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
It appears she's looking at people who could swing a purple state, so that probably won't excite anyone hoping for a progressive ticket.
Almost as if you need to win before you can do anything at all.
Like it or not, the reality of the electoral college.
You can win in multiple different ways, not simply picking a purple state moderate. The whole reason there's a story about "more youth voters like Harris" is because more youth voters could help her win. And the youths notably live in every swing state.
The youth are not historically known for showing up to vote.
That's what the media says, but kids these days are showing up more than their parents were at their age.
I just hope it's enough.
There's an increasing trend, though. The last couple elections have been pivotal. Sucks we didn't turn out in 2016, but we're learning. Young women telling young men you ain't getting laid while abortion is illegal. LGBT+ saying you won't take our healthcare. New parents saying we need universal childcare, college students saying debt forgiveness is essential.
I don't know if it'll be enough, but I know I'll never miss an election again, at least
"The youth are notorious for low turnout. That's why Kamala Harris (and possibly her VP) increasing their turnout isn't important."
More like being popular with a demographic who doesn't show up to vote hasn't historically been a good way to win elections.
If they actually show up this time, awesome.
Biden literally won in 2020 with strong youth turnout while Clinton lost in 2016 with a weak one. Historically, youth turnout is extremely important for Democrats, and people continually dismissing their value will only harm that effort.
https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-2020-11-point-increase-2016
No one is dismissing their value. It's exciting to see them energized. The youth vote has been trending up and that's awesome for many reasons. But we may need another election or two to see if it will hold or if it's a reaction to Trump that will revert to norms once he's gone.
If it holds, I think we are likely to see some changes in political calculus.
This is the problem. You're demanding that young voters just naturally show up for multiple voting cycles before you think politicians should try to court them. Why on earth would you expect that to work? Would you expect that to work for black voters or women? Voter motivation doesn't rise and fall based on its own, it's something politicians actively work to inspire. It wasn't an accident that Obama had great turnout and Clinton had poor turnout.
Maybe the party should continue to listen to them. That seems to be working.
And yet they're excited right now because the party was responsive to their concerns.
Let's hope they stay excited.
Let's hope the party remains responsive, then.
Smoke and mirrors. Right now we need the clearest path to victory, not a path. The Right has their strengths and one of them is throwing wrenches into things. Can't throw a stick into my spokes if my bike doesn't have any.
And youths are also notorious for not turning out too.
And yet, they seem motivated to vote for Harris because the party stopped lecturing and listened instead.
I feel like i heard those same people say she was too moderate before.
Funny how that changes.
And yet they rallied behind her. Guess the centrist narrative about progressives wanting absolute perfection and purity testing everything to death was horseshit from the very beginning, and that progressives are willing to accept a reasonable compromise candidate when the party isn't too stubborn and arrogant to listen.
Now since we're talking about things people said before Biden dropped out, where's all the chaos that Biden stans were predicting?
Thankfully not there.
Wanna gloat more? I'll pull up a million comments of yours. Go for it. Douche
Have a party.
You wanted to stick with a losing candidate.
It's so frustrating people don't get this. Progressive politics is stringing together election victories. The US system is designed to require longer term horizons to enact significant change. And we saw precisely why when we survived Trump's term.