this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
429 points (94.6% liked)

politics

19119 readers
4983 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BadmanDan 9 points 3 days ago (3 children)

How is reporting what PEOPLE filled out in exit polls, shifting blame? These are just facts.

[–] kescusay 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You have to understand, the people who constantly attacked Harris before the election now have to figure out some way to make her just as bad as Trump, to excuse their own behavior. Is it disgusting? Yes. Is it reprehensible? Yes. Is it absolutely predictable as a means of trying to escape responsibility for the rancid shit hurricane that will be Trump Part 2? Yes.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Plenty of people voted for kamala and are huge critics of how the campaign was handled. Both can happen.

[–] kescusay 0 points 2 days ago

"Plenty" was not enough. The pre-election criticism looks like it worked exactly as intended.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah I've been seeing the exact same thing, and I think it will be interesting to see them gradually unravel in the coming months.

You can see that all of the astroturfing, bot accounts vanished after Election Day, and all of the useful idiots are left to try to fight the cognitive dissonance they're feeling after seeing the immediate insanity of Trump since winning.

Unfortunately, if they actually are progressives, they will likely have a much harder time ignoring the cognitive dissonance than conservatives (who seem to excel at that ability). They're in for some real psychic pain when they witness Trump's actions in Palestine.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"those leftist rubes not voting for my party, well jokes on them cause I just imagined the other guys doing worse"

I'm not looking forward to Trump, but this is the path the Democrats paved by their own actions. Blaming the voters is not a real strategy for anything other than nursing bruised ego.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 days ago

And how are they polling these non-voters at exit polls if they did not vote? Odd dog. The story is blame shifting bullshit, what Democrats love doing whenever they can't manage to run a decent candidate or election

[–] givesomefucks 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

...

How are you using exit polls to find out about why non-voters didn't vote?

Did everyone say they were politically engaged as they were leaving a polling location?

Or are you using logic to determine everyone that just voted was politically engaged, and those who didn't are politically disengaged?

Cuz like, yeah, obviously that's true...

But what matters is why they're politically disengaged and how we can get the to engage again.

A very very easy way, would be to make sure the next candidate agrees with Dem voters more than Republican voters.

[–] BadmanDan 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] givesomefucks 2 points 3 days ago

"following politics" is not the same as "voter engagement".

Someone that never pays attention but votes R every two years like clockwork for example.

They'd be "do not follow closely" on that, but if they 60 years old and voted R every election since they're were 18...

How exactly are they "politically disengaged"?

They're still voting, just not paying attention.

Like, there are loads of over things we're going to have to clear up for you to understand, but getting that difference is step 1.

If you understand this mistake, we can probably move forward and cover other stuff. But if you don't get this comment, nothing past it is going to be productive.

A lot of this is coming from the horrible headline that co flates the two, and is outright false.

So far trump has the most votes, he literally won with the politically engaged, because those are the people who voted.