Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Nope. NO ONE who had anything to do with why we are where we are. Fuck the while of the dem party besides AOC and Bernie.
that would be so based.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn't mind a big field of (good) Democratic candidates. Sanders, AOC, Crockett, Walz, they can all campaign. They can mutually have have their rivals as VP picks, and Sanders can have a public contract where the VP can remove him from office, if his age makes him mentally unfit for office.
What I would like to see, is a dynasty of (genuinely) progressive candidates of at least 24+ years. Sanders/Jasmine --> Jasmine/AOC --> AOC/???.
The Geronocrats and Republicans had the opportunity to show their worth, and have been found wanting. It is time for some new blood that truly cares about the wellbeing of Americans and the globe.
and Sanders can have a public contract where the VP can remove him from office, if his age makes him mentally unfit for office.
That sounds a bit redundant with the 25th amendment.
No fucking way.
Walz was the main reason I voted for a right winger like Kamala anyway.
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.
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.
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.
and exactly what people want to hear
It's what people who care about democracy want to hear. That certainly isn't everyone.
He's got some things going for him. Male. Presumably heterosexual. Caucasian. Old (but perhaps not quite old enough). I say go for it.