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
But Harris campaigned with the Cheneys so she would have been as bad or even worse.
What an absolutely insane campaign strategy that was.
Trying to get the middle in the most boring way possible. Dems will never learn that being the 'safe option' doesn't get people out to the polls
I mean, it was a lot of things. I don't know about boring.
Harris found one of the most universally reviled (ex-)House Reps and did Girl Power brunch interviews with her so that everyone would know the number one issue for a Harris Presidency was sucking up to neocon ghouls. If you have to ask how Donald J. Trump became the "Peace President" candidate in the year of our lord 2024, this was how. Jeff Flake, Bill Kristol, Cindy McCain, and the Cheney Cartel did spirit fingers at her on public TV on multiple occasions, while her own VP was confined to the cuck chair to just watch the trainwreck of a campaign flare out.
Leftists regurgitating right wing propaganda like this also helped Trump win and us get in the position we're in now.
Catastrophic failure in Democrat campaign strategy doesn’t make it right wing propaganda, it can just mean Dems (and their long-standing paid consultants) are bad at politics.
Sometimes, your opponent is correct (or has knowledge to be gleaned from their propaganda, even if the outward conclusion is incorrect) and it's an opportunity to learn and improve. Not for liberals though, with the reactionary drive to get "back to normal" or "make america great again".
Suggestion: die! 🥰
It's the last time I fall for that.
I know I’ll get hate for this, but politics is often about playing a safe numbers game, and courting leftists is like herding cats.
If you want to start winning elections, maybe be less like a herd of cats. Stop sniping at compatriots and form coalitions.
How's that been working out for Dems? That's the exact approach they've taken and have gotten humiliated at the ballot box. This isn't about how far left they court, it's about bold policy that actually helps the middle if they want their vote. Instead it's vague platitudes and "we're not as bad as the Republicans" without anything to back it up. So while it gets them points in opinion polls, it doesn't translate to votes
I didn’t say it was working. I’m not defending it, but it made sense on paper.
To be fair, I think the Dems could have run Jesus himself and would have still lost. There was literally no good candidate on the face of the earth that would have placated progressives whilst also being someone moderates would have considered. And you need both to win.
e: propaganda hasn’t only worked on the right – it’s also gone a long way to dividing the left into near-irrelevancy.
Even when dems lose it's by a fraction of a percent which is also how many votes progressives get.
Because most dems run campaigns like they are some frankenstein’s monster milquetoast anthropomorphic polling group. Have conviction, have some fucking opinions.
Yes, because courting Dems is like herding cats. Leftists turn their noses up at a moderate, and moderates spook at the slightest whiff of leftism. Yet the right congeals like old yoghurt around whatever rotting mass says the right buzzwords.
And this is why we need to get big money out of politics. Smaller parties stand very little chance against these billionaire backed behemoths.
I'm not sure we're on the same page. I'm not claiming she needed to move further left, I'm saying that using words to court the middle rather than policy doesn't excite anyone and doesn't get them to come out and vote. So doing talk show rounds, getting endorsements, etc at best move opinion polls but don't impact votes and at worst only appeals to politicos who were already going to vote for her while turning off others
Not sure what this means, since words are what you have when running for office. It’s not like she was president before (unlike the other guy, who we did have policy to look at, and still that wasn’t enough).
No, you have policy proposals which she came in with very few (maternity leave, child tax credit, and removing the filibuster were the big ones) that addressed the economic security that the middle loves. She instead focused on culture wars, pointing the finger at Republicans in the Senate, and refusing to distance herself from Biden. Nothing in her proposals was exciting for the middle class and while her platitudes played well in opinion polls, 6.2 million less people came out to vote for her compared to 4 years prior. That's a lack of excitement - people viewed her as more of the same rather than something new and promising
They carefully calculated those public policy proposals based on polling. But again, they’re basing all that on what it looks like their voting base wants. But the dem voting base is all over the place.
Do you think they looked at all the best demographics and polling they could get and said ‘nah, let’s go a different way lol’?
The issue here is you want something very different from non-rightist B, who wants something very different from (and maybe diametrically opposed to) non-rightist C, and so on. And I’m not saying ‘dem’ or ‘leftist’ here because those terms piss off someone on your own side.
There was no way to make any of that work, and thinking there was, that it was their strategy or the candidate, misses the point. ANY non right candidate will lose again if this issue isn’t understood.
Yes, because the policies that are popular with their base and with the middle are not popular with their corporate donors and they have even refused to release their post-mortem analysis of the 2024 election.
I agree there that the "left" needs to coalesce more and quit with the purity test B's at least on the national stage
It's amusing that the left hate the Cheneys and Ukraine like the right does.
Tankies might hate Ukraine but most of the left is very supportive. My point around Cheney and Kamala campaigning together was that it only went for the middle but absent policy proposals that bring some energy, at best you get a bump in the opinion polls but don't actually bring people to the ballot box.
"Tankies" were anti-war and staunchly opposed injecting heavy weapons systems into Ukraine back when Trump was doing it in 2018. Liberals ignored Trump's repeated efforts to stoke tensions between Ukraine and Russia, because it didn't fit the "Trump Cheeto Suck Putin Dick" narrative they'd fed themselves. Neoconservatives were the most supportive of the Ukraine conflict, because those fuckers never saw a war they couldn't jill off to. And the apex of this insanity was outed genocidal fascist Yaroslav Hunka getting a standing ovation in Canadian Parliament.
The neocons were so bullish on their war that they openly cavorted with the last living Nazis in order to sell it.
There was no "moderate" voter who supported Kamala after Liz Cheney (a woman who couldn't hold her seat in the safest Republican state in the country) endorsed her. What Liz Cheney offered Kamala was money from the Oil & Gas industry. She was a nine-figure bribe to abandon climate change policy. If Liz changed anyone's vote, it likely cost Kamala winnable swing states.
Nobody liked this bitch.
The fact that she is a black woman didn't help out either with the left or right flank of the party I still think Biden would have beaten Trump a second time.
You believe in horseshoe theory? If so, then we can just ignore what you say.
This is a known troll and turbolib. Do with that info what you will.
It isn't about what I believe in or not go into any community in .ml and ask them about Ukraine and the Cheneys.
The tankies on .ml aren't proof that the far left is like the far right.
They're proof that being in the same space on the authoritarianism axis causes overlap between otherwise disparate oppression enjoyers.
I pointed out two things that the left and the right agree on.
Proof on this thread.
Funny how you believe tankies/their apologists when they accidentally support your lazy pet theory but not at any other time and equate them with the anti-authoritarian Left at all times.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were engaged in pretty blatant cherry picking AND false conflation at the same time 🤔
Are you going to blame me for writing underpant’s comment next?
Nope. I'm just pointing out that you're taking the word of someone you'd otherwise dismiss out of hand and calling it proof.
Should I just ignore the person doing exactly what I was talking about in this thread than?
When they're not very credible? Yeah.
It's never a good sign when someone implies that tankies aren't a thing and that's how they START their comment so yeah.
Not the BEST source on what tankies are like and whether or not tankies and the anti-authoritarian left are identical as you so ridiculously imply.
I've never said they were identical though.
It was weird, but pivoting to poll tested messages, and refusing to shit on Biden, is probably what really sunk her. She was doing well early on when she was being fast and disruptive. Then she reverted to the boring old playbook.
Yup. Pivoted to the right, too soon.
IMHO, the stupid bean counters got to her and they stared obsessing about messages, positions, and tactics that will give you a percent here and a percent there.
They were playing way too fucking safe.
I know she should have ran as a McCartneyist-Lennonist.
"All you need is love"
Pretty sure she's NOT the Walrus, though 🤔
~ George W. Bush
"We need a Republican party that is principled and strong" - Joe Biden
Strong enough for you yet Joe?
But her emails!
Buttery Males