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
Imagine if the DNC gave democrats a worthy candidate. Then we wouldn't have to strongarm democrats to vote for democratic candidates.
Who?
The problem is sort of chicken and egg: if there were an obvious democratic alternative the party could agree on, Biden would be out. There is no such person, so we get stuck with what we have right now.
Hard to fault the party for not wanting to bruise their most likely candidate in a tough primary, either.
This sucks, but it's not the Democrats' fault: it's our first past the post voting system.
Who would've been better?
If the DNC hadn't shoved Hillary down our throats, Bernie would have certainly won the primary. But on policy the best candidate would have been Andrew Yang.
The DNC would rather lose elections than give us non-establishment politicians.
I was under the impression that Bernie was too left even for a lot of Democrat voters, so winning the elections could've been a tough one
And just like that, the party's voters aren't expected to fall in line for a candidate they don't want in order to stop Trump.
Not like expecting them to fall in line would've done anything if you're losing a hefty chunk of the moderates. That's what seems to decide American elections, who can claw more of the middle ground undecided voters to their side.
So "vote blue no matter who" was a crock of fucking bullshit put forth by hypocrites who never intend to follow their own advice if a candidate isn't their very first choice.
I wouldn't think it's the moderates or undecided people that are saying that.
Then you're either not paying any attention whatsoever, or you're gaslighting me. Either way, there is no reason to continue this conversation.
Why would those who are closest to switching or especially those who are undecided be hardcore about always voting Democrats..?
I mean I'd really like to hear your reasoning behind your thinking, so that's a reason but if you don't feel like it then sure, probably better to end it here.
You have already. You responded by lying and saying that centrists never espoused the "no matter who" rhetoric. Since all you're going to do is lie and gaslight, you can find someone else to do that to.
I'm really bewildered with the logic behind your thinking. By "centrists" do you mean the right-wing of Democrats, the middle ground between parties and the left-wing of Republicans (the political central position as it is in the US) or something else? I could believe the ones solidly in the middle of their own party could be diehards, but saying that especially people who are switching parties are also diehards makes no sense. You'd expect that from those who are committed to one party, not those who are undecided or uncommitted.
I feel like there's some major miscommunication somewhere. I wish you'd calm down and we could just go through what we mean so we could figure out this situation.
For clarification, I drew a magnificent pic (well, only the circle). The ones I'm talking about are within the green circle. Are you talking about some other group?
Fine. I'll pretend for one more comment that you're not arguing in bad faith.
The people I'm talking about are the Democratic Party's centrist contingent. The ones who shriek "vote blue no matter who" when they're ordering everyone to their left to vote for the candidate they wanted from the start, but shriek "party unity my ass" even louder when anyone to the left of their very first choice gets nominated.
In 2008, the party's centrists literally formed a pac to fundraise for McCain/Palin because they couldn't stand the idea of anyone other than Clinton being the nominee. Then 2016, when they blamed everyone who said anything even remotely negative about Clinton for the loss she earned, regardless of how they voted. Then 2020, the year of "no matter who" from the same wing of the party who worked so hard to legitimize Sarah Goddamned Palin.
If centrists don't get their way about everything at all times, they directly work to elect Republicans. And then scream at everyone to their left for daring to breathe a word of criticism. It's disgusting hypocrisy.
Now pretend that you still don't know who I'm talking about and lie to me some more.
Jesus, aren't you a nice person to chat with.
Using that pic again, are you talking about the ones I highlighted here or thereabouts?
Because then you've misunderstood, I'm talking about these people
They're not the same group. The original context was people who are in the middle of the political spectrum in the US
"Not like expecting them to fall in line would’ve done anything if you’re losing a hefty chunk of the moderates. That’s what seems to decide American elections, who can claw more of the middle ground undecided voters to their side."
No I think I understand what happened here. You thought I meant Democratic party middle ground, even though I meant the whole political field in the US. Democratic party middle ground wouldn't be likely to jump ship, yeah. I'd imagine they'd be the ones happiest with the party.
You misunderstood and got mad at me lol.
They did in 2008.
You mischaracterized what I was saying and never stopped gaslighting.
What do you mean? 2008 United States presidential election? Didn't Obama have a hefty win in that?
From that photo, to me, it looks like they solidly got their own party behind them and plenty of the independents (which, like I said, I feel is one important aspect in winning).
I was talking about how in elections in the US, it's important to win the middle ground and undecided voters. You started talking about how that means "vote blue no matter who" were hypocrites, even though we were thinking of two different groups. Misunderstanding, those happen, it's not a huge deal. It's not gaslighting to resolve a misunderstanding lol.
I addressed this already. Clinton supporters literally formed a pac to fundraise for McCain/Palin when they didn't get their first choice in the primaries. I'm glad they failed, but their failure isn't from lack of trying.
It wasn't a misunderstanding. You repeatedly pretended I was talking about a group that I made perfectly clear I wasn't talking about, and now you're doing the same thing about the Clinton supporters who jumped ship in 2008.
This conversation has reached its conclusion. Go gaslight someone else.
Pretty interesting. There's even a Wiki article I didn't find before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_and_liberal_support_for_John_McCain_in_2008
I think this was the misunderstanding. We were talking about two different groups here. Unless it was purposeful on your part. But either way, it was very confusing.
You really like that term. That and "grifter" have had such an inflation.
Oh yes how the DNC shoved Hillary down our votes by mind controlling millions of so called Bernie supporters to not even turn out for him and then throw a tantrum that other voters didn't vote for him on their behalf.
Imagine if people who pissed and moaned on this point actually turned out to vote in the primary process that selects the candidates.