1088
Tim Walz says he may run for president in 2028 despite failure of Harris campaign
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
1088 points (97.6% liked)
politics
23730 readers
2273 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My only "problem" with the weird-comments were that they were overused. While it is certainly true, and Waltz had every reason to call it out, supporters often kept repeating it in the context of "look how triggered Republicans are by this". After a while it gave me the same vibe as people shoehorning "let's go brandon" into every situation.
Except that....worked?
One of the takeaways from the 2024 election is that if you have something that works, repetition is key for the idiot American electorate.
Yeah, interesting how the Harris campaign had all the momentum after the Waltz nomination, then pivoted back to neoliberal wonkiness and then crashed and burned again.
It was her perpetual problem too. She'd start out with energetic support for progressive policies, get momentum, and then a few days later (presumably after talking with advisors and donors) clarify that actually she didn't mean it and what she really wanted was strictly limited neoliberalism. It's why she failed in the 2020 primary and I wish she learned something from that.
Could she have given donors the middle finger and overcome lack of money to win through better policy?
"Losing" is a middle finger to the donors.
To a donor, the only thing worse than losing is winning without the donor's support. A donor would rather lose than be proven irrelevant.
If you want to shake the cult's faith in their cult leader, then yes, you want to trigger them. They're triggered because they sense the loss of innate, automatic strongman support.
When you're trying to get a political movement going, there's no such thing as an overused slogan. The fact that it was getting used so much was evidence it was working, and part of that was because it got at the right in the same way that they try to other minorities