Tim Walz says he and Harris were too ‘safe’ during 2024 presidential campaign
Tim Walz says he and Harris were too ‘safe’ during 2024 presidential campaign
Former vice-presidential candidate claims pair should have held more in-person events around the US
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're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
It’s the leftist-progressive economic policy exemplified by FDR’s New Deal.
Exactly. It's not like we don't already have a road map and historical examples of how to get it right.
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/
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.
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.
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.