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.
- 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.
- 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
It's because the general consensus is the same as trump/Biden, on a smaller scale. It's not a vote for that guy, it's a vote for "not Boebert".
I'd like it to be about that guy, but the fact is, it isn't.
Honestly, I feel like this focus on "vote against the opponent" is a misstep by the DNC and will become a major hindrance in a few years. The DNC should be promoting candidates that will push a popular progressive agenda rather than "I'm not them". I get why they're doing it, but it will come back to bite the DNC
Districts who vote for people like Boebert aren’t going to vote for a candidate running on “popular progressive agenda”, because they aren’t progressive. You won’t be able convince the MAGA crowd not to vote for a nut-job. But if you can showcase how insane some candidates are, the more moderate conservatives (which is a massive % of US voters) might just be turned-off enough that they don’t vote at all.
MAGA is no longer a winning platform, that's why there was no 'red wave' in 2022. Truthfully, the solution would be RCV, but that would reduce the established power from both parties, so established politicians on both sides would vote against it in Boebert's district (Colorado passed a bill in 2021 allowing RCV in counties and municipalities). I live in Minnesota, a solidly purple state (despite the presidential voting record). With a one senator majority lead, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party very likely secured the next election for themselves. How? By passing 30 progressive bills that have 70%+ statewide support, like a public healthcare option, legal cannabis, guaranteed paid sick time, bans on corporate ownership of single family homes, and more. This is how we win, not "vote for me, I'm not her"
It's the best they've got. DNC is fiercely center and hates progressives.
But it's the choice between pushing someone who isn't your opponent and maybe getting elected vs pushing "popular progressive agenda" and not getting elected. This is the district that elected Boebert twice. They don't want progressive. It's only through the sheer awfulness that Boebert is that there's even a chance.
like I said, I get why they're taking this angle, but I think it will end up hurting the DNC in the long run if they keep up this strategy.
And he’s the guy that came up with the term “angertainment”, which could not be a better description of the Boebert wing.
Yeah, it makes sense, in a sort of sad way.