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
Look. I am not going to pretend that Kamala The Cop was some amazing candidate.
But she never stood a chance with, what, a three month campaign where much of the voting populace never even realized she was running? And a LOT of the reporting and commentary around this reeks of "she just isn't charismatic" or "she is unlikeable" and all the dogwhistles involved.
If anything, it speaks poorly of her leadership potential that she was willing to be saddled with that mess of a non-campaign.
This is a perpetually idiotic take.
All the statistical evidence that we have, is that once Kamala was the candidate, her polling rose meteorically. Until she started to define herself as a candidate, when all we had were her words as former candidate to base her policy positions on, she was heading towards blue-wave-of-epic proportions territory. She named Walz as running mate and people thought they had someone to vote for herself
Then, during the convention, the definition began as a continuance of a corporate, Biden-esque, more-of-the-same, Democrat. They silenced Palestinian voices and shunned the progressive vote, while embracing Republicans and hawkish dem's.
And her polling rapidly stagnated, then began to slide. As she slid further and further right, so did her polling.
Harris' loss was not an inevitability, and to present it as such is to both misunderstand the political moment then, as it happened, and to misrepresent the ongoing political moment.
If Harris' had ran on her 2020 campaign platform with Walz as vice, she wins. Hands down. The political pressure desperately seeking an outlet on issues like M4A, and so many other leftwing polciies isn't new. Bernie got it started in 2016 and it never stopped growing. All she needed to do was step left and ride the wave. But she chose to make losing decisions. Her loss was not an inevitability and to present it as such is a form of lying.
Taking campaign advice from her brother in law, the CLO of Uber, who is a big part of the gig economy which destroys workers rights, was also a huge red flag.
I still voted for her, but it was like choosing a shit sandwich over Hitler. I didn't exactly want either one.
Both her husband and her campaign manager (her brother in law) are hard core zionists who pushed Harris to ditch the left. What those two wanted was support for israel, and that meant turning away progressives to get votes from the right. The only way those two were 'losing' would be if Harris or Trump won + turned left, which didnt happen. So they got an acceptable outcome. Harris chose her allies (and husband) badly.
I cant imagine a dem ever winning a pro genocide, anti american worker campaign, can you? I can easily imagine right wingers winning such a thing, and thats what happened. Republican voters will cheerfully turn out to harm people--- and dems a bit less so. Some of you think thats a problem, and I dont think it is. I'm glad we're not a party that wins based on embracing mass murder and war crimes.
Yeah, she also was going on about fracking.
Campaign was like "see, I'm left of Trump and he's literally the devil. Never mind that I'm to the right of Nixon myself. Blue no matter who! Shame on you for not bothering to vote."
I dislike Trump. I mean he's evil and is trying to erase me.
But I hate Kamala. Because betrayal cuts deeper.
I get it, but bro I'll eat an entire shit deli before Hitler.
The real problem was that voting for Trump was voting for Mussolini today. Voting for Kamala was voting for Hitler in 2028. If she had managed to win, someone even worse than Trump would win the election in 2028. That's the only possible result from a hypothetical Kamala admin, if she had managed to win the election.
I don't know if that was the only possibility.
But yes, Kamala was to the right of Nixon. And cranked the ratchet effect hard during her run.
The fracking, Gaza, and ties to Uber was especially disgusting imo.
I wouldn't be surprised if in that timeline a more competent fascist took 2028.
Sis, and me too. Which is why I voted for the shit sandwich.
Yup, all the momentum and revitalization of the democratic vote slowed to a crawl as soon the biden-esque political strategy got involved, caving on the Palestinian genocide, and by pretty much kicking Walz to the curb when it comes to PR. We could've been riding the "MAGA is just weird" all the way to polls, but neoliberealism had to fuck it all up again.
Her 2020 campaign wasn't actually that good. She started with the same boost of optimism and then fell apart once she started defining specifics and every other statement was walking things back. She flamed out for a reason.
I agree with your statement here though. She had all the momentum and tools to win and flubbed it through actual choices, not some inherent insurmountable challenges.
The only time she looked strong in 2020 was when she pointed out Biden's support for old racist policies. After that, she had nothing to say or to differentiate herself from the rest of the DNC corporate pack.
Yeah, but then how does she get all of those bribes, er, money?
The whole campaign was a scam to make consultants rich by buying TV ad spots for which they get a percent..
Well, she wasn't going to be able to throw the election if she made herself popular.
had run
Maybe, but actually moving left wouldn't assure a victory either. If it became clear that Kamala was moving left, the DNC and the rich people in power would help Trump win through lots of propaganda on the news.
Kamala only wins via the progressive route if she gets lucky at countering both Republican and Democrat propaganda, like Mamdani.
Sure worked well for Mamdani.
Your strategy is literally the continuation of the same weak and ineffective DNC strategy we’ve had for decades.
Correct, if you define victory as benefiting the people of the country.
But if you define victory as helping yourself while pretending to help the people of the country, then the DNC strategy is unbeatable.
DNC consultants make tons of money no matter what.
When you're a rich person, there's no such thing as too much money.
Then stand true and lose well.
Down the road she took, you don't even get to keep your self-respect.
That was half her strength. Trump's entire team was geared around shitting on Joe Biden. And then Joe Biden stops being on the ballot, sending oodles of oppo-research and Hunter Biden smears and god even knows what kind of October Surprise they had cooking down the toilet.
Biden dropping out and throwing up Harris in his place meant she was free to pummel Trump with negative ads while he had to fully reconfigure his campaign to attack someone who'd spent four years as a backbencher. And - early on at least - Harris capitalized on this well. She came in with a moderate Dem - Tim Walz - who defused some of the Zionist image built up around Joe. She spewed negative ads at Trump and Vance, leaning on the "they're just weird" talking point that got plenty of mileage both on and off-line. She was a prodigious fundraiser, unlocking a ton of cash that Biden had left on the sidelines because he was too senile to call the mega-donors and ask for it.
And, as a tabula rosa, she (initially) ditched all of Biden's first term baggage - his failure to secure student loan relief, his endless efforts at compromising with far-right Republicans, his pull-out of Afghanistan and dive into Ukraine, his just being a gross old fart who couldn't talk good.
But then Harris had to take on a bunch of Hillarycrat advisers and tack to the right. She ditched Walz for Liz Cheney and Cindy McCain. She sucked up to the Silicon Valley Techbros as they lined up to knife her in the back. She repeatedly defended Joe Biden's least popular policies. She undid everything that Biden dropping out was intended to accomplish.
She never really had a choice. But that's been the hallmark of her entire political career. Harris always just kinda blew where the wind took her. She shouldn't have been VP to begin with, taking the job only because Biden confusedly promised a black woman VP when he was asked about his plans for a next SCOTUS pick.
But then she surrounded herself with some of the most abysmal neocon reject advisors $1.5B could buy. And she tanked her chances at becoming the First Woman President by running the Clinton Playbook that had cost her predecessor so two prior electoral defeats.
It's "tabula rasa" (meaning "blank slate")
I think the short timeframe was ultimately a detriment, despite this. How many people Googled "who is Kamala Harris?" and "Did Joe Biden drop out?" on election day?
Yeah. The short time frame and trump not having years of insults ready were her only hope. But it was still a doomed endeavor because biden insisted on running until well past the last minute.
Turning a weakness into a strength is a good idea... but it doesn't stop it from being a weakness.
The campaign came out of the gate punching and dominated the news cycle. Then they took pelosi's advice and tacked right and immediately began to flounder.
Im not convinved the technofascists wouldve allowed a democrat win, but i don't think it's because kamala only had 3 months. Thats how long election campaigns are in civilised countries.