191
Joe Biden nears 200 judges, highlighting stakes for the courts in the 2024 election
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
191 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19103 readers
4552 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's enough to be better than a trump pick, but nothing we should celebrate.
We're just losing less than we would have.
Which isn't a viable long term strategy. But it's been our only choice in over a decade in elections.
Eventually, we need to start fucking winning at least half the time
Right? It's fuckin wild to me that this appears to be the entire dem strategy in the face of immanent fascism.
It's really not that wild. You win elections by appealing to voters. You could take a gamble that you can inspire the younger generations enough to vote in larger numbers, or you could try to appeal to existing older swing voters. You can't always do both simultaneously though.
That's WHY it's wild! The Dem leadership is alienating tens if not over a HUNDRED million prospective voters in order to keep courting the ever-shrinking "undecided who's almost a Republican" group that might be as little as a few million now as they keep dying or joining the fascist party.
I guess I've just seen it enough times that it is no longer wild to me. It just looks like typical cold calculus and risk-averse behavior.
I get what you're saying, but I disagree: every time they run another election as if it's still 1992, that becomes a crazier thing to do than it was the last time.
ESPECIALLY now that the GOP has become a literal fascist party, meaning that the Dem leadership are courting very far right people while insisting that they perfectly represent EVERYONE whose ideals and policy preferences are to the left of fascism, which is roughly 250m people, children and nonvoting adults included.
It's a coalition, and like all coalitions, it has a wide variety of sorts in it. We're not together because we like each other, we don't like each other. Nobody says we do, that I have heard anyway.
The two party system allows them to shift further right though. The further right the GOP goes, the further right the dems can go to try to vacuum up disaffected voters. I'm pretty sure parts of the GOP coalition know that too, and it factors into their strategy of getting some of their way even when they lose.
It's about casting the widest possible net though, not lasering in on any particular subset and trying to make them happy. I don't think anyone is perfectly happy currently, damn near absolutely no one.
Our solution is to try to make our positions more popular with the public, though. Not to try to pressure the party apparatus to appease a certain inner faction and pretend it won't cost them with others. It will cost them elsewhere, the best we could do there is try to argue it might be worth it. But would it? Can that be guaranteed? Because if there's one thing I've gauged about Biden, it's that he doesn't like taking big risks.
Yes, I know. What I'm pointing out is that more than half of those 250m+ people are in effect ideologically disenfranchised by the Dem leadership actively preventing candidates that better represent their views from being nominated, often from even running for office.
I'm aware of that too. It's part of the ratchet effect:
Tell that to the Dem leadership. What I've been complaining about this whole time is that the Dem leadership snatches defeat from the jaws of easy victory by refusing to actively appeal or even LISTEN to anyone except that tiny group and the "vote blue no matter who" crowd who's almost literally incapable of not supporting the party no matter what.
Expanding the net leftward would make it possible for them to win most major elections, including every presidential election, in a landslide from now and until the GOP either change their politics back to something sane or manage to manipulate elections so much that voting has no effect.
The owner donors and whomever else profit from the status quo probably are.
Progressive and further left policies are already much more popular with voters than the center right to right wing ones of the Dem leadership.
You've got it backwards: most of the actual Left has become an outside faction due to the party apparatus' refusal to listen and demands for blind obedience causing resentment and alienation.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying that listening to the left like they used to before the Clintonites took over would gain them many times more voters than it would cost.
Except for stubbornly gluing his tongue to the boots of a genocidal apartheid regime even as the majority of the people of the world and indeed the country are condemning it. Doing so is an enormous risk, one that I fear has already cost him the election and by extension the country its democracy.
I think your feelings of resentment are clouding your judgement.
The essence of your argument seems to be that progressive policies will strengthen the hand of dems in a large number of elections. Can you back that up with data? Because when I look at electoral maps of the country I just don't see it. It would strengthen their hand in progressive regions, no question, but those aren't where the battle is being fought.
I would love it if you were right, but having lived in middle America often enough through my life, I just don't see it reflected in the attitudes of locals.