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
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.
I'm not convinced there will be an election in 2028...
There will, but it won't be a fair one. They have "elections" in Russia, too.
There won't at the current trajectory. There won't even be midterms.
I remember Republicans checking out on elections back in 2018 because they bought hard into the Trump "elections are rigged" propaganda. The GOP lost seven Senate seats that year as conservative turnout plunged.
I wonder if Democrats will make the same mistake in 2026.
Walz / Kelly, Kelly / Walz, Kelly / Kelly, or Kelly / AOC.
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.
Fuckin should have been the nominee in the first place - him or Sanders.
Him calling the GOP weird was not a gaffe but the campaign made him walk away from that language because it might offend potential turncoats. The fact he is internalizing the criticism worries me.
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....