this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
958 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2365 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 43 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, they know, and it scares them.

[–] [email protected] 83 points 8 months ago (3 children)

There's a reason they sidelined Sanders when he would have easily won in 2016

[–] [email protected] 49 points 8 months ago (3 children)

This has been on my mind every time the DNC tries to position themselves as a party for the people. As far as I'm concerned, they showed their hand, and apparently they thought no one would notice.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

There is nowhere to run.

Democrats = the party of the rich
Republicans = the party of the rich
MAGA = the grift of the rich

We’re going to be voting for the lesser evil for at least a few more cycles. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea not to vote though.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We can be so much more creative than that. There are mountains of actions we can take in addition to voting to change things.

Why should we accept that the only people we can vote for are evil? Every US election has been this way for at least 20 years now. One less than the other everytime (depending on perspective) but if the only options are widely seen as evil, we must do something to change this.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We don’t have to accept it—that’s what primaries are for. But there are people out there who lose the primary and then they just don’t vote—that is the time people should choose the lesser of two evils. Simply not voting is just giving up the tiny shred of control you actually have.

Of course, if you feel strongly about a candidate, it is a good idea to make calls, put up signs, or anything else to help them win. But, as we saw with Bernie, even a massive grassroots effort isn’t always enough.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

We don’t have to accept it—that’s what primaries are for. But there are people out there who lose the primary and then they just don’t vote—that is the time people should choose the lesser of two evils.

No. They should not. Stop lecturing people who are fighting something better and start lecturing the people voting for absolute trash in the primaries.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

if some people here are any indication, there are a bunch of people who didnt actually notice.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago

Just remember Bernie's legacy..

https://youtu.be/ZlZaVtCT5HI

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

As I see it, he won the nomination. More people voted for him, and the super delegates fucked it all up. The party even admitted this back in 1982 that their intention is to prevent "outlier candidates" from securing a nomination. The Democratic Party is very undemocratic until we can toss superdelegates altogether. I say that, but it doesn't appear to have worked for the Republican Party either, they just shrug and toss out all the votes regardless of who won in their caucuses. Look at Ron Paul in Iowa 2008, obviously won by a large enough percentage to eliminate the margin for error...but fuck it. Iowa's Republican chair handed it over anyway and when the news was published he just "resigned" and the damage was already done.

That sentiment that it scares them though, has happened before to BOTH parties. 1890 had both parties on the run as we were embroiled in shooting battles against law enforcement due to working conditions and pay.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Almost all of the head to head polls Had Bernie doing better than Hillary

He also won the Wisconsin primary and the Michigan primary in spite of the DNC leadership and propaganda machine being firmly behind Hillary from the beginning.

Hillary lost those states, ultimately costing her the election, and there's no indication that Bernie would have lost any of the states she won.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago

Yup, he did, and he would have won the general.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago

They singled out those two states because they were ones Hillary lost in the general