Was Walz a mistake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not Walz, it’s not Harris, it’s DEMOCRATS. We don’t want progressive policies.

I’m also not a fan of Jazz Hands Walz. He gives me the creeps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, as a woman, I can say that Waltz would have had a better chance as the actual candidate. I wish the Democrats would stop nominating women for the foreseeable future, it's not going to go well if we continue to do so.

Although I get that this is coming from a place of pragmatism, you do realize this is a horrible thing to say? How about we dig deeper and educate re: internalized biases in this country? Ideally in a less condescending manner.

I said in another thread that America will elect a female president and she's going to be a Republican with no-nonsense grandma vibes. America does not want a liberal wine aunt/schoolmarm lecturing them. (See: Gwen Walz)

I don’t think Americans are misogynistic; they just didn’t want liberal wine aunt running the country. I am sure Kamala’s fun to get high with, but that’s about it.

[Anonymous]

Our elections have become very “reality tv” and Donald Trump has serious changed the game. We now require each candidate to able to persuade that they are authentic and likable, more than needed in the past. Likability was necessary in the past but we for sure take it to another level now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was a lightweight. His folksy schtick on 60 Minutes wasn’t even cute. I don’t think he hurt her but he definitely didn’t help.

PA was always a must win state. Why they didn’t pick Josh Shapiro as VP was baffling.

Because he's Jewish.

Democrat voters cannot compromise. Republican voters can.

It's ironic because Democrat leaders can compromise, but Republican leaders cannot compromise m

Very interesting. I'm new to this forum and would love to hear more. I thought Jews are all democrats? By dem voters cannot compromise with a Jewish candidate do you mean middle and lower class people are against Jews?

[Anonymous]

Loved waltz and most of my conservative family would have voted for him at the top of the ticket but just couldn't get behind a woman

[Anonymous]

No. He was a good pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was a lightweight. His folksy schtick on 60 Minutes wasn’t even cute. I don’t think he hurt her but he definitely didn’t help.

PA was always a must win state. Why they didn’t pick Josh Shapiro as VP was baffling.

Because he's Jewish.

Democrat voters cannot compromise. Republican voters can.

It's ironic because Democrat leaders can compromise, but Republican leaders cannot compromise m

Very interesting. I'm new to this forum and would love to hear more. I thought Jews are all democrats? By dem voters cannot compromise with a Jewish candidate do you mean middle and lower class people are against Jews?

There's now a segment of Democratic voters that view Jews as being responsible for Israel bombing Gaza and taking up an oversize share of the Biden admin appointments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, as a woman, I can say that Waltz would have had a better chance as the actual candidate. I wish the Democrats would stop nominating women for the foreseeable future, it's not going to go well if we continue to do so.

Although I get that this is coming from a place of pragmatism, you do realize this is a horrible thing to say? How about we dig deeper and educate re: internalized biases in this country? Ideally in a less condescending manner.

I said in another thread that America will elect a female president and she's going to be a Republican with no-nonsense grandma vibes. America does not want a liberal wine aunt/schoolmarm lecturing them. (See: Gwen Walz)

I don’t think Americans are misogynistic; they just didn’t want liberal wine aunt running the country. I am sure Kamala’s fun to get high with, but that’s about it.

But they were okay with the creepy orange guy who would slip the date rape drug in your drink? Double standards much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should have gone with Big Gretch. Whitmer is adored by most of MI. Harris/Whitmer would have been a fking force, IMO.

And also, if she'd had more than 100 days to campaign. Biden should have never run for reelection. It was selfish of him just like it was selfish of RBG to not retire when we could have protected her seat and instead died in office under Trump.

Whitmer would have been worse than Walz. At least Walz was agreeable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks are tired of the elites. Enough of Obamas, Clintons, Hollywood and Fake News. It’s over.

This is interesting to me because a born-rich Wharton grad and a Yalie just beat two people with no Ivy League credentials. Walz was a school teacher who attended State schools and served in the Guard. Harris went to USF for law school and worked her way up in the prosecutors office. Neither grew up wealthy. They aren't elite.

I actually think Americans LOVE elites and are suspicious of people who don't have elite backgrounds. They want an elite who is folksy and doesn't feel like he's (and he's got to be a he) condescending to them. GW Bush or Clinton. Obama managed to do this despite initially being too slick, through disciplining his public image and utilizing oratory skill. Trump did it by being gross and flooding the zone (literally he just says things over and over until people believe them). But you need to start with the Ivy League education and elite resume and then dumb it down. You can't do the reverse. People won't believe you (especially if you're a woman or not white).

They want smart people that appear competent and capable of being president. Neither Harris nor Walz have presidential quality intellect. At least JD Vance is smart. People that attended IVY league schools are significantly more likely to have high IQs. It makes sense that they will be extremely overrepresented among politicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It didn't matter who she selected. It has more to do with the maority of american not wanting the policies and actions Democrats bring.

Agree. Americans especially reject the progressive agenda.

Reject the radicalism of the progressives, and the dem party might have a chance going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, as a woman, I can say that Waltz would have had a better chance as the actual candidate. I wish the Democrats would stop nominating women for the foreseeable future, it's not going to go well if we continue to do so.

Although I get that this is coming from a place of pragmatism, you do realize this is a horrible thing to say? How about we dig deeper and educate re: internalized biases in this country? Ideally in a less condescending manner.

Do Dems want to win or do they want to ignore reality and continue to lose. I don’t think the problem is “sexism”. There are plenty of Republican women in Congress and quite a few Republican governors. The problem is thinking that other people need to be “educated “. You have to pick an agenda that resonates with the American people. If Dems keep on believing voters are the problem and not their message, they will not win in 2028 either.

[Anonymous]

Walz is gay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Walz is gay

I think that mattered. Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump didn’t win because of Vance and Harris didn’t lose because of Walz.

I absolutely think Vance helped steer independents to Trump.

I’m an Independent. Trump won because of Joe Biden’s public blunders and suspected dementia . That’s what I am seeing in my circles.

Yes. I live in a purple state and my Independent friends didn’t vote Trump but didn’t vote Harris either. This was the thing I kept hearing even after Biden was replaced. The trust there was gone once it was clear the extent of Biden’s physical and cognitive decline.