this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
251 points (92.5% liked)

politics

19144 readers
4046 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
 

I've often assumed Harris didn't want to insult her boss by going against him, because I got the impression she was planning to give Netanyahu what for once she took over - especially with him escalating things further and further. Did anyone else get that vibe, or was it just wishful thinking on my part?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

What Democrats can’t realize is that fundraising dollars are less important than actual appeals to voters.

trump: "I'm going to fix everything for you and lower all you costs without any knock on consequences to you of the working class."

DNC: "It is not nearly that simply, but I'm going to do what I can to improve your lives"

A GOP lie is cheaper than a DNC truth.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Then you run on:

"I'm going to establish national single-payer healthcare!"

"I'm going to break up the big grocery stores that are responsible for all the inflation!"

"I'm going to reign in and break up big tech!"

"My opponent wants to exterminate the Palestinians, and I will save them!"

"My opponent is a trans porn addict and is obsessed with them because of this. That's why he's always talking about trans people! It's weird as fuck!"

As a politician, exaggeration and making promises you know are a stretch are fine. You are a politician, not a journalist. It's OK to claim things that are aspirational.

This is what's killing modern democrats. Trump is not afraid to state his ideal vision for the world and promise to fight for it, knowing full well he won't even achieve half of it. Meanwhile, Democrats come up with these convoluted, slimy, meek programs that are dense tomes of policy papers only a few beltway consultants know or understand.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

trump presented no concrete approaches except "tariffs". Its easy to promise when there's few to offend.

Then you run on:

“I’m going to establish national single-payer healthcare!”

And now you've alienated the powerful healthcare lobby

“I’m going to break up the big grocery stores that are responsible for all the inflation!”

And now you've alienated the powerful agribusiness

“I’m going to reign in and break up big tech!”

And now you've alienated the powerful tech companies

“My opponent wants to exterminate the Palestinians, and I will save them!”

And now you've alienated the powerful Pro-Israel groups

You could do all of this if you run as a powerful populist with a very engaged electorate. This last election showed that the electorate wasn't engaged.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is surrendering before the fight has even begun. And that surrendering is why centrist democrats lose. Those powerful interests can bitch all they want. Will it cost you donors? Sure. But Kamala and Hillary both massively outraised Trump, and look at what good it did them.

What centrist muppets fail to recognize is that fundraising isn't everything, especially on national races. Or more precisely, there is such a thing as marketing saturation. At some point, you've convinced everyone that can be convinced, reached everyone that can be reached. And the level of fundraising necessary to achieve that saturation is a level that can be achieved with small dollar individual donations.

Trump ran on, and won on, a promise to deport 20 million people. You think the businesses that profit from illegal immigration might put up some resistance to that? Take a look at Trump's platform

Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion

That would doubtlessly anger the industries that depend on migrant labor.

Carry out the largest deportation operation in american history

See above.

End inflation, and make america affordable again

That would require price controls or anti-monopoly actions, which big retailers would oppose.

Make america the dominant energy producer in the world, by far!

The electric car and renewable power companies aren't going to like that at all.

Stop outsourcing, and turn the united states into a manufacturing superpower

Those jobs were outsourced in order to make high profits; the companies doing the outsourcing will oppose this.

large tax cuts for workers, and no tax on tips!

Why give dollars to workers, when you could give them to wealthy and powerful interests? This is going to make some wealthy people mad.

I could go on. Trump ran on the message of a populist, and he won. He ran on things that would anger a large number of very wealthy people and corporations if implemented. His number one issue, illegal immigration? Aside from a the Border Patrol union, what powerful interest will actually benefit from mass deportation? Maybe the private prison companies will make some cash, but there are far more wealthy donors who benefit from illegal immigration than would benefit by mass deportation.

Trump promised all sorts of things. He promised things that his base wanted and that many corporations oppose. They're things that I find abominable, but it's what his base wants. And that is ultimately why he won.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

And that surrendering is why centrist democrats lose.

Weren't both Obama and Biden both Centrist democrats? If they lose how do you account for 12 years of the presidency. Even if we count the new trump presidency, that still means 66% of the last 24 years (counting until 2028 now) has been Centrist Democrats. If anything, your logic says that Centrist democrats win more often than not using this method.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Worldwide, we're seeing electorates that are rejecting establishment candidates. It's been that way since at least 2016, and really since the start of and response to the Great Recession. Obama ran as an outsider. He governed as a centrist, but he didn't really run as one initially. And Biden only won because of the pandemic. If it weren't for the pandemic, Trump would have won in 2020.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Agreed. Bidens history as a legislator is actually pretty loathsome. Its some sort of miracle that he was elected the first time.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Obama campaigned on a platform of change. He promised healthcare and (very importantly at that time) to pull troops from Iraq/Afghanistan. His campaign was very aspirational, even if his first term in office was not. That campaign won in Indiana and Ohio, to give an idea of the popularity of these ideas. Biden won by a very small nr of voters in the swing states running against a (at that time) very unpopular president.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago

I find your fear of alienating monied groups to be troubling considering the outcome of standing with them was losing the election and the electorate longer term.

Also some of those groups like the "powerful Pro-Israel groups" are ethically indefensible, and standing with them should have been a no-go from the first milisecond based on principle.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you think the DNC is doing what it can to improve people's lives then you either live in a different universe or haven't been keeping up with politics the last few decades.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The ACA, IRA, the largest gun control bill in 30 years, DACA, CARD act, Fair Pay act, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, Juneteenth Nationally Act, Honoring out Pact Act, Respect for Marriage Act, Student Loan relief

All of these in the last 2 decades by DNC. Which one of those are you saying shouldn't have been passed?

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

thats a pretty meager list for 20 years. They also Lost abortion, lost the courts, lost on progressive taxation, committed war crimes, expanded the police state, and faild to improve the minimum wage, and expanded the number of working poor.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

That's not an exhaustive list, just long enough to show that "Dems never improve anyone's life" is just nonsense. And further, most of the things you go on to complain about them not doing are things they tried to do that got blocked by obstructionist Republicans.