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
Stupid yes but you still need to reckon with them. Comments like this make it sound like you think we should just pretend they don't exist.
I think the point is that they don't exist in an ideological sense. They exist in the "ooo shiny" sense.
There is no point trying to attract them with policy or ideas, because they don't give a fuck about that. They will vote for whoever makes them feel better when they talk.
OK I agree with you then. Because I do think if the left wants to win it needs to expand beyond its current base. One of the reasons Trump succeeded is that low information voters perceive him as moderate. So I think there is a possibility the left could pursue a similar strategy where you maintain serious left policies but adopt a sort of moderate posture.
I think Mamdani is sort of the closest thing we've seen to this strategy, although obviously NYC is unique enough that you can't just copy it directly.
I don't think people perceived trump as moderate, people perceived him as "one of us". That's not the same thing (though interesting psychological research shows that most trump supporters probably desperately want to see themselves as average and moderate).
Mamdani was unapologetic, leading to support from the left, but he's also charismatic. So he almost certainly captured the obama-trump vote by virtue of talking good and looking good.
I think you're right that there are multiple dimensions to attracting these fence-sitters. But it is also true that voters generally express a desire for a more "moderate" candidate, and that they perceived Trump to be more moderate than Harris, despite all evidence.
Of course what they mean when they say these things on surveys is open to interpretation.
I've never seen any source say people thought Trump was more moderate than Harris. There were some questionable focus groups about him and Clinton, but Trump campaign #3 wasn't really pretending anymore.