this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
388 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19097 readers
5988 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
[–] TheCannonball@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Would I call the average American smart? No, but i wouldn't call them dumb either. That's because they're average.

Would i say that the average American is well informed? Absolutely not.

Do i think it's easier to convince millions of people, or the dozens of democratic leaders? I would like to assume that the democratic leadership would be easier to reason with.

But you're suggesting that every democratic leader become immediately progressive, which would be amazing, is never going to happen. There's such a stigma around "progressive" and "social" values that it would be political suicide and would only ignite the Republican base. It's a guaranteed way of making sure we lose elections.

This path that you are calling easier isn't easy. It's risky. It has a high likelihood of failing, and failure means living in the handmaid's tale. I have a family and i can't take that risk.

The only way i see forward that is actually viable is a slow and steady march.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The only way i see forward that is actually viable is a slow and steady march

Bad news then.

Because running moderates mean sometimes Republicans win.

So it won't be slow and steady

At absolute best your path is fast jerks back and forth over and over while you pray you over time move in the direction you want.

Which hasn't happened in the last 30+ years since Bill Clinton started this whole "neo liberal" thing.

We're worse off in a lot of ways than when we started your path. Do we give it another 30 years and hope it starts working for some random reason?

Or are you just fully committed to never trying anything else no matter how bad it gets.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Clue Bus time: on 20 January 2025, one of two people will take the Oath of Office to be the 47th President of the United States.

  • Kamala Harris will represent a moderate, maybe even Centre-Right option, who will take baby steps along the path, pissing off liberals but reassuring moderates and even a few right-wing people that she's a safe, comfortable answer for POTUS.

  • Donald Trump will represent a hard-right, likely even Fascist option, who will make leaps and bounds AWAY from the liberal goal, pissing off Liberals, worrying Moderates, and enabling some of the most authoritarian, xenophobic jerks in the country.

This list is exhaustive. Why?

  • Chase Oliver will not be President. While the Libertarian Party has the largest share of the vote, usually, this was the margin for the last 5 Presidential Elections: 1.18%, 3.28%, 1.0%, 0.4%, 0.32%.
  • Jill Stein will not be President. The Green Party only managed to put up 0.10%, 0.12%, 0.36%, 1.07%, and 0.26%, with starred entries representing Stein being the candidate.
  • Claudia De la Cruz will not be President. Nor will Rachele Fruit, Joseph Kishore, or Bill Stodden. Various Socialist Parties have turned in 0.02% (2), 0 (0), 0 (0), 0.05% (1), and 0 (0). What's worse is that De la Cruz would have to win EVERY state she was certified for, plus over half of the states she is a registered write-in candidate for to win the necessary 270 EVs you must have to win the Presidency.
  • Cornel West will not be President. He would have to virtually win every state he got ballot access to to make the 270 EV cutoff.
  • Peter Sonski will not be President. He would have to win all the states he got his name on the ballot, and successfully run a write-in campaign across 20 states, in order to have a chance at 270 EVs.
  • Shiva Ayyadurai will not be President. The max number of EVs he could get is 288, requiring him to win write-in campaigns over 20 states.
  • Randall Terry cannot be President. Literally, even if he won every state he's running in, he'd cut off at 200 EV and lose the election.
  • Rachele Fruit cannot win. She caps out at 111 EV.
  • Kishore can't win. He caps out at 100 EV.
  • Duncan can't win.; He caps out at 87 EV.
  • Skousen can't win. His cieling is 97 EV.
  • Bowman can't win. He tops out at 111EV.
  • Huber can't win. His max is 80EV.
  • Preston can't win (thank God!). He can't get more than 78EV.
  • Garrity can't win. He peaks at 91 EV.
  • Stodden can't win. 83 is his top.
  • Wood can't win, which is great for people who like beer. His max is 76 EV.
  • Everylove can't win, as even being the Morning Star doesn't give him more than 76 EV.
  • Ebke can't win, as at most he could get if every went his way is 86 EV.
  • Well's can't win, since his ticket peaks at 70 EV.
  • And alas, Vermin Supreme can't win. He can only get 73 EVs.

And most importantly of all, in the past 5 elections, do you know the total number of Electoral Votes any person without an R or D has won? Wait for it. Wait for it!

TWO. And they were both faithless electors.

Let's extend that back. How many EVs have been won by someone not in the Republican or Democratic party during my lifetime (starting in '76)?

TWO (Plus one abstension and two non-main ticket Dems and one non-main ticket Rep). Despite Ross Perot taking 18.91%, the largest Third Party take in my life, he wasn't able to manage a single EV. Over almost 50 years, only five electoral votes didn't go to the winner and the runner up, and each third place or worse finisher only got a single one at a time.

This should tell the 'Deny Harris the Presidency' people something. Denying Harris the Presidency means one thing and one thing only. The person who takes that Oath of Office in January will not be anyone else except Donald J. Trump.

I suspect this is what theCannonball means when they say that Harris is better than the alternative. Because if she doesn't win, Trump will. There is no division over on the Right. They're all in for Trump. While we have a few Right-Wing voices speaking from our coalition, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the MAGAts that are infesting the corpse of their zombie party now. And Trump has fucking PLANS for what he's going to do to the country, and it won't be with lube, a reach around, a kiss, or dinner.

These few right-wingers also get a few things on their mind. They've known this truth all along and counted on our stupidity before, expecially in 2000, 2010, and 2014. They have a saying over there. "Vote for the Conservative in the Primary and the Republican in the general." They have this saying because they know the truth in the adage that politics is not like marriage, but like public transit. You don't wait for the perfect option. You take the bus that gets you closest to your destination. They know that if they want to get something done, they need somebody that they can browbeat and cajole into going their direction. Democratic politicians are seen as out of reach, but even the most RINO of Republicans can be threatened with primaries and withholding funding. And now that a naked Fascist without a shred of common decency is taking over their party, the few good Republicans are realising that a vote for the Third Party isn't good enough, and they're trying to say this exact same thing to their voters so the few million or so that voted Jo Gorgensen in 2020 come over here to replace the damn fools that go over and vote Third Party from our coalition.

I hear the people saying 'a pox on both their houses', for sure. I'm sick of the Dems using Rep bad behaviour to cover for their own. That's why I'm voting for RCV in this election for Colorado. If it passes and is implemented, I'll be a bit more discerning in who I vote for for State offices and Reps and Senators. But as long as we have FPTP and the Electoral College, I'm not voting anything but Blue unless and until I can tolerate a Republican being in office.

TL;DR; The choice is between Harris and Trump. If you don't want Trump in office, vote Harris. What I've been saying for years. Otherwise, be ready for a Trump presidency to be shoved sideways up the back entrance.-