this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
828 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3987 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
[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Except every time Democrats do win then the excuse becomes that they can't unite the party.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Walz is the perfect solution for this excuse. He passed progressive policies weekly in the governorship with a 1 seat majority. There are plenty of reasons to be excited about this ballot that are new. You could of course argue the same thing about early Obama, but I trust Walz.

[–] newfie@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

What evidence is there that Kamal will even try to pass an agenda that is similar to what Walz did in Minnesota?

I think Walz is the most progressive governor in the country and would love to see his policies implemented on a national level. What evidence is there that Kamala's administration will even attempt to enact those policies? She has been light on policy, with the exception of supporting Israel and building the wall via the bipartisan immigration bill that the Dems are now running on.

I'm assuming Tester wins in Montana and dems have a blue house and 50/50 senate. But even with that, idk why we would presume she would be as progressive as Walz

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

When do they win? They need all 3 of House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency to do much of anything. And they've had that for, drumroll please, 4 of the last 24 years. Or 6 years of the last 44 years. They basically never win. So they are forced to compromise and then they go to the center to find voters.

And when they do get all 3, Obama passed the ACA, Biden passed green energy, student debt, drug price control, etc,. And the thanks they get is to then lose the midterm elections. Thanks voters that don't show up!

[–] newfie@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Biden did historically well in the midterms tbh. If it wasn't for gerrymandering and a population capped House, Dems would still have complete control of Congress

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah but it still kneecaps them. He can't even do a sweetheart border deal without the House.

[–] newfie@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah my point is that voters did show up. Dems did historically well in 2022 for an incumbent party

Its just that the structure of our electoral politics favors rural areas and gerrymandered districts. Which currently means the red team benefits. Which isn't the fault of recent voters

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

He still lost the house. Not enough showed up.

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Honestly, voting for representatives was a hard sell back then but after 2020 young people actually showed up to vote between presidential elections. Uniting the party is easy if all the elected party members are progressives.