this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
337 points (96.4% liked)

politics

19097 readers
7562 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
 

Harris only received five percent of Republican votes — less than the six percent Joe Biden won in 2020 when he beat Trump, as well as the seven percent won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 when she lost to him. While Harris won independents and moderates, she did so by smaller margins than Biden did in 2020.

Meanwhile, Harris lost households earning under $100,000, while Democratic turnout collapsed. Votes are still being counted, but Harris is on pace to underperform Biden’s 2020 totals by millions of votes.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

yeah this was a really fucking stupid idea and I think any Dingus on Twitter could have told you the same. The Trump voter base does not move. everyone's been saying this. I don't understand the Democrat strategy at all

I don't know what the actual numbers are on this, but I have to imagine the number of progressive voters who want more progressive policies far exceeds the number of Republicans that will vote Democrat. if anyone has a source to this data, I am interested in it.

[–] echolalia@lemmy.ml 2 points 30 minutes ago* (last edited 30 minutes ago)

I don’t understand the Democrat strategy at all

Someone else summed it up better than I can. The democratic party is doing exactly what it set out to do.

Nitter link.

They have no interest in furthering progressive policies so they don't. That's why the DNC chair is calling Bernie Sander's critique of the party's platform bullshit right now, instead of admitting he's right.

The system is as it does.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 hours ago

Kamalas campaign thought they could win without offending any megadonors, despite seeing what a bit of honesty did for them right after biden was replaced.

Ive never seen such obvious virtue signaling, I'm not sure kamala even believed her own words.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 22 points 2 hours ago

Here's a fun little tip if you're ever able to try this again.

MLK Jr. never appealed to the white man, he never tried to win over whitey nor tone down his message so that he didn't alienate his opressors, and he never tried to get the Klan on his side.

Notice how we don't have segregation anymore? It's because if Dr. King did these things, he'd have been luaghed at.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 17 points 3 hours ago

Ding ding ding! Trump went further right and got more support. DNC should go further left. People want radical change in 2024

[–] Monstrosity@lemm.ee 11 points 4 hours ago

This. Right. Here.

Stop the triangulation it needs to die already.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 61 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

If we wanted to be Republicans we'd be Republicans for fucks sake...

We can't have 2 parties fighting to be the most hateful party of the billionaires. I mean I guess we can but only one gets to win.

[–] buttfarts@lemy.lol 11 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The Democrats have been chasing the mythical moderate conservative at the expense of the progressive left forever and have learned nothing. I want a fire and brimstone progressive who is belligerent and aggressive

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 46 minutes ago

I'd even be happy to settle for someone in the middle of the party willing to fight for the party's supposed ideals. Remember when one of her slogans was "when we fight, we win"? Not "when we bipartisan, we win" or "when we coopt conservative issues, we win".

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 39 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, the notion that she was going to put a Republican in her cabinet.....did anyone think that was a good idea? I mean, outside the beltway media?

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 8 points 2 hours ago

I know every early on she was talking about possibly having a Republican Vice President before she wised up and went with Tim Walz and ran on his progressive ideas for about... three seconds till Nancy and the DNC told her to just do what Hillary did, as that worked for her and Kamela is obviously the second female president right now. /s

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 110 points 9 hours ago (6 children)

If there’s one lesson the DNC should learn it’s this.

They won’t. But they should.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 28 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Why learn anything, the policies they want will be implemented anyway 🧠

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 69 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

The Republicans had their little tea party a few years ago. The Democrats need a Guillotine Party to properly represent us.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 9 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

The Tea Party forced the GOP to rebrand and restructure itself around the most extreme right wing ideas possible

Occupy Wallstreet tried to do the same thing, and... were savagely beaten by the police over it.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 33 minutes ago

Because the Tea Party was useful to just make the Republicans more unapologetically anti-government (something rich people like) while Occupy was demanding that Democrats become unapologetically antagonistic to rich people.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

The police choose who they will protect and who they will serve.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 17 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

They had the billionaire Koch's to fund that. We're never getting a billionaire to fund the leopard party that will eat their faces.

:(

[–] nxn@biglemmowski.win 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Yeah, there should have been limits set on campaign costs, lobbying, media, etc. It's at a point where it doesn't seem like it's even possible to have a middle-class focused campaign that can openly say its basis is on taxing the fuck out of the top 1%.

But all I know is this: the second Trump term will make the standard of life in America far worse for most people. There will be hunger in 2028 for someone to simply say "We'll fix the middle class, and we'll make Musk, Bezos, etc pay for it". Hopefully by then what's left of twitter will not be as relevant as today, so that the message can at least have a hope of spreading through social media successfully.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

NO! Harris just needed to go further right. Forced goose-stepping marches at rallies. Pledges to eradicate all minorities. Promise global wars of conquest.

Outflank Trump on the right, and the republicans AND democrats will vote for you.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 15 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›