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
So the new campaign is that the DNC did nothing wrong, they were just thwarted by voter suppression?
Couldn't be they completely fucked up by campaigning to a center that doesn't exist any more. The DLC's triangulation bullshit is dead and needs to stay dead. Every Dem from the Clinton era needs to get that through their damn heads, they should have retired a decade ago anyway.
It's a combination of everything, DNC has been spineless and bought out by corps, voter suppression techniques from Republicans skewed votes in their favor, white rural voters came out in droves to vote for trump, the Harris campaign failure to meaningfully address the genocide or get enough messaging out to address people's financial troubles.
The genocide voters are idiots. Harris spent too much time trying to court “moderate” republicans.
Congrats, the dems passively let a decades old tradition of passively supporting Israel go mildly unchanged and the idiots let a genocide accelerationist into power. Not stopping a genocide is not the same as accelerating it.
The voter suppression problem is a symptom of the spineless and bought out DNC problem. Dems should be talking about nationwide voting laws and how red states aren't democratic and don't have legitimate rule of law constantly, but that would be too radical and unpredictable for the corps to feel comfortable with, so instead they focus their legislative efforts on just cutting checks to all the state governments for this infrastructure initiative or that climate bill or whatever, which helps assholes like Ron DeSantis and Brian Kemp run the systems of patronage and oppression that keep them in power (also, those checks are eventually ending up in the corps' accounts, so they're happy too).
They don't talk about voting laws during the campaign because it loses.
Contrary to popular belief, they're not idiots.
If you get all the corporations to turn against you, especially the media companies, you lose. Ask Bernie.
They're not doing everything right, certainly, but it's also not a simple problem to solve. There are some very fine lines to walk for Dems. Kamala tried to walk those lines and failed.
She offered a $50k credit towards buying your first house. Does Gen Z remember that?
Meanwhile Trump could shout "hail Hitler" tomorrow and all the corporate media (and then 50% of the voters) would make excuses for him.
We need voters to seek out primary sources. We need them to be more resistant to manipulation. The problem isn't getting the information out there; it's getting people to hear it. How many people who didn't vote for Kamala went to KamalaHarris.com? And how many of those seriously considered what she had to say?
The problem is that saying nothing is more of a winning strategy than saying something. People always want to tear you down, and more words give them more ammo. So every politician's website is filled with fluff and platitudes.
The problem is Fox News telling people what to think 24/7 in a way that they actually listen.
Honestly, The Daily Show and Colbert Report of around 2000-2015 were one of the best things this country had going for it, and we were hardly aware of it.
Because no Gen Z sees 50$k towards a house and is impressed. That offer alone shows such a ridiculous disconnect between the dems and the populace. Yes that would be beneficial for a very select minority of Gen Z, but for the vast majority.
Not close to helpful, radical or on level to Trump's promises (lies).
They want sweeping change, they expect politicians to lie and embellish. If the politician offers something so minor when they are expected to embellish then the avg voter probably expects even less or nothing at all.
At least significant promises can get people excited. Even if they are obvious lies to those paying attention. Sad reality is vast majority of people of any generation pay almost no attention whatsoever.
I think people seeing her message might have helped. But the difference maker would have been a message people actually want to get behind. That would have spread organically.
Now whether the DNC was cooked either way following the publics perception of Bidens term is another thing. But a strong message will always prevail - even if it is a lie.
You're right, the DNC should be working to expand voter protections and ensure that freedom is protected and it sucks they're bought out by corps.
I'm never gonna stop sharing this
There's this, and then there's Sideshow Bob's lines on the matter:
This has been in my head since 2016. I firmly believe that there really are people out there that find this kind of authoritarian rule comforting.
Conservatives have a heightened fear response so that tracks
Nonsense, Kamala had 0 left leaning policy and also never mentioned trans people in her entire campaign. She tacked to the centre further than Biden on every single issue, not disputing your other anecdotes but you are seriously misled if you think the Democrats are anything except centre-right.
Republicans who want to round up minorities, prevent women from having the ability to abort fetuses that result from rape, and prevent any and all lgbtq people from existing in public.
Calling them the lesser of two evils shows you have no fucking clue.
That or you are lying like most right wingers and centrists.
'Oh I have to be a nazi now because you called me one 😭'
I just looked through all of that and there's nothing as you describe from her campaign itself. Even outside of her campaign there is only lip service and commemoration for the victims of the pulse terror attack.
Unless you count saying trans people should receive medically necessary treatment as supportive? It's a literal non-statement, words that mean very little, her support here is aesthetic at best.
I really hate that this is the top comment. Two things can be true at the same time. Dems messed up in the previous election and narrowly lost against the worst candidate to ever run for president,AND voter suppression is real and will become a much larger problem going forward. Under Trump, nothing is stopping Republicans from enacting voter suppression laws the likes of which you have never seen before. Trump won’t need to steal the election for his third term (yes he will run if he’s still alive!), because the states will do it for him by suppressing the votes.
Now you may think that you are protected from a third term by the constitution. You may think you are protected against things like poll taxes, tests etc. But do you honestly believe the SC is on your side?
The Dems messed up this election. Voter suppression will ensure that there will no longer be fair elections in the future.
The Democrats have plenty of problems, but none of that compares to Republicans who are worse in every conceivable way. Propaganda, foreign interference, and domestic voter suppression won this for Trump and his goons.
I get the argument, but at this point, nobody is contemplating whether to vote Democrat or Republican. It's between Democrat and apathy.
Comments like these sound as if during WWII the French were saying "well, the French army has plenty of problems, but Nazi German occupation is worse in every conceivable way, so there is no point criticising the French army".
Everyone knows the Reps are Nazis. The problem with the Dems is not that they are not less bad than the literal Nazi party, but that they are unable to effectively fight the Nazi party. The problem is that Democrats fail to demonstrate that voting for them is better than not voting at all to a large part of the electorate.
A more concise way of putting it is that, if we're going to resist and reject Trump, don't expect meaningful help from the Democratic Party. That's not what it is. Meet your neighbors. Organize at that level. If need be, form cells.
99% of the times Democrats fail to effect change, it's for losing a vote that comes close to 50/50 - be it for presidents, senate representatives, etc.
People do not understand that their only quote-unquote "failing" is that we literally don't give them power in any usable, reliable form, and that they don't represent a hive mind.
I'm not criticising them for not having the votes, I'm criticising them for not writing and standing behind the bills in the first place.
There are three insane third Trump term bills already in Congress, where were the three Medicare for All or police reform, or anti-price gouging or tax reform bills in Congress days after Biden's win? Or Obama's win?
The Trump bills won't pass, sure, but we are here and talking about them. Where were the Dems doing this?
I beg of the Dems to please stop the cope and start making moves.
They didn't campaign to the center, they campaigned to the right. It was incredible obtuse and stupid.
Biden barely squeaked into office on promises it became clear he was never going to even try to keep, and then Democrats proceeded to alienate a bunch of groups that voted for him. Groups that only voted for him reluctantly the last time.
My hypothesis is that voter suppression had a lot to do with it. Harris was no more of a crap candidate than Biden was in 2020. It'd be nice to see some solid research one way or the other.
I'm also with you on getting rid of triangulation, since the lack of principles it requires is almost as corrosive as fascism, and you end up with a party 1 mm to the left of whoever the fascist-du-jour might be. It's a morally bankrout strategy that delivers next to nothing.
Biden was able to get away with it in 2020 coming off Trump's first term and the shitshow that was COVID's handling under his leadership. Harris didn't have this benefit, being second in command in the incumbent regime, was unable to capitalize on any of the points the Biden administration could claim as wins, while stubbornly refusing to put any distance between him and herself on his unpopular stances. Add in that this was occurring while popular sentiment was clamoring for an inspiring campaign that wasn't the usual DNC paint-by-numbers, march to the right campaign of, "Well, actually, while I can appreciate Hitler's passion for the arts, animal welfare and the health risks of smoking, you'll find that we, uh... disagree about the best way to deal with the Jewish question. Thank you, you're seen and heard, even you Jews out there. Vote for me, 'cause the other guy's Hitler, and I'm not entirely Hitler."
The entire Democrat effort (or lack thereof) was a massive unforced error on their part. Instead, they keep sidelining any candidate who seems to actually excite people and inspire them with hope for the sort of systemic change they want, unless they find they can eventually drag them into their usual shenanigans.
Personally, I think they'd also do best to drop their tokenism with candidates that trot out the same means-tested policy drivel. Rather than go harder on the adjectives next time and hope people show up to vote for, "The candidate who would be the country's first female, Chinese, Navajo, amputee, Leprauchan president in history," have policies that don't include the means-testing and would broadly lift up the working class and poor voters, while also addressing historic inequalities for the many groups that have been disadvantaged and/or excluded from US society for its history. You can tick all the diversity boxes you want with the candidates, but it's patronizing to think people will blindly fall in line for such a candidate assuming they'll represent them, when we've seen that it's mere lip-service paid to very real issues impacting the lives of millions of Americans, which will be promptly forgotten upon taking office, if it lasts that long.