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
The problem is that the 'Not Perfect' party refuses to actually fight or advocate for universal, popular policies. Instead, the "Not Perfect' party sits on their hands, bullies their base, and waits for everything to collapse so that they are the default option.
So vote in the "Not Perfect" parties primaries to get better candidates nominated, and at the same time work on getting a ballot initiative for ranked choice voting.
They railroaded Clinton into being the 2016 candidate and appointed Harris as the 2024 one. The DNC leadership doesn't care what their constituents actually want.
Uncoincidentally, that's why said leadership needs to be replaced.
And said leadership is not EVER going to cede their power, which is one of the core issues in play.
Right, and we get around it by showing up in numbers to vote. But of course people need to actually step up and run for the nominations, too. I'm eager to see how David Hogg's funding efforts pan out.
Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 primaries. Nonratfuckety was needed. No superdelegates needed to cast a single vote at the convention because she had enough pledged elected delegates. The party even changed the rules starting in 2018 so that superdelegates don't even get a vote in the convention unless the pledged delegates can't elect a nominee in the first round of voting.
Which is why we have to actually show up and out-vote them instead of losing elections to "teach them a lesson" which hurts us more than it does them.
Yes indeed. And the DNC leadership elections after the last election have finally started that shift towards more progressive leadership (notice that the leaders are voted into office, that and people had to participate in that vote, it's kind of a theme here 😋).
How's that been working out over the last 40+ years?
It hasn't because most people haven't been voting in primaries, which is why they're saying to do it. It's almost always old people voting in primaries and they choose their familiar name old person candidate and then we're stuck with them.
The other half of it that everyone ignores is there actually has to be a better candidate campaigning for the nomination. Bernie lost the popular vote in the primaries, but inspired more progressives to campaign, and we got the squad out of it. People need to run, and people need to vote, or you get the status quo with donor-preferred candidates.
Show me when a primary candidate won the popular vote and then wasn't nominated.
Just because you don't like the outcome, doesn't mean the process wasn't followed.
Allegation: the DNC exhibited overt favoritism in the primary process to ensure Hillary won the primary.
Your response: but Hillary won the primary, therefore she won the primary!
No one is disputing that she won the primary. The problem was the DNC put their thumb on the scale through the entire process. Hillary was the presumptive nominee from the beginning. People voting for Bernie on day one had to vote against headlines that said, "Hillary is already 1/3 of the way to getting the nomination!" The DNC also collaborated very closely with the Hillary campaign, and they did not do so with Bernie's campaign. They even went so far as feeding her debate questions ahead of time.
Yes, obviously Hillary actually won the primary even without the superdelegates. Any brain-dead moron can consult wikipedia and see that. There's no need to parrot the obvious. But you're completely missing the core of the issue - that Hillary only won the majority of non-superdelegates and only won the primary popular vote because the DNC threw the weight of the entire party behind her nomination at the exclusion of all other candidates.
I've never argued that the DNC hasn't played favorites or that the primaries are all totally fair and equitable. My point is always that the only way to get the nomination is by winning the popular vote, because a lot of people seem to think that it wouldn't matter and someone else would be nominated anyway. We certainly won't win by sitting out the vote, because all they've learned from that is they don't have to campaign for your vote to win. Third party and Independent legislators hold fewer than 1% of the legislative seats at the state and federal level, so that's not a viable option. The only thing we have is to all just fucking show up and vote.
Is the "Not Perfect" party even going to hold a primary this time or does Harris get it by default like Biden last year?
We had primaries and nobody serious wanted to run against the incumbent president. Biden won the primary. Then he dropped out due and the delegates pledged to Biden (and elected by the primary voters) elected Harris as the nominee in the convention. Maybe you can show me when in the history of the USA a running incumbent president lost the primary, or even when any serious challenger campaigned against them in the primary.
So we didn't have a primary because Biden was the presumptive nominee... who was later removed long after it was obvious he had no chance.
Sounds very Democratic.
The hyperbole does you no favors here. Every state held a primary. Two did not have the presidential race on their ballots (I think Florida and Delaware). In Texas there we 9 presidential candidates on the Democratic primary ballot. I know you really really really want that to be the same as not having a primary, but it isn't (except for the one race in those two states). Blame the fact that most of them were a joke on the better candidates who chose not to run.
Why would anyone have bothered to waste money running against the presumptive nominee? Especially when the party went out of its way to conceal Biden's unsuitability for the position until the first debate of the general election made the illusion impossible to maintain.
No, the non-primary was on purpose. Biden didn't want to have to pass the torch at the of a single term and the party let him have the nom because he was president.
Also the dnc was saying they'd excommunicate anyone who ran against biden in the primary
How do you propose getting better candidates with a chance of winning* on general election ballot?
* Fewer than 1% of legislative offices at the state and federal level are held by independent or third party candidates. Zero 3rd parties were on the ballot in all 50 states in 2024 (only three were in more than 10 states). There have been zero Electoral College votes to third party candidates since 1968 (including when Perot won almost 20% of the national popular vote). So if your suggestion is 3rd parties then you're going to have to show your work on how to make any of them viable before the 2026 primaries.
The "not perfect" party got us gay marriage, the affordable care act, and the repeal of don't ask don't tell. The response was Trump's first term.
Actually that was the Supreme Court not dems. Plus even around Obama it was a questionable subject for dems