inline with what you would expect had younger voters actually, well, voted.
You would literally need to be on fucking crack to take anything else away from the results of these recent elections. IF ANYTHING, the obvious answer is that the younger voting block NEEDS to go and vote, because historically, they don’t.
TL;DR if you didn’t already pick this up from basic civics knowledge, the vast majority of the voterbase is going to vote for “whoever is on the ticket this time” that’s why trump even gets traction at all, maybe 10-20% of his voter base actually cares about him in any substantive manner. It’s the same for the dems, 75% of the base is people who will vote for WHOEVER gets put on the primary ticket, some of those are going to be more moderate though, and if you run someone like bernie, they will pull out or switch support, which is one of the risks you take when running a more hardline candidate.
Trump was just able to viciously mobilize his segment of the population against the republican voter base (who are historically known to behave like this)
We do not have this advantage on the dem side, we literally have to mobilize the youth, that’s the ONE thing that can save us.
Voter turnout in these elections was lower than in the 2020 elections
yeah, primarily because you can’t vote by mail in the 2024 election, where as you could in the 2020 election, enfranchising more people to go out and vote, and historically, it’s not republicans that struggle to vote, it’s the democrats.
I still think it was voters showing their protest against the Israeli Genocide. I mean, I voted for Harris, but ffuuuuuuckk, all she had to do was say she’d at least try to find another way other than selling weapons.
i’m not really convinced it was a significant enough margin to outpace the usual no show voter rolls. Historically we’ve had issues with turnout, and when it gets easier, more people vote, when it gets harder less people vote. I really don’t think something that seems to really explicitly mobilize people under the age of 25 and above the age of 18 would be a very significant voter block to begin with. There’s probably more people in there, but you’re talking about people who are ethnically arab, and i wouldn’t necessarily count those as those are going to be opposed to pretty much anything you do in the middle east regarding israel.
Someone would have to do some actual polling or research to find out whether or not it had a significant effect, but i’m betting it wasn’t. It probably had something to do with it, but literally every campaign has these 1% base issues, it’s literally unavoidable.
If everyone voted mainline Trump still would have won the election. Greens got 860000, while the Libertarians got 650000 and RFK got 750000.
Well, your supposedly existing leftists didn’t achieve even that. I don’t remember where I heard it, but the saying gows something like “Catering towards a fictional segment of the electorate is (demonstrably) a recipe for failure.”
Probably because Harris and Biden succeeded in alienating a group that SHOULD have been a slam dunk for them: Arab-Americans.
And also, they listened to their consultants instead of, you know, normal people. They were too busy jacking themselves off about how “great” the economy was to notice that MOST people in the country are straight up not having a good time.
The Arab-American vote was crucial in Michigan, and they threw that away. And frankly, I’d argue that they alienated a lot more moderate voters by INSISTING the economy was better (failing to realize economy != people’s actual lives) and staunchly defending the status quo on that front.
Ah yes, Arab-Americans, known for their tolerance and feminist ideals, did not turn out for the woman preaching tolerance for all and love for Israel.
To capture a more left leaning audience you are going to have to abandon this notion notoriously conservative and backwards cultures will suddenly be progressive and accepting.
“Have you considered that the people we’re genociding might be kinda problematic?”
Don’t do that
It’s true, why should we try to support a group that fundamentally disagrees and hates a large part of the base? There’s no salvaging such disagreements.
Moderates can take their own fucking advice for once and vote blue no matter who.
Left Sanders Republican reich (rnc) +-----------------------+---------+--------------+ Republican lite (dnc)
