this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
108 points (92.2% liked)

politics

19246 readers
2801 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (15 children)

I kept saying since last year Biden was throwing away his campaign but noooooooo, its the voters who are wrong.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Yeah people still don't get it. It's sad.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is amazing. Kamala didn't do enough so we are going with the guy who has literally said he will fuck up everything we stand for.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago (8 children)

I actually think this is a very important lesson for Democrats: if you expect voters to vote rationally, you will lose. You can't win by trying to appeal to people's intellect and reason, you have to try and appeal to emotions and passions. If that sounds potentially dangerous, that's because it is, but unless they're willing to abandon democracy, I don't see any other option.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who could have guessed that "I'm 100% aligned with the guy who is helping to kill your extended family, but the other guy is probably worse" would result in a negative emotional response.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who could have guessed

Not the Democrats, apparently.

Although, to be fair to the Democrats, it is difficult, if not impossible, to appeal to every potential voter's emotions, especially in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's essentially impossible to try and appeal to the emotions of those sympathetic to Palestine without upsetting voters who are sympathetic to Israel, and vice versa.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

Yeah, there's no perfect "everyone loves me" choice for any issue. I do think the salience of the issue was probably different between Muslims and Jews though. "Not giving Israel more free bombs in their time of need" when they're already dominating the battlefield is a different level of criticality than "is callously killing my family". Plus, many Jews were also passionately against the genocide. It wasn't simply a matter of adding up all the Jewish voters and Muslim voters and going with whichever number was bigger.

There was some path that minimized the number of voters so turned off by the choice that they'd abandon the Democrats, and I'm confident where they landed was no where close to that. I'm also confident that getting that one issue right would not have turned the tide and made Harris win, it's just one of many she failed to handle by charting the path that was "I'm Biden, but reliably able to form sentences".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's not even just logic versus emotion. It's what was on offer. People are hurting. Harris said that was an economic victory and it wouldn't change. Trump acknowledged they were hurting and promised change.

The post election and exit polling made that extremely clear. Running a stock corporate campaign that claimed Biden was doing everything great was never going to work.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The thing is, many of the people who were hurting economically and wanted Trump to change things are already crediting Trump with fixing the economy. Polling in swing states between October and November showed a huge swing in voters perception of the economy even though nothing actually changed. So I’d argue this is just emotion for a significant fraction of voters.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

I'd say a perception. But yeah it feels a lot easier to deal with stuff when you believe it's temporary.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Hard to muster a lot of sympathy for this mindset. SMH.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (20 children)

Look I get it, the Dems didn't do enough to win over their base and instead went to the center.

But these Dearborn folks in the article get what they deserve and should really shut the fuck up. They voted for a man who said he would extend his Muslim country travel ban to gaza and still thought somehow he was on their side.

You are a complete a total dumbass if you thought he was on your side. He has years and years of lying out of his ass and you believed him and it's the Democrats fault? No I reject that. He literally stated in 2023 that he would extend his travel ban to Gaza. I feel like I need to take crazy pills or something, these people are insufferable.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The article states that some of them just wanted a candidate to acknowledge them, which trump did. Regardless of how he's actually going to implement policies, he did a bare minimum for them, which reflects in the results.

No other real editorializing needed, unfortunately.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 18 hours ago

How completely pathetic some people can be. I don't understand.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago

What do they have to worry about? Their guy won!

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›