this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
135 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19282 readers
2251 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Diplomjodler3 54 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But the DNC would rather hand their country to the fascists than allow progressive ideas to gain traction.

[–] simplejack 23 points 1 month ago (4 children)

If you read that article, all of those policies are economic policies that Harris was pushing. Punishing price gouging, lowering rent and mortgages costs by incentivizing building and banning price fixing algorithms, etc.

Those races either had more effective communicators, or shittier opponents. They were democratic candidates that ran on the Democratic Party’s policies.

[–] brlemworld 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How on earth do you have a shittier opponent than Donald Trump?!?

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

Ted Cruz comes to mind…who also won

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

For the love of god.... how?

[–] horse_battery_staple 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

He campaigned from Cabo

People saw it as a sign of strength.

[–] LotrOrc 6 points 1 month ago

Those are things she and Biden said at the very start of their presidency but then said nothing about for the last two years and never mentioned again.

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

I think you're just wrong about what Harris was saying. I watched many of her speeches and read many newspaper articles quoting her, and there's just no way that she was pushing a pro worker platform. It wasn't in her blood, there was never any sign that she would do so.

I just want to bring up one issue that I think is a classic. The price of housing has gone up, and her solution was going to be to raise the first time homeowners tax credit. Now you might say to yourself, hey, that's great. But the reality is bringing it up by tens of thousands of dollars was not going to make property affordable to the average person. A few people who are on the threshold, sure, but most people would still be screwed. But even for people who were near the threshold, we all know what was going to happen. Houses were going to get more expensive because more money was thrown into the mix. To think that you can fix massive corporate greed by having a small tax cut is just laughable.

If you actually want to solve the problem with expensive houses you need to ban real estate speculation or you need to create massive public housing programs. I think this is common sense to millions of americans. Of course millions of other Americans disagree, and I think Harris would disagree, too.

And there are a few positive examples of things that the Biden administration tried to do, but many of them were too little too late, and others were stopped by the courts and then the president just shrugged his shoulders. So it's not just Harris's policies in her speeches that matter. She was the vice president of a president who was generally a failure. And you could argue that it's not his fault, that obstructionist people in Congress and the courts blocked him, but then you just admitting how bad his PR campaign was. And his success and failure went hand in hand with hers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

If the more progressive of the policies were popular, then those should have been at the forefront. But the DNC was too concerned with wooing independents and ensuring the party didn't seem too left.

We have two right-wing parties in America, and the sooner we come to grips with that, the sooner we can work to change it.

[–] IchNichtenLichten 10 points 1 month ago

There's no pressure on them to support progressive policies in a 2 party system. All they have to do is wait until Trump's administration shits the bed and they'll win again.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think this is the real ticket for any party that doesn't want to just be Republican 2.0. Just stop sucking corporate cock and service the working class. But, like, with real, actual helpful things and not just bigotry and feelings that people want to hear like the pube-lickans do.

[–] ilinamorato 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The problem is that the people who can get elected don't have any money, and the people who have money can't get elected. But you need money to run a successful campaign.

[–] Ensign_Crab 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Or course, being moderates, they didn't mean a word of it.

But it does show that even feigned progressive populism brings out the voters that running to the right alienates.

[–] simplejack 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Yeah, but read the article, look at the policies those people campaigned on, and google whether or not Harris also backed those economic policies. She did. She supported and ran on most of those policies.

IMHO, this was probably more of an issue around how effective the candidates, and their opponents, were at getting the policies or “vibes” in voter’s minds.

[–] Keeponstalin 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's both a policy and messaging issue. On both fronts the campaign did not take either seriously enough

[–] simplejack 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, just saying that the policies mentioned in the article were not what made those people win or made Harris lose. They basically had the same policies.

[–] Keeponstalin 14 points 1 month ago

I disagree, from the article those candidates had more anti-corporate policies that addressed the issue of cost of living. The closest thing Harris ran on was to crack down on Price gouging, which was/is one of her most popular positions, yet she also did not campaign enough on that front and contrasted it with housing deregulation

[–] Eatspancakes84 -4 points 1 month ago

Of course they were taking it seriously. You can criticise the strategy, but clearly they took it very seriously.

[–] Ensign_Crab 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She supported and ran on most of those policies.

She ran on "don't do anything different from Biden" and "Look! We got Cheney's endorsement!" and "shut up, the economy's fine!"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This was my perception as well - I live in a deeply red state and what local coverage and ads I saw didn't mention any of these policies.

They kept the good stuff under wraps and tried to play it safe but not spooking anyone with "communism."

If I was an average American (obese, uneducated, easily frightened, provincial, and racist), I would not have been swayed to vote for Harris. Actually, the average American didn't vote at all.

T**** did a better job of giving the impression that he was going to do something to help the everyday American. It's a total lie but one that's hard to see through - if you're an average American.

[–] gAlienLifeform 2 points 1 month ago

They kept the good stuff under wraps and tried to play it safe but not spooking anyone with "communism."

This is it exactly, and I feel like this bit of this Salon article (arc'd) perfectly captures why this happened

Tobias described a dynamic where campaign staff and candidates are hesitant to publicly push back on the assertions of billionaire donors like Hoffman, even if the campaign doesn't intend to let them direct policy.

Tobias indicated that the apparent influence of the super-wealthy has a dual effect. It undermines the Democratic Party’s support from its traditional base by steering policy discussions away from economically populist ideas that go against the interest of the wealthy, while simultaneously helping support candidates who are charismatic but don’t come into politics with a consistent ideological framework.

The influence of billionaires was directly early in Harris’ bid for the presidency when moguls like Mark Cuban warned the Harris campaign that a billionaire tax, for example, would be too aggressive, according to the Washington Post. Other business executives, like Tony West, the chief legal officer at Uber and Harris’ brother-in-law, also served as advisors and, according to the Atlantic, helped steer the campaign away from criticism of corporate power.

[–] LotrOrc 2 points 1 month ago

She legitimately didn't run on any of those policies. Two weeks before the election she told everyone that she would do nothing different from Biden. She ran on the platform that Biden was a good president and nothing would change when the entire country was screaming for cha.ge

[–] AbidanYre -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Oh for fuck's sake. Attitudes like that are why candidates don't bother going for the left's votes.

[–] DeadWorldWalking 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You can't meet half way between "a fair world where human life has value" and "complete corporate monopolization of everything. "

The Dems made the choice to continue bending the knee to the rich instead of representing the people who elected them

Wanting leftists to support leftist policies instead of the rich is totally reasonable

I voted for Kamala who was the only correct choice but can'tblame othersfor being apathetic.

[–] Ensign_Crab 3 points 1 month ago

You will accept any excuse to move to the right and only the right. You already got genocide support and loved every last second of it.