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
I hope she picks a good VP and not wet blanket like democratic establishment would want.
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.
Maybe the party should continue to listen to them. That seems to be working.
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.
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.
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.
Tim waltz seems like a good pick. Seems to have a bit of the Bernie, no-bullshit, authenticity that plays well with independents.
My preference is as follows:
Mark Kelly - Pros: Astronaut/Navy Combat Pilot; will pull veterans and people voting for novelty. He generally has moderate policies and won a national race in a battleground state. His Senate seat is safe because Gov. Hobbs (D) can appoint another Dem to fill it.
Pete Buttigieg - Also a veteran, oxford/rhodes scholar; one of the best debaters in D.C. Coming from a Cabinet position so does not risk any loss.
Whitmer - Contrary to some, I like the idea of doubling-down on women in this post-Roe, MeToo era. She brings a lot to the table, but she's no longer in the running as she (a) both publicly and privately declined, and (b) she like Shapiro would be better off carrying their respective battleground states without either state feeling like they've been abandoned.
Jon Stewart - He won't do it, but hear me out: Viral excitement; strong debater; cross-over appeal to veterans & first-responders thanks to his decades of helping them. The Zelenskyy of our nation. Counter lies and half-truths with satire and mockery.
I DON'T think Harris should pick Cooper, Beshear, Walz, or especially Newsom.
Mark Kelly was one of the people giving standing ovations and clapping away at Bibi's speech to Congress. That really made my stomach churn.
... Ah yeah, that is kind of a bummer.
It's fucking so obvious that it boggles my mind that people are still gunning for him and buttigieg and shapiro. They are all power-hungry neoliberal freaks, I don't understand how this is really in contention at this point. Basically the only thing she can do on the campaign trail is talk, and appoint a rather meaningless VP slot to show her allegiance to some kind of politics that actually gets people out and voting. If she chooses some moderate scumbag because they're in a swing state, that's like the fastest way for her to piss away all the good will she's built up so far. It's crazy, I don't understand it.
Mark Kelly looks good on paper, but his pro genocide and lukewarm stance towards unions is a wet blanket. Do people find him genuine?
People, no. Democratic bots, yes.
lol I love that I have both these accounts tagged as suss tankies.
Lol, I'm an anarchist.
Love when y'all tell on yourselves though.
Ah yes, how reassuring. Thanks, I'll update my tag.
I like your list. I think Mark Kelly is the obvious best choice and I hope she lands on him. Novelty factor is strong, it would be foolish to underestimate the astronaut card. He balances the ticket well and might also help win Arizona.
Jon Stewart would be absolutely hilarious, though. If nothing else than for a potential VP debate with alleged couch fornicator Vance.
Bernie Stewart 2028! Or Stewart Colbert 2028?
AOC Stewart 2028
John Stewart would be history's ultimate press secretary.
Thank you for not including Shapiro and not risking a swing state getting a Republican governor
That guy has such an unfortunate name. I hear Shapiro and I immediately think of the right-wing pseudo-intellectual professional troll Ben Shapiro and wonder why the fuck would anybody want him on a ticket. I'm learning to not have such a visceral reaction to the name, but association is a bitch to overcome.
Mark Kelly is a great choice. Kamala needs someone who can win over the vets. Apparently Captain Bone Spurs still holds some sway with them.
Especially when he's like the exact opposite of Benny boy. Maybe it would work in the opposite direction, though: People think it's actually Ben Shapiro and vote for Harris because they think there's some conspiracy to take over the presidency.
Honestly, I'd change my name.
Veterans are now a critical voting block for the Democrats? Not "young people" or "Hispanic voters"? Veterans?
Yeah I like all the battleground state governors, but I think for that reason, and for letting them continue to successfully run these states helps carry them. You also don't want state residents to feel abandoned or used with them leaving for VP. They're instrumental right where they are.
Mark Kelly is my favorite option too. If nothing else he is cool as hell and has that "great to have a beer with" quality. He's also very white. None of these things should matter but he's a great balancing choice for her presidency.
This is a good list.
Walz is a great governor. I don't want to lose him as one, but I do think he'd be a great pick
We get Peggy Flanagan as a replacement. She rocks. Bonus points for getting a native American female governor as well
I think Tim Waltz would be a great pick. Full authenticity. A no nonsense and non flashy Midwestern white democrat from a rural district who lead a surprisingly progressive agenda. Count me in
Timmy has been a great governor for our state.
So great