352

Trump’s Campaign Is Drowning in Rage: Faced with a surprisingly united Democratic Party, the Republican nominee is trotting out the same old strategy (newrepublic.com)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There was One (very) Angry Man at the Georgia State University Convocation Center last Saturday. Donald Trump had harsh words for everyone. He insulted his general election opponent, “Crazy Kamala” Harris, for her “low IQ,” and jeered at President Joe Biden for “choking like a dog” during the debate that started the campaign to convince him to step aside for Harris. Trump slammed several Georgia Republicans, including “disloyal” Governor Brian Kemp, who Trump said should “get off his ass” and do something about Atlanta murders. The GOP nominee even went after the host university itself for not letting more people into the at-capacity stadium to see Trump.

That’s a lot of grievances to air at an event meant to rally supporters of the former president as he seeks another term in office. And it’s understandable why Trump—who has appeared flummoxed at times over how to handle a head-to-head campaign against Harris—would go back to his old, winning 2016 playbook: Insult people and groups of people. Blame immigrants, city-dwellers, Democrats, and insufficiently loyal Republicans for the ills of the country and the world.

But anger, a driving force in 2016, is a weakening tactic, eight years after Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Enough voters were tired of politics as usual that election that they were willing to see if a blunt talker could be better. Biden prevailed in 2020 because voters wanted to turn on the TV and be bored by the president.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 52 points 3 months ago

surprisingly united Democratic Party

I'm very skeptical of her support for any progressive policies, and really frustrated that opinion pieces are already encouraging her to abandon progressives to win, but I'm still going to vote for her far more enthusiastically than I did Biden (and I would have voted for Biden) because that's what you do when immediate dictatorship is the alternative.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

It all depends on what she does.

If she wins she appoints the new leadership of the DNC, if she really is progressive then that alone could be huge.

Or she could let the same people run it and nothing will fundamentally change.

But who she appoints as DNC leadership is going to be the first real sign of what she'll be like in office.

[-] broton33@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

We got some good and necessary changes to delegates after Hillary's failed coronation. Now we'll likely see required primaries due to Biden's almost disaster. I do hope Kamala and Walz make changes to incorporate a truly diverse coalition for democrats. Including leadership for core demographics.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Primaries are already required.

load more comments (10 replies)

this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024

352 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19159 readers

4637 users here now

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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News