politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Walz should just start running for president now. Become an instant symbol for people to rally around.
Trump started his 2024 campaign immediately after the 2020 election's inauguration. If Trump can start campaigning 4 years in advance, so can Walz.
The purpose of presidential candidates need not be simply a candidate for the office. They can be a president-in-waiting. They can continuously rally the base. They can provide someone on the side of the opposition with a giant megaphone in the media. Trump benefited from all these things in the 2020-2024 period. He was the president-in-waiting, the presumptive nominee. This could be one individual, or it could be 3 or 4 leading candidates. But if we had some declared primary candidates running around shouting the message now, that could really help things.
Not to mention, campaigning for president makes you legally untouchable, no matter how many laws you’ve broken!
it's also a solid propaganda campaign since part of our current problem is that we, the sane, don't have presence of messaging in the deep red places. the dems have for years given up on those votes, allowing polarization to take its grip and slowly strangle us. obama won with a 50 state strategy because that's what it actually takes to win
I agree that having a shadow president+cabinet would be a smart idea from the Dems to drive home the contrast with the GOP.
I had a similar thought as soon as I saw the headline. He needs to keep his name in people's ears for the next few years if he wants a shot in '28 (assuming we're still doing elections at all by then). He was everyone's favorite thing about the Harris campaign and was absolutely crushing it before their campaign advisors told them to stop pressing the weird and couchfucker stuff. I hope whoever is in charge of his PR recognizes that and just let's him be himself. I hate to have to say this but he's also a white man so voting for him might not be a hard no from some of the disenfranchised former Trump supporters after four years of getting fucked over repeatedly.
I don't want Walz anywhere fucking near a presidential run. He's associated with the highest stakes loss in world history. And part of the reason why is because the biggest thing he had going for him is that he seemed awfully similar to a middle-aged dad. I'm not on board with that experiment again. Harris and Walz had one shot at it and they blew it. Sucks, but that's life. It will need to be someone completely disassociated from Harris-Walz and the current democratic party elites.
Walz was the best part of that ticket, up until they muzzled him. He was surprisingly popular across party lines, I don't see anyone else who accomplishes that. The campaign failed despite him, not because of him. I don't agree with anyone saying he's a bad pick because the Harris campaign was a failure. He'd be an excellent, effective choice.
He sucked ass in the debate and completely sane washed the unhinged shit Vance was spewing next to him. He even said himself before the debate that he sucks at debating and then proved his prediction correct.