this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
73 points (88.4% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4623 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

At this point in election season, the political press starts making forays into the wilds of so-called Real America to try to find out what the voters are thinking. It can be an interesting exercise in the hands of journalists who have a feel for more than the usual "breakfast crowd at the diner" type of stories and find some insight that's helpful to understand the cross-currents that shape the electorate in any particular cycle. All too often, however, it's just a series of cliches and conventional wisdom, unfortunately.

We see tons of coverage of Iowa and New Hampshire, for obvious reasons. But when it comes to picking the brains of swing voters reporters always seem to head up to Wisconsin, the quintessential swing state. Back in 2020, just before the election, the New York Times sent a couple of reporters there to take the temperature of voters in the Badger State that former president Donald Trump barely won in 2016 to see what undecided swing voters were thinking four years later.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

They're totally obvious. Am I supposed to believe that someone actually concerned about the genocide would advocate against the option which results in the fewest casualties? Because of all the realistic choices, voting for Biden will lead to the fewest.

Either they're a paid troll, or they're an idealist who is so misguided, they would allow an antithetical outcome for the sake of ideological purity.