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
Is it the primary reason? No, I agree.
However it's childish and naive to think both racism and sexism were not significant reasons that America, a deeply racist and sexist country, did not choose a black woman to lead it
A black woman was not the issue
Both parties and their presidental candidates are just puppets like the rest of their parties and do not have the public interests at heart
Kamala held a celebrity filled gala and invited Republicans while the citizens were outside the gathering protesting about inequality, wars, healthcare, wages/employee rights and were not allowed in
Good thing they protested Kamala’s event. Now that Trump is in office we don’t have to worry about inequality, wars, healthcare, wages/employee rights OR voting.
Both sides amiright?
That's not how it works. Using that logic voting for Himmler would be the right thing to do because at least they're one step less awful than Hitler. Fucking demand that Himmler change his ways or a better candidate is allowed to run.
A lot of countries have political theater instead of actual politics, but the US is really deep into it.
That is exactly how it works. Criticizing the better option of the two will reduce turnout for that candidate. That’s the whole purpose of political campaigns.
That’s how Trump got elected. We had a better option but people complained so much that the worse option won.
Your attempt to claim both sides are as similar as Hitler and Himmler is an obvious bad faith argument of “both sides are the same”.
I find this unproductive. People SHOULD ask their elected representatives (and candidates) to improve. I want people to point it out when my preferred candidate does something wrong, because then they're more likely to address it before the election.
I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but I don't think a significant number of people changed their mind about voting for her because of the protests.
Option 1: Politically engaged people don't point out a problem -> The candidate doesn't address the problem -> The average voter doesn't vote for the candidate because of the problem
Option 2: Politically engaged people DO point out a problem -> The candidate addresses the problem -> The average voter is more likely to vote for the candidate
Maybe if it wasn’t Trump and fascism on the line.
But in this context you’re referring to the prevention of fascism as “unproductive”.
I'm saying that if the candidate listened to the protests and addressed the issues that were brought up, they may have gotten more votes. Arguably, having MORE protests may have helped them win if it could convince the leadership to make changes.
Outcry from supporters is what convinced Biden to step down, which I think helped the Democrats come closer. Protest is important if it can help a party make the right adjustments in their campaign.
Telling people to stay silent is unproductive.
Not all voters agreed with those protests. Arguably, the candidate would’ve lost by more if they listened to the protests and addressed the issues that were brought up.
What we can’t argue about is the fact that the protests hurt voter turnout and now Trump is the president.
Even if this was true, silencing any criticism isn't the solution. In most parts of the world anyway
Every candidate will have criticisms.
Every politician will amplify their opponent’s criticism to impact election results.
Validating concern trolls isn’t the solution.
Getting everyone to vote in everyone’s best interest is.
Allowing the GOP to gain more power and end democracy is unproductive.
Was the timing of the protests the problem in your opinion? The way that it was done?
In your opinion, how should supporters of a party express what they want changed with an electoral platform
The timing, the fact that it was only used against democrats is a sign that the GOP will use it to their advantage.
The way it was done is also an issue. In this context, the message of the protest was that democrats needed to give the protestors what they want. Otherwise democrats wouldn’t get votes from the protestors. Resulting in the protestors helping Trump get elected.
Democrats have constituents that do not agree with those protestors and so democrats would’ve lost votes by giving into the protestors. Resulting in the protestors helping Trump get elected in this outcome also.
In my opinion, supporters of a party should express what they want changed by engaging with their politicians.
The only time that won’t work with a politician is if their intel indicates they gain more votes by not making those changes.
In that scenario, the supporters need to accept that the majority rules in a democracy and vote for the lesser of two evils because that is in the best interest of those supporters.
Instead what happened was protestors cut off their nose to spite their face and now things are much worse as a result.
What we're talking about is a game between two players: democrats and their potential voters. It is totally a valid strategy in game theory to punish the other player when they're not cooperating. If you're always cooperating even when your opponent (i.e. your preferred political party) isn't, you're just encouraging them to continue to not cooperate.
Try out this interactive page.
In this context, “valid strategy” = everyone is worse off, protestors get the opposite of what they wanted and fascist gain power.
In this context, “punishing the other player” = punishing yourself.
Yes. Doesn't mean it's a bad strategy.
This is not a one-round game. Elections happen repeatedly. If you show someone you will punish them for bad behavior even at cost to yourself, it might teach them to change their ways. On the other hand, always minimizing your losses in the current round (i.e. having no memory or vision) makes you a perfectly predictable and exploitable player.
If Trump and the GOP accomplish their goals there will not be any more “rounds” or elections.
This is the reason it’s a bad strategy
In an election where the margin of victory is 1%, it only takes 1-in-50 racists to throw the election.
Sure, Kamala wasn't hugely popular with internet Democrats. Sure, running as a centrist annoyed all the people looking for change. The whole Israel thing. Voters overlooked all of that with Biden in 2020, when he wasn't hugely popular with internet Democrats & came with a 50 year legacy of supporting some atrocious policies.
The only reason Biden won in 2020 was covid regulations increased turnout with vote by mail.
Without that extra turnout in 2024, Harris lost.
If Biden had had a normal election in 2020, he would have lost as well.
If we had 100% vote by mail everywhere, we would not see another Republican President in our lifetimes.
I'm sure voting by mail played a role. Not sure that's all of it, but, boy, the qons were mad as hell about it and I bet they do everything possible to ruin it for parts of the country where we've already had it for years and years (like here in Colorado).
If Trump didn’t have the help of foreign nations, the billionaire class, voter suppression, the GOP, etc. Harris would’ve won in 2024, and Biden would’ve won in 2020 without Covid.
So if Trump wasn't the candidate that trump is, he wouldn't have won? I mean he was Trump tho.
Trump has been trying to become president since 2000 and he has been talking about it since the 80s. It wasn’t until Russia got involved with their propaganda machine that he was able to start his cult.
Without Russian support he wouldn’t be anybody.
But he had Russian backing, he was on the apprentice, all those things are true. So if they weren't true he wouldn't be who he is. It's a bit like saying JK Rowling wouldn't be famous without Harry Potter. Like... duh.
This statement indicates you think Trump won because of who he is.
My statement points out it is not because of who he is but instead because Russia chose to interfere in elections.
In other words, if Trump dies today, Russia would find another person to fill his place and would use the same propaganda tactics to help get them into a position of power.
This is because Trump is a puppet. Your comment was evidence you don’t understand that that is why he won.
Yes, but racism (even subconsciously) was likely a contributing factor to her loss as well, which is what the other person was saying.
Really just the woman part. Corey Booker, the centrist performative clown could have won. I'd say being corporatist and feeling a lot like Hillary hurt her more than skin color. Either way looks like they cheated so it really doesn't matter
The article says it was because Democrats bad for being neocolonialist oppressors.
To my mind, it’s not a super-tight argument against the obvious.