Summary

Former vice presidential nominee Tim Walz criticized Trump for economic chaos while taking personal responsibility for the situation during an MSNBC interview.

“We wouldn’t be in this mess if we’d have won the election — and we didn’t,” Walz told Chris Hayes. He called Trump the “worst possible business executive” and praised the Wall Street Journal’s editorial criticizing Trump’s tariff war.

Walz emphasized Democrats must offer something better, not just criticize Trump. Recently, he acknowledged a leadership void in the Democratic Party and admitted spending too much time combatting Trump’s false claims about immigrants.

  • LordKekz@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Turns out holding back the things that work (like calling fascists “weird”) while not breaking with some of Biden’s unpopular policies was a terrible idea… who would’ve thought? At least Walz is honest enough to admit it. I doubt the DNC will let the social democrats like Walz or Bernie take the lead though… establishment dems would rather stand by and praise Reagan while Trump dismantles the constitution.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        6 days ago

        The DNC is a right-wing party dictatorship

        And we just got the furtherest left chain we’ve had in over 30 years…

        The chair has complete control and no accountability to anyone else.

        and replaced with an actual far left worker’s party.

        And the new chair agrees with you. You don’t even have to take his word, look at what he did as head of Minnesota’s state party

        • kreskin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          the new DNC chair just gave us elissa slotkin as trumps speech rebutter. She’s a zionist and menber of the problem solvers coalition (bipartisanship for bipartisanship sake) and new democrat caucus (pro business focus). She’s measured as the most centrist dem there is.

          The new chair is accountable to the same corrupt influences as the last one. We might as well have not appointed a new chair. Ken has to go.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 days ago

            She also co-sponsored legislation to ban corporate pacs…

            How are her (absolute dog shit) opinions about Israel affect the position she has?

            • Yeather@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              Because you can trace the money, no matter what random, clearly going to die, just for show bill gets introduced.

      • Ledericas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        You can pretty much tell which one , Ds are getting the same megadonor moneys from the GOP, and yes the Dems are hoping coast on by along with the GOP, to eek some federal elections.

    • venotic@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      6 days ago

      Bernie’s chances of running are pretty much up and over. He’s like 83. The time to have gotten him in was definitely 2016, but the DNC wanted Clinton and that got them to lose. 2020, he lost again because everyone tone deaf wanted Biden because they believed “well, he was around Obama during his two terms, he should be in because he’ll just continue what Obama built!”. They only got lucky to have won 2020 with Biden, just lucky.

      I cannot see Bernie Sanders ever running again.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        he lost again because everyone tone deaf wanted Biden because they believed “well, he was around Obama during his two terms, he should be in because he’ll just continue what Obama built!”.

        An article I read about this talked about how DNC-funded advertising discredited Bernie not by attacking his actual policies, but via a message of “his promises are good, and you may like them, but how many voters out there won’t vote for a scary socialist?”. I think that’s ultimately what did him in; it’s impossible to make a reasonable person hate the stuff Bernie was promising (unless they think it’s gonna placate the proletariat and make them lose the will to seize the means of production or some shit), but it is possible to convince them that some unspecified “many people” wouldn’t vote for him and therefore he’d lose the election.

        • tischbier@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          They also banked on the sexist “Bernie Bros” and tried to paint the movement as majority male when it wasn’t. Plenty of women who liked Bernie. And a lot of that enthusiasm would have captured some youth that could have attracted young men wanting change and wanting to put their weight behind something.

          Change was coming regardless. The DNC had an option for a brief moment to permit or encourage change for the better of all. Instead, they let our economic problems fester, accelerated the income disparity, and chose to back…whatever the fuck this shit show is now.

          When parties get so arrogant that they think the people they represent are the enemy—they need to go. Unrestricted and fully backed? I think Bernie could have won against Trump in 2016.

      • LordKekz@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        I don’t think Bernie will run again in 2028, but he is still relevant right now because nobody else is taking the lead. I hope people like Walz will step up and try to turn the DNC around. It’ll be an uphill battle even with the DNC, not to speak of the actual election.

        • SabinStargem@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 days ago

          I think Bernie should run, alongside AOC, Walz, Al Green, and others. The primary can sort out who is truly best as president. That is the whole bloody idea of a primary, one the DNC never honestly permitted after Obama’s tenure.

          The reason why the conservatives found an effective candidate in Trump, is that he was allowed to legitimately compete in their primaries. It is a stress test, and the DNC refused to allow their own primary to work as intended.

          • Ledericas@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            AOC has not interest though, she said it would best if she stayed in the house

    • AnIndefiniteArticle
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      6 days ago

      “Weird” alienated voters. It’s an example of bad messaging that the dems doubled down on that made them lose.

      They lacked a platform that promised anything but more of the same that Americans were tired of. They needed to present something new and hopeful, not just lob an insult that much of America identifies with. A suite of policies to help the working class attracts votes to your side. Calling your opponents weird attracts votes to the weird anti-establishment.

      Weird plays into the republican’s hands, and it annoys the hell out of me how the dems decided to throw the election to focus on petty insults that come off as compliments to most observers.

      A part of the problem is that they didn’t hold back on broken and alienating messaging like “weird”. They should have focused on talking about what they can do for the people.

        • AnIndefiniteArticle
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          6 days ago

          Just because it flustered republicans doesn’t mean it didn’t alienate voters.

          I agree with the rest of your message listing progressive policies that the majority of Americans support. That’s the winning strategy.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            This is the Clinton-era way of thinking. A losing campaign must have done everything wrong, and a winning campaign must have done everything right.

            • AnIndefiniteArticle
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 days ago

              No, Clinton-era thinking is trying to fluster the Republicans without being concerned with alienating the voters.

            • AnIndefiniteArticle
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 days ago

              It alienated me and others like me that identify as weird.

              You can’t win the left while shit talking non-hegemonic personalities and preferences.

              • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                5 days ago

                You don’t find Republican policies that dehumanize immigrants, attack women’s rights, and demonize LGBT rights weird? To put it as nicely as possible, fascist policies are weird

                  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 days ago

                    I’m not, I’m pointing out that even that miniscule amount of pushback during the campaign was well received. You seem to be the one opposed to even that

                    The Democrats are a controlled opposition, genuine opposition must come from grassroots organization and solidarity. Peaceful opposition backed by militant support is preferred, but I’m completely on board with revolution as well discussed by Franz Fanon

              • Ledericas@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                You were never going to vote for Dems anyways, you keep saying alienation but you have not provided any proof. The fact that your being flustered means it’s actually working against Republicans, yes we know you are one.

                • AnIndefiniteArticle
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  I did vote for the dems.

                  “Weird” as an insult is fundamentally pro-centrist and pro-status-quo.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        “Weird” alienated voters.

        No, the initial comment was fine, as was the authentic reaction to it.

        What made it weird and ineffective, was Kamala and other zero charisma neoliberals beating it into the ground while screaming “you like this”.

        It’s like when Dee was trying to make Instagram videos and Charlie kept fucking with her:

        I said I wanted staged moments that felt authentic!

        When Walz said it off the cuff, it was a good thing. When Harris tried to make it an entire campaign, it was stupid and “weird” on its own.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        “Weird” alienated voters.

        Oh? got any proof of that? Was your proof on fox news maybe? I saw plenty of articles praising it.

        • AnIndefiniteArticle
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 days ago

          It alienated me.

          Most queer people identify with the label “weird”.

          I also saw pro-corporate outlets praising it.

          • bishbosh@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            Oh see you said it alienated voters, plural.

            What a ridiculous take.

          • kreskin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            Most queer people identify with the label “weird”.

            OK. First of all, words can have multiple meanings. Like the word “screw” or “bark” or “current”. We dont need to deprecate these multiple meanings in favor of just one. In conversation you pick the applicable meaning, and if you cant thats more a ‘you’ problem. I have enough problems of my own without taking yours on too. My use of the word doesnt affect you at all.

            Secondly, I will stick with the normal usage that most people use. Language is an agreement between people around meaning, and the vast majority of the population doesnt agree that it has this new meaning. Sorry. Maybe in a few years “wierd” will have a more predominant meaning that you prefer, but today it does not, and again, even if it did, the word need not mean only one thing.

            I also saw pro-corporate outlets praising it.

            But it seems like your memories dont match your ability to show it now. Human memories are notoriously unreliable.

            It alienated me.

            If you simply dont like that the word means what it means because you wish another meaning was more dominant, then I have a hard time feeling like you’ve much of a right to be aggreived at anyone about that. But by all means, be alienated if you want to. Just dont expect anyone else to make your alienation into a thing. Cheers.

          • LordKekz@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            It alienated me.

            Most queer people identify with the label “weird”.

            That’s fair actually. When I first heard it without context, I also felt kind of alienated by it.

            I think you can be weird in good and bad ways, context matters in this case. I think it’s fair to call out fascists for being “weird” in the sense that they are evil, crooked and - crucially - not relatable for the vast majority of voters. The “weird” thing is about the fascists not being “like us” - and thus very instinctively not trustworthy.

            At the same time it’s also possible to be “weird” in an individualistic, relatable and validating way. Most people have insecurities or fears on some level and accepting this “weirdness” can be validating and actually show likeness. I think it’s very clear that Tim Walz didn’t mean it like this.

            He didn’t call them weird out of the blue, but rather to sum up his other points about their unrelatable, evil behaviors. The message was something like: “The fascists are not real, believable people. They don’t seem driven by everyday worries like us. They don’t seem to have the same kind of feelings like us.”

            And I think that is actually exactly the message that wins elections in this political climate. Debating the issues is getting you nowhere if your opponent has no actual beliefs to debate against. Calling them out for being fake people with no actual beliefs is a better strategy.