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.
- 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!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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
Missing the point spectacularly, here. To the republican base, those are all strengths. The DGA basically tried to discourage a cult from showing up to vote for Dan Cox by portraying him as a close ally of Dear Leader who is hated by Democrats.
The Dem leadership delusions about it being 1992 and most of the population occupying the tiny sliver of political real estate between the most conservative Democrats and the least conservative Republicans is costing them more elections than anything else at a time where winning should be easier than it has been for decades.
Why would Democrats try to reach the MAGATs at all? If they are running anti-Trump attack ads they are targeting the "moderate" Republicans who don't pay enough attention to know how bad their primary options are. They know they can't affect Trump supporters. But there's a bunch of disaffected people who identify as Republicans but dislike Trump.
It's not as big as the 90s, but it's still substantial. Trump galvanized a lot of people into moving further towards the edges but the majority of Americans are politically apathetic. You only have to look at voter turnout to see that.
The alternative involves treating progressives like members of their constituency.
Because they mistakenly believe that doing so will make a candidate that isn't palatable to the overall electorate win the primaries and provide an easy general election for their own candidate.
Didn't you read the article? It's all in there..
Nowhere near as substantial as the Dem leadership thinks. If it had been, their 1992 strategy of going for the mythical "independents" would give them landslide wins in the vast majority of races in stead of barely eking out tiny specidic wins for tiny majorities, even losing the House to the most incompetent fascist party in history.