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.
- 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.
- 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
Yes, this is true.
This is also true. But she has no shot at winning and is literally only capable of helping the orange bad. We need rank-choice voting. Until we get that, she should shut up and drop out. Especially with the threat of the orange bad.
Here you go again. Not you personally, but everyone who says that you're either with us or against us. That didn't make sense, it doesn't make sense now, it never will, and it won't get Harris any more votes. If you don't believe me, ask Hillary Clinton. Her supporters said the same thing, and then she lost. At some point you have to face the reality that people can and do vote for third-party candidates, and then you need to decide how you're going to convince them that they ought to vote for your candidate, and usually that's effective if your candidate has some policies that the voters appreciate. Or don't try to get their votes and move on with life, that's okay too.
But maybe you're looking for someone to blame, in case Harris loses. You want to be able to blame those third-party voters. I'm not going to let you off the hook. If she throws away third party votes, she knew exactly what she was doing, she took the risk and it paid off or it didn't.
But even if we ignore that, you've also forgotten that many people don't live in swing states, and because of the electoral college, their vote probably is not going to impact the outcome. In that case, shouldn't they feel free to vote how their conscience dictates? But of course you didn't take this into account, because you didn't think about their situation.
But let's ignore the electoral college. Let's assume that everyone is equal on Election Day, that all of our votes count for something. It's well known that no one is asking for our vote the day after election day. As voters, we have power in the lead up to the election and in the election itself, if we have any power at all. But you want us to throw that away. Not only that, you keep repeating the same script every 4 years, which means we never have any power, and we never will, if we listen to you.
Obviously you personally did not write all of the arguments that I'm referring to above, but it's important for people to deal with all of the above arguments if they're arguing that third parties ought not exist or that nobody should even consider supporting them.
The folks voting Green have already folded on the other options. If you're picking a fight with Jill, you're only driving her base farther from your candidate.
I'm tired of people being stupid. I've been tired of it for 20 God damn years. I'm folding on stupid people. I don't care if I drive them away anymore.
This just isn't true. Third party candidates put pressure on the duopoly candidates to adopt a diversity of policies that better represent the interests of the country.
If the democrats wanted to make the Green and PSL parties irrelevant this election, all they have to do is drop their unconditional support for Israel's genocide.
Democrats desperately want to be able to run with status quo positions without risking a loss, and stein makes that just barely difficult enough as to go after her candidacy, because that's easier than attacking her policy positions.
The Green party is already irrelevant. Their only power is siphoning away votes every 4 years. If they actually wanted to affect political change, they would establish a broad presence in local politics, establish a voting and policy record, and build a third party that's actually viable as their local candidates advance to the national stage.
That takes a lot of time and a tonne of effort, though. Apparently it's just easier taking money from Putin to gum up a presidential election.
What constitutes power to you, exactly?
A voting block big enough to spoil a victory is power: that's what makes organizing of all types valuable to begin with.
Nobody, not even Jill Stein, believes she has a chance of winning against Harris and Trump. The reason why it's still important for her to run is because she represents a dissenting group of voters who find something unacceptable about Harris and Trump, and if that group is enough of a threat then Harris will be forced to address it else risk loosing her campaign.
Liberals are mad because that threat is potentially big enough to spoil their victory, and that's reason enough to be happy she's around. Harris needs to cut her support of Israel, otherwise Green and PSL voters (and uncommitted voters) will remain a threat to her campaign. That's reason enough for me to cheer them on.
Nope. Stein voters are lost voters. The Harris campaign will ignore them and move on. There is no message being broadcast or received during this election. Voting for a party that can only help install the worse of two evils is 100% a move of immense privilege, not a moral high ground.
They have the power to put a dictator in place by leveraging people who don't understand the primaries are for your ideals and the main election is for strategy. Until we get ranked-choice voting (and we won't) your moral posturing does the opposite of what you think. In reality anyway.
That's power, bud, but it's misplaced. It's Harris that has the power to respond to those voters, or to ignore them. As you mentioned, the cost of ignoring them could put a dictator in place.
Their vote puts a dictator in place and Harris is the bad guy for not stroking their egos enough? Gotcha.
Candidates get themselves elected by pledging to address voters' concerns - if anyone has an ego here it's Harris and liberals like yourself who think they are owed votes they haven't made any effort to get.
Then how is she stealing votes?
Tell that to Cori Bush and Jamal Bowman. AIPAC money bombed them out of their seats by way of primary.
Who are their voters supposed to endorse in the general, now that they've been replaced by genocidal apartheidists?
If Stein was not in the running, some of her voters may have settled for Harris. As it is, she's muddying the water. It's not Harris's fault a bunch of people are going to ignore the money trail and vote Stein. Harris is going to focus on the people who might be swayed.
As for Bush and Bowman, no argument. That was rotten & PACs need to die. Those two were doing something right for AIPAC to go after them.
I remember when I turned 14.
lol…. This is what you actually believe?
There's a lot more in the table than that. But it would be a good start.
Kamala doubling back on Fracking is driving off as many environmental voters as her endorsement of the Israeli genocide is scaring away Arab-Americans.
But that's the joke. People think if Greens just vanished, all their voters would be forced into the Dem block. Instead, repeatedly calling them Trumpies means they'll be that less likely to vote for you.
People get upset when you point to multiple things you're looking to concessions on, otherwise yea, I'm 100% in agreement.
In an effort to meet those people halfway: Harris only needs enough of green/psl protest voters (or at least needs to not loose too-many democratic votes, depending on your philosophical bent) to win. How many voters that is, and which issues are the ones to win them to her ticket, are questions very much up for debate. Even if she can even win them back is questionable at this point.
But the one thing that is certain is that if she were to somehow loose despite everything that's going right for her, it'll be because she abandoned those issues in favor or courting anti-immigrant and status-quo republicans. Her loss will be 100% attributable to the fucks not given for the issues driving voters to third parties, and that's nobodies fault but her own.
Well said.
Sort of shocking how the common opinion here is, "vote how I tell you or you are a Hitler enabler".
And then they wonder why they aren't changing peoples minds.
Yup! This exactly.