Maybe Tim Walz is the leader of the Dems?

[Dans La Lune]

Tim Walz as the leader of the democrat party? Yes please!!!

I'll be curious how conservativism will be packaged post-Trump, after having exhausted Reaganism, Libertarianism, Neoconservatism, and Populism.

 

[OrphanSlug]

So a Democrat that doesn't exist, cannot be defined, does not adhere to any Democratic principle to the extent that he/she cannot be identified with, is going to be the most appealing Democrat to combat Trumpism and placate the working class?

Okie dokie. Not sure why you're having trouble even setting the criteria a Dem would have to follow to be appealing.

I can do it pretty easily. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't think I am, but I at least I can be held to a coherent standard.

I did not say cannot be defined, I said I did not have a name, don't speak for me.

Obama, Clinton, even Carter to an extent were all relatively unknowns is the point. Someone that is unifying is their path to the White House, people with baggage like Hilary Clinton, Harris, and even Walz (or Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and dozens of others) are not.

Just appealing to the Democratic base is not enough.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I did not say cannot be defined, I said I did not have a name, don't speak for me.

Obama, Clinton, even Carter to an extent were all relatively unknowns is the point. Someone that is unifying is their path to the White House, people with baggage like Clinton, Harris, and even Walz (or Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and dozens of others) are not.

Just appealing to the Democratic base is not enough.

Who should Dems appeal to? The big tent is already 5 miles wide. The working class are served by what policies? Progressive or conservative?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Who should Dems appeal to? The big tent is already 5 miles wide. The working class are served by what policies? Progressive or conservative?

If you were at all right 2016 and 2024 would have turned out differently.

 

[Dans La Lune]

If you were at all right 2016 and 2024 would have turned out differently.

Right about what? Dems ran a neoliberal (conservative) centrist both of those times.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Right about what? Dems ran a neoliberal (conservative) centrist both of those times.

That is your opinion, does not match what actually happened. Both in terms of who they both were and the message they decided to run with.

It is as if you are being intentionally obtuse about this suggesting Walz will all of a sudden appeal to the voters he and Harris did not less than 6 months ago.

 

[Dans La Lune]

That is your opinion, does not match what actually happened.

Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney and on Biden's foreign policy.

Both in terms of who they both were and the message they decided to run with.

Who were they? What message did they run on?

It is as if you are being intentionally obtuse about this suggesting Walz will all of a sudden appeal to the voters he and Harris did not less than 6 months ago.

Walz was sidelined. Harris was at her most popular when Walz was speaking freely, defending progressive policy and calling right-wingers freaks.

 

[Big Brother]

I'll be curious how conservativism will be packaged post-Trump, after having exhausted Reaganism, Libertarianism, Neoconservatism, and Populism.

I think they will do quite well because ever since the left abandoned the "kitchen table" topics and went extreme, the GOP was easily able to capture the kitchen table arguments and provide solutions. For example, most of America wanted the border closed, and Trump ran on it. Most of America really doesn't care about alternative genders and their pronouns but the left is adamant about it. There are things that 80% of America agrees on, and 20% that they don't. The GOP goes after the 80% issues and the left just tries to force the 20% issues down the throats of the 80%. My guess is in the near future congress is 80% GOP and 20% Anti-Trump Party (formerly known as the democratic party) and the left will never win the presidency again until it cares about the issues of at least 50% of the people.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

It's ironic that I'm suggesting that Tim Walz is the leader of the Democratic Party when I wouldn't vote for Kamala, even with Tim Walz as half the ticket. Maybe they should have used Tim Walz more? Also, why don't Dems want to be popular? Any thoughts on that?

I guess you were into Anarcho-Capitalism instead? I mean if you did not vote for Kamala you in effect voted for Trumpism.

 

[markdc]

@Dans La Lune
“It's ironic that I'm suggesting that Tim Walz is the leader of the Democratic Party when I wouldn't vote for Kamala, even with Tim Walz as half the ticket. Maybe they should have used Tim Walz more? Also, why don't Dems want to be popular? Any thoughts on that?”

If you’re Progressive who wants to see the Democratic Party embrace a Leftwing Populist economic agenda, Walz would be a good choice. The problem is that WHOEVER the Democrats nominate for president in the future is going to be under enormous pressure to submit to the demands of Leftwing activist groups regarding DEI/Trans/etc. issues, and if that candidate can’t fight back effectively against such pressures and appeal to Independent voters, he/she is probably going to lose to the Republicans regardless of whether he/she is a Populist Progressive or an Establishment Centrist.

Mark

 

[markdc]

@Lethargic Aptitude
“I mean if you did not vote for Kamala you in effect voted for Trumpism.”

If you didn’t fill in the bubble next to Trump’s name on the ballot, then you didn’t vote for Trump or Trumpism. I didn’t vote for either Harris or Trump, and I don’t regret that choice at all.
I can’t speak for others, but in my experience, with ONE exception, I’ve not had a Republican/Trump supporter tell me “Since you didn’t vote for Trump, then you voted for Harris!” Almost every Trump supporter I know respected my decision not to vote for him. OTH, I’ve had MANY Democrats tell me, “If you didn’t vote for Harris, then you voted for Trump!” If Democrats ever want to know why they lost the last election, this type of insufferable scolding might provide a clue.
I think I speak for many Americans when I say FUKK THE BINARY CHOICE.

Mark

 

[Big Brother]

@Dans La Lune
“It's ironic that I'm suggesting that Tim Walz is the leader of the Democratic Party when I wouldn't vote for Kamala, even with Tim Walz as half the ticket. Maybe they should have used Tim Walz more? Also, why don't Dems want to be popular? Any thoughts on that?”

If you’re Progressive who wants to see the Democratic Party embrace a Leftwing Populist economic agenda, Walz would be a good choice. The problem is that WHOEVER the Democrats nominate for president in the future is going to be under enormous pressure to submit to the demands of Leftwing activist groups regarding DEI/Trans/etc. issues, and if that candidate can’t fight back effectively against such pressures and appeal to Independent voters, he/she is probably going to lose to the Republicans regardless of whether he/she is a Populist Progressive or an Establishment Centrist.

Mark

Wise people know that it is impossible to satisfy everyone all the time and have to set priorities that satisfy the greatest number of people, giving more weight to those who support them. That's just the way politics has to be in a democratic republic. I don't think the Anti-Trump Party has caught on to that yet. When a party cares more about trans athletes competing against women than biological women, they are on the wrong side of an issue and shouldn't expect a lot of support.

 

[Phys251]

I did not say cannot be defined, I said I did not have a name, don't speak for me.

Obama, Clinton, even Carter to an extent were all relatively unknowns is the point. Someone that is unifying is their path to the White House, people with baggage like Hilary Clinton, Harris, and even Walz (or Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and dozens of others) are not.

Just appealing to the Democratic base is not enough.

At the rate we're going, 2026 is going to be a very different landscape from 2024. The economy has taken a sudden turn for the worse, and the swing/independent voters won't forget that.

 

[OrphanSlug]

At the rate we're going, 2026 is going to be a very different landscape from 2024. The economy has taken a sudden turn for the worse, and the swing/independent voters won't forget that.

And that is likely enough for the midterms to invoke the natural political pendulum in at least the House (I have my concerns about the Senate as most of the seats up in 2026 are midwest and southeast) for the next Congress to not be so favorable to Trump.

For 2028 my concern is exclusively who ends up running and the message to obtain EC win. I have serious doubts Walz could even come close to a successful run.

 

[Phys251]

And that is likely enough for the midterms to invoke the natural political pendulum in at least the House (I have my concerns about the Senate as most of the seats up in 2026 are midwest and southeast) for the next Congress to not be so favorable to Trump.

For 2028 my concern is exclusively who ends up running and the message to obtain EC win. I have serious doubts Walz could even come close to a successful run.

My money has been and continues to be on a dark horse candidate to get the 2028 Democratic nomination.

 

[Big Brother]

My money has been and continues to be on a dark horse candidate to get the 2028 Democratic nomination.

Jasmine Crockett!! She is the new face of the Anti-Trump Party.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I guess you were into Anarcho-Capitalism instead? I mean if you did not vote for Kamala you in effect voted for Trumpism.

No, it means I didn't participate. If you didn't draw a red line at genocide, I think you enabled Trump's victory.

 

[Dans La Lune]

At the rate we're going, 2026 is going to be a very different landscape from 2024. The economy has taken a sudden turn for the worse, and the swing/independent voters won't forget that.

I'm sure Dems will continue to learn nothing, attain power, suffer the impacts of Trump's policies while in office (doing little / nothing to reverse them) and get thrown out of office again like the bums they are.

 

[SoCal]

I think those Democrats who failed to hold Biden and Harris to account helped far, far more to enable Trump than anything I could possible have done. Vote shaming is what LOSERS do after they've lost and have to blame someone other than themselves.

Holding Biden to account for what, for handing over to Trump an economy that was the envy of the world? For his Department of Labor ensuring 4 million workers be eligible for overtime? For being the 1st president to walk a picket line? Or pushing for and signing into law the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act? Or maybe for supporting Ukraine?

And how exactly should he have been held to account, shaming him by sending him a letter or text for not supporting Palestinians enough, by refusing to attend one of his rallies, or for not having accomplished all we wanted? So yes, I blame our current fiasco on those who voted for Trump, voted for a 3rd party candidate, or refused to vote at all.

And which do you think had a more direct impact in putting Numnuts in the WH, holding Biden "to account" or refusing to vote for Harris??

 

[TobyOne]

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

No, it means I didn't participate. If you didn't draw a red line at genocide, I think you enabled Trump's victory.

Your argument seems confused.

 

[Parker_Chess]

I like Tim Walz. He's a former teacher and football coach. It's the type of leadership we need.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

@Lethargic Aptitude
“I mean if you did not vote for Kamala you in effect voted for Trumpism.”

If you didn’t fill in the bubble next to Trump’s name on the ballot, then you didn’t vote for Trump or Trumpism. I didn’t vote for either Harris or Trump, and I don’t regret that choice at all.
I can’t speak for others, but in my experience, with ONE exception, I’ve not had a Republican/Trump supporter tell me “Since you didn’t vote for Trump, then you voted for Harris!” Almost every Trump supporter I know respected my decision not to vote for him. OTH, I’ve had MANY Democrats tell me, “If you didn’t vote for Harris, then you voted for Trump!” If Democrats ever want to know why they lost the last election, this type of insufferable scolding might provide a clue.
I think I speak for many Americans when I say FUKK THE BINARY CHOICE.

Mark

Well, it would have been wise to vote against what is in power now. But some voters forgot their civic duties and let someone take power that cheers genocide.

 

[Gatsby]

Really? She's the most leftist democrat around. Why wouldn't you vote for her?

Because he isn't actually any kind of leftist or a liberal. He just wants to LARP about how much he supposedly hates Trump. Even though his actual political objectives are pretty much entirely aligned with the average Trump voter.

 

[braindrain]

She was to the right of Biden on most policy issues, and at best equal to Biden on foreign policy (i.e. very right-wing). Why do you think she is Leftist? Because she's black?

Yeah it couldn’t be the fact that she was ranked most liberal compared to all senators. No it must be her race.

It’s almost like you are trying to be a caricature of the looniest far left at this point.