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
Bloomberg wasn't running to win, there was no shot of him winning the Dem nomination.
He was just there so people thought Biden was a moderate and not a right wing conservative by 2020's standards.
If Biden was the most conservative option in the Dem primary, it would have helped Sanders and Warren.
So the party and billionaires made it look like old Joe was actually moderate.
It was just neoliberals compromising before republicans got to the table again.
Unfortunately warren also played spoiler to sanders, helping Biden win..
That logic really doesn’t fly. I think sanders’ own fan base turned off so many people, women especially, that Warren’s run made plenty of sense. And she was styling her rhetoric as a watered down version of sanders’, ultimately making her more “electable” than sanders to more establishment-type democrats with some progressive leaning, again making her less of a liability in the general.
They had similar ideas with different approaches. Warren also would’ve had a better shot if Bernie hadn’t been running. And by your own logic, that makes sanders a spoiler for her. Why would Bernie immediately be the standard bearer of more progressive ideas turning her into the spoiler? Just because he ran the election before?
One side of a coin does not make the other a “spoiler” side of the coin. It just doesn’t work like that.
They spoiled each other, sure. The only reason I state her as the spoiler is because by that primary, sanders had the name recognition from his previous run. He already had a movement behind him. Warren has to build hers from scratch.
Is disagree. I mean, either of them would’ve had an advantage over trump. But who knows how it would’ve gone, because we’ve never really had a progressive candidate in our lifetimes. Obama’s first run was the closest thing to one, even if it was all bullshit. But that rhetoric got him a lot of excitement. He just went back on it all immediately.
But a lot has changed since 2008. Progressive ideas are all incredibly popular. But once the spin machine really kicked into gear with either of them “threatening capitalism,” anything could’ve happened.
But I’d also disagree that Warren was building her movement from scratch. She had built a following ever since she grilled the fuck out of wall at CEOs in 2010. She wasn’t some random person no one had ever heard of. And I’d argue that everything Sanders’ followers did in 2016/2017, how bad of a reputation there was, having that group behind him spoiled his chances more than anything. It wasn’t all of us—I was one of them. But the most vocal and shitty among them were so vicious and annoying that it turned people away from sanders. He literally has his own fans to blame for not having more support.
I liked both of them, they were the two best candidates of my lifetime, anyway. But the amount of assholes I had to deal with—all of them sanders supporters—online put a sour taste in my mouth. I still voted for him, but I can very easily see how much that was this same exact movement shooting itself in the foot. Shit, plenty of Warren supporters (mostly women) were so adamantly against supporting sanders because of the sexism they had all experienced. That was a terrible look.
I’m just saying it’s all much messier and uglier than either of us would like.
The same thing they are doing with RFK Jr