this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
238 points (91.9% liked)

politics

19145 readers
2366 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
all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 60 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The debate was being held in Pennsylvania which is a fracking state. She knew she couldn't repeat the same mistake Clinton made on coal and she didn't.

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/03/476485650/fact-check-hillary-clinton-and-coal-jobs

That one poorly thought out statement cost Clinton Pennsylvania and the election.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That was such a face slap of sound bite propaganda. From your linked article

Clinton did tell a town hall audience in Columbus, Ohio in March that "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." But that was part of a longer answer about the need to help blue-collar workers adjust. "We're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people," Clinton said. "Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on."

The $30 billion plan she released last fall calls for of increased job training, small-business development, and infrastructure investment, especially in Appalachia. The plan also seeks to safeguard miners' healthcare and pensions.

But years later all I ever hear brought up is that one closing sentence.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 37 points 2 months ago (3 children)

But years later all I ever hear brought up is that one closing sentence.

Because that closing sentence ended her political career.

You can't ever tell voters you're going to put them out of work. Ever.

You tell coal miners "I want you to have better, safer jobs that don't involve risking your lives underground for business owners who don't care about you just so your children and grandchildren can survive and thrive."

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pretending sound bites aren’t a thing doesn’t make them not a thing. Politicians need to word things carefully. It’s kinda part of the job.

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This ^
Even if journalists report properly on something like this, your adversaries will take the soundbite and use it out of context against you.

TL;DR: don’t hand the enemy ammunition

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Why can't more politicians tap into the wage slave idea. It's all of us against the rich. While Kamala is certainly part of "the rich" she certainly can talk a good game.

Hell it's basically the southern strategy just a slight pivot.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I know. But she only said it to that small group at the town hall, and only that one sound clip got blasted out without the rest of it. If it had been reported on honestly it wouldn't have been as damaging.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Ugh, yeah that one sucked too.

[–] Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

While watching the debate it was funny watching Trump say she'll end fracking like that's a bad thing (though even with green energy, I do admit we'd still need it for plastic).

I joked "next he'll attack her by saying she'll drive up green energy" then he literally did. Said she'd return to windmills and dare to use desert land for solar panels, oh the humanity xD.

[–] forrcaho@lemmy.world 54 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Harris's policies are misguided on a number of issues, but her main commitment is to strengthening the nuts and bolts of our democracy, so we will still have mechanisms available to challenge those policies and get them to change.

Not only is Trump a thousand times worse than Harris on every bad policy she has, his primary commitment is to destroying the mechanisms of democratic participation, so that there will be no way to hold the powerful to account.

I've read many thoughtful articles in TNR; I'm disappointed they would publish this one.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Almost half the country is right wing and the electoral college gives their votes much more weight. That's just a fact. That means you can't win a national election without tacking toward their views in some areas, mainly the areas of concern to those in the swing states that will decide the election. You can't win by pleasing only your own base. Until we either abolish the electoral college and move to popular vote, or liberals/left wing/whatever you want to call it, reach a majority of the population substantial enough to overcome the electoral college.

Neither of those things looks likely to happen anytime soon, so the only option is to deal with our current reality and develop a strategy to win under these circumstances, but at the same time we should also be working to create a movement to amend the constitution to decide national elections by popular vote.

edit to change "half" to "almost half"--gotta recognize there are some more in the middle.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 30 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Almost half the country is right wing

Where are you getting that stat?

Of voters, almost half are registered or leaning Republicans.

In 2020, only 22% of the country voted for trump, the most right wing 2 party candidate in the modern era.

When you ask about specific policies that are seen as left or right wing, left wing policies poll much higher than dem votes at elections.

The reason Democrat leadership keeps tacking right has less to do with Americans and more to do with money and support from key centers of power. Dems stay right because US aristocrats and large interests skew righter than Americans. The money would dry up if their policies matched what Americans want.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

per 538, the last two polls of "adults" (not likely voters or registered voters) showed trump support around 40%. And Harris' lead in those polls is basically the same as with likely voters and registered voters, around +3-4.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/?ex_cid=abcpromo

edit:

Also this gallup poll says 30% of people identify as Republican, and 40% as independent, with 46% of independents leaning Republican. So "almost half" as the top comment said.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

edit 2: for whoever downvoted, I would love to hear why. the person above asked for a source that says "Almost half the country is right wing", and I provided multiple. if you have better evidence to the contrary let's see it.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

per 538, the last two polls of "adults" (not likely voters or registered voters) showed trump support around 40%

This feels to me like the best metric to judge 'right wing' by.

Voting for right wingers or being a Republican is not quite the same as being right wing - many people register and vote strategically. My grandparents in Alaska were left wingers who knew Democrats didn't stand a chance. I'm sure there are plenty of right wingers registered as Dems here in the PNW. Voting can also be about identity more than ideals - I've known Republicans who have mostly leftish ideals as long as you don't call them that.

But saying you personally support trump feels more unambiguously right wing to me. I've heard plenty of polls over the years putting trump's support at around 30-40%, so 40% right wing sounds believable to me.

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

Also, I acknowledge this is speculation, but I would guess that a significant portion of the undecided people in those polls are conservatives who can't stomach Trump and will never vote democrat. So it's almost certainly more than 40% imo.

[–] Krono 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Your data does not logically lead to your conclusion, because the polls cited naturally bifurcated the responses into two (or three) camps.

It's like if I did a poll asking: "what is your favorite color, purple or yellow?" and then said this proves that 50% of respondents' favorite color is purple. We are discounting the opinions of orange and green lovers.

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

Your data does not logically lead to your conclusion, because the polls cited naturally bifurcated the responses into two (or three) camps.

are you denying that trump supporters would identify as “ conservative“? Also "undecided" is certainly a catch-all option for people who don't want to vote for Trump or Harris.

It’s like if I did a poll asking: “what is your favorite color, purple or yellow?” and then said this proves that 50% of respondents’ favorite color is purple. We are discounting the opinions of orange and green lovers.

sorry but that's an awful analogy, color preference does not follow a rough spectrum as political ideology does. And again, in your analogy, the orange and green lovers could have chosen undecided.

If you have better data, by all means show it. The polls I linked are certainly more accurate than the person above citing the 2020 election and that only 22% of the US voted for Trump. That is a wildly misleading representation of US demographics.

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

edit 2: for whoever downvoted, I would love to hear why.

Probably because you told/showed them what they don't want to hear.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Half the country is not conservative or right wing, the highest percentage of red votes are in low population density areas, so thats maybe like 35-37%, and that’s why the electoral college is important for republican wins

[–] leadore@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It is almost half. There's a spectrum on the right (as there is on the left of course). The hardcore maga cultists are a little over a third -- like you say, 35-37%. But then there are the conservatives who aren't extremists like them but are still very conservative, so yes, it's almost half the population. Trump has 42-45% who are definitely going to vote for him no matter what--the rest beyond the maga contingent are the conservatives such as the one-issue anti-abortion segment and the rich who want his tax and deregulation policies; they don't care about his character flaws or even preserving democracy for that matter.

There are also some conservatives, not many, who previously voted for him and would again, but have come to recognize that trump is so extreme and dangerous that they either won't vote for him or will hold their nose and vote for a Dem this time, hopefully enough to tip the election in her favor.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

1/3 is almost half in the same sense that it is also almost nothing.

[–] Stanley_Pain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Hate to break it to you but from anyone else Looking in all your politics and politicians are right-wing.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Stanley_Pain@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago

WE is doing a lot of heavy lifting here ;).

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Right? I call the Democrats a "right of center" party. I stopped calling myself a Democrat almost a decade ago. There is no party for me in the US.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah but a majority of voters want to fix climate change. The GOP platform is "let the planet burn so we can make our quarterly target" but if you take politics out of it a lot of gop voters are on the same page with Democrats.

Both of them couldn't give a single shit about liberals though.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 3 points 2 months ago

FWIW, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is doing better and better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

I feel she also may be saying certain stuff just to close off avenues of attack for Republicans. She’d rather just say something conservatives would like to hear than give a hedging response to appease the base that Trump and co would run with. For example, when asked about guns, she said “I’m a gun owner, so is Walz” — it’s just not worth losing this election over being pure on a handful of issues that might trigger moderates and swayable conservatives.

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

I'm pretty far left of Harris and I would be furious if she got up there and said she was going to ban fracking. We might like to hear that, but it's a goddamn fact that swing voters she needs to win in PA do not. She can say whatever the fuck she wants about fracking as long as she wins.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

ITT: People who want the party to only tack rightward being angry.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

TLDR: stupid article that assumes everyone is also extremely stupid.

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Palin sounded like such a disconnected asshole with "Drill, baby! Drill!". I almost did a spit take when Harris basically said the same. Pro fracking? Really?

[–] metallic_substance@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I know this is a low effort post and I usually try to avoid that, but:

Duh-doy

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

New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for New Republic:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://newrepublic.com/article/185858/harris-debate-climate-fracking
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support