814
Harris Tried to Win Over Republicans. Democratic Support Collapsed Instead.
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
814 points (96.6% liked)
politics
19244 readers
3101 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
yeah this was a really fucking stupid idea and I think any Dingus on Twitter could have told you the same. The Trump voter base does not move. everyone's been saying this. I don't understand the Democrat strategy at all
I don't know what the actual numbers are on this, but I have to imagine the number of progressive voters who want more progressive policies far exceeds the number of Republicans that will vote Democrat. if anyone has a source to this data, I am interested in it.
Someone else summed it up better than I can. The democratic party is doing exactly what it set out to do.
Nitter link.
They have no interest in furthering progressive policies so they don't. That's why the DNC chair is calling Bernie Sander's critique of the party's platform bullshit right now, instead of admitting he's right.
The system is as it does.
I mean, realistically, they'd adopt leftist talking points and then abandon them after they won, like they did in 2008.
And in 2020. I think I can count on one hand the policies he ran on getting put into place, and I lost track of how many some Boogeyman kept it from happening.
But we always gave more weapons to Israel without question or congressional approval.
Yes, and to be fair, i think his failure wasn't due to a lack of desire. Biden is an institutionalist, past the point of logic and reason. My understanding is that they can procedurally remove the filibuster without a super majority at the beginning of each session, but he failed to consider eliminating it until late in his presidency. He also still refuses to entertain expanding the court; I know he couldn't do it, but if they had any sense at all, they'd be running on it. He has to much, "respect," for these institutions to do anything to change them, even as they crumble in the face of fascism.
Do you think Congress wouldn't have approved it? The Democrats are mostly in AIPAC's pockets, and the Republican would send them even more arms if they could, since they are openly, vocally pro-genocide.
At the least, we could have had a shot at getting congress to stop sending arms. We did to Saudi Arabia based on what they were doing to Yemen, thanks to Bernie Sanders.
Would they have? 90%, both parties are in the pocket of AIPAC. But to at least try to do something is better than sitting on our hands and going "welp, brown people are gonna die anyways, next dude will do it more.*
i think some of this is true, but I don't think that they would be implementing all of the same policies. maybe all the things that they actually care about are common between the two, and that's what he means.
Holy crap. I read your link--the hubris of these DNC chairperson idiots to call names after losing so thoroughly. Its like they havent gotten the election results yet.
Democrats called those Twitter users Russian trolls. They are now advocating to restrict social media so this cannot happen again.
source?
Saw a brazen example yesterday about how social media is the fault of it all. It was an article like this one https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/07/10-democratic-thinkers-on-what-the-party-needs-right-now-00187993
My favorite line
Why didn’t you quote the part where they are discussing restricting it?
Why don't you, if it's so important to you? Be the change.
It’s important to me that when someone makes a big claim they back it up. The challenge is that the article doesn’t say what was claimed.
I didn’t make the claim therefore nothing for me to back up.
Too much effort to go look for it. Keep an eye out and you will frequently come across an article where they discuss the need for "more control over social media because of foreign interference".
“I’m not lying, I’m lazy”
Dope
You don't remember the TikTok fiasco from a few months ago? It is basically the same thing but for Twitter.
Still being lazy I see
Source?
https://lemmy.world/comment/13344953
“Too much effort to go look for it”
See how I give a source and a relevant quote?
Any social-media platform that serves as a propaganda outlet for a hostile foreign power should be shut down, and its entire C-suite imprisoned for a long stretch.
If you are consistently seeing the same messages on X as on RT, that's a problem similar to that of broadcasters of hostile propaganda in wartime. You say First Amendment; I say Lord Haw Haw. They're giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
And normal media does not? The propaganda storm from newspapers in favor of Israel is beyond obvious. It is easy to explain why boomers love Israel and zoomers do not. One of them watches CNN or Fox.
Well the actual numbers in the article above are misleading, as they talk in percentages of self-identified/registered voters. And what we have seen in this election is that there has been a big move of people who used to be (r) to moderates (according to NBC on their election coverage). So it's not making sense to compare percentage numbers.