this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
115 points (88.6% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2910 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
[–] DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Irrelevant man becomes even more irrelevant.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Nah. He’s now a spoiler candidate. Can’t win, but can shave off Biden’s votes for Trump.

Nader 2000.

[–] generic@iusearchlinux.fyi 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I, personally, don't know any democrats who would vote for RFK over Biden. To me, it seems more likely that he'd split the Republican vote.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The worry isn’t with the highly or moderately informed voter block, it’s with the people who pay little to no attention to politics, yet still vote. Those are the people that are more likely to vote for a family name with a positive brand - which “Kennedy” is.

[–] Animoscity@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah the only people saying anything positive about him are republicans

[–] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Thankfully, polling has suggested that he's actually more popular with Republican voters than Democrat, so we might get a reverse-Nader.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

gore won 2000. blame the supreme court, not nader.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Bigger margins leave you less vulnerable to fuckery by corrupt election officials and judges.

Fact of the matter is, if Nader wasn’t on the ballot in 2000, Gore would’ve like had a healthy margin. He had almost 100,000 votes, and Gore only needed several hundred.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fact of the matter is, if Nader wasn’t on the ballot in 2000, Gore would’ve like had a healthy margin

you can't prove that.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nope, but you’d have to be fooling yourself if you thought, the people at the Nader rallies were down with Bush. If Nader wasn’t on the ballot, those votes were going to be Gore, people who declined state, or people writing in candidates out of protest.

Gore needed less than 1% of Naders voters. The odds would’ve have clearly been in his favor.

you can't prove a counter factual. In a world where Nader isn't on the ballot, you don't know who the dem nominee was either.