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
Ok, since it's not a big deal and he doesn't need to worry, no blaming these people if he loses. If he doesn't need their votes to win, they can't cause his loss.
Where'd you glean all that?
Right here. Don't know how you missed it.
I think you misread this, if you gleaned from this what you said
I think I read it just fine.
the original post suggested not worrying about appeasing certain people on the issue as there is a significant support from all sides.
That's different than whether people who didn't vote for Biden can be blamed for anything. When democracy itself is on the ballot it's hard to justify voting against it, regardless of some foreign policy grievance.
If they're so insignificant that their concerns can be safely ignored, then they're too insignificant to blame for losses.
I said there's significant support on both sides, not insignificant.
I think your confusion is coming from the blame part, anyone who didn't vote for Biden who was able to has some blame imo. We're literally talking about a vote to preserve democracy, any subsequent vote is pointless.
But that's my stance, others may assign blame differently. As you noted, some people might try to put blame specifically on this set of voters, to each their own.
My worry is that the party will simply regard these people with contempt and hostility and do nothing to get their votes back, and then blame them if they lose, regardless of how their cohort ultimately votes and regardless of how large any margins are.
The party has a demonstrated history of doing this. What the party has no history of doing in recent decades is identifying groups of voters who are in danger of leaving the party and taking measures to retain them.
I sympathize, it's a flaw of our 2 party system. If one party goes off the rails the other one has a low bar to clear and it can stagnate real progress.
Particularly when they're taking advantage of the situation.