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
Bernie won fewer votes in Vermont, his home state, than Kamala. One of the rare incumbent Democratic Senators who actually underperformed Harris.
Okay now do swing states, the only states that actually end up mattering in presidential elections. Bernie captivated audiences on Fox news during his campaign, appeared in Republican town halls and listened to people. Id bet you dollars to donuts Bernie would outperform her by miles in the swing states.
I assure you there are Fox news viewers in Vermont, too.
Okay?
Given his lackluster election results, apparently they don't actually find him very captivating.
Youd be wrong. Youd also be wrong to automatically assume they didn't vote for him, unless you have any data that says that. In fact wasn't Democrat turnout down while Republican turnout was up? If hes missing votes it makes way more sense its from dems who stayed home. Unless you have any data that says otherwise, the lower dem turnout in all non swing states explains that a lot better than assuming all fox news viewers simply voted against him. Especially since Trump lost the VT primary. More than half the republicans in that state voted against him during the pimary in favor of Niki Haley, how many of them you think went back to Trump? They clearly don't mind voting for a woman.
I'm saying that unlike nearly every other Democratic Senator, he performed worse than Harris. That's a lackluster result.
If he somehow won Fox News voters, then it was at the expense of losing even more voters elsewhere. That's not a recipe for winning nationwide.
And no, you cannot blame it on Vermont. Harris turned out Vermont voters, why couldn't Sanders turn out as many as she did?
7% of votes this cycle were bullet votes, no downballot races at all, that's up from about half a percent typically. Harris got more votes simply because of the race she was running in.
So people were literally voting for Harris, but refusing to vote for Sanders. Whereas nearly everywhere else, people voted for their Senator but not Harris.
That tells you all you need to know.
I mean maybe if they elected president based on who wins Vermont but the actual race takes all 50 states. You can't simply extrapolate one state across vastly different demographics, like all the swing states that Harris lost worse than any Democrat in recent history. But ill give you the point that if we decided presidenr based on Vermont's vote count alone then Bernie wouldn't be president. Trumps from NY, he must have won that state too since you seem to think its impossible to win an election and not do well in your home state. If you think Bernie doesnt beat Kamalas swing state margins you're on something, right wingers constantly allign with people like Bernie and AOC, AOC just asked all those righrt wingers why too, it was a huge article where she got responses why people who voted for Trump also votes for or support her.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying there is exactly one data point that directly compares Bernie to Kamala, and it shows more support for Kamala than Bernie.
And since that is the only place where they can be compared, there is no evidence at all that Bernie would have more support than Kamala in other states.
There are right wingers in Vermont too. That's why their governor is a Republican. Yet among all the people who voted for Gov Scott, there weren't enough Bernie supporters to make a difference.
In other words people were willing to vote for Harris and a Republican governor more than they were willing to vote for Sanders. He simply does not have the support you think he does.
Right wingers do not constantly align with AOC. There very few Trump + AOC voters, she was just interested in hearing from them.
Sounds like people ain't never been to the northeast kingdom.
... So he would do worse in the solid blue states but better in the purple states because... red leaning voters are secretly socialists but blue leaning voters are neoliberal scum?
Read my comment again and dont skip the part about him being well recieved on Fox News and Republican town halls. Its right there why ignore it? Was kamala as well recieved by fox news viewers?
I must be a little slow.
Please explain to me why you think that a candidate who is CONSIDERABLY farther to the left than Kamala is going to outperform her with republican voters. Unless it really is just "he did a good interview on fox". And how that would apparently be better even though he was doing worse with blue voters.
Here is a hint: It is because he has a dick and people are misogynistic as fuck. And you know who else has a dick (as documented in multiple sexual assault and rape allegations)?
I think you're right, you are a little slow. It was more than one interview, it was more than one town hall. People voted for abortion and trump on the same ballot and you cant fathom working party politics playing better among those people?
You're either slower that you admit or purposfully ignorant to further your opinion. You add nothing to a conversation and ignore or belittle anything contrary to your viewpoint. Find someone with more time to invest in teaching slow people, because I may as well be talking with a Republican the way you twist everything I write.
But... I didn't vote for Bernie in either primary. So I guess that makes me a lefitst? I mean, I consider myself to be more of a very progressive (American definition of) liberal but... your logic is infallible.
Also: You need to actually make a point before you huff off in a mess of ad hominem. But I am sure all us slow people don't understand the 9-d chess you are explaining to us or whatever.
No, it's because Trump-leaning voters are very blatantly populist and anti-status-quo and Bernie would deliver that more genuinely than Trump.
Ah yes, defeat Trump by appealing to conservatives. A time-tested strategy.
No, damn it! Quit being willfully obtuse. Why can't you acknowledge the fact that damn near a third of the country is so disaffected by both parties' refusal to meet their needs that they'd given up on voting at all? That's the demographic -- people clamoring for change, any change, because the status quo has failed them -- that fake-populist Trump appealed to for his margin of victory, and that real-populist Bernie could've appealed to even better.
Bernie can't bring out people who don't vote. If he could, he would have won a lot more votes in Vermont.
Okay, I need you to understand something: not voting in a primary is not the same thing as not voting in the general election. That goes double for the kinds of people who are pissed off at the two-party system in general.
Do you realize how fundamentally stupid it is to respond to the argument "Bernie was capable of winning the general election precisely because he would appeal to the kinds of people who don't vote in Democratic primaries" by saying "but if he can't even win the primary how could he win the general election?"
I'm not talking about the primary. I'm talking about the general election we just held. There were plenty of Senators running for re-election, including Bernie.
Nearly all of those Senators won more votes than Harris. In other words nearly all won over Harris voters and won over some non-Harris voters on top of that.
But not Bernie. Unlike the other Senators, he failed to outperform Harris. So it's clear he doesn't have some magical power to win the votes of people who don't vote for Democrats. Quite the opposite, in fact.
His opponent also failed to outperform Trump -- in other words, there were fewer total votes cast for that race than there were for President, i.e. some people just voted for President and left the rest of the ballot blank. As for percentages, Sanders was within a percent of Harris, which sounds like statistical noise to me.
On top of that, what matters to this conversation is how people in states Trump won would behave, not how people in Vermont would behave. Vermont is less unequal and less impoverished than most other US states, so there's plenty of reason to think that his platform would be even more popular in places other than Vermont, if those voters had the chance to actually hear about it.
Yes, that's exactly what they did. They intentionally left a blank next to Sanders's name.
They sure didn't do that in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, voters made sure to vote for Tammy Baldwin. In fact, many people voted for Tammy and left the presidency blank, or even voted for Trump. And Wisconsin is equally un-impoverished and even less unequal than Vermont.
Likewise Ruben Gallego and Elissa Slotkin proved their ability to bring in people who didn't want to vote for Harris. Whereas Sanders failed. The future of the party lies with those who deliver actual results.
Sanders supporters keep making excuses for him, but the fact is that his supposed ability to bring in non-Democrats has never been demonstrated in a real election. It's just wishful thinking, exactly the same as "There's plenty of reason to think that Kamala will be popular with white women".
I go back and forth, but I do think Sanders would have had good odds in 2020. We had the same "I can't vote for the status quo" non-arguments going around and a semi-populist candidate arguing for all the things people desperately needed (a socioeconomic safety net, basically) at the height of COVID and civil unrest would have done well. That said, an old white guy who was "warm and safe and was in the same room as Obama a few times" was probably still the right play.
But yeah. In 2024 when all people care about is "not the status quo" and "why eggs expensive"? A guy arguing for MORE government programs does not fair well against "Yo, what if we got rid of all taxes and government funding? Don't ask where the money is going"
Bernie has better answers to that than Trump, though.
This is something I've always tried to get people to understand.
If you're running for office, and your opponent is saying monkeys flying out of your ass are terrorizing the city and causing a huge problem, you'd be right to want to write them off as an unhinged lunatic with no grasp on reality, because anyone can see there are no flying monkeys. Should be pretty cut and dry; ignore him and let him go back to giving sermons to pigeons in the park.
But if 51% of the voting base believes that monkeys flying out of your ass are their top concern, you had better come up with a solution for the flying monkeys. Of course, you could try to appeal to reason and logic and point out that you have pants on and there are no flying monkeys. But if 51% of voters are hooked on the flying monkey problem, you'll be making those appeals during your concession speech, while your opponent will suddenly point out that there are no flying monkeys because he managed to solve the problem on day one.
That's just the reality of running for office. Sometimes, feels win out over objective reality. There are a certain number of voters who fall into this category, and those voters were always out of reach. You cannot use logic to persuade someone to change a position they didn't logic their way into to begin with.
You don't need to concede to their belief and subsequent policies if they aren't grounded in reality, like on immigration. You provide a counter narrative grounded in reality that actually address their needs and concerns, real or perceived.
The Republican narrative on immigration is that immigrants are criminals, bringing crime and drugs into our country to kill our citizens, steal jobs, and exploit welfare, so we need mass deportations. None of that is based on reality.
US citizens are responsible for smuggling in drugs. Immigrants are responsible for less crime per capita than US citizens, use much less welfare than citizens, and contribute far more than they use. The underlying fear is cost of living and safety. So a counter narrative that both points out the realities of mass deportation, aka concentration camps, and provides real solutions to the problems, would absolutely capture those voters and fracture the Republican base.
Those real solutions would include legalization of illegal immigrants to stop companies from exploiting both them and citizens with a two-tier immigration system, increasing taxes on corporations and the wealthy to pay for universal social services, systemic solutions to addiction and homelessness, and increasing security to catch smugglers at points of entry. All of which are popular. You address their fears, improve their material needs, and point out how terrible the oppositions 'solutions' are, all without conceding to the Republican framing based on racist lies.
In fact, many progressive policies are popular across the board, including Republicans and independents.
Polls on campaign messaging
How to Win a Swing Voter in Seven Days
“The View” Alternate Universe: Break From Biden in Interviews, Play the Hits in Ads
Polls on policy
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz's Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
Here's where your argument begins to fall apart. The above statement is true. However, to those who feel this way, the only acceptable solution is "Get rid of them all".
Just sayin'......trying to tell US citizens that they're the real bad guys is probably not going to go the way you think it does.
Harris tried countering bullshit with reality. Voters voted for the bullshit.
This will never, ever, ever, ever happen. If you believe that any candidate could ever win an election campaigning for full legalization and just opening up the floodgates, you are living in a bigger fantasy world than Trump is. Every state in the US went redder. US voters voted overwhelmingly in favor of "get rid of 'em all". And you think that they'd vote for a policy that not only legalizes the ones that are already here, but rolling out the red carpet for even more of them, I have beachfront property to sell you. On Mars.
How many elections does Trump have to win before you realize these polls don't mean shit? If there is anything to learn from Trump's time in office, it's that people will gladly tell pollsters something completely different from what they actually end up voting for, if they bother voting at all.
The only poll that matters is the one that happened on November 5th. About 150 million or so participated, and the voted overwhelmingly against these things.
I mean sure, you could try to put up a candidate who believes this in 2028. But then you'll be sitting there during Don Jr.'s inauguration speech wondering why we're having the exact same conversation.
And what evidence do you have for that? Because every poll about people's beliefs on deportation does show the majority support it, yet in the same exact poll a larger majority supports legalization. So no, you are completely wrong that that's the 'only acceptable solution'. The biggest reason for the change in public support for deportation is that the Democrats stopped counter messaging and moved to the right, despite their position of legalization since Obama was always significantly more popular. People don't know the reality because the Democrats never talk about it and share the data.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-immigration.aspx
https://www.vox.com/policy/368889/immigration-border-polls-election-2024-trump-harris
https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/poll-finding/political-preferences-and-views-on-us-immigration-policy-among-immigrants-in-the-us/
No she didn't. She ran on build the wall like Trump did in 2016. The major problem with that is, if people believe those lies about immigrants, and then the opposition (D) capitulates, all it accomplishes is further entrenching their beliefs in those lies. And if they believe in those lies, then they'll go with the party that's been running on those lies for far longer, the Republicans. That change in immigration policy only accomplished pushing people to the Republican party. It's a losing strategy. There is no way to outflank the Republicans on issues by moving to the right. On the other hand, it's incredibly easy to attack that message by bringing up how it means concentration camps and the incredible cost to the economy and Americans.
Because the Democratics did practically nothing to galvanize their voter base of the working class, causing tens of millions to be apathetic and stay home. You can't simultaneously say polls are BS and then cite public opinion which we know about from polling. Polling is used to understand public sentiment, exactly why the exact wording of them matter. Not only am I going off of public opinion, I'm also going off the morality of being against mass deportations. If slavery was popular I wouldn't say the party should run on slavery because it's popular.
Shows you didn't look at a single poll. People want progressive policies. The Democrats don't run on progressive policies. So you're blaming the fact that they're losing when they run without progressive policies to justify that progressive policies wouldn't cause them to win. That makes no sense and goes against all the data that shows otherwise.
Again, these right-wing fabrications not based on any evidence and its what the Republican party has run for for years. It is a white nativist sentiment. There is plenty of evidence that disprove those sentiments.
Economic Impact
Myth : Immigrants are a drain on the U.S. Economy and Reducing Immigration would make our economy stronger.
Fact : The United States needs immigrants to stay competitive and drive economic growth, Particularly as our economy starts to reopen, individuals who create jobs are absolutely critical to our recovery. Immigrants are innovators, job creators, and consumers with an enormous spending power that drives our economy, and creates employment opportunities for all Americans. Immigrants added $2 trillion to the U.S. GDP in 2016 and $458.7 billion to state, local, and federal taxes in 2018. In 2018, after immigrants spent billions of dollars on state and local, and federal taxes, they were left with $1.2 trillion in spending power, which they used to purchase goods and services, stimulating local business activity. Proposed cuts to our legal immigration system would have devastating effects on our economy, decreasing GDP by 2% over twenty years, shrinking growth by 12.5%, and cutting 4.6 million jobs. Rust Belt states would be hit particularly hard, as they rely on immigration to stabilize their populations and revive their economies.
Taxes and Essential Services
Myth : Immigrants are a burden to essential services like schools, hospitals, and highways.
Fact: Immigrants make significant contributions to our economy on virtually every front - including on tax revenue, where they contribute $458.7 billion to state, local, and federal taxes in 2018. This includes undocumented immigrants, who contribute roughly $11.74 billion a year in state and local taxes, including more than $7 billion in sales and excise taxes, $3.6 billion in property taxes, and $1.1 billion in personal income taxes. These billions of tax dollars fund our schools, hospitals, emergency response services, highways, and other essential services. These revenues would increase by $2.18 billion annually if undocumented immigrants were given legal status as part of an immigration reform package. Additionally, immigrants make enormous contributions to Social Security. If current legal immigration levels were cut by 50%, the Social Security fund would lose $1.5 trillion in revenue over the next 75 years.
IRI
Other sources:
Facts About Immigration and the U.S. Economy - EPI
How migration affects housing affordability - The Conversation
A dozen facts about immigration - Brookings
They didn't do this due to public opinion, again legalizing illegal immigrants is far more popular than deportation, despite the Democratic Party not doing any counter messaging against the right-wing narrative. They moved to the right at the expense of voters, it gained them zero voters.
That is why trump and vance were so adamant about no fact checking during the debates. All they had to do was say "nuh uh. I saw it on the news" and the moderators couldn't really do much.
Which gets back to the underlying problem of Democrats not actually having a way to communicate with voters. Because even when Fox was saying "Just to be clear for legal reasons, there is no evidence of Haitian immigrants eating dogs" it was followed with "now let's see what else god emperor trump has to say".
Whereas Democrats? We had people who were more interested in attacking Biden than trump (even after he stepped down) and who mostly just said "ha ha, trump says stupid shit."
Because, yeah, logic can't beat vibes. But we also weren't putting out the vibes the way we were in 2020.