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
I don't think this article is good journalism. The guy is taking the very incorrect polling from 2016 and 2020 and claiming that because Harris isn't at that level of incorrect polling and that her lead is only 1-2 points that that means she's losing bad. Which completely disregards how inaccurate polls have been since roe was overturned. They were predicting a 30 seat swing in 2022 and that was no where close. It also doesn't take into account the amount of polls that are far right rigged polls to try and flood the averages to make it seem like Trump is so far ahead that he will naturally win and they will only lose by cheating. Providing cover to challenge the election when he loses.
Also. This quote is near the end. "Democrats have only two hopes. One is that today’s polls are more accurately gauging the electorate, and that Harris is therefore at least close to where she needs to be. The other is that by suddenly coming out of hiding to take friendly interviews, she can convince an electorate that seems unconvinced." Which is. Just. So fucking stupid. Openly saying one of the reasons things are closer with the polls being at least a bit more accurate than 2020 and 2016, and then saying Harris has just recently "Come out of hiding"? That's just bullshit far right talking points. She's been doing interviews and rallies for well over a month as well as the debate that was a bit over a month ago. This is the same shit as when someone says "but what about her policies? She's been so vague" which is also bs because if you want to know her policies all you have to do is LISTEN to her. But of course gotta have the far right talking point of her not being able to explain her policies.
This article was also written by J.T. Young who is the author of the upcoming book, “Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left” so if that doesn't tell you his leanings for the interpretation he's putting forth then nothing will.
But just in case, here's some of his articles from the Washington Examiner "Why's Harris so bad in interviews?", Democrats need to replace their own radicalization, not sotomayor", "Sorry Joe, you're no capitalist.", and "Biden has no right to take credit for slowing inflation".
Oh and some of his The Federalist articles "Trump should hit biden for completely ignoring the fentanyl problem", "Leftists' open borders and defund-police policies have come home to roost", and "Trump assassination attempts are the logical result of the Lefts Marxist 'Oppresion' narrative".
All those articles are from the last 4 years, some past couple months. Bu what I find interesting about this particular article is it shows just how much the far right has invaded the mainstream media and how they are given a platform to spew their propaganda. But hey, this was an "interesting" article.
I found it interesting too. Thank you! :)