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
It's so weird how independants are treated here. When you think about it, the only real justification for having parties in the US is ballot access. A candidate that is not attached to any party needs to satisfy all the conditions themselves, while a candidate that works through a party has the party available to help them with that. (And in many states, I bet it has been arranged that Democrats and Republicans have ballot access "automatically" with far less process.)
Yet, here we have a candidate who is so popular in his state that he doesn't need a party for ballot access. And instead of just changing the rules to say "Let's endorse this guy, even though he's an independent", Democrats need to go through these motions to have a sham primary, and run a candidate who everyone knows will just back out if they win.
Even in this case, where most everyone agrees that backing the Independant is best for the Democrats, they still need to award a participation trophy to someone on their team.
That's not it. The point was for her to win and drop out so there wouldn't be a Democrat on the ballot at all to dillute the vote. If she hadn't won, there would be a Republican plant running on the Democratic ticket.
There are plenty of bad things to castigate the Democratic party for; we don't need to invent them.
Why couldn't the Democrats actually put Don Osborne on their primary ballot, then? Or even "None of the Above"?
It seems silly to have to recruit someone to run, just to win an election and immediately quit.
The thinking is that as an independent he'll receive more votes than as a Democrat, as people who don't like the Democratic party but dislike the Republicans more will vote for him in addition to all Democrats who would never vote for the Republican candidate.
The Republicans thought so too, which is why they ran a spoiler candidate on the Democratic primary ticket.
All of these shenanigans are happening because FPTP voting is absolute trash and should be gotten rid of immediately if not sooner.
If the Democratic brand is so toxic that candidates in certain states are better off running without it, that sounds like a problem with the party itself.
I wonder if that's the real reason why that "2024 autopsy" is not getting released: it shows that the Democrats are toxic to most average voters. (And not because they are "not progressive enough....")
I question if Don Osborne would even want to be on the Democratic ballot. It would dilute his sell as an Independent if he was running in the Democratic primary at all.
I’m not sure on the rules, but they probably do not have primary rules in place for ‘None of the Above’ since that’s not a great sell for the state’s Democratic party if that ever won. It could also be gamed by people changing parties for the primary just to vote ‘None of the Above’ for the other side of the aisle’s candidates.
My view on the situation is that this is an example of Democrats taking possibly the wrong lesson from 2024 or at least trying a strategy that didn’t work at all back in 2024. It was a bit more strategic at the time to back Independents in more Red states. However, I think actually backing a progressive and trying to educate people about a progressive platform would sell much better than some “appeal to everyone Independent” candidate which doesn’t encourage Democrats to turn out and does not encourage Republicans who like the more radical candidates.
Democrats: *do a good thing*
Lemmy: This is bullshit!
What I don't get is: why? I mean, this independent is clearly going to caucus with the Dems in Washington, so he'll "count" as a Democrat. He's clearly got the support of the Democratic party leadership. He appears to be a Democrat in all but name, and the only thing I can think is it's to avoid reflexive hatred of the (D) in deep red Nebraska. Run a democrat as an independent, in the same way the GOP tried to run a candidate as a Dem.
You should read up on William For es who the Republicans tried to get to run as a Dem in opposition. Thank whatever he lost
That's probably exactly it, it's to avoid the stupid reflex of "Demonrats bad" to actually get shit done.