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
I'm still shocked no one is taking seriously the "Democrats should pick Romney as Presidential choice because reasons" that has seriously been floated.
I wonder: how many times has someone given a big platform to someone so they can suggest that the Republicans should select a Democrat as their choice? Probably never? Why is it that people always say - with a straight face and very, very seriously - that it is Democrats that should run Republicans on their tickets, because something something unity and tone.
Because it's not a good idea. They select him and don't convert Republican voters, lose a good portion of the progressive base and only get marginal, less reliable, swing voters with that move. That's at least a ten point loss right there.
It's going to be a safe bet like Josh Shapiro or, slightly less safe, Cooper.
Yeah, it's of course a ridiculous idea that moderates and Republicans seem to suggest that Democrats do, but I never see anyone given a big platform to suggest that, say, the Republicans should force donnie to step down and select Hillary as the centrist option, for example. I mean, the New York Fucking Times let Aaron Sorkin suggest that Mitt Romney should be the Democratic pick. I mean, what. The. Actual. Fuck.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/21/opinion/biden-west-wing-aaron-sorkin.html
Add this to another in a long list to why I laugh right out loud in someone's face when they insist that NYT is "liberal".
It's also a near-perfect demonstration of Murc's Law - it's not up to Republicans to amend their awful and despicable ways, no, the Democratic Party has to nominate someone like Mitt Romney in the hopes that would somehow heal a divide (by coming all the way over to the right, basically) that the right wing is entirely responsible for.
In that vein, why not Liz Cheney? She's vehemently anti-trump / maga...
The irony is that liz is much more right wing than donnie; she just happens to believe in the rule of law.
As a leftist, you kind of should hate the NYT opinion essays. They're written by people who are explicitly invited to write the opposite of the NYT's editorial board's point of view. The old name was "Op Ed" which stands for "Opposite the editorial opinion". They changed it because the term started to lose meaning when the op-ed no longer showed up literally opposite the editorial column in the printed newspaper, and is instead its own page on a website.
https://open.nytimes.com/how-we-redesigned-the-new-york-times-opinion-essay-ad5e0270f5bc
The entire point is to not be an echo chamber. The redesign makes it very clear that it's an opinionated essay written by a guest by putting the words "Opinion - Guest Essay" in bold and red at the top.
Was curious why "less safe"? I was thinking that's a decent strategic pick, a southern democrat that's able to win the same elections that Trump and Robinson won, while still pretty well aligned with the democrat platform broadly. He has a good chance to immediately be 16 electoral votes, he has to vacate his governorship this year anyway, so you don't vacate a known factor in favor of a less known factor. Pandering to Pennsylvania may be a bit more likely with more bang for the buck though given that Pennsylvania has historically been more "winnable" and has more votes though..
I say that only because the lift effect may not actually turn it into a locked swing state. NC has been more lean-right than a true swing state so it's, in my mind, riskier than picking the PA governor for the reasons that you highlight. But regardless, I think any of Shapiro, Cooper or Kelly would be a great balance to the ticket and i would not at all be disappointed with any of them. Honestly it's an embarrassment of riches with regards to potential VPs and a great position for Democrats.
I don't like that option, but I do think it would be effective to disrupt the Republican party. It'd really force a lot of modern "Republicans" to face what the party has become.
I think it'd be better to out him as VP under Harris than president though. To have a traditionally popular Republican candidate on the ticket would give them a huge platform to point out that the MAGA party is not the Republican party many supported before. It's just Fascists who stole it because people were too dumb to pay attention.
I'd rather not be one bullet away from a Republican president in the current climate...
We are two bullets away from a theocratic nutjob president, that's a really concerning thought with the large number of Repub terrorists in this country.
He has a horse in the olympics and does not even watch them!
Which platform was that? Fucking lunacy.
New York Times.
Of course. Basically the top journal for Nazi op-eds.
To see an example of how they are getting hilarious dragged for it....
https://www.wonkette.com/p/aaron-sorkin-sets-land-speed-record?utm_source=publication-search