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
Politico is not an honest participant in any political conversation anymore. Lamenting that a Warren staffer from 2020 is a long-time insider only serves to rile up people who are already predisposed to "corporate Democrats" bullshit.
I don't disagree, but it is concerning that they're not doing big, loud, progressive events. Bernie's doing it. He's just one guy. They've got some momentum as a result of the horrifying vacuum that they lost to, but there's a long tradition of them failing to take away the key points.
I feel like the early Harris campaign had it, and then it was removed.
I agree with that.. sort of. They also need to do loud centrist events. Because rags like Politico will 100% run articles saying, "Democrats double down on leftist policies that cost them the 2024 election" without a moment of hesitation.
We know that the far right media gets its talking points from Russia. After watching their disingenuous takes and "anonymous insider" bullshit (e.g., Biden only running for one term was a Politico rumor) I'm convinced Politico is also intentionally sending misleading information into the public conversation.
Martin is more of a highly targeted type of guy, and he's been out there doing stuff
Which makes sense, national level stuff gets lost in the shuffle, the head of one of two major political parties doing a local news circuit to speak directly to where votes matter most is a smarter plan than what Dems have been doing. Regardless of political leaning, that pops up on your radar.
And thats the outreach we desperately need.
Not just soliciting bribes from the wealthy and then running ads on cable TV like it's 1995.
That's a circus. You're wanting a circus.
Or did you want a calm and orderly progress and planning report from people we pick to manage hundreds of billions in shared resources that we've entrusted in them and asked them to distribute as per our wishes?
I promise, one group looks better on TV and the other looks better on the planet.
No? Unless you're calling a warship firing its guns a circus. In which case, yeah.
Lau's been active since the Kerry Campaign in 2004. He consulted for the Clintons in 2008 and went on to work in the Commerce Department, under Obama, from '09 to '11 when he jumped ship to join the Warren senate campaign where he served as political director until 2017.
I might criticize the article for its rather bleak and hostile opener, re:
But this last bit
cuts clean to the bone. The Dems as a party seem intent on jettisoning any vestiges of social liberalism or socialist economic policy and going all in on "Putin Presidency!" as a rejoinder to a very American brand of tech-libertarianism being used to dismantle the administrative state.
Its the same empty-suited GI Jane Girl Boss crap that gave us the failed campaign of Amy McGrath and the liberal fixation with Liz Cheney. Liberals seem ready to run a lady-version of Ron DeSantis if they can find anyone willing.
What part of Warren staffer suggests a pullback from the left?
That "cut" is based on the false premise established from the outset. Your timeline shows a person moving farther and farther away from centrism over time, yet, Politico is acting like they just elected James Carville.
Warren's running on Kennedy liberalism from the 1960s. She's not a leftist in any material sense, she's just found a brand of popularism that plays well with New Deal romanticizing Democrats. But she's utterly tame, more than willing to compromise with her conservative peers, and only ever in favor of the managed social decline we've been ingesting since Carter.
If you look at what Warren's campaign supports, its right in line with what Americans have broadly endorsed for decades. What Warren lacks is a large corporate media establishment to operate as her hype machine. She's on the outskirts not because she's left-wing radical, she's just a D-list celebrity because can't get regularly booked on Joe Rogan or The View.
What gave her campaign relevancy was largely her popular views when pitched against a string of corporate hacks with (D)s pinned to their lapels. But we're still in a capitalist nation, swimming in an ideology that favors private businesses and "natural" wages and hyper-individualism. Her centrist views (and the views of her staff) won't significantly change the strategy of the party, because they'll keep compromising away more radical ideas to placate mega-donors and corporate-owned media propagandists.
She wouldn't run against Clinton in 2016 or align herself with Bernie in 2020. She doesn't risk upsetting the AIPAC lobby or the O&G Industry in the Senate. She couldn't even be bothered to vote against Marco Rubio for State Sec. Who was guiding this behavior if not her Political Director?
Carville also knew how to run a progressive-sounding campaign that nevertheless kowtowed to Big Business at every opportunity.
Warren called Gaza a genocide before Bernie did. And publicly criticized Biden's policies and was party of the group that tried to ban further weapons. "Doesn't risk upsetting AIPAC." FFS.
At some point you guys need to accept that there are other progressive politicians rather than just making up a straw man attack that doesn't align with really. This is just a clown level political fantasy.
To be fair, 2020 feels like a lifetime ago.
You mean 0 BT. (it's currently 5 AT)