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
Harris' campaign is younger than most of my groceries, while the next generation has been born and mastered sarcasm in the shadow of Trump's seemingly endless campaign. Being tied this early should be devastating news for 45.
Especially since Harris isn't exactly the most beloved figure in the dem world, if there even is such a thing at the moment.
I'll readily admit I was in the camp of thinking that Biden dropping now would be suicide. I am very happy to have been proven wrong so far.
You and me both. The way the whole party has coalesced around Harris is a happy surprise. There has been so much infighting for so long and Kamala wasn't really mentioned in all the push to remove Biden, and there was no consensus around anyone. I was sure it would be nothing but infighting until the convention and then begrudging acceptance.
I couldn't be happier to be wrong.
My tin foil hat thought is that Biden waited so long to drop out partially to allow the party to rally behind a single candidate.
I don't think that's remotely a tinfoil hat statement. If you look at Biden's record in general, he's the kind of guy who tends to say nothing while he quietly does the work to put an actual plan in place, and only acts when he knows he's in a position to act effectively.
It would be completely consistent with his past behaviour, and entirely the smart thing to do.
Exactly. Democrats are falling in line and that's to be expected. They already voted for her as VP, so they should have no objection to her as President.
But independents and swing voters should still be undecided on her. Some might lean slightly towards her because she is younger and not a senile fascist, but overall, it should not be expected that they will support her at this stage.
Polling in September will be more accurate.
I refuse to believe there's any swing voters in this election. Absolutely no one is 50/50 on Trump. The media just loves to parrot old talking points without any evidence these people actually exist. Stats are so easily fungible that you can make them say anything you want.
There are plenty of people who have not learned or choose not to learn the details of Trump's escapades.
Do you have any evidence to support that?
That's precisely the media talking point I'm debunking. Either you watch Fox News or you don't.
I have talked to people like this. I did not document the conversations.
I don't think anyone that will vote for trump will turn but I do think that there are people that won't vote that can be convinced to vote.
Well, I personally have some objections, as anyone should for any politician, but nothing that would prevent me from supporting her.
I accepted after Obama that every President is going to do things I find reprehensible. It's hard because I strongly believe in doing the right thing even if there is a cost. But as President you have to balance one kind of harm against another, sometimes using knowledge so secret you can't justify your decision to the public.
It becomes an act is faith that they are making the best choices they can, while also acknowledging the reality that they are human and will get it wrong sometimes.
I have to say, though, that running against Trump makes supporting flawed actual humans so much easier.