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 only narrative here is observable reality, you are allowed to look at the same fucking graphs I did.
Senators aren't the president. Do you know how many people literally just vote for the president and leave the rest blank? Millions.
The dems didn't have a candidate people wanted to come out for, and the people who stayed home were older more conservative people who vote democrat because they don't like the current republican party. And they stayed home because the canidate changed, not the policy.
Im sorry these subjects make you feel insecure. Maybe try self reflecting and growing instead of screaming about how the neolibs should have magically changed their stripes.
Right, and that's the only possible reason, isn't it? Because people's voting behavior is explainable by exactly two things: policy and bigotry. Messaging is irrelevant. Changes in the economy and political situation are irrelevant. Sexism is the only factor that matters, and, conveniently yet completely coincidentally, just so happens to be a factor that completely absolves Kamala and the Democrats of any and all fault.
Projection.
I don't expect them to change their stripes. I think their economic approach is a very flawed strategy both in terms of not being good policy and in terms of winning elections, you can't run on the status quo when the status quo isn't working for people. However, even completely ignoring that aspect, it was still a terribly run campaign lacking any coherent message while failing to adapt to a changing media environment (streamers, for example) which the right jumped on. Kamala Harris had never demonstrated any real ability to connect with voters or get out the vote and would have bombed out of a competitive primary exactly like she did in 2020.
Do you accept that it's possible for an individual woman to be a bad candidate or to run a bad campaign, or do you think claiming that is automatically sexist? You can always rely on liberals to weaponize allegations like that in order to defend the ruling class.
I have to say I find your grandstanding and accusations funny because I'm old enough to remember when Elizabeth Warren attacked Bernie Sanders by claiming that he said he didn't think a woman could win the election (which he denied), and it was enough of a scandal for a bit of a news cycle. Now, you're telling me that a woman couldn't have won the election and it's somehow sexist to think otherwise. What a joke. Namecalling is all you've got and it's completely meaningless to me.
That was the thing that killed me about the Biden campaign. People literally told Biden the economy sucked and they were hurting. They wanted Clinton's "I feel your pain". They wanted Carville's "it's the economy, stupid!"
They got "What are you talking about, Jack? Economy is doing GREAT! Best in the world! We recovered! It's over!"
Then, when asked what she'd do different, Harris responded "I can't think of anything, really."
How about this...
"I'd have more empathy when people come to me outlining the challenges they are facing or the failures of the administration. There are things Biden absolutely could have done better, and I will do better."