this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
648 points (97.4% liked)

politics

20576 readers
4239 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 17 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

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.

[–] isaaclw@lemmy.world 13 points 59 minutes ago (1 children)

And Harris was hamstrung by Biden.

She could have been better.

Imagine the timeline where Joe got assassinated before the primaries. We wouldn't have this bullshit timeline.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 59 minutes ago

Yep. I remember a time when the Beltway insiders were acting like Amy Klobuchar was a rising star or some such, LOL.

[–] OccultIconoclast@reddthat.com 10 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] drascus@sh.itjust.works 31 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Thinking there is going to be a real election in 2028 is the most optimistic thing I've heard in a while.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

There's going to be an election, or we're going to learn the meaning of "All enemies, foreign and domestic".

[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 2 points 59 minutes ago

More like a Russian/Chinese election.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 46 minutes ago

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.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I really do think Tim Walz has a real chance. A very likeable guy.

Doesn't hurt that he's white and male, too.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Walz / Kelly, Kelly / Walz, Kelly / Kelly, or Kelly / AOC.

[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago

Scott/Mark. Or Mark/Scott.

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 17 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 19 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 54 minutes ago

Look at Trump/VD with Zelenski. Being charismatic and able to handle in-person negotiations with foreign leaders is hugely important.

I'm curious how you'd view that interaction? I bet those with magafied brainz think that was peak charisma, on Bronzo and "JD" "Vance"s part, while normal Americans probably look at that and think they completely shit the bed and embarrassed America.

[–] astutemural@midwest.social 168 points 7 hours ago (6 children)

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.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 53 minutes ago* (last edited 50 minutes ago)

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 .

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 14 points 3 hours ago

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".

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›