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
Quit abusing the word "democracy" like that. A country picking one of two choices handed to them by oligarchs is not democracy.
Activists labored for decades and died in police crackdowns to achieve the concession of primary elections from the two parties. You are pissing on their sacrifices. We don't give up hard won rights just because they aren't explicitly mandated by the constitution.
Ranked choice voting would fix these concerns.
Agreed, but that's not really relevant as to whether or not we should wait for the convention for the delegates to choose. The primary election is done.
They are waiting for the convention to choose, these choices are not made yet. They do, however, still have first amendment protections, so if they want to tell CNN who they plan to vote for, then they may. CNN, enjoying freedom of the press, has the right to ask.
It's wagging the dog. The delegates declare support now, the media runs with that and treats Harris as the obvious winner while ignoring other candidates. By the time the convention happens the public has already accepted Harris as the winner, making it inevitable.
Well, it pretty much is inevitable. Nobody else really wants the job on such short notice. President is something you want to prepare for, have a good, solid plan, with people you're planning on staffing your presidency with. You usually start the groundwork years in advance, to avoid failure with extraordinary consequences once you are actually in office. There's reasons Whitmer, for instance, simply endorsed Harris even though a lot of people wanted her to be the nominee.
Even Manchin waffled on it in his interview, and he's a colossally arrogant asshole.
This is testament to how deceived you are by whatever media you consume. There were no other candidates who were allowed into the public discourse, but there were plenty of other candidates running. If there were an actual primary there would have been a lot more.
Names?
At any rate, I don't think it's the DNC's job to support any specific candidate. They made that mistake with Hilary vs Bernie, and hopefully learned from the blowback they subsequently received.
It is an individual candidate's responsibility to create their own public discourse, this is the process of campaigning. Otherwise it becomes too tempting to use a Presidential run simply to increase one's own individual fame.
Lastly, perhaps I should have been more specific. I don't think any strong candidates want the job. I'm sure plenty of weak candidates and frankly, foolish people, would love to have the job because they wrongly think it wouldn't be that hard.
Find the names yourself. It will be a good exercise in media literacy. They aren't hidden.
When did I say it's the DNC's job to support a specific candidate, or are you agreeing with me? In any case, it sure doesn't look like they learned anything.
I don't trust your judgement as to who makes a strong or weak candidate. I certainly don't trust the judgement of a party establishment that backed Hillary in 2016 and Biden this year.
Yeah, I think you're just throwing random bullshit around and have no interest in wasting my own time.
You seem to be asserting that you think the DNC should elevate lesser-known candidates to equal stature of a well-known candidate, instead of leaving it to the candidates themselves.
I do not think the DNC should elevate anyone anywhere. They should not support a popular candidate, but they also should not support a lesser-known candidate. They should set a reasonable bar where all candidates that can prove themselves serious, unaided, can participate equally in DNC sponsored events. This should keep out fame seekers that want the profile boost, I have no interest in what some author that wants to sell more books to gullible idiots has to say.
Fine, you're entitled to your own opinion I suppose.
Based on what? Me never saying anything of the sort?
This is exactly what I'm saying. Would you say that's happening? What presidential candidates will be given equal time to Harris for a floor speech at the convention? Where were the 2024 primary debates?
Marianne Williamson is every establishment wonk's favorite "unserious" candidate. Yet she somehow did better than a lot of "serious" candidates in the 2020. Who is or is not a "serious" candidate is dictated by the political and media establishments.
You said earlier you thought a reasonable bar for entering a debate was sound. Now you seem to be complaining about there being no debates even though the only challengers could not meet a reasonable bar. Bit dishonest?
Whatever significant candidates wish to run should be given some floor time. Let me know when one stands up.
No, who is/is not a serious candidate is dictated by the strength of the campaigner and voters. A strong campaigner is able to fundraise from like-minded supporters, as Obama famously did with small-dollar donors that enabled him to match Hilary's formidable fundraising prowess and obvious establishment support. This establishment/media conspiracy you seem to like is in your head.
Oh, and Williamson never broke 5% vs only 2 other people. In 2020 there were almost two dozen participants.
There were challengers that got the required signatures in 49-50 states. That's not a reasonable bar for a single debate? The key is that word "reasonable". The bar we have now is that the establishment media grants them that label, and that's not reasonable. The press is supposed to be adversarial to power, but today's mainstream media literally represents power and the status quo.
It's not exactly a conspiracy, at least not in the mode of a secret cabal of powerful shadowy figures pulling the strings. However, it is absolutely real and understanding it is critical to media literacy. What kind of salary do you think a talking-head makes on MS-NBC? Right out of the gate, how do you think that impacts their perspective on the status quo? I know you see it clearly at Fox "News", but you don't think it exists at CNN?
What about local news, that's pretty independent? The context of this video was part of the reaction that mainstream media had when their cultural hegemony started slipping due to the explosion of independent media. They have largely solved the "problem" now, since strong-arming social media to favor "trustworthy" news sources. The definition of "trustworthy" includes Fox BTW, but excludes all independent news. This was achieved by dragging social media CEOs in front of congress and threatening a massive regulation regime.
Better than Harris with the exception of a two day bump she got by calling out Biden for bad racial policy. Also, 5% with two dozen participants puts her over the average.
The press is supposed to report fact as it exists, not be adversarial to power. Sometimes this will be in support of power, other times, as the NYT ripping into Biden post-debate was, will be adversarial. The signatures are easy to get, that's just a petition campaign. The bar should be some modest amount of popularity, I think 5% support nationally is where I would personally set it. Again, this is to avoid fame-seeking behavior and the abuse of running for president for personal gain, which we already sometimes see, frankly.
The corporate media is certainly corrupted by their business interests, no question. It's not about what one individual anchor or personality makes, but what the shareholders demand in terms of increasing their subscriber base and advertiser revenue in search of greater profits. Fortunately the corporate media does not wield nearly the power it has in years past, they're slowly dying in the digital age due to huge amounts of competition.
I am aware of Sinclair, I think most mainstream dems are at this point, after John Oliver did a whole episode on them years ago. Your position here breaks down when you say they've "solved" their problem though. They have not. Independent media is still widely prevalent all over social media, as is even outright misinformation. Corporate media revenues are still decreasing in almost all cases, they are still dying.
I said she didn't break 5%, not that she got 5%. She got far, far less. Her support even in her own state was less than 5%. Regarding Harris, she's simply moving up on the same ticket now that Biden is finishing out his term and retiring. I agree she did not have significant primary support and was never directly selected by voters. The time to challenge her for the nomination, if anyone wanted to, would be right now. But when even Manchin, a moderate independent now, declines to, I find that unlikely. Harris is an excellent chance to beat Trump, and that's what democratic voters want. Not a strong progressive or fresh faced challenger offering "real change".
I also want more choices, such as provided by ranked choice voting. However to say that our elections aren't democratic is far worse of an insult to the sacrifices of the labors of prior generations. Voters may still choose anyone that they want, and that ability to choose is better in our system than it is in many other places in the world. It's not the best though, and I would like to see us get there. But it is not fair to say that our election (run by the government) is no longer democratic just because an independent 3rd party is now going to register a different person on the ballots than their initial polling suggested.
Nonsense. They would almost certainly agree. It's better in a lot of ways, but it's not democracy to pick between two establishment choices. It's just not.
It was never Democratic in the first place. I've been fighting this fight for over 25 years, and I'm a latecomer. However, it's not "just because" of that one thing. This is the moment we are in right now, so it's what I'm engaged with right now.
It's sounds like the democracy we have is not the one that you want. That's fine, it's also not the one I want. Again, I'd prefer to be able to choose between a range of progressive candidates. But either way they are both still democracies and we should keep on asking for better systems. I disagree that what we have is a completely undemocratic system, that would imply that our system is similar to Russia's or NK's and it simply isn't.
Asking for a better system is exactly what I'm doing, and look how everyone closes ranks against the guy not towing the party line.