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.
- 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.
- 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
All true. In the US, you don't have to win a majority to win the election.
But I highly doubt that Democrats are going to sit this one out.
And if they just show up to the same degree as in 2020, Trump still needs to broaden support in the key swing states to actually win them. If he's not doing it nationally, chances are he's not doing it in the battlegrounds.
I sense there are a lot of young progressives screaming about "genocide" in Gaza who are going to sit it out, not able to grasp the big picture.
Scare quotes around genocide? Really?
It's questionable whether what is happening in Gaza is genocide from a legal perspective. Regardless, being concerned with Gaza but sitting out this election and not voting is asinine. Biden may not being doing enough to help stop the humanitarian crisis and him in office may not save any lives in Gaza, but I can guarantee Trump in office will get more people killed. Trump will happily use US military resources to flatten Gaza, and brag about it. Claims that Biden is facilitating or supporting genocide in Gaza ultimately benefits Trump and will doom the Gazan Palestinians if Trump gets in office.
Firstly, no it isn't. Secondly, resorting to "a legal perspective" so that you can choose the specific definition that makes it technically kinda not qualify if you squint hard enough is a really shitty, bad faith debate tactic. The stated wishes and goals of average, mainstream Israelis is to kill all Palestinians, burn Gaza to the ground, and take it over. That's genocide, plain and simple.
I'm not a legal expert and I doubt you are as well, but if you search the 'net there are plenty of articles from respectable news sources covering debates and discussions over whether it's legally genocide or not. I'm not going to debate it with you; I'll leave it up to those who are qualified to determine if it is truly genocide, and pursue war crimes charges as necessary. I never said it was morally correct what Israel is doing. The morality or lack thereof of their actions is separate from the legal definition of genocide. Furthermore, and quite ironically, the 1988 Hamas Charter specifically states as a goal to obliterate Israel in language that rhymes with genocide. While it certainly doesn't justify what Israel is doing right now, Hamas would be doing the same to Israel right now if it was within their capabilities. Israel could have taken over Gaza long ago, if it really wanted to do it. What's going on right now in Gaza is the result of Hamas launching an offensive with no strategic or worthy goals, against an enemy they knew they had no chance of winning against. It's a pretty good assumption that some portion of the cries of genocide are the result of foreign propaganda to both garner support for Hamas and the continuing disruption and outside influence of US politics.
That's exactly my point. The "legal definition", if for some reason it doesn't apply, is just an excuse to avoid confronting the atrocities we are complicit in committing. If the "legal definition" isn't met, then it's simply wrong. Some court case isn't what determines whether it's "truly genocide", it's that Israel, with our support, is and has been trying for decades to eradicate an entire people and culture.
I do agree with this, and it's really unfortunate. But yeah, if I was Hamas I would use the fact that Gazans are being genocided to drum up support too, it's a pretty good argument. To avoid creating a situation where Hamas looks like the good guys, I think the best thing to do would be to, you know, stop murdering Palestinian children.
I don't think proving actual genocide is a prerequisite or requirement for bringing war crimes charges and holding people accountable. For example, if in war a military unit/leader/solider executes a group of unarmed civilians, it can be pursued as a war crime as it's intentionally targeting and harming civilians, but executing one group of civilians in this fashion isn't genocide, even if they were a specific race, religious sect, etc. Undoubtedly if there was a pattern of this occurring and there was provable support from leadership, it would be considered genocide. Genocide, like other terms like suicide, homicide, germicide, etc., has a specific meaning. Morality is much more subjective, and hence I'd call Israel's action quite immoral. Israel may indeed want to eradicate Gaza as a territory or political unit, however that doesn't mean it's genocide. Otherwise we could call Russia's desire to eradicate or annex Ukraine genocide. And after I write all this, I realize I'm debating the meaning of genocide. But I digress.
On all this we can agree. I don't want innocent civilians killed, either. I take issue with the term genocide and the way it's being used, especially in the context of the US supposedly "promoting or supporting" genocide. That's simply not true. It's a complicated landscape and as we've been discussing this I see there is a ceasefire being pursued diplomatically by the Biden administration. I think the way the term genocide is being used here and elsewhere cheapens it and compromises the severity and seriousness of the term.
Depends if the Democratic leadership decides to go for we can totally flip Texas for reals this time AGAIN. Ignoring all of the increasingly purple formerly hard blue states in the rust belt.
Without vote by mail, they won't show up to the same degree. Trump's vote was driven by in person votes, Biden by vote by mail.
That's not going to be true this year. And like I showed, the margins in those key states is super slim.
Georgia - Trump +6 to +9
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/georgia/
Pennsylvania - Trump +2 to +5
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/
Michigan - Trump +2 to +3
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/
Wisconsin - Trump +2 to +3
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/
Arizona - Trump +3 to +6
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/arizona/
Biden can't win without these states and if the election were today?
It's neat how we kept DeJoy in charge at the post office after his fuckery in the last election.
Why that asshole has not been removed is still beyond me.
Whatever the polls say, do you have any idea what a mess the GOP in Michigan is? We're having a primary and two competing caucuses because we have two heads of the state party and they are bankrupt. There is a lawsuit to sell their headquarters to pay their bills. And we came out for abortion rights big time in 22, which Republicans continue to shoot themselves in the fucking head with.
There is zero ground game. I can't believe it's even possible for Trump to win here, polls be damned.
Michigan became a wierd place last week.
On top of GOP issues, a few dems started fighting against biden for the primary
GOP sinking means MI probably turns blue, right?
Biden win here in 2020. Democrats took full control of state government in 22 for the first time since 1983. Arguably the biggest failure of the "red wave."
Will that hold? I don't know but while there are pockets of strong support for Trump, we don't seem to like his endorsed candidates one bit. Given their disarray, I don't see a path to victory for them. But we do have a very large Muslim population which is currently upset with Biden, so it's not all roses.
I've been watching and it's absolutely hilarious, none of which is going to impact the general election.
If none of it matters in the general then nothing matters. Money doesn't matter. Organization and unity don't matter. I'm not an expert, but I just don't believe you are correct. For decades I've heard how important ground game is. Heard Hillary's (among others) loss blamed on it.
I just don't see how that can be right.
Hillary didn't just lose because of a lack of "ground game" she lost because of instead of campaigning in states she needed to win, she did a victory lap and only went to states she was already locked in to win.
She took winning for granted and only cared about beating Obama's vote, because she still held a grudge.
The other responder is correct. This is exactly what I was referring to. Why split hairs between a failure of the local party and self-sabotage resulting in no ground game?
I could copy paste what I told them, but it's probably easier for you to just scroll down since it sounds like you already read it
No need, it's just as pointless as it was the first time when you responded to him.
No idea why you responded then, but feel free to keep responding I'll never see them
That's another way of saying "lack of ground game".
Clinton had organizers in Michigan and Wisconsin, but she failed to visit the states personally which voters saw as taking them for granted.
When the election rolled around, they did not.
Which was especially stupid for her given how Wisconsin showed a willingness to vote R in statewide elections over and over. She SHOULD have been there.
You make it sound like something they couldn't do.
Not something they deliberately choose to ignore
That's the difference. Hillary had all the campaign resources and money to win, hell, she took a bunch from senate races thru a fucked up DNC "donor sharing" program.
Then blew all that money traveling Blue states so people would clap for her.
She didn't just fuck up her race, she fucked up the house and senate as well.
Details and specifics matter
They are when you track them over time. In each of these states, support for Trump is growing, not shrinking.
Maybe, maybe not. You sound very confident in Trump. I'm not.
Sure, there's a risk Trump will somehow pull out a win in the electoral college. But I don't think he's the favorite by any stretch of the imagination.
Well, I've been following the polling in these states for several months now and I've watched them go from 1/2 Biden 1/2 Trump, to all Trump by a couple of points, to all Trump by 5 to 6 points.
The momentum is definitely with Trump at this point.
Can he maintain it? Dunno.
Dude, we've all been watching. And everyone knows that it's going to be close. It always is. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that. It's also way too early to conclude anything from polling.
The whole point is following the trend line. If the trend continues, it's important to have been following it as soon as possible.
You can find any trend you want in statistics. The only trend that matters is on election day.
And by the time you can report on that, it's far too late to do anything about it.
Which is why you follow the trend line now.
Assume he is and act accordingly. Otherwise we'll ll have the the rest of our lives to regret it.