this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
162 points (97.1% liked)
Progressive Politics
2898 readers
596 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
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
Which frankly he learned from Obama. Unfortunately the Democrats failed to iterate.
To the day I still don’t understand how waltz wasn’t just bouncing from white male podcast to white male podcast lecturing them about how to fix their trucks and how being a man means taking care of your community, using examples like MN’s school lunch program. They had a pocket ace right there, A boomer who could flip the script on masculinity And link it with progressive ideals. But they basically just hid him away until the election. Ridiculous.
The answer is simple: They don't want people to take care of their communities; to them that tax money should be going to billionaires and corporations (and, by extension, themselves). The actions of the DNC make a lot more sense if you assume they don't stand for any of the things they claim to stand for.
I get it very easy to boil it down to that, but I don’t think it’s quite that simple. For instance, why do they pick them in the first place? The entire rhetoric around him, including in the news media, was about his relatability to progressives and young men alike. Everyone seemed to be on the same page. Then Harris‘s election strategy became basically to go silent
Same reason they picked Harris: they're drinking their own kool-aid on identity politics. Just like how because Harris is a black woman they tried to sell her as a progressive feminist and not the bootlicking prosecutor she actually is, they assumed that because Walz was an old white guy he was only pretending to use progressive rhetoric and shat their pants when they realized he was genuine about it.
Where are you getting the idea that they thought he was pretending?
They wouldn't have nominated him if they thought he was actually progressive.
So it’s an assumption? Just making sure we’re clear.
Defaulting to assuming the best about a garbage party?
I don't give democrats the benefit of the doubt any longer. They have proven themselves completely untrustworthy over the course of decades.
No? I’m just saying that’s a big assumption. There are also easier ways to sandbag your own party.
Betray the left enough times and the pattern of behavior makes it the most likely conclusion.
All I was asking is if there is evidence they didn’t realize he was actually a progressive despite his very clear track record as one both rhetorically and governing-wise. The answer is no, there is an assumption. You can explain your reasoning that’s fine. But you’re framing it as if that’s the debate and accusing me of simping for democrats or whatever. I’m not. I had a very specific question that we have now answered.
Ok, So we can count you as a satisfied sea lion, then?
Satisfied, but wasn’t sealioning. You can keep grinding your axe though if that’s what you need to get through the weekend.
You do realize it's just bad faith to assume sea lioning, especially when you're the one repeating your already held beliefs without evidence...
Mind, I agree that the Democrats' track record speaks for itself. Their attention on progressives amounts to the same kind of effort given by the popular kid at school being forced to do a class project with the nerd. They want all the credit while doing less than nothing to actually help.
That... is a fair point. In that case I have no idea.
Right!? It’s truly a mystery to me. I guess they really just thought Trump would hang himself in the end but clearly they were wrong