this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
330 points (93.0% liked)

politics

19244 readers
2490 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

From the Article:

For weeks following Joe Biden’s disastrous performance, his campaign publicly maintained the illusion that he was still well-positioned to defeat Donald Trump. Privately, they knew otherwise. As Pod Save America co-host Jon Favreau revealed days after the election:

After the debate, the Biden people told us that the polls were fine, and Biden was still the strongest candidate. They were privately telling reporters, at the time, that Kamala Harris couldn’t win. […] Then we find out, when the Biden campaign becomes the Harris campaign, that the Biden campaign’s own internal polling, at the time when they were telling us he was the strongest candidate, showed that Donald Trump was going to win 400 electoral votes.

The implications of this are staggering, and it should be treated as a massive scandal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 63 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Yet, under his leadership, Minnesota passed some of the most ambitious progressive legislation in the country, including a child tax credituniversal free school meals, and free tuition at public colleges for families earning under $80,000 per year. Walz also delivered major labor victories, including paid family and medical leave and worker protections like banning non-compete clauses and anti-union captive audience meetings.

Nooooo Democrats ignore working peoplllllle! They’re terrible for the underserved!! Everyone knows that that’s why they looooossst!!

[–] frezik@midwest.social 28 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Walz then disappeared for a month. The campaign sent him into the background while Harris made appearances with Liz Cheney.

They threw progressives a bone, and then forgot about it.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago

Waltz did a good job in the VP debate, and then the DNC told him to stop calling JD weird.

And then he played games on Twitch. Such a win for progressives! "Shut up and play games on Twitch!"

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How many of these were put onto Harris' platform, and then how many had a chance of getting passed in Congress?

[–] seejur@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

For the Congress, I would say mill, but that's because of the Republican party.

[–] DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Turns out when economy bad stupid people vote out the incumbent.

Also white and Latino men have masculinity issues that prevent them from voting for women.

[–] BMTea@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Ah yes, Latino men prefer super macho men like the socialist feminists Claudia Sheinbaum and Dilma Rousseff.

Definitely not that Kamala was an unconvincing candidate who simply got a boost from women due to the abortion issue, relative to men.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's almost as if Latin American voters are a completely different demographic than people who live and vote in South America.

Who would've thought.

[–] BMTea@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, completely different. They don't share anything, especially not the thing we're discussing, culture.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You think Latin American (talking about USA) culture is the same as South American culture?

Lol buddy...

[–] BMTea@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

That's what I said. When I implied, using sarcasm, that they're not completely dissimilar, what I really meant was that US Latino culture is monolithic and is 1:1 identical to South America, and only South America, excluding central America and Mexico where a majority of US Latinos are from. You are correct.

[–] DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

If you look at the voter statistics mainly white and Latino men stayed at home for Kamala after voting for Joe Biden.

Sorry reality is hard for you to process.

If you have a better theory why specifically these groups of men sat out besides the sexism we know they have problems with then im all ears.

[–] BMTea@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yes, they sat home because Biden went from 53% approval at the time they voted for him to 37% approval at the time of his dropping out, Kamala Harris did not differentiate herself from him much and many more white and Latino women may have also stayed home were it not for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Black men also shifted towards Trump.

Why don't you explain why it that Latino men voted 62% for Hillary and only 55% for Kamala?

[–] DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

When economy bad stupid people vote out the incumbent.

Try reading before asking questions people answered

[–] BMTea@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

A smarmy way to avoid explaining the absurd "sexism" angle. Keep making excuses for a political party hemorrhaging support by its own inability to change.

[–] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Even more so for a black woman.

[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

I heard she's an indian black woman

[–] BMTea@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The only progressive one is the free college one. The rest are so bare minimum that India and Brazil have them (feeding schoolkids and paid parental leave.) Minnesota isn't the USA writ large either.

[–] wick@lemm.ee -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Til paid parental leave doesn't pass the progressive purity test.

[–] BMTea@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I don't get what you mean. It's a minimum requirement. If there is a "progressive purity test", then it's the part where you write your name at the top of the paper. Huge credit for the free university though.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No, they're clearly capable of it when they want. That's the frustrating part. This republican lite theme is an active choice national democrats keep making.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

Why do things you promised and ran on when you can say "My hands are tied, I need to get Republican voters come November!" for 4 years?

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

So why did they actually ignore working people? Because while you're right that Harris' platform was very progressive, and Walz would have been the most left-wing VP in recent history, the Harris/Walz campaign didn't care about any of that. They campaigned on being tough on immigration, protecting Israel, being pro-billionaire, and reaching across the isle to Republicans. When asked about the economy, they deflected or talked down. When asked about change, they promised there would be none. You can't be surprised that working class folks would feel left out in the cold when they were explicitly ignored.

[–] bitchkat@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago
[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The state that was run by the VP candidate.

Except, where did that guy go for much of Sept and Oct?

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

America is federal. States could have their own laws, that is my point. Walz becoming VP or the president would not change that. Many states would still be die-hard Republicans.

[–] TwentySeven@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago

But he's an evil capitalist. If you aren't fighting for violent communist revolution, you're part of the problem!! /s