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
They're drinking the kool aid.
Harris lost because she never should have been nominated. Before she was nominated she was polling at 2% among Democrats. Nobody wanted her. And her campaign offered zero new ideas or new energy or new solutions, basically promising to be Biden 2.0 (just without the trust carried over from Obama's presidency). Obviously that didn't work, and (just like Hillary), 'I'm not Trump' wasn't enough to get her elected.
Her being progressive had NOTHING to do with it.
There's also the unfortunate consideration that she's a woman. A black woman. That's like playing on hardcore+ permadeath mode when it comes to elections...
I wish it wasn't that way but it's the reality in the US if you want a meaningful shot of winning... There is an unfortunate amount of voters who just won't vote for a woman or a POC...
Edit: it seems I triggered a lot of people intent on shooting the messenger. I should make it clear I don't believe this myself, but it seems a lot of people are unused to seeing opposing views on this backed by sources.
Speaking of which, after reading some sources, it sounds like education is a pretty strong counter to these biases, although it needs to start a long time before an election. You don't do 4 years of education in the 8 months leading up to the presidential election... It needs to start now.
Sexists love to say it is everyone else's reasoning for the way they speak.
You are currently the one telling people that their gender or skin color stops them from doing what they want. You are being part of what crushes them.
I'm not saying I like it or want it to be that way. There are a lot of people who prefer to ostrich about the problem than deal with it. Would me having said nothing or deleting my comments be better? Would me doing or saying nothing about the problem help to solve it?
Not saying you like killing people while shooting then in the head doesnt make them any less dead or you any less guilty. It is just an easy excuse for you to continue your actions without dealing with your own morals.
You want to act like you think critically? Do it. Right now you are adding to the message that people will read and hear that says they are less than and you will claim its repeating it for no ones benefit but the truth as if the truth agrees with you.
You want to deal with the problem, work on dealing with it, instead of bowing down and getting out of the way of it.
Here's an article on what I'm talking about
If they aren't shown and it's normalized that a candidate can garner just as much political support then it's a headwind...
There's also the belief I'm talking about where people say a woman can't win, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It also comes down to advertising and education (which are hamstrung by mudslinging during elections)
There are a lot of studies like this. I could go on for quite a while.
There's also a double bind racial bias where black female candidates are viewed as highly competent but unsuitable for a general election.
These issues need to be:
A) recognized as real.
B) dealt with through education and normalization.
Ironically your style of comment is undermining A and B by saying none of this is real, and shutting down any conversation about potentially fixing it...
i reject this stance. the same thing is said about a black president. and women make up 50 % of the vote base.
especially since this is a talking point of operatives who seek a gender based wedge.
and also moot when there were a lot of issues whith both women candidates who were the democrats primary candidates in the last few presidential elections. these issues supersede all other reasons. the internal reports point to the backing of a genocide and aligning with establishment democrats, the ultra wealthy, and her “tough on crime” stance that is by design targeting minorities.
AND AND she lost by a narrow margin, male nominees have lost by FAR MORE then she did
do not accept such arguments
Yeah rejecting it doesn't make it false... Just because 50% of the voting base are women doesn't mean they're feminists. There's a lot of internalized misogyny.
Obama was a bridge too far for a ton of American voters and he was only a well educated light skinned black man... He still ticked all the other boxes for an American president. A female president is beyond the pale for a lot of Americans.
The Democrats are welcome to deny reality, ignore candidate popularity during primaries, kill all other candidate potential, and then lose the presidency again and act confused about why that happened... I guess the big thing they have going for them is trump isn't allowed to run a 3rd time so the trump cult candidate will be a weaker option compared to trump himself.
what makes it false is the idea that she lost because she was a woman.
the numbers do not agree
it is a sexist point because it pushes the thought that democrats can not run female candidates if they want to win.
this is provably false, even considering misogyny. and like i said, is sourced from political operatives looking for a wedge. misogyny is just not that influential.
Harris was polling to win the election, up until the listed slights against the progressive base.
you can see that even within the democratic party a push to reaffirm conservative power by reassigning failures of the party on such things like inclusiveness, sexism, racism, ect. they attempted to hide the result of their internal investigation that counters their talking points.
it is also a thought terminating accusation with no one to blame and fights against progression in this regard. and should be shouted down when ever and where ever it crops up.
I don't believe this either. Her polling was dead wrong up until the last minute, same with trump but the warning signs were there early. I don't think it was reflecting reality so it's a bad measuring stick for the situation. Also, don't shoot the messenger here I'm not supporting this but it's an important aspect of why she lost even if you disagree with me...
Edit: I'm going to copy one of my other comments with sources below to support my argument, and why this should be brought up and identified.
Here's an article on what I'm talking about
If they aren't shown and it's normalized that a candidate can garner just as much political support then it's a headwind...
There's also the belief I'm talking about where people say a woman can't win, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It also comes down to advertising and education (which are hamstrung by mudslinging during elections)
There are a lot of studies like this. I could go on for quite a while.
There's also a double bind racial bias where black female candidates are viewed as highly competent but unsuitable for a general election.
These issues need to be:
A) recognized as real.
B) dealt with through education and normalization.
Ironically your style of comment is undermining A and B by saying none of this is real, and shutting down any conversation about potentially fixing it...