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
This is getting downvoted because it comes from a clearly partisan source in the wrong direction.
But I think it's a valid question. I think Trump will win over some Independent voters -- the selfish ones. I don't mean that to be disparaging. I literally mean that he will win the votes of people who are primarily concerned with their own interests, and can't stand when their tax money helps someone else.
You know the type - the "self-made" people who may have taken advantage of government handouts while they were building their wealth but how they they have it no longer see the need for those programs. Or the immigrant who came here "the right way", and now wants to pull up the ladder behind them.
We'll see if there are enough "I've got mine, fuck you" voters there to make up for the enthusiasm that Harris/Walz is building on the left.
This is why the Harris strategy post convention has been so baffling/ bad. Harris made a clear and consistent pivot to the right after the convention, where the media and the campaign focused on how Republicans were supporting Harris, how Harris would be good for business, and it would be BAU on Israel Gaza. And her polling has been milquetoast.
Meanwhile, the party basically abandoned Muslim and anti war voters at the convention, not even offering them a slot to speak. The uncommitted movement represented 10-20% of registered Democrats. Say that maybe 20% of that group sticks to their guns and doesn't vote in this election because there choices are basically two genocidal candidates. That's 2-5% of voters that Harris has left on the table to gain.. what? What has the post convention rightward shift gained Harris?
Like.. an endorsement from Dick Cheney isn't getting you independents. They hate those war criminals also.
The whole campaigns post convention strategy has just been.. pretty bad. That being said, she (or even better, Biden) can pivot on Israel any day now. AIPAC can't really do shit at this point because the money is basically in. The ads are bought. There isn't much more media to get. But a major policy shift on Gaza could put enough wind in Harris's sails to carry her through in a blue wave.
I think you are vastly overestimating how many of these independents are progressive. I think many more of them are just too busy to care until it affects them personally. They are not as hung up on the casual war crime or two as you are, as long as they are not the ones in the receiving end of it.
That's an interesting and telling assumption you make. You should probably address the assertion on its merits instead of projecting what you think my reasoning is, because I do have one, and its not the one you are making up.
Do you think that Dick Cheney's endorsement gets Democrats independents?
Let's put it this way. How many Independants, who were leaning toward voting for Harris already, see the Dick Cheney endorsement and say "That's it! That's the last straw, I'm not voting for her!" I think you can count those people on one hand (or maybe no hands). I think that group is exclusively people who would have never voted for Harris because even she is too far right for them, and are using Cheney as an excuse.
OTOH, I think many more Independants categorize themselves that way because they are fed up with partisanship entirely, and would be pulled toward the side that appears to have the bigger tent. Maybe Cheney himself isn't the tipping point. But his endorsement, plus all the Republicans who refuse to endorse Trump, might be.