This message was self-deleted by its author

[W_HAMILTON]

33. I grew to like Walz, but it's ironic that he's criticizing us for playing it too safe.

Walz was the quintessential "play it safe" VP pick.

While we are playing Monday morning quarterback, maybe if Kamala had picked an attack dog in Josh Shapiro instead of golly gee willikers Tim Walz, we could have been more aggressive and attacking in our approach rather than running on what essentially became a diet version of hope and change.

Fact of the matter is, Kamala and her team ran a pretty damn flawless campaign given the cards she was dealt. It's hard to run against the status quo when you are the vice president of the current administration, but another fact of the matter is that our electorate tends to vote AGAINST something -- not for something.

If (more likely when) we win the midterms and regain some semblance of power at the federal level, it's ultimately not going to be because of how many town halls we ran or the fact that we finally nailed our messaging or anything of that other bullshit people are complaining about now -- it will be because Americans will find that their lives are worse off now and they will take it out on the elected officials currently in office: mostly Republicans.