293
Democrats are trying to work out what went wrong. On the left a consensus is forming
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
293 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3447 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Damn, you're right, she did mention that in one single interview and I had forgotten until you mentioned it.
And that's from someone the regularly follows politics and reads the paper everyday. Now imagine the guys I'm talking about above, what make you think they're going to actively go out and seek that info and retain it. Again Every. God. Damn. Day. until inauguration.
All I can see is that this is why Democrats are going to keep losing because instead of coming down to talk to the people and not over them and dismissing with reports and numbers and can't accept the fact that they have a lot of blame along with these low info voters who also have a lot to be desired. Unable to adapt to the changing landscape of how people consume news and information too. But hey, never learn Democrats, never learn.
I agree with the sentiment, at least in principle. Democrats need to reject neo-liberal (or is it really neo-con?) policies and start meeting regular working people where they are at. To my mind both AOC and Sanders have articulated this extremely well.
But... this is a two-way street. A lot of voters are low-information because they simply don't prioritize voting and elections. There may be decent reasons for this but not voting or just voting for whoever says things that make you feel good in the moment is not taking responsibility as a citizen and it certainly isn't voting for your own interests. Things don't get better that way. We need to fight.
I know I know... chicken meet egg.
I guess that's where we differ in opinion. I honestly don't see it as a chicken/egg situation, I 100% put the communication issue on the leadership.
When I lead a team, it's incumbent upon me to ensure communication is flowing and that my team understands what I am providing and asking for from them. Success is ours, failures are mostly mine.
That's how I see this situation at least.
Interesting.
The difference is that when you lead a team your team does not elect you. You are in a position of power and accountable for their failures.
Our representatives are not our leaders, they are elected by us to represent our interests. Very different power dynamic and the distinction, at least ot me, is critical. We have to make informed choices about who they are and if they will adequately act on our behalf. In order to do that we need to put effort into understanding them, their background, and their choices. It's a bit like when you choose to purchase something or even, say, commit to living in a particular city. It's not up to the city to adequately communicate to you why you should live there, although that certainly doesn't hurt. It's mainly up to you to establish whether that place is right for you.
And yet, if it were an important issue to you, important enough that your vote hinged on it, I'm quite sure you and every other voter could head to google and go "Kamala Harris price gouging" to find out.
The argument is basically "Yes she was doing what I wanted but she didn't tell me personally so I voted for the other guy."