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
I loved this guy since the juxtaposition photos between him and the child labor folks. I wonder if Harris campaign is getting to make decisions because this whole situation blindsided DNC officials/strategists who have historically made stupid calls. They haven't had 4 years to overthink a campaign.
As cynical as I am, I think laughing Harris just felt a good feeling about smiling Walz that she just didn't get from Shapiro, and no strategist hack was able to convince them otherwise.
DNC sucks at strategy. I think making quick decisive moves, especially with the public's diminished attention span is proving very effective. Campaigns should probably focus on being like 3 months before the elections in this era.
Should Harris win (and especially if she wins big), I could see it changing the nature of campaigning here. Three months goes against all the conventional wisdom.
The media won't be happy about it, but it's past time we bring the press back to public service and away from profiteering anyway.
I think conventional wisdom on political strategy is long overdue for an update.
I suppose this is a good time for me to send that nice donation I've been putting off and hope it helps to let the DNC see what happens when they don't disenfranchise progressives.
Harris's primary campaign seemed to be defined by Harris herself taking progressive-ish positions and then later walking them back after someone in her orbit convinced her she had to be more status quo. Maybe that campaign flaming out has taught her to stop listening to those people.
New York Times called it a "vibes pick". Sounds about right
A campaign stands or falls based on vibes.
Don't get me wrong. This guy seems like a solid choice based on his record, too, but you really can't overstate how important vibes are.
Absolutely, I'm in favor, don't get me wrong
Sounds like NYT is salty.