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.
- 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.
- 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
Citation needed.
She is hated more than Biden. I doubt this would play out as intended.
Yes, but that was before everyone saw a sundowning POTUS on that debate stage.
Attitudes have changed amongst the DNC establishment, at least according to the reporting.
Anecdotally, I've heard similar feelings echoed in far left/socialist circles.
I will say I haven't seen any new polling that take recent events into account. I assume those figures exist, I just haven't seen you come across my feeds yet.
Polls have her doing better than Biden. You could do worse than running a woman when abortion is on the ballot (and by worse I mean, for example, a catholic who's visibly queasy about actually supporting bodily autonomy). She also gets you back the anti-genocide vote, and she's responsible for a lot of Biden's support among black Americans.
She's only polling better because that's what the media wants you to believe. Polls are meaningless and are only valuable to those pushing the polls.
I hadn't heard that she's diverged from the administration on this issue. But I would add that the anti-genocide vote is also anti-cop, and Harris is a cop.
She distanced herself when Biden was starting to really commit to the genocide denial, which is probably enough for a lot of people. Biden is pretty extreme, even among democrats who support Israel, and he's been the one driving the wagon. Harris doesn't have the same baggage or history of fantacism when it comes to Israel. She shows more awareness of the generational sea change regarding attitudes towards Israel.
As for the prosecutor thing, I don't think that's something in the same scale of problem as the genocide support. People act like because centerists/"leftists" won't compromise on genocide that means they're unwilling to compromise on everything but that's not true. Such flagrant disregard for basic humanity is a hard limit for many people though. People understand the stakes, Biden's zealotry is just that extreme and alienating. It wouldn't have taken much for him to avoid this problem, but combined with the faltering mental capacity he's too politically toxic at this point to recover.
Polls show that people will vote for the lesser evil that is Harris, they won't vote for the outright evil that is Biden's fanatical, blind support of genocide. The party leadership sees it, they understand the math is against them regardless of how much AIPAC pays them, this doddering debate performance and politically deaf follow-up was the tipping point.
The last polling I saw on her actually had her doing considerably better than Biden. Her approval rating is about the same, but her disapproval is much lower. She's not the strongest candidate, and I don't particularly like her, but she's got a better shot than Biden at this point.
..its..
Its in the article?
The reason given in the article is "Because I, Adam Schiff, think so" - all the hard data we have (competive polls, opinion polls, historical references) gives a pretty bleak outlook for a Harris presidency.
Without even looking at polls, and knowing how much racism and misogyny there is, as well as the outcome of 2016, I have my doubts about Kamala as a viable candidate.
There was some misogyny involved in Clinton's loss, but she had a special kind of misogyny attached to her that was built up over years. The fallout from the affair Bill had really kind of splashed back on Clinton, she wasn't just hated by misogynist men, she illicited a ton of internalized misogyny from conservative women as well, in part because of the way she presented herself after it came to light.
Harris doesn't have any of that baggage. At this point I think Trump has hoovered up the vast majority of misogynists and bigots already. Most people at this point likely don't care.
That's a lie though, the data we have literally says the opposite. Which is why all the party power players are in favor of Biden shuffling off.
I mean.
Schiff said the thing. So there is your citation for the quote.
He's not asking for the citation for the quote. He's asking for the citation of the veracity of the assertion. We know Adam Schiff said the thing. What matters is the justification for saying the thing.
With no data to justify it (and plenty available showing it's not true), this is just further evidence Democratic leadership is stuck in the mindset of political battles from 30 years ago. If Trump were running in the political reality of the 90s with his current background and record, even current Biden would mop the floor with him. But we're not in the age of the party of Gingrich. This is the party of Trump, and facts and record don't matter to Trump voters and Republicans in general. Welcome to 21st century American politics, Mr. Schiff.
I guess he can email Schiff's office?
He didn't want a quote citation though. He wanted a data citation.
https://schiff.house.gov/contact
I think that's a fair miscommunication. I was asking for a data driven citation while you were providing a quote citation. I agree that Adam Schiff almost certainly said that, but my question is why he thinks that (or, as I'd suspect, why he's lying).
https://schiff.house.gov/contact
Lol, you got caught in a lie and are doubling down on it.
Its an article about what a politician said. The politician said that thing. I think you and your buddies lack reading comprehension.