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 often think what the world would be like if people accepted that Bernie didn’t win the primary and went out to vote for Clinton.
We’d probably have the majority in the Supreme Court so Roe v Wade would still be law but instead we have this.
This is bullshit.
More Clinton voters voted for McCain over Obama than Bernie voters voted for Trump
They even had their own PAC
I didn’t talk about Bernie voters voting for Trump I was talking about democrats sitting out the vote just like they did for Harris.
You can tell from the smaller number of voters who turned out.
Maybe it's because the Democrats ran a shitty campaign, like they did for Harris.
As evidence: There was no contested primary in 2024, so there wasn't a bunch of butthurt Bernie Bros sitting at home.
I see a pattern here. Woman doesn’t get elected => they ran a shitty campaign
Counterpoint: Kerry and Gore
My point is that considering how complicated the situation was where incumbent parties were massacred globally, Harris didn't run a shitty campaign. She made some bold decisions that didn't pan out. For example, she attempted to bridge the rural vs. urban divide by picking Walz, something that is quite ubiquitous to other modern authoritarian systems such as Türkiye or Hungary. What I would conclude is, rural votes are forever lost to the far right, and trying to appeal to rural voters will not be a viable future approach. Simply saying she did a shit job is not very constructive, and frankly quite unfair.
She also did nothing to energize her base and campaigned with Cheney. Why would someone who protested the Iraq War be enthusiastic about that?
Heck, the one bit of traction they got - calling Trump weird - was stopped because of their consultants.
She did basically have to start from scratch in the middle of a campaign, which was a handicap.
And I also disagree with your rural/urban divide theory. There’s plenty of hippies and anarchists in the boonies. They’re just not gonna turn out for someone reaching across the aisle to their annoying redneck neighbors.
Well, that's my point.
Then the solution isn’t to frame it as rural vs urban, but left vs right.
Republicans will never turn out to vote for a democrat no matter how bad their candidate is. Reaching out to them, wherever they live, is a waste of time.
I'd say the distinction is justified by the very quantifiable and objective data to support it from many countries and elections. It's also by design, as rural people's emotions will be much better controlled by xenophobia in its most literal sense. Also rural people have much smaller networks and thus much more controllable information consumption. This is what right wing conservatives have been banking on.
I entirely agree with this, but it's also hindsight is 20/20. I don't think it was an insane idea to run on the idea of cooperation and consistency vs. the chaos of trumpism to convince the "normal conservatives". Harris' campaign was highly risk-averse, but again the theme was consistent, vote for us and we won't fuck shit up like trump would. What the past two general elections showed is that anger appears to be the primary winning force. GOP strategy pounding on grocery pricing was the perfect method, people pay for groceries multiple times a week, so you can remind them how angry they are every time even when Americans' primary issue (relative to other western nations) are housing and healthcare and the lack of social safety net, whereas Americans have bad diets but don't starve.
That said if we keep anger to be the driver of elections, it's only a matter of time to end up with a civil war.
I guess the question is whether the Democrats want 5% of the rural vote or 0% of it. Having lived in Trump country there are a lot more lefties than people think, and they’re even more annoyed at their redneck neighbors than city folk. So if a campaign is saying they’ll reach across the aisle it will turn them off.
I also don’t think it’s hindsight. Lots of people online thought it was a bad idea. Republicans have been vilifying anyone not them for 30+ years.
And at this point I think a civil war is the only way to resolve things. Nation states will not survive the invention of the internet.
Many people said many many things, so by the rule of large numbers, someone's prediction will pan out but it doesn't necessarily mean they have a superior grasp of the underlying causes or that their next predictions will be correct again.
I suspect you are correct about the eventuality of a civil war, but I do hope the revolution can be pulled off without bloodshed. Like through migration to decentralized networks.
Yeah, the best outcome would be society rebuilding around the nation-states, causing it to wither away from lack of attention and real power. Kinda like how lots of countries still have hereditary monarchies that are purely ceremonial.
Maybe it’s because Harris and Clinton don’t have dicks.
college educated males was the only demographic where harris gained votes over biden, and that was just a1% gain. But looking at literally every other demoraphic, inclduing ever female demographic, its hard to conclude that Harris lost becase she was a woman.
That certainly didn't help things, sadly
America is fucked up deep in its core and is beyond saving