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
Turns out holding back the things that work (like calling fascists "weird") while not breaking with some of Biden's unpopular policies was a terrible idea... who would've thought? At least Walz is honest enough to admit it. I doubt the DNC will let the social democrats like Walz or Bernie take the lead though... establishment dems would rather stand by and praise Reagan while Trump dismantles the constitution.
The DNC is a right-wing party and frankly benefits from the current fascist oligarchy too. They still get their bribes from corporate lobbyists all the same. VERY few representatives actually lean left and fight for us - hell, even Sanders, Walz, and AOC are centrists at best and routinely fall in line with the establishment.
2024 was no different than 2016. They didn't listen to their voting base whatsoever because they'd rather have a fascist in charge than give any credence at all to leftist policies, even if it costs them an election. Just look at some of the info coming out about Harris's campaign, where campaign workers were instructed to consider anyone asking about Gaza as a lost cause and not bother trying to earn their vote.
The whole party is rotten to the core and needs to be completely dismantled and replaced with an actual far left worker's party. As it stands right now, the DNC is essentially just a controlled opposition party, even if it's not entirely intended to be one.
You can pretty much tell which one , Ds are getting the same megadonor moneys from the GOP, and yes the Dems are hoping coast on by along with the GOP, to eek some federal elections.
And we just got the furtherest left chain we've had in over 30 years...
The chair has complete control and no accountability to anyone else.
And the new chair agrees with you. You don't even have to take his word, look at what he did as head of Minnesota's state party
the new DNC chair just gave us elissa slotkin as trumps speech rebutter. She's a zionist and menber of the problem solvers coalition (bipartisanship for bipartisanship sake) and new democrat caucus (pro business focus). She's measured as the most centrist dem there is.
The new chair is accountable to the same corrupt influences as the last one. We might as well have not appointed a new chair. Ken has to go.
She also co-sponsored legislation to ban corporate pacs...
How are her (absolute dog shit) opinions about Israel affect the position she has?
Because you can trace the money, no matter what random, clearly going to die, just for show bill gets introduced.
Bernie's chances of running are pretty much up and over. He's like 83. The time to have gotten him in was definitely 2016, but the DNC wanted Clinton and that got them to lose. 2020, he lost again because everyone tone deaf wanted Biden because they believed "well, he was around Obama during his two terms, he should be in because he'll just continue what Obama built!". They only got lucky to have won 2020 with Biden, just lucky.
I cannot see Bernie Sanders ever running again.
An article I read about this talked about how DNC-funded advertising discredited Bernie not by attacking his actual policies, but via a message of "his promises are good, and you may like them, but how many voters out there won't vote for a scary socialist?". I think that's ultimately what did him in; it's impossible to make a reasonable person hate the stuff Bernie was promising (unless they think it's gonna placate the proletariat and make them lose the will to seize the means of production or some shit), but it is possible to convince them that some unspecified "many people" wouldn't vote for him and therefore he'd lose the election.
They also banked on the sexist “Bernie Bros” and tried to paint the movement as majority male when it wasn’t. Plenty of women who liked Bernie. And a lot of that enthusiasm would have captured some youth that could have attracted young men wanting change and wanting to put their weight behind something.
Change was coming regardless. The DNC had an option for a brief moment to permit or encourage change for the better of all. Instead, they let our economic problems fester, accelerated the income disparity, and chose to back…whatever the fuck this shit show is now.
When parties get so arrogant that they think the people they represent are the enemy—they need to go. Unrestricted and fully backed? I think Bernie could have won against Trump in 2016.
I don't think Bernie will run again in 2028, but he is still relevant right now because nobody else is taking the lead. I hope people like Walz will step up and try to turn the DNC around. It'll be an uphill battle even with the DNC, not to speak of the actual election.
The best he can do is rile people up and it works.
I think Bernie should run, alongside AOC, Walz, Al Green, and others. The primary can sort out who is truly best as president. That is the whole bloody idea of a primary, one the DNC never honestly permitted after Obama's tenure.
The reason why the conservatives found an effective candidate in Trump, is that he was allowed to legitimately compete in their primaries. It is a stress test, and the DNC refused to allow their own primary to work as intended.
AOC has not interest though, she said it would best if she stayed in the house
"Weird" alienated voters. It's an example of bad messaging that the dems doubled down on that made them lose.
They lacked a platform that promised anything but more of the same that Americans were tired of. They needed to present something new and hopeful, not just lob an insult that much of America identifies with. A suite of policies to help the working class attracts votes to your side. Calling your opponents weird attracts votes to the weird anti-establishment.
Weird plays into the republican's hands, and it annoys the hell out of me how the dems decided to throw the election to focus on petty insults that come off as compliments to most observers.
A part of the problem is that they didn't hold back on broken and alienating messaging like "weird". They should have focused on talking about what they can do for the people.
No, weird was a successful offensive attack on Republicans that was both popular and was great at making them get flustered and double down on their weirdness (which is itself an incredibly charitable way to describe their fascist policies)
https://www.vox.com/politics/365833/trump-harris-walz-weird-2024-election-voters-biden-poll-attack-messaging
Other messaging that was very popular
https://blueprint2024.com/polling/harris-poll-positive-message-8-8/
https://blueprint-research.com/polling/distance-biden-ads-message-test-10-15/
Progressive policies that a majority of Americans support
Democrats' Working-Class Failures, Analysis Finds, Are 'Why Trump Beat Harris'
2024 Post-Election Report: A retrospective and longitudinal data analysis on why Trump beat Harris
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz's Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
Just because it flustered republicans doesn't mean it didn't alienate voters.
I agree with the rest of your message listing progressive policies that the majority of Americans support. That's the winning strategy.
This is the Clinton-era way of thinking. A losing campaign must have done everything wrong, and a winning campaign must have done everything right.
No, Clinton-era thinking is trying to fluster the Republicans without being concerned with alienating the voters.
Where's the proof that it alienated voters? The vox article has evidence voters received it positively
It alienated me and others like me that identify as weird.
You can't win the left while shit talking non-hegemonic personalities and preferences.
You were never going to vote for Dems anyways, you keep saying alienation but you have not provided any proof. The fact that your being flustered means it's actually working against Republicans, yes we know you are one.
I did vote for the dems.
"Weird" as an insult is fundamentally pro-centrist and pro-status-quo.
You don't find Republican policies that dehumanize immigrants, attack women's rights, and demonize LGBT rights weird? To put it as nicely as possible, fascist policies are weird
Why are you proposing that we be as nice as possible to fascists?
I'm not, I'm pointing out that even that miniscule amount of pushback during the campaign was well received. You seem to be the one opposed to even that
The Democrats are a controlled opposition, genuine opposition must come from grassroots organization and solidarity. Peaceful opposition backed by militant support is preferred, but I'm completely on board with revolution as well discussed by Franz Fanon
I'm not opposed to pushback.
I'm opposed to pushback that also pushes out queers and anyone that doesn't match the corporate/centrist definition of normal.
Pushback against the nazis, not against "weird".
Be weird and proud.
Sure, I base weird off of whether people empathize and respect others so I don't consider LGBT+ weird. I find someone who wants to take rights weird, not people just being themselves
Weird is a compliment. It means you are willing to be yourself in the face of broken societal standards.
Someone who wants to take the rights of others isn't weird. The word you're looking for is "evil" or "selfish" or "authoritarian".
There’s different types of weird. If this type of weird doesn’t apply to you, then you shouldn’t be offended by it.
I’m extremely weird and I wasn’t offended by it. Because it’s not referring to me.
Sometimes we have to set aside our ego and strike where our opponent is weakest. They are weakest when they feel like they are not being included in the “in group.” Weird cuts quickly to that weakness. It has nothing to do with you and everything to do with them.
If you are hurt by this, then maybe you should work on your introspection and figure out why it bothers you so much. It almost certainly wasn’t meant in the way you’ve taken it. I hope you find growth here.
Thank you.
I think it hurts me because the same type of liberal centrist thought saying Trump is "weird" has also outgrouped me as "weird" in a way that has materially destroyed my life and career.
We need to empathize, not outgroup.
Sure, I don't subscribe to the conservative framing of societal standards and I won't normalize their framing
I call them fascist, personally, but the Democratic Party is too scared too.
No, the initial comment was fine, as was the authentic reaction to it.
What made it weird and ineffective, was Kamala and other zero charisma neoliberals beating it into the ground while screaming "you like this".
It's like when Dee was trying to make Instagram videos and Charlie kept fucking with her:
When Walz said it off the cuff, it was a good thing. When Harris tried to make it an entire campaign, it was stupid and "weird" on its own.
Oh? got any proof of that? Was your proof on fox news maybe? I saw plenty of articles praising it.
It alienated me.
Most queer people identify with the label "weird".
I also saw pro-corporate outlets praising it.
Oh see you said it alienated voters, plural.
What a ridiculous take.
I'm sure I'm not alone. America is a very pro-weird place.
OK. First of all, words can have multiple meanings. Like the word "screw" or "bark" or "current". We dont need to deprecate these multiple meanings in favor of just one. In conversation you pick the applicable meaning, and if you cant thats more a 'you' problem. I have enough problems of my own without taking yours on too. My use of the word doesnt affect you at all.
Secondly, I will stick with the normal usage that most people use. Language is an agreement between people around meaning, and the vast majority of the population doesnt agree that it has this new meaning. Sorry. Maybe in a few years "wierd" will have a more predominant meaning that you prefer, but today it does not, and again, even if it did, the word need not mean only one thing.
But it seems like your memories dont match your ability to show it now. Human memories are notoriously unreliable.
If you simply dont like that the word means what it means because you wish another meaning was more dominant, then I have a hard time feeling like you've much of a right to be aggreived at anyone about that. But by all means, be alienated if you want to. Just dont expect anyone else to make your alienation into a thing. Cheers.
That's fair actually. When I first heard it without context, I also felt kind of alienated by it.
I think you can be weird in good and bad ways, context matters in this case. I think it's fair to call out fascists for being "weird" in the sense that they are evil, crooked and - crucially - not relatable for the vast majority of voters. The "weird" thing is about the fascists not being "like us" - and thus very instinctively not trustworthy.
At the same time it's also possible to be "weird" in an individualistic, relatable and validating way. Most people have insecurities or fears on some level and accepting this "weirdness" can be validating and actually show likeness. I think it's very clear that Tim Walz didn't mean it like this.
He didn't call them weird out of the blue, but rather to sum up his other points about their unrelatable, evil behaviors. The message was something like: "The fascists are not real, believable people. They don't seem driven by everyday worries like us. They don't seem to have the same kind of feelings like us."
And I think that is actually exactly the message that wins elections in this political climate. Debating the issues is getting you nowhere if your opponent has no actual beliefs to debate against. Calling them out for being fake people with no actual beliefs is a better strategy.
Alienated which voters?
Me.