this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
187 points (99.5% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3518 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Hilary Clinton significantly outspent Trump in 2016, and was very cozy with Wall St types. She lost. The establishment candidate backed by money was firmly defeated by noxious asshole with Qanon support.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16

That said, I do agree that we desperately need campaign finance reform. Not because money reliably buys elections, but because of the corrupting effect it has on politicians.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Although I appreciate the organization 'opensecrets' ... I don't trust the organizations and groups that give over information for reporting purposes.

Millionaires and billionaires and corporations have a habit of being able to fudge, fake, deflate or exaggerate reported numbers for their own benefit.

I worked in a small way for political organizations at the local level in southern Ontario ... nothing major but nothing minor either. One of the things I learned was that money and those with lots of money easily influence people without having to spend any money - all they have to do is promise money later. It means a campaign can count on the expertise of highly trained people who volunteer for a campaign.

Who do you think has more chance of winning an election .... a campaign filled with inexperienced college student volunteers who have no resources or wealth of their own ... or a campaign filled with business/media/advertising/political/legal professionals who are all volunteering their time and personal resources to a campaign ........... and all of this is never reported as a financial number in a spreadsheet or report, and if it is, it is almost impossible to calculate the value.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah that's fair. I don't think we should devalue the potential for grassroots movements to achieve results though. The potential for grassroots campaigns to achieve success, particularly in smaller races where a candidate can focus more, is still significant. We just need to remember that we're up against what is still a large number of voters that simply favor moderate politicians, even if they can't name a moderate policy position they favor.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Clinton was on track to win, and would have, but James Comey (Director FBI) pulled the rug on her, in October, by publicly announcing the reopening of her email investigation.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I'm sure it contributed. There were a lot of factors though. Ultimately, the people that said she was a weak candidate were right, she really notably lacked charisma, and had a penchant for getting herself into trouble. "Basket of deplorables" was a self-own. She also could've played nicer with the Bernie Bros.