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'm actually kind of worried that this will happen. In that vacuum she's going to use the time to bridge the gap between the left and the right. The last thing I really want from her is more talk about supporting fracking, more soft stance on Palestine, and more words about hardline on immigration. I get that she's trying to draw more of the right in politically but I'm also worried that she is dangerously close to having the far left get disenfranchised.
Serious question.
What percentage of the population do you consider 'Far Left?'
So radicalized that they actually believe that there's no difference between Harris and Trump?
It's a diminishingly small number. For instance Gaza is a loud issue with strong divides. But polling shows it's a very tiny fraction for whom it's a deciding factor in their vote preference. It's just that the tiny fraction of people is very loud, typically young, and on social media like Lemmy.
For many of this tiny minority, it has become more a personality than a political or even ethical issue. They're wildly overrepresented in, for instance, discourse on Lemmy; conversely, they represent a tiny, almost meaningless amount of voters who would not vote for Harris because of it, no matter how many all-caps posts they make about EVERYONE ELSE IS VOTING FOR GENOCIDE.
Also, they never seem to notice what Trump did to the Kurds.
A higher % of those over 65 support Israel than the % of those under 35 that support Palestine. Those over 65 vote, those under 35 don't. That last fact is true no matter the country and no matter if there's a party centered around what younger people want. It makes no political sense to go and cater to people who won't vote anyway.
You're getting downvotes. Sad, because you're only telling what is true.
And I get it, it sucks but getting elected depends on getting votes and if there's a group that doesn't vote no matter what then it's no wonder the strategy doesn't revolve around them.
I hate this, but it's true.
I talked to a guy from Springfield - and he says personally he doesn't think it will make any difference to him whichever one gets in, because right now it's just talk.
So his idea basically is that whoever he votes for, he'd gonna get screwed over again... this is the decline of democracy and the rise of the post-truth politicians... in many ways, watching Trump is like watching Putin's mill putting out news - all fake and contradictory news helping to convince that all news and politicians are fake.
Back in the day, I thought that the GOP was silly to start attacking Bill Clinton on Day 1. They screamed about Travel-gate and Vince Foster so much that by the time they had an actual impeachable offence everyone ignored it. If they'd held their fire they could have actually thrown him out. I've come to realize that the nonsense attacks were the point; they wanted to muddy the waters so much that no one would pay any attention to politics at all.
I think the far left (if they're going to vote) aren't likely to be pushed away by more moderation from Harris. They're already far more politically engaged than the vast majority of people. Meanwhile, there are a lot of apolitical people who dislike Trump, but just don't want to vote and feel like they don't know enough about Kamala to feel comfortable voting for her (my Catholic Republican mother, for example). I think that group probably has more people in it than the far left does, and more exposure to Kamala's normalcy relative to Trump is a good thing for swaying them, given the shift in the polls following the last debate. I'll always be disappointed when the Dems pivot right instead of left, but I think the logic is sound in this case.
Each of these swings out into right field are wedges that the right uses to drive people toward independent votes.
Define "disenfranchised"
They will feel that the value of their vote isn't worth the time to cast it. They will no longer be driven to vote and will stay at home. That this effect will negate, if not cripple, the numbers we'd have even with whatever moderate right can be convinced to vote.
That's not what disenfranchised means. If someone has a choice to vote, including choosing to abstain, they are not disenfranchised.
And yet you still get my point.
What? I can read minds?
Well apparently you have No problem arguing in bad faith. I'll give you a little while to read this that I'm just going to block you