this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
386 points (93.9% liked)

politics

21975 readers
4321 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 59 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The way democrats talk: "We're turning the page and letting the daylight in!"

The way democrats act with a majority: "We couldn't get any daylight this time, but we did pass these bipartisan flashlights which are known to explode occasionally due to republicans demanding amendments be added to the batteries."

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago

"We've also means tested the flashlights, so those who recall the time before the great darkness get less of the flashlights, and anyone who has flashlights that explode will be required to have a daily check of their pupils to ensure they've been good at not looking at the daylight."

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Honestly, I kinda don't buy the idea Biden controlled Harris. Biden could have in 2008, but not in 2024. We all saw his term. He could be great, but when he slowed and floundered, it hampered his goals.

I'm torn between:

"I don't think an adult woman would instantly bind herself to an old man, she can have bad ideas on her own."

"I don't think she had everything planned out, she took advice from those around her, and the advice was shit but it's hard to get anything from outside this POV without getting even worse feedback."

But either way, I'm kind of glad that parts of the DNC is admitting fault after royally fucking up a second time and giving us Trump again. But I was also told they learned mistakes from 2016, and clearly they didn't, and must have fired everyone who did.

I wish Harris won merely as a stop-gap who is younger and more coherent, maybe could have gotten someone better next primary. Would have been messy and I would prefer anyone else, but not as bad. But it wouldn't have stopped the fascist uprising we're having, just keeping the cyst growing until it popped. If Biden didn't get Trump arrested, I doubt Harris would have, despite her history.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

I don’t buy that. Harris has made her choice.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Could’ve, should’ve, would’ve

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago

Just another example of how the Democratic party is only slightly less fucked than the Republicans.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Yikes! This is a shit argument IMO. Biden wouldn't have broken from her if she stood strong on her own stances. This is a terrible look for her. More feckless establishment Dems acting like the controlled opposition they are.

I won't be voting for people like this in the future. I know many others that think like me too. That's going to be a huge problem for the Dem establishment. They're pushing progressive folks out and replacing them with no one.

[–] [email protected] 189 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Let's blame Joe so Kamala can run again.

Not fooling me, DNC. I smell what you're cooking.

[–] [email protected] 74 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I want to tell myself that there's no way in hell they would let this happen, let alone make it happen.

Then I remember it's the DNC.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It’s not like they colluded to kneecap Bernie’s campaign. Wait…

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago (16 children)

Kamala or Buttigeig, you can bet on it.

Seriously, go to Vegas. At least you'll make money on the end of the world.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Huh? He couldn't have stopped her. This is nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm calling bullshit on this.

There's no possible way that Biden or any of his people could let or not let Harris do anything. They had no actual control over her campaign.

The only outsiders who had any control over her campaign were the DNC and the party establishment - the same pieces of shit who torpedoed Sanders in 2016 and 2020,.

I'm 100% certain that this narrative is coming from them, trying to dodge the blame they so richly deserve by pinning it on the senile guy.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Bruh ...

You realize at the time the Venn diagram of people you're complaining about was basically a solar eclipse, right?

And that after that we got a new DNC chair which completely changes the organization?

You're literally doing what the neoliberals want and letting them off the hook and blaming our new chair who is more progressive than any other DNC chair in the past 30 years since neoliberalism took over.

Like, the fight over the party is over, we won...

Now we have to back the new progressive version of the party or neoliberals will claw it back when no one's paying attention.

It's like hating the Patriots because Bellicheck was an asshole, you're right, but he's fucking gone and there's a new coach.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

When do I get to collect my payment for being right the entire time?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The day they admit they've been wrong the entire time. I hope you get interest on that bet because it'll be a while.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

I doubt this. Harris had some controversial policy issues such as taxing uncapitalized gains which were breaks with the Biden administration.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Smells like bullshit to me

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago

Harris was the candidate, not Biden. Being his VP should have been a boon to her, but instead she turned it into her own biggest obstacle. It was ultimately her decision to follow Biden’s directions on this.

It’s not like the sitting president can order a party’s candidate to take certain policy positions, even if that candidate is the sitting VP. Biden deserves a ton of the blame for our current situation, but Harris was the candidate and she decided to follow Biden’s terrible advice. He’s just the stubborn geriatric who cared more about his legacy than the peoples’ future.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 2 days ago (2 children)

“Didn’t allow her” what does that even mean, in the context of the campaign? What the actual fuck was she doing listening to ANYTHING from Biden at that point? He was a clear looser. He stepped back from the campaign (after he was forced to, but he did nonetheless). That was an incredibly obvious opportunity for Harris to openly and cleanly split from policies she thought were wrongheaded - but nope, can’t have that. Jesus tapdancing christ.

Biden’s hubris put us here, I guess. What an unmitigated fucking tool. He sold us down the river and expects to be remembered fondly by history? Fuck that. The title of his subsection in history books will be “The President who Couldn’t Keep the Republic” (a pointed reference to Ben Franklin’s quip at the original constitutional convention).

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The last time that happened was 2000 with Bush v Gore. The longstanding notion was that the VP of the current administration should not really "break ranks" with the current administration. It was seen as undermining their boss essentially.

This was in less fucked up times, mind you. But that at one time was how it was "supposed" to work. Personally I'm a firm believer that "that's how it's always been done" is fucking stupid.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The pressure the DNC seems to exert over it's canidates is insane. There was probably a lot of pressure on her to toe the line. I heard they reigned in Walz quite a bit too.

Maybe one day the DNC will learn

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don’t expect the DNC to learn, because I don’t expect the DNC to exist when the next presidential election comes around.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

It's fucking bizarre that Trump "randomly" ran as a Republican in 2016, and I can recall the fact that the RNC was trying to keep Jeb and Ted Cruz because they thought they would be a better/saner choice, until he had enough votes from the primaries.

He just kinda came from under their noses until they realized "Wait we like this, he is a dipshit we can buy and he does shit on camera for free press! Free advertising for fascism, score!"

I wish I had a portal to look at another timeline to see if someone in the DNC just didn't bother kneecaping Bernie in 2016 and had the general magnetizing force of him looking for all working class people, including those swindled by Republican brainfuckery. Might have been in a better place for America, even for one term.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

^, I am both interested and terrified to see what the next few years bring. It's only the beginning, and the ride continues to get even more wild in all the worst ways.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

I am living the next 6-12 months with a very sharp eye on the answer to the question “how quickly can I permanently get the fuck out of the country”.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As usual the democratic party fails because it's trying to be both progressive AND cater to wealthy donors. Those two things just don't go together. Either abandon the upper class, or resign yourself to diametrically opposed rhetoric that will NEVER win an election for the Dems.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

It's not remotely trying to be progressive. It's cosplaying as caring while raking in them donor dollars.

[–] [email protected] 124 points 2 days ago (4 children)

To be honest, this is just a signal that she probably wouldn't have been a good leader. Better than Trump, sure, but that bar is so low it's a tripping hazard.

She should have told Biden to pound sand after locking up the nomination.

But we should verify the claim before passing judgement.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Honestly, her campaign already signaled that. This, if true, just reinforces it. It also reinforces that Biden was a bad leader, which he was.

Obligatory: I voted for Harris and Biden and dems down ticket every election since I've been old enough to vote.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Blaming Biden makes sense. Blame the problems on the actual person in charge. Harris wasn’t in charge, she should’ve let Biden take all of the failures of the term, regardless of her position at the time

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago

No democrat president has been "in charge" in 50+ years.

The owners of the DNC have been in charge.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 days ago

This is hilarious, because of Biden's "I'd have won if I was the candidate" bullshit. More like "Harris might have won if I wasn't hamstringing her", but okay, sure, Joe. Let's get you to bed, now.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Her position regarding Palestine and Israel cost her the election. Many Dems could not vote for her, so they didn't vote.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I'd really love for that to be the case (enough people caring about genocide to decide an election), but it just isn't. The data shows that people on the left still came out to vote and she lost a bunch of centrist votes or people who are seen as "low information"/unmotivated voters. Those people don't care about Palestine. They thought she was weird, or a DEI candidate, or just weren't inspired to get up and vote for her. I'm not saying she needs to go more centrist, but people like populism and she just didn't do it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I can't remember the source, but the number 1 issue in every swing state other than Michigan (which had Palestine as its #1) among democrat nonvoters and centrists who voted republican was grocery prices. Most of those states had inflation as their number 2 issue and Palestine as the third. Palestine alone wouldn't have been enough to swing any state other than Michigan.

I think its pretty clear that the primary reason Kamala lost because she didn't present a vision for the economy. She literally just said that the economy is fine. Inflation and grocery prices? Ignore those!

Inflation maybe shouldn't have been as big of an issue since it was below 3% and on its way down but it was still a concern for a large number of voters.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

I agree for the most part, but she did have some milquetoast neolib proposals that would have helped. Mostly things already seen in one form or another in Bidens build back better plan, but honestly it didn't matter. Her rhetoric was weak and her campaign was poorly managed. I saw SOOOO many ads requesting donations (lady, I don't have money to buy eggs and you're buying ad space, the optics are bad) and not one of them said anything of substance. I say time and again that Bernie got people to donate time and money they didn't have because they believed in his message. Kamala had no message. She had some plans, sure, but did not effectively communicate them. They were too little too late regardless, but it felt like her ads were lazy cash grabs that couldn't even be bothered to give out empty promises.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›