this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
91 points (94.2% liked)

politics

19103 readers
4506 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
 

The first step for the candidates running in next year’s California Senate race is to quietly try to spook newly appointed Sen. Laphonza Butler into not running at all.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Generally speaking, I would agree. However, Kamala Harris in no way has the same level of institutional power that Clinton or Biden brought to the table.

Plus, she is normie poison in a general election, and we already proved that she gets eaten alive in an open primary contest, absolutely no question about that. Even Gavin will come for blood if it means getting a chance at the big chair. She has, and I mean this literally, a 0% chance of ever being elected President of the United States.

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

We said very similar things about Donald Trump in 2016, and he managed it. It's uphill for Harris, but she will benefit from having all that time watching Biden and maybe learning how to have a personality herself in the process.

And who knows? She might also have the benefit of incumbency herself if Joe wins another term, but that term outlasts his ticker.

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

We said very similar things about Donald Trump in 2016, and he managed it.

Speak for yourself. I knew he was dangerous from the very beginning. I thought Hillary running would end up exactly the way it did. Everything in that election reinforced my belief that progressive populism focused around labor is the way to win back the country, and unite people.

It's uphill for Harris, but she will benefit from having all that time watching Biden and maybe learning how to have a personality herself in the process.

Unlikely, and I think the fact they have hidden her away from the media due to her detrimental reflection on the administration speaks for itself.

And who knows? She might also have the benefit of incumbency herself if Joe wins another term, but that term outlasts his ticker.

Why would you even want that? I'm tired of the next man up bullshit. It's time for someone to earn their keep instead of this careerist/institutionalist garbage.