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
The billionaires, who already owned the whole thing, did not want it. We got what we got. This downfall started long before 2008.
No matter who wins the election we all lose and the capitalists win, they own both parties. It’s a billionaire pissing contest.
Also I agree about the downfall being far before 2008, but my point is about primaries and earning the popular will of the voters, something the democrat party could care less about. They would rather the country fall to fascism than allow any kind of progressive let alone leftist leadership come to power.
You act like they'd have "lost" if Kamala won...
They win either way, just different amounts.
Meanwhile the average American always loses, just different amounts.
It doesn't have to be like this, we don't need to run shitty conservative Dems that billionaires like, because then we won't need to spend a billion on ads that don't even change anyone's minds.
We ran a Dem candidate that wants a border wall, doesn't want universal healthcare, and is pro-genocide...
Because that's what the billionaires wanted. And because we listed to donors over voters, we lost an election
C'mon. Like any politician, she had to try and be electable if she were to accomplish anything. How can it be that this is not obvious?
And my point is that "electable" for a Dem candidate isn't what she was doing.
That would be matching her platform to what Dem voters wanted. Instead she based policy on "all voters" which includes the 40-50% who will never vote D under any circumstance. And in that process she lost votes from voters who will never vote R under any circumstances.
If she was trying to be electable, it just shows how important it is we clear house at the DNC and run a fair primary in 2028.
Because the same people have been running the show since 2016, and they're 2-1 against fucking trump.
They clearly aren't up to the task
Run a fair primary in 2028? Lol they won’t! Watch them coronate Chelsea Clinton or one of the Obama girls lmfao.
You think there’ll be a Democratic Party in 2028 that’s not simply controlled opposition?
No lmfao
Another pretty fucking important thing to point out is that total voter turnout dropped by like 18 fucking million. The centrist bullshit just made a lot of people further to the left feel like it wasn’t even worth it to show up.
And she failed miserably at being electable. The democrats are totally gonna learn the lesson that ratcheting to the right wins them elections, not.
Got a serious question re genocide angle, how is trump well known for being anti-genocide?
He's obviously not....
But if the entire existence of American politics hasn't been enough to show you that "lesser of two evils" is a losing strategy, I'm not sure how I'm gonna manage it.
Taking the Dem party to the right doesn't work, we just keep doing it because the DNC only cares about donations raised. They cater the party to billionaires and not voters.
And trump really cares about the voters by passing laws that help them and not the billionairs who financed his campaign?
I am from UK, don't really like labour but seriously another conservative government would leave us far, far worse off than plain do nothing shit. It's not rocket science to figure out who will want to at the least do nothing instead you know sell off your already rubbish worker rights, broken healthcare and now reproductive rights...
Anyway this is a depressing day
It doesn't work, it's the definition of insanity to keep trying it knowing it doesn't work while refusing to run a young charismatic candidate with a progressive campaign when we know that works.
Running a candidate that genuinely wins a primary! That’s the whole point of my post! If democrats want to win then engage in democracy!
I am confused, which candidate was young and charismatic there?
I've noticed...
The last young charismatic candidate with a progressive platform was 2008 Obama.
But like I said, if you still don't understand why "lesser of two evils" isn't working, there's nothing I can say here that will magically make it click for you.
It’s not about Obama, it’s about the fact that he had to compete in a free and fair primary against numerous competent competitors and came out on top. Sure he was the first black president which helped his numbers but he won 2008 because he had to compete in a competitive primary and won the will of the voters running up to the general.
We don’t need another Obama, we need a competitive candidate that beats out other competitive candidates.
It was very much about Obama which was the biggest issue.
We needed a movement and got a disappointing man.
And after that man's 8 years ran up, we had no plan and Hillary filled the void and we still haven't recovered.
If Obama had appointed DNC leadership instead of ignoring the party, trump would never have become president the first time.
Not 2008 Obama who was campaigning on a message. The Obama we ended up with was a nearly immediate disappointment. I think he lost all of his crossover support when he appointed the bankers into his cabinet while they wrecked the economy and destroyed the middle class with their legalized gambling.
The point I’m making all along is Obama, along with Hillary and numerous other competent qualified candidates, all had to compete for the nomination, giving us the strongest competitor for the general, which was won in a landslide. Even if Obama were a white man he would of likely won in similar margins because he had a relevant message to voters that didn’t boil down to “I’m not the other guy”.
So the answer there is to pick the worst initially? Like how would that be helpful?
But more than that, what annoys me more is that this time around (so far) there were 18 million fewer votes. That hits hard 😭😔
Lesser of evils is a losing strategy because soon enough you're asking people to choose the lesser evil between Hilter and Mussolini.
He’s not. He’s arguably worse. I proudly voted third party (socialist).
Cue the liberal tears. You lose the electoral college and the popular vote by a margin far greater than third party voters. Cry about it.