959
Democrats who attack the rich do better in elections. The party should take notice
(www.theguardian.com)
They won't. The party exists to serve the rich.
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
959 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19240 readers
2464 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, they know, and it scares them.
There's a reason they sidelined Sanders when he would have easily won in 2016
This has been on my mind every time the DNC tries to position themselves as a party for the people. As far as I'm concerned, they showed their hand, and apparently they thought no one would notice.
There is nowhere to run.
Democrats = the party of the rich
Republicans = the party of the rich
MAGA = the grift of the rich
We’re going to be voting for the lesser evil for at least a few more cycles. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea not to vote though.
We can be so much more creative than that. There are mountains of actions we can take in addition to voting to change things.
Why should we accept that the only people we can vote for are evil? Every US election has been this way for at least 20 years now. One less than the other everytime (depending on perspective) but if the only options are widely seen as evil, we must do something to change this.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
I agree. If a democrat ran up and garroted Jeff Bezos, or went all Tanya Harding on Elon Musk's knees, I would vote for them.
Literally, if a politician was imprisoned for firebombing a billionaires house I would be intrigued by their campaign.
nah, they're gonna make fun of Trump for being broke with childish nicknames instead. sink down to his level while making him sound more relatable to all the broke people they want to vote for them. sometimes i think they're trying to lose.
Generally speaking, they do want to lose. If they actually ran on their universally popular policies, they'd win majorities large enough to where they wouldn't have excuses to not enact their legislative mandate, which is at odds with what their corporate donors want.
This is exactly it. The only thing they truly run on is vote for us or it'll be even worse. They say nice things, but they have no intention of enacting most of them.
Anyone from poor decaying rural America has had enough conversations with republicans with oddly class related philosophies to feel this comment hard
Their campaign is literally "It'll be worse under the other guy."
Losing now is the best way for them to win in four years. It is how it has been for decades. When's the last time one party held the presidency for two consecutive candidates? It's a neverending metronome, except the needle moves more to the right each time.
Assuming that we'll have fair elections in 4 years if Trump wins may prove to be one of the worst mistakes this country's voters have ever made.
load more comments
(27 replies)
load more comments
(24 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
I love how the post I saw immediately before this was about Biden's new Trump insult, 'Broke Don'. So insult your rivals by calling them poor, definitely a good way to relate to struggling voters.
Yeah well Biden doesn't really need to appeal to liberals and progressives when it comes to Trump. However making his idiotic base doubt him by calling me poor little bitch will definitely weaken Trump's position.
For 8 years now his base has been firmly convinced that the mainstream establishment is an enemy of Trump and 'the people'. From what I've seen any words against Trump coming from establishment liberals is more likely to entrench Trumps support than weaken it.
It's pointing out that he is weak. Literally one of the main reasons people liked him was that he "couldn't be bought" and he was going to "self fund his campaign"
Remember, before this they were just saying how scary Trump was. I think mocking him is far more effective
load more comments
(1 replies)
However making his idiotic base doubt him by calling me poor little bitch will definitely weaken Trump's position.
Thanks for taking one for the team, poor little bitch.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Broke Don" is a masterpiece.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Consume the wealthy.
Eat the rich.
I keep seeing the press wheeling out example of "the rich" like somebody on £100k who can barely afford their mortgage, like it's my fucking fault they can't live within their means.
Do what the rest of us do, tighten our belts and deal with it. Don't come to me with a sob story about your mortgage on a 4 bedroom detached Surrey house when there's people who can barely afford rent to live in what was once somebody's kitchen.
Middle class is not the same as the rich. Trying to get various groups of not rich people against each other has been a time tested tactic to keep everyone from acting against the rich. First it was race but now it's trying to put the rural vs urban, the less fortunate vs the slightly less fortunate, union vs non union, etc.
Totally agree. Somebody who makes 100k aren't the problem at all, its the people who make salaries with at least a couple of more zeros added to the end. The people that OP should be mad at aren't ever struggling to pay a bill.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
occupy-wallstreet-vs-race-war-graph.jpg
This is a composition effect. Democratic candidates who run for safer, more left-wing constituencies feel free to propose more radical left-wing policies, especially if their main threats are other democrats during primaries. They then go on to win because they're not running in competitive elections. You can use the same reasoning to conclude that Republicans who attack abortion and socialism do better in elections.
I don't buy it. Red states hate billionaires even more than blue states. Centrist Democrats have nothing to offer to Republican voters to change their minds. Progressives speak directly to the economic issues that plague red states.
I mean, red states elected a billionaire because he was a billionaire.
But Centrist Democrats think that if they just kick progressives harder, they'll gain the favor of the three remaining moderate Republicans.
They elected a billionaire because he attacked other billionaires. He voices their rage at the "elitists" in Washington, and he pretends to be one of them.
I think they hate the "generic billionaire", but are they any actual billionaires they hate?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Red states hate billionaires even more than blue states
(citation needed)
load more comments
(5 replies)
But they won’t, because once they get into Congress they get just as tied to big money as any other politician. Plus, there all too busy trying to chase after Republican voters, even though they’ll never, ever vote for a Democrat.
Doesn't matter if they don't actually do anything though...
Why multiple mics from the same station?
A few things, more exposure/advertising space, and redundancy, especially in a time where mics were really inconsistent, if one mic goes down, you have another still recording.
So they can broadcast *in stereo*
I need my binaural audio of a political speech so I can hear them lying in dolby 7.1
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›