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'm all for a women president eventually, but perhaps the elections during an attempted fascist take over isn't the time.
Some men will simply not vote for a woman, it's sad, but it's reality. If a woman is on the ballot the democrats will lose again.
The time will come, just not yet with stakes this high. I would love to see AOC as the first female president.
Attitudes like yours are why Democrats lose elections. We talk ourselves out of our best candidates. We try to compromise with Republicans right out the gate, and try to select the more moderate 'electable' candidate.
Your line of thinking got us Kerry, Clinton, and Biden.
Trying to select a candidate based on "electability" is bullshit, because you just end up selecting for the most uninspiring centrist who can't get people to the polls.
You think you're selecting for winners, but you're taking your strongest pieces off the board.
It got us Biden. I think you underestimate how much institutional support Kerry and Clinton had in the run up to their nominations. Kerry wasn't even that bad of a candidate on his face. He just got railroaded in Ohio the same way Gore did in Florida, while everyone in national media threw up their hands and proclaimed "Too Liberal!"
And Biden did poorly. It should have been a cakewalk and he barely won. "It got us Biden" isn't an argument to the utility of timidity.
Biden turned out 16M more voters than Hillary Clinton four years earlier. That's nothing to sneeze at. He still won on the margins, because Donald Trump also turned out an extra 12M voters, with a heavy 1:1 split in the same states Trump narrowly beat Hillary in a year earlier.
I don't think anything about that suggests the election was a cakewalk. I do think it illustrates the difference direct-mail voting has on overall US turnout. And the fact that both parties immediately retreated from the policy - with Trump even trying to ban it nationwide - says something about the real state of American Democracy both before and after the Pandemic.
2020 is a hard election to judge precisely because it was so fucking weird. COVID cut the knees off Bernie's primary campaign. Millions of people - particularly the elderly - were dropping dead in the lead up to the election. Misinformation was chronic. The actual elections process (which has always sucked in the US) was extra shady af, particularly in rural districts without modernized voting systems.
But I will say that the Biden pick was a desperation move by conservative Democrats who believed they were losing control of the party. And 2024 was a repeat of this process, with the spectre of Trump 2 forcing progressive voters to choose between Genocide Joe's last minute replacement and Actual Outright Fascism.
Real "Douche" v "Turd Sandwich" election. But these candidates won almost entirely because of who backed them. Silicon Valley went hard for Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024.
It should have been a cakewalk because Trump was currently the guy screwing everything up and not improving people's lives. Incumbency isn't an advantage for President anymore and Trump (with help from COVID) was doing particularly badly. He had sub-40 approval polls and, before the general election campaign, polls were putting most of the main Democratic options up by 6-8. It wasn't a cakewalk in the actual election because Biden didn't run a good campaign.
Biden in 2024 was then the guy to blame for everything going wrong (inflation in this case), with sub-40 approval polls, and was on course to lose before being kicked off the ticket. And Harris made the baffling decision to frame herself as just being a younger Biden.
He brought in 74M votes, with a surge in fascist supporters coming from big historical swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. On what planet was that going to be a cakewalk?
That's not true. Incumbency channels money to your campaign. The Biden/Harris warchest was bigger in 2024 than in 2020. It affords you a roadmap based on your prior victory. Harris - like Hillary before her - failed to focus her campaign in the winnable states and squandered manpower chasing red states she had no chance in.
2024 was a great year, economically speaking. The market was up enormously. Unemployment was low. International trade was strong in the wake of the COVID recovery. Business was booming. The inflation was - if anything - a product of the economy running too hot, as demand outstretched supply in a number of retail sectors.
Republicans were happy enough to take credit for this prosperity at the Congressional/Gubernatorial level, then twist in their seats and condemn inflation as a uniquely Presidential sin. Democrats let them get away with it, because they were too busy covering their asses on Israel, backpedaling on the COVID response, and trying to find some kind of middle ground on the fully fabricated "transgender athletes" issue.
And this pants-on-head stupid take was why we lost the election.
Not countering your opponent's gains is also part of running a bad campaign. The same people who ran his campaign were running Harris's and making all those dumb mistakes you highlight. Only she didn't have the "change" label and Trump's failures at the front of people's minds to edge her over the line. Biden was heading toward a loss in 2024.
Presidential elections keep going down to the wire and it's not because Donald Trump is just that talented. These things shouldn't be being won or lost on the margins. All of the last three candidates have been a lot closer to John Kerry than Barrack Obama.