766
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
766 points (97.6% liked)
politics
20563 readers
3975 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
No. Run AOC
We don't "run" candidates. If you want someone else to run you need to speak with them.
Sorry if this seems pedantic but I'm getting tired of the language that suggests there's some sort of cabal deciding who does or does not run.
The reason a lot of people think that way, is that any truly progressive candidate isn't backed by the DNC.
Also, very recently, AOC was denied a seat at the table for a dying, cancer ridden old white guy. Granted, it wasn't a spot in an election, but her own party looked the other way for a leadership role.
It’s worse than that, the DNC will pour millions into establishment campaigns to crush any progressive primary challengers.
Perfect example - we could have had a wonderful progressive win in Texas, Jessica Cisneros, a few years back. Instead Pelosi stepped in with millions to back Henry Cuellar, who went on to vote with republicans like 95% of the time.
Time after time this happens, and frankly it has completely turned me off to the idea that the democrat party can be “fixed.” The corruption is too endemic, we need to start fresh with a new leftist party to have any hope of meaningful representation in Washington.
What does committee seats have to do with running for office?
It speaks to who party leadership wants wielding power.
Yeah, but committee seats are where the establishment has explicit power. It's easy to connect establishment whims with that very same establishment electing their choice. It's a huge stretch to extend that to them dictating the votes of millions of people.
Or it speaks to the "norms" that Democrats slavishly adhere to.
AOC is relatively a junior member of Congress. I disagree with the "norms" nonsense in this day and age but the point is that not every action has a deeper meaning and those who keep parroting this belief have clearly never worked with a large number of people before.
It's a litmus test for bigger things.
you're right, we didin't want hillary, the cabal wanted her, we wanted bernie, the cabal wanted harris, we wanted dean, the cabal said his whoop was too much...don't be this naive dan
We also didn't want Hilary and got Obama. The cabal isn't all powerful.
They weren't all powerful. I'd highly recommend reading up on how the Clintons captured the DNC after Obama. They very clearly did not want him, and made sure that something like him couldn't happen again.
If the DNC was that powerful Bernie wouldn't have won any states. And it's not like we're seeing polling (even progressively aligned polling) with 65% for Bernie and then somehow getting Biden. He was in the 30-40% range the whole time and then got 30-40% of the vote.
The DNC will tilt the scales in favor of the centrist establishment, but they don't dictate the result and saying they do is just a recipe for progressives to give up and check out rather than stay in the fight.
Exactly. If you go back to my original comment, all I said is that AOC needs to run if she wants to run. There's no one picking the people who are on the ballot. If that were the case, the DNC would have blocked Bernie and Williamson. But they didn't.
People run for office, at all levels. No one is deciding to "run candidates" like we're choosing race horses to field for the day.
Something keeps telling me that this is the goal of all the DNC Boogeyman talk.
17 years is a long time.
Which makes it less of a cabal and more of a group of people who have different opinions than some of us.
What’s the difference, besides the obvious skin color?
You think the only difference between Clinton and Obama is their “obvious” skin color? Wow.
Policy-wise, I don’t think there’s much difference there. We didn’t get to see with Hillary in office though, but I suspect things would have been run much the same way, by almost all the same people, had she won.
One difference, germane to the topic and not related to anyone’s skin color, is that the people actually wanted Obama.
I’m not so sure about that. I think they wanted the promised “hope and change,” and thought maybe this time the candidate would deliver. Spoiler alert - there were other priorities.
You’re not sure that the people chose Obama over Clinton in 2008? I’m sorry you’re not sure about that, when did you arrive here (Earth, I mean)?
Not what I’m saying. I think people voted for Obama’s platform and marketing. At the time he was a relatively unknown political figure, which amplified the possibility of change. Which, again, was not delivered upon.
Oh, I see. And Clinton did all those things too? Or are there actually even more differences between them than just their “obvious skin color”? Please tell me because I do not know what you obviously mean.
I was joking earlier about Dems’ utter and tired dependence on identity politics, but you seem to have chosen to take things the wrong way at every turn. As I said, policy wise, I don’t believe those two differed much at all. In other words, they both would do exactly what the donors tell them. Biden also did this, and the American people hate it so much that they voted Trump2 instead.
Many establishment dems absolutely refuse to learn this lesson, just like you appear to be. I suggest you and others in the party reflect on those devastating Dem losses some more beyond the easy identity-politic excuse of “misogyny”, or we’re going to be in for a very rough next election cycle.
Now It’m sure we’re in different timelines. You brought up their skin color. That being a pretty chickenshit distinction between them, I challenged you. Now you’re shouting identity politics. It’s like pulling the string on a broken Krusty doll.
I wanted Bernie, but the primary shows that, no, the US populace didn't want him.
The primary was decided long before most voters get a chance to vote. Our bullshit staggered primaries disenfranchise most of the country.
While I understand your frustration, you could always try to get your state to primary as soon as Iowa. By canvassing and working within the local election system.
Oh, and fight for ranked choice voting, too.
There was a primary. Bernie didn't win the primary. The numbers were not there in any supportable way. Bernie had a nice lead in the beginning with early states like, I dunno, Vermont, but he didn't pull in the votes.
Stop spreading disinformation.
It’s not a cabal, just plain old corruption. Harris was anointed when instead we could have had a contested primary just before the DNC to excite voters. Hillary colluded with Debbie Wasserman Schultz to steal the nomination from Bernie.
When was the extra bonus primary supposed to happen? People demanded that Biden step down while the rest of us said, "what's your plan for when the front runner steps down?" Everyone ignored us yet immediately pivoted to this anointment narrative which is bullshit. The best we had was the delegates we elected in the original primaries making the best decision they could. As a bonus, the only other people running were shit-shows in their own right. Williamson or Phillips? That's who you preferred?
It's not collusion for the DNC to work with Democrats by definition. The DNC felt like Clinton was the best representative for the coalition. Bernie is an independent and as such literally not part of the party. Why would the party do anything other than support the front runner from the party.
All of these organizations are a loose, messy, group of humans and their actions can easily be explained as such. Stop believing Russian propaganda about back room deals and cabals.