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
Where have I heard this pied piper strategy before?
They did it with Trump in 2016. That and a few more examples here.
Two years ago, the party spent money on ads propping up MAGA chuds like this, then gleefully cut the funds of progressive candidates like Michelle Vallejo in the general.
Democrats' leadership prefers the hard right fringe of the opposing party to progressive candidates within its own.
Yeah, there's totally no risk with this strategy and I can't think of any time this went horribly wrong in the past.
You can think of a couple times it went horribly wrong, but if we’re objective and look at the track record, it worked pretty well for dems in ‘20 and ‘22
It also worked extremely "well" in 2016 where the Hillary campaign was able to position Trump as the GOP nominee and leverage that vulnerability to lose an election. DNC political consultants ah wicked smaht.
Two big differences though: 1. Right now the practical benefit of having a moderate instead of an extreme GOP senator from Ohio are very small. In the end, all GOP senators will vote with the crazies. That’s of course completely different for the presidency. 2. Dems are very unlikely to win Ohio and need every advantage they can get.
I think in this case the risky strategy is completely warranted whereas in 2016 it was just stupid.
it was the best strategy. the absolute best.
So much better than any strategy that has ever come before.
(excuse me while I bleach my keyboard)