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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
The entire point behind "Kamala lost because she's a woman of color, not because she wouldn't differ from her unpopular predecessor except to move to his right" is to shut out AOC in particular. The party is willing to hold back all women in order to stifle one person, and it's gross.
The Democratic president with the largest margin of victory in recent times was a black man and you're still out here saying we need to court voters that won't vote for a person of color in order to win. Maybe your read on the inherent unelectability of women is similarly flawed.
Oh, well then let's run a black man. They not only have 100% success rate, but massively outperformed all the white men. That must mean black skin (as long as it's not on a woman) is an electoral benefit! Why take a risk with a white person? That's the heart of your argument, right?
With a sample size of 2 you claim it's because they were women. I agree with you it was faulty logic, which was their fucking point and the fact you missed that is incredible. Slow down and think.
More men have been on the ticket and failed than woman. The fact that both women failed is because of what they were running with, not because they were women. They were incredibly milquetoast candidates who ran basically on maintaining the status quo.
Obama won so handily because he ran on changing the status quo. Whether he actually did or not is a matter for historians, but that's what he ran on.
Voters want someone who will fight for them. That's what Trump, Obama, and Bernie are. They don't want someone who sits back and talks about how grateful they should be.
So long as a progressive is a possibility and not one femtosecond longer.
So we have to (and you get to) support genocide forever too!
It's neat how quickly timidity develops when the party wants to shut out a progressive. That's the only thing this has ever been about.
I guess you know the party is going to shut out progressives forever and love it.
And I get that every centrist interprets all criticism of their party as trump support, but I voted for Harris.
So you don't know much about American politics and toe the centrist line. Ok.