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
But we need an answer. Not from you specifically, of course, but we die if we don't.
Think about this for a moment:
Did they? Like, have you spoken to them? Your average voter is not even half as politically plugged in as you or I am.
Getting people to begrudgingly vote for someone they don't believe represents any fundamental change to the problems they're dealing with is, unfortunately, just not that exciting. And if you don't have excitement, how do you get the message to spread? If someone isn't excited about cleaning up their dirty city, are you really surprised it never happens?
If you're refusing to pick fights with republicans, refusing to point out their obstructionism to the good you're working for, refusing to acknowledge any of the problems people have had with your previous candidates---I can shit talk Obama and Bill Clinton, but the DNC is not capable of it, which might even explain why they're so quiet about Trump's connections to Epstein; then how can you represent anything new?
Tim Walz's Weird campaign was a massive step in the right direction, there was energy then, and the DNC muzzled him as soon as they were able to. How can you be excited about the fight against republicans when DNC leadership are barely excited about it themselves?
I'm sorry for the rant, I really didn't mean to write a wall of text. I'm just saying, it's true that our people should have taken their medicine, they should have voted, but the reason so many didn't has to be systemic. It's not because they wanted Trump; if they did, they would have gone and voted for him. There is a rot at the heart of our current efforts that needs to be cut out before it consumes us completely.
Obviously not every single one of them. And I do agree -- your argument has merit and isn't entirely wrong. In Pre-Trump days, it was pretty easy to be completely oblivious to politics. I was. Couldn't have cared less, because neither side was really doing anything to impact my life. But then came Trump. And the Trump Hate Machine. And the mainstream media. All cramming Trump down everyone's throats 24/7/365. After 9 years of that, it is impossible to convince me that even the lowest-information voter doesn't have at least some opinion of Trump. I refuse to believe that there is somewhere in this country where people are completely oblivious to Trump and he has had no real impact on their lives. And if this magical paradise exists, I want to move there tomorrow.
10 million former Biden voters, which means not low-information voters, but voters that knew the stakes, chose to stay home. That's just math. And almost every single excuse that has been bandied about quickly falls apart when held up to an even minimal amount of scrutiny. And listen to the excuses that we're getting from our own base:
"We'd have won if we put up Bernie." -- So in other words, you really don't have a problem with an old white guy. Or the policies. So if they don't have a problem with policies or the old white guy, what makes Kamala Harris different? Hmmm......I wonder.
"She campaigned with Liz Cheney!" -- But what about the dozens of male Republicans that also endorsed her? Cheney -- the woman who sacrificed her career and position in the GOP to stand up to Trump -- is the problem. Again.....wonder what makes her different. This mystery may never be solved!
You are right in that we have to figure out and address why so many Democrats stayed home. But this means also acknowledging all of the reasons for the loss, including the politically incorrect and inconvenient ones. And one of those facts is that a significant portion of the Democrat base is not willing to vote for a woman or another Black person as President. We have put up women twice -- and they both lost to Trump, who rose to power largely on the backs of those who were pissed that we put a black person in office the first time. This is the inconvenient truth we have to face, and it may be racist and political suicide to say publicly, but mark my words : The message will not matter. If the Democrats put up another minority in 2028, they will lose and lose hard. The american public is just not willing to do that again.
I'm not abdicating racism or sexism as part of the problem. But if you're just going to capitulate to it, god, we may as well run 20 more white men. I think that if America is capable of electing Obama on the promise of hope and change, they can elect Kamala.
If the DNC is going to put up a candidate that must deal with racism and sexism, wouldn't the message be like ten times as important? But what was there?
"What would you do differently than Biden?"
"Hm, nothing really comes to mind."
People didn't like Biden, so how was this meant to inspire anyone? I don't reckon many people actually saw that specific interview, but this is the attitude the DNC gives us every. single. time. It's always scraps and morsels.
You realize, if those 10 million people had come out for Kamala and we had beaten Trump just barely, I'm still not satisfied with that. What I thought we had on election night was a coin flip, not the blowout that happened. A coin flip. Against a fascist.